Calories in VS calories out

wildwhisper96

Okay. So I thought I got all this calorie counting down to a science, but now I'm beyond frustrated.

Reading through the forums I see stuff about "starvation mode" and "eating back work out calories"? I thought it honestly was all about calories in vs calories out by working out and your BMR. I thought it was just a big math problem pretty much but now I'm not sure....

Any miracle explanations? Or am I right for the most part?

marinweb

Focus on eating better and you should be fine. At 18 you can get away with it. Just mix in some exercise.

Spanaval

It IS a math problem. You are confused because TDEE is being left out of the equation. What you want to do is eat below your TDEE, but above BMR (that's the amount of energy it takes for your body to function if you were say, in a coma).

wildwhisper96

It IS a math problem. You are confused because TDEE is being left out of the equation. What you want to do is eat below your TDEE, but above BMR (that's the amount of energy it takes for your body to function if you were say, in a coma).

But I thought you eat under the BMR like of it was 1700 you eat 1200 and that 500 is being lost in weight? Haha I'm sorry for the awkward wording there >.< what's TDEE by the way?

etherealdoll

I don't understand why you're supposed to eat above your BMR. My BMR is only 270 calories less than my TDEE, so by that logic I can only lose half a pound a week. That doesn't make any sense.

taso42

Pretty much. But you will run into issues if you chronically under-eat. Things like muscle loss, weight loss plateaus, weakness, irritability. That's why generally 1-2 lbs a week is the recommended. For most people that will be a reasonable calorie deficit and not something extreme.

taso42

I don't understand why you're supposed to eat above your BMR. My BMR is only 270 calories less than my TDEE, so by that logic I can only lose half a pound a week. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm skeptical of this.

And the reason you should net above your BMR.. think about it this way - you're BMR is what your body needs to sustain it's regular functions like breathing, keeping the heart beating, brain working. Why would you want to restrict this?

wildwhisper96

WHAT'S TDEE?! oh my. Now I feel my 20 pounds down was out of pure luck haha

And as far as under eating, I went three weeks eating less then 1000, felt awful. I learned my
Lesson and went back to eating 1300+ a day, and gained 5 pounds. Didn't let it discourage me, and started at 1300 as my goal, but I am more worried about being healthy in the long term along with weight loss. I thought weight loss was a trigger off deficits in calories you SHOULD have... But I understand what you mean. I NEED to consume my BMR to BE healthy which is more desirable then a size 4 haha

But once agin. What's a TDEE?

etherealdoll

Skeptical of what?

And your body can burn its own calories to take care of regular functions, right? Why does it need calories from food when there are available fat stores? This has always confused me.

joejccva71

I don't understand why you're supposed to eat above your BMR. My BMR is only 270 calories less than my TDEE, so by that logic I can only lose half a pound a week. That doesn't make any sense.

If your TDEE is only 270 cals above your BMR, then you must not do anything all day. I mean if you sat down all day and just ate food, the TEF alone would probably burn roughly 270 calories or so.

So you do nothing else every day huh?

taso42

TDEE is everything http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/510406-tdee-is-everything

Spanaval

It IS a math problem. You are confused because TDEE is being left out of the equation. What you want to do is eat below your TDEE, but above BMR (that's the amount of energy it takes for your body to function if you were say, in a coma).

But I thought you eat under the BMR like of it was 1700 you eat 1200 and that 500 is being lost in weight? Haha I'm sorry for the awkward wording there >.< what's TDEE by the way?

BMR is what your body needs to keep itself functioning - to breathe, digest, organ function, etc. TDEE is what you actually expend in a day from stuff you do - like moving around. Using hypothetical numbers, let's say that your BMR is 1200. If you are sedentary, your TDEE will be about 20% above your BMR. If you eat below the TDEE, you will lose weight, because you are consuming less than your body needs.

taso42

Skeptical of what?

And your body can burn its own calories to take care of regular functions, right? Why does it need calories from food when there are available fat stores? This has always confused me.

Skeptical that you're only burning 270 calories above BMR, especially as you look fit and most likely exercise.

Yes you are right, if you are very overweight, you can sustain eating below BMR for some time. But if you're anywhere close to normal, then not so much.

ocukor1

When I was trying to lose weight I saw a video that explained the calorie needs in a simple rule of thumb which was multiplying your weight by ten and adding another 10-50 or more percent depending on level of activity. You can try that for a couple of weeks and then you will see if your weight stays the same, drops a little, or maybe you even gain some. No biggie, just adjust it up or down a hundred or a couple of hundreds of calories and do it for another couple of weeks. It is basically a simple math, calories in - calories out, but there are some variables that can affect the outcome quite a bit. It is important to eat healthy, avoid sugar and simple carbs, and have the right balance of macronutrients. One thing I want to say about exercise is: don't overestimate it, and don't eat back those calories. I've seen people taking a 15 min walk with a dog in a park and call it a 2000 calorie cardio. Unless you run a marathon for 6 hours, chances are, you won't hardly ever burn that many calories in a day. Better yet, don't even account for exercise because you have already accounted for it by calculating your daily calorie requirement by factoring in your activity level. Anyway, long story short...good luck in your endeavor.

taso42

When I was trying to lose weight I saw a video that explained the calorie needs in a simple rule of thumb which was multiplying your weight by ten and adding another 10-50 or more percent depending on level of activity. You can try that for a couple of weeks and then you will see if your weight stays the same, drops a little, or maybe you even gain some. No biggie, just adjust it up or down a hundred or a couple of hundreds of calories and do it for another couple of weeks. It is basically a simple math, calories in - calories out, but there are some variables that can affect the outcome quite a bit. It is important to eat healthy, avoid sugar and simple carbs, and have the right balance of macronutrients. One thing I want to say about exercise is: don't overestimate it, and don't eat back those calories. I've seen people taking a 15 min walk with a dog in a park and call it a 2000 calorie cardio. Unless you run a marathon for 6 hours, chances are, you won't hardly ever burn that many calories in a day. Better yet, don't even account for exercise because you have already accounted for it by calculating your daily calorie requirement by factoring in your activity level. Anyway, long story short...good luck in your endeavor.

What you are describing is finding your TDEE empirically through trial and error, and eating a deficit to that TDEE. That is a perfectly valid and effective way to go about it.

But it's also a completely different method than what MFP is attempting to do, which is attempting to factor out exercise from one's TDEE, taking a defict from THAT number, and expecting the exercise to be added back in.

They are 2 different methods for arriving at the same number.

Think of it kind of like being paid a flat salary of $75,000 with no taxes vs being paid $100,000 with a 25% tax rate.

TheVimFuego

OK ...

1) The 3500 calorie deficit to lose 1lb a week has never been proven to work. Never. And it still gets trotted out everywhere. It's like a virus that gives false hope to all who believe it and sets them down a path of nutritional deprivation.

2) The first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) ALSO works with the second (entropy) for weight loss ... Executive Summary, it's more complex than a maths problem. The human body is not a test tube. We are not raising the temperature of 1kg of water by 1 degree C.

3) Energy management does not, necessarily, lead to fat loss. Think about it, we have all associated a specific calorie deficit (energy) to being inextricably linked with a specific weight (never mind fat specifically) loss, it just aint that straightforward. What if there are other factors that determine if fat is accumulated or liberated?

In short, concentrating on using maths to solve a problem of biology just isn't going to get the optimum results and will likely to lead to weight gain in the long term.

TDR, BMR, TDEE, TVR (yes, the last one is a joke) ... We make life too complicated sometimes.

If it were a simple maths problem then we all wouldn't be sitting here with some extra fat and MFP would be redundant.

Most people want to lose fat badly enough that they can follow the maths and stick with the programme ... Watch the calories, do some exercise. And guess what? It doesn't get the results promised.

Yes, calories will rule weight loss ultimately but:
1) The 3500 calorie deficit = 1lb loss is a crock, ignore it.
2) Maybe the hormonal factors that determine fat accumulation or loss are very significant and the focus should start here?

Hey, don't take my word for it, go do some research.

And here my weekly calories in/out, a calorie is just a calorie (it isn't, look up the Thermic Effect Of Food for just the start of the argument) rant ends.

taso42

Most people want to lose fat badly enough that they can follow the maths and stick with the programme ... Watch the calories, do some exercise. And guess what? It doesn't get the results promised.

I'm glad that my MFP friends and I are not affected by this curse you have described.

ocukor1

I think the point of this is not to make a nuclear science out of it, but to find simple ball park figures that work. It is not exact science, and it does not need to be. Adding too much information will just confuse an average person just trying to lose some weight.

taso42

I think the point of this is not to make a nuclear science out of it, but to find simple ball park figures that work. It is not exact science, and it does not need to be. Adding too much information will just confuse an average person just trying to lose some weight.

That is why, for the average person here, the best thing to do is enter in all their info as accurately as possible, and eat until it says "0 calories remaining".

The ones that want to take it further and understand BMR, TDEE, RBI, WD40, and R2D2, can do so, and may or may not be able to optimize their program.

wildwhisper96

Screw it, I'm just gonna eat right and work out. (I want to ultimately gain muscle too)

Honestly, my fault in weight loss is always over thinking. MFP took out the over thinking 24/7 and it worked for me. So I won't allow myself to over think it, and just listen to what my body tells me(:

Oh and I mentioned all this to a family member and they argued the exiatance of a BMR.... Ugh. Haha

etherealdoll

I don't understand why you're supposed to eat above your BMR. My BMR is only 270 calories less than my TDEE, so by that logic I can only lose half a pound a week. That doesn't make any sense.

If your TDEE is only 270 cals above your BMR, then you must not do anything all day. I mean if you sat down all day and just ate food, the TEF alone would probably burn roughly 270 calories or so.

So you do nothing else every day huh?

Pretty much, I sit at a desk all day and I don't run around much when I'm at home. That's not counting exercise, because apparently you're supposed to eat back all your exercise calories, too.

marinweb

Screw it, I'm just gonna eat right and work out. (I want to ultimately gain muscle too)

Honestly, my fault in weight loss is always over thinking. MFP took out the over thinking 24/7 and it worked for me. So I won't allow myself to over think it, and just listen to what my body tells me(:

Oh and I mentioned all this to a family member and they argued the exiatance of a BMR.... Ugh. Haha

For a lot of people it becomes obsessive....some times its easier to keep it simple. Pick a number, try for a few weeks, adjust up or down depending on result. Just measure more than "weight", eg stomach, arms.

It depends on personality. Some people want to build cars, others just want it to turn on.

akjmart2002

In Sept 2011 I began testing all of these notions empirically, using myself as a test tube. My results have demonstrated a fairly good agreement between theory and practice.

I had my BMR medically tested and used the standard BMR x activity multiplier = TDEE to determine my daily requirements. For my multiplier, I determined that a desk job + burning between 500 and 1500 calories per day 5-7 days per week via intense aerobic and anaerobic exercise meant that I counted as "moderately active". My resulting TDEE roughly agreed with various online calculators, once I accounted for my lower-than-estimated BMR.

I track everything I eat and everything I do. I use a HRM for calculating exercise calories and I tend to stay very close to my goal net daily caloric intake. I weigh and measure body composition every morning and I log all data points in a very comprehensive spreadsheet.

I have had one 6 week plateau where I didn't lose weight. In an attempt to break it, I ate at maintenance for a month and kicked off my loss again.

I follow a comprehensive progressive strength program, rock climb at a very high level, and run 6-7 days per week.

I've set my weight loss goal at 1lb / 3500 cal per week. As of today, Including my plateau my actual weight loss over 211 days has been .75 lbs per week.

So. I have to say that I'm pretty well convinced that all this "math" works very well. If you can offer an alternative methodology, great. Please let us all know how it turns out for you.

And for what it's worth, I haven't really altered my diet much. I typically use caloric density vs. my daily allowance to determine what I can have, plus ensuring that I get plenty of vegetables and fruit. I certainly still consume plenty of beer and pizza.

mcarter99

Skeptical of what?

And your body can burn its own calories to take care of regular functions, right? Why does it need calories from food when there are available fat stores? This has always confused me.

Skeptical that you're only burning 270 calories above BMR, especially as you look fit and most likely exercise.

Yes you are right, if you are very overweight, you can sustain eating below BMR for some time. But if you're anywhere close to normal, then not so much.

270/.2 = 1350, so her BMR is around 1350 and she's sedentary. Not unheard of. Mine isn't much higher and according to my Fitbit on my sedentary days I can burn as little as 100 calories over BMR! I don't think that's accurate but that's what it tells me.

So she's right (in my opinion) that the whole idea to eat your BMR plus your exercise leaves some of us losing 1-3 lbs/month, if anything. So I agree with her that we absolutely don't need to follow that plan.

taso42

Skeptical of what?

And your body can burn its own calories to take care of regular functions, right? Why does it need calories from food when there are available fat stores? This has always confused me.

Skeptical that you're only burning 270 calories above BMR, especially as you look fit and most likely exercise.

Yes you are right, if you are very overweight, you can sustain eating below BMR for some time. But if you're anywhere close to normal, then not so much.

270/.2 = 1350, so her BMR is around 1350 and she's sedentary. Not unheard of. Mine isn't much higher and according to my Fitbit on my sedentary days I can burn as little as 100 calories over BMR! I don't think that's accurate but that's what it tells me.

So she's right (in my opinion) that the whole idea to eat your BMR plus your exercise leaves some of us losing 1-3 lbs/month, if anything. So I agree with her that we absolutely don't need to follow that plan.

She's 18. She has abs showing. She exercises. She's not sedentary.
Let's say she's 5' tall and weighs 120. BMR is 1374.4. TDEE, using 1.55 multiplier for moderately active gives 2130.32.

By my math and height/weight/activity guesstimates, there's 755.9 calories between her BMR and TDEE, not 270.

Even more conservative, using the lightly active multiplier of 1.375 we get a TDEE of 515.4.

Not sure what your situation is, but for this young lady, there is PLENTY of room for a calorie deficit while still eating above BMR.

Perhaps she was mixing up the MFP niumber with TDEE. The MFP number is not TDEE as it (attempts to) factor out exercise. Whereas actual TDEE includes exercise.

What are you numbers? Let's run them.

mcarter99

I agree that she doesn't appear to need to lose weight, especially not more than the .5 lb/week she seems to want to surpass.

But her point was how can she lose weight if she has to eat above her BMR and eat back her exercise calories (the MFP plan)? MFP tells her since outside the gym, she's sedentary, so to enter that. So she gets the 1.2 multiplier that gives her the 270 calories over her BMR value. If she eats back her exercise and eats above BMR, all she has to contribute to her deficit is that 270.

I'm not judging her goals. I'm just stating the math is silly for some of us.

My numbers are irrelevant but here you go. My BMR is 1440ish. I'm sedentary except the days I add exercise. So if I have to 'eat back' my exercise, forget that as part of my deficit. It's irrelevant. Whatever I burn I eat back, according to this plan. So I've got 1440 x 1.2 = 1728, and I have to eat at least 1440 (according to this forum). So that leaves me a max deficit per day of 288 calories. I don't have visible abs. I'm 15 lbs. into 'overweight BMI'. I'm not even particularly short, at 5'4".

kingofcrunk

I don't understand why you're supposed to eat above your BMR. My BMR is only 270 calories less than my TDEE, so by that logic I can only lose half a pound a week. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm skeptical of this.

And the reason you should net above your BMR.. think about it this way - you're BMR is what your body needs to sustain it's regular functions like breathing, keeping the heart beating, brain working. Why would you want to restrict this?

I'd just like to add that I'm eating below my BMR and my heart is still beating, brain still working, I'm quite chirpy and as yet I haven't stopped breathing

TeaBea

Skeptical of what?

And your body can burn its own calories to take care of regular functions, right? Why does it need calories from food when there are available fat stores? This has always confused me.

You body can't get every single thing it needs from fat stores. Blood cells require protein ..... if your body needs more of these .... it will "steal" from muscle tissue. I'm not a scientist ... but I'm sure there are many other examples.

taso42

I don't understand why you're supposed to eat above your BMR. My BMR is only 270 calories less than my TDEE, so by that logic I can only lose half a pound a week. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm skeptical of this.

And the reason you should net above your BMR.. think about it this way - you're BMR is what your body needs to sustain it's regular functions like breathing, keeping the heart beating, brain working. Why would you want to restrict this?

I'd just like to add that I'm eating below my BMR and my heart is still beating, brain still working, I'm quite chirpy and as yet I haven't stopped breathing

Ok for now. Just make sure to up your intake when your weight loss stalls and your energy levels tank.

beckajw

Screw it, I'm just gonna eat right and work out. (I want to ultimately gain muscle too)

Honestly, my fault in weight loss is always over thinking. MFP took out the over thinking 24/7 and it worked for me. So I won't allow myself to over think it, and just listen to what my body tells me(:

Oh and I mentioned all this to a family member and they argued the exiatance of a BMR.... Ugh. Haha

You're doing it right. Just eat right. Eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight. It won't always be exact. You won't always lose a pound for every 3500 calories you eat less, but it will average out. Try to eat at least your BMR, but don't stress if you eat less than it once in a while.

taso42

My numbers are irrelevant but here you go. My BMR is 1440ish. I'm sedentary except the days I add exercise. So if I have to 'eat back' my exercise, forget that as part of my deficit. It's irrelevant. Whatever I burn I eat back, according to this plan. So I've got 1440 x 1.2 = 1728, and I have to eat at least 1440 (according to this forum). So that leaves me a max deficit per day of 288 calories. I don't have visible abs. I'm 15 lbs. into 'overweight BMI'. I'm not even particularly short, at 5'4".

Your TDEE is conservatively around 1980 (using 1.375, the "lightly active" modifier). You have room for a 540 calorie deficit. You can even increase this a bit if you like, as long as you gradually ramp it up while you lose weight.