Confused about Net Calories...

Tiffanybkk

I don't understand how the Net Calories work. Should they be a positive or a negative number if you are trying to lose weight? For example, if you are supposed to eat 1200 a day, should your net calories be at 1200? Or should they be negative? I don't understand it. Help?

meg7399

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

tifferlee82

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

This!! I have had days when I don't hit my NET cals and the next day I am ready to eat a cow! It's important to keep that body a fat burning machine!

XXXMinnieXXX

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

Yep those negative nets I got whilst very overweight were life threatening. The diabetes, high blood pressure and high heart rate I reversed were not life threatening at all. It is not life threatening to not always have a 1200 net. That said I usually eat around 1700 these days and don't eat exercise calories. Until recently I ate 1400 and exercised. Got the weight off, reversed my diabetes, perfect heart rate, perfect blood pressure, perfect blood work... So no it wasn't life threatening!

DonM46

Calories eaten minus calories burned through exercise equals net calories.

Tiffanybkk

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

Okay this is great! Thank you! So basically at the end of the day, my net calories should match my calorie intake goal. Thank you!

langurmonkey

One point to note is that calories burned through exercise can be unreliable for exercise that is not sport. So for example, there is a reasonably accurate formula for calories burned while running or walking, but assessing the calorie burn for cleaning or gardening is more difficult, as those activities can vary a lot in intensity.

If in doubt, log it as "slow walking" :-).

meg7399

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

Yep those negative nets I got whilst very overweight were life threatening. The diabetes, high blood pressure and high heart rate I reversed were not life threatening at all. It is not life threatening to not always have a 1200 net. That said I usually eat around 1700 these days and don't eat exercise calories. Until recently I ate 1400 and exercised. Got the weight off, reversed my diabetes, perfect heart rate, perfect blood pressure, perfect blood work... So no it wasn't life threatening!

Daaannnngggg.....clearly you missed the whole point, ro the girls food diary. She was UNDER 0 calories a day!!! Thats not good! I wasn't saying under 1200, I am saying ehr negative 700 whatever was bad!!! Not eating at all is not good.

meg7399

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

Okay this is great! Thank you! So basically at the end of the day, my net calories should match my calorie intake goal. Thank you!

No problem...I have been on MFP for a while now and I AM happy to help. I just don't want to see someone on MY FL do something unhealthy! You seem to have healthy goals in mind so keep it up!

Tiffanybkk

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

Yep those negative nets I got whilst very overweight were life threatening. The diabetes, high blood pressure and high heart rate I reversed were not life threatening at all. It is not life threatening to not always have a 1200 net. That said I usually eat around 1700 these days and don't eat exercise calories. Until recently I ate 1400 and exercised. Got the weight off, reversed my diabetes, perfect heart rate, perfect blood pressure, perfect blood work... So no it wasn't life threatening!

Daaannnngggg.....clearly you missed the whole point, ro the girls food diary. She was UNDER 0 calories a day!!! Thats not good! I wasn't saying under 1200, I am saying ehr negative 700 whatever was bad!!! Not eating at all is not good.

Yes, I've had negative calories the past few days, haven't been eating much. I'm working on it! Thanks everyone!

kaylou

when I was not eating all my net calories my weight loss stalled....eat the net calories...thats what works for me. So if your goal is 1200 calories a day your net calories that you should consum should be 1200. it already factores in calories burned.

XXXMinnieXXX

If your goal is 1200 calories your calories consumed should be at least 1200 calories. Your NET calories takes into account your calories burned through workout. So if your food calories say 1200 and your exercise calories say 500 your net calories would show a positive 700 (1200-500). You then need to EAT back some if not ALL your workout calories to get your net back to your goal of 1200. You want your net to match your goal. MFP already gave you a large deficit of calories in the 1200 goal which is why you eat back your exercise calories. If you do not eat them back you are not giving your body enough fuel to maintain. Now I know everybody is different but NO ONE on ALL of MFP will tell you negative net calories is a good idea. Its dangerous and life threatening. Its pretty much like not eating at all.

Yep those negative nets I got whilst very overweight were life threatening. The diabetes, high blood pressure and high heart rate I reversed were not life threatening at all. It is not life threatening to not always have a 1200 net. That said I usually eat around 1700 these days and don't eat exercise calories. Until recently I ate 1400 and exercised. Got the weight off, reversed my diabetes, perfect heart rate, perfect blood pressure, perfect blood work... So no it wasn't life threatening!

Daaannnngggg.....clearly you missed the whole point, ro the girls food diary. She was UNDER 0 calories a day!!! Thats not good! I wasn't saying under 1200, I am saying ehr negative 700 whatever was bad!!! Not eating at all is not good.

To be fair I will hold my hands up... I just checked this girls diary and she is eating so little calories that I would consider it dangerous. 2-400 calories is not enough for anyone. I should have checked the diary first. From what the OP was saying it sounded like she was eating a lot more than that. Guess I will check diaries in future.

I still believe it's ok to not always have a 1200 NET but I do not condone eating less than 1200 unless you've got a medical reason for doing so... certainly not a couple of hundred calories per day. Please eat a minimum of 1200 OP. MINIMUM... Unless you know your BMR is less than that....400 calories or less is not enough for anyone to live off!

Zara.

pinknekophiliac

Ok, this is probably a stupid question, so please forgive me, I'm still new to the whole calorie counting thing, but if I burned my calories only to eat them all back...doesn't that completely negate the point of exercising to burn them away? If I'm supposed to burn more calories than I eat, then by burning them off only to eat them back seems like it would just cancel the whole process out... I'm not an idiot but numbers and I have never really gotten along haha, so if someone could just explain the concept to me in laymens terms, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Phrick

Ok, this is probably a stupid question, so please forgive me, I'm still new to the whole calorie counting thing, but if I burned my calories only to eat them all back...doesn't that completely negate the point of exercising to burn them away? If I'm supposed to burn more calories than I eat, then by burning them off only to eat them back seems like it would just cancel the whole process out... I'm not an idiot but numbers and I have never really gotten along haha, so if someone could just explain the concept to me in laymens terms, I'd greatly appreciate it.

No. When you tell MFP "I want to lose 1 pound a week" (or whatever), it automatically figures out how many calories you'd need to maintain your current weight and then subtracts enough calories from that number to ensure that you lose 1 pound per week. THIS is the number MFP tells you to eat. That means, even if you did nothing, no exercise, just sat in front of the TV all day, if you ate that number of calories you'd lose weight.

By exercising, you're making that gap (between what you would need to maintain and what your MFP goal is to lose 1 pound a week) even bigger. If you eat what you burn off through exercise, you'll still lose your specified 1 pound per week (more or less, as weight loss is never constant and linear and perfect all the time), and you'll get to eat more. Eat more + still lose = win/win!!

pinknekophiliac

Thanks for replying.... but I'm still confused >_<. I get that MFP already calculates things for you, and exercising is good for you I get that too... but 1200 calories is 1200 calories... so maybe I'm being too literal here but I'm just not grasping the concept of WHY am I supposed to eat back my calories that I burned if I'm supposed to burn more than I consume? Again I get that MFP already took into account the general calories you'd burn just from being alive, but why am I supposed to eat back the calories I burn? It sounds more like I COULD do it if I wanted to so I could have more food, but don't have to. So I'm confused why I'm supposed to eat them back when burning more calories than I eat is the goal for weightloss... Because subtracting something only to put it back negates the whole purpose and cancels it out. Like, if I have a bowl of 5 apples, and I take away 3, I have a bowl of 2 apples, but if I put the 3 apples I took out back I have a bowl of 5 apples again... So it's like... What was the bloody point of taking the apples out in the first place? It made no difference. See what I'm saying?

jimboodee2

Thanks for explaining this - it is something I have had trouble getting my head round too - I will see how it all works out... Thanks

Kargicq

exercising is good for you I get that too...

Two points: some of us like to eat a lot. If we exercise, we can continue to do this.

Secondly, as I understand it, strength exercise makes sure that you don't lose muscle along with the fat. This makes you look and feel better, and in fact helps your metabolism.

tryclyn

Thanks for replying.... but I'm still confused >_<. I get that MFP already calculates things for you, and exercising is good for you I get that too... but 1200 calories is 1200 calories... so maybe I'm being too literal here but I'm just not grasping the concept of WHY am I supposed to eat back my calories that I burned if I'm supposed to burn more than I consume? Again I get that MFP already took into account the general calories you'd burn just from being alive, but why am I supposed to eat back the calories I burn? It sounds more like I COULD do it if I wanted to so I could have more food, but don't have to. So I'm confused why I'm supposed to eat them back when burning more calories than I eat is the goal for weightloss... Because subtracting something only to put it back negates the whole purpose and cancels it out. Like, if I have a bowl of 5 apples, and I take away 3, I have a bowl of 2 apples, but if I put the 3 apples I took out back I have a bowl of 5 apples again... So it's like... What was the bloody point of taking the apples out in the first place? It made no difference. See what I'm saying?

Modest kcal deficit is for fat loss.
Exercise is for health and fitness, it works much better when fueled properly.

For more info
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1187899-in-place-of-a-roadmap-short-n-sweet-reposted
http://nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

rollng_thundr

Thanks for replying.... but I'm still confused >_<. I get that MFP already calculates things for you, and exercising is good for you I get that too... but 1200 calories is 1200 calories... so maybe I'm being too literal here but I'm just not grasping the concept of WHY am I supposed to eat back my calories that I burned if I'm supposed to burn more than I consume? Again I get that MFP already took into account the general calories you'd burn just from being alive, but why am I supposed to eat back the calories I burn? It sounds more like I COULD do it if I wanted to so I could have more food, but don't have to. So I'm confused why I'm supposed to eat them back when burning more calories than I eat is the goal for weightloss... Because subtracting something only to put it back negates the whole purpose and cancels it out. Like, if I have a bowl of 5 apples, and I take away 3, I have a bowl of 2 apples, but if I put the 3 apples I took out back I have a bowl of 5 apples again... So it's like... What was the bloody point of taking the apples out in the first place? It made no difference. See what I'm saying?

Another thing to consider, is that your body is continually burning calories with each breath.. so if your basal metabolic rate is 2700 calories a day (the rate that your body normally burns calories for daily activities), and MFP says you need to consume 2000 calories/day to lose say, 3 lb/week, you are ALREADY at a calorie deficit.

So, with this in mind, the number you get (2,000 or whatever it is) is what has been calculated for you to lose given some hard numbers (as I said before, 2700 calories just to maintain weight).

If you consume 2000 calories/day, and you get a bump for exercising (remember, your basal metabolic rate was 2700), then you can and probably should consume at the bump to ensure you are not severely cutting your intake. If you burned a calculated 500 calories, then you theoretically have 2500 calories to consume just to maintain your base (2700 basal rate + 500 for exercise).

Hope this helps. I'm cornfuddled, but I know what I'm trying to say.

MinnieInMaine

Eating too few calories is bad for your health and can also be detrimental to weight loss efforts. You need to learn about how many calories your body needs. Here's a good website you can use to get estimates by plugging in your stats:

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

I'll use myself as an example.

BMR - this is your Basal Metabolic Rate which is the estimated # of calories your body needs just to support basic functions like digestion, breathing, brain activity, healing, etc - as if you were in a coma. My BMR is 1500 calories

NEAT - No Exericse Activity Thermogenesis. This is the estimated # of your calories that MFP uses to set your goal for the day as they don't include exericse. This covers your BMR + normal daily activities (sedentary, lightly active, active). My NEAT is 1800 calories (sedentary)

TDEE - Total Daily Energy Expenditure. This is the estimated # of calories to cover NEAT plus exercise. Also known as maintenance calories. My TDEE is around 2100 calories

If you don't eat back earned calories, your NET daily intake will likely be below your BMR and this is just not healthy. That's like trying to run a car with barely enough oil or gasoline - it's just not going to work well for you. Take care of your body and it will take care of you!

I make sure to NET at least 1500 calories but my average is somewhere around 1700. I still lose weight because that's still 400 calories less than my TDEE.

Hope that helps!

pinknekophiliac

Eating too few calories is bad for your health and can also be detrimental to weight loss efforts. You need to learn about how many calories your body needs. Here's a good website you can use to get estimates by plugging in your stats:

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

I'll use myself as an example.

BMR - this is your Basal Metabolic Rate which is the estimated # of calories your body needs just to support basic functions like digestion, breathing, brain activity, healing, etc - as if you were in a coma. My BMR is 1500 calories

NEAT - No Exericse Activity Thermogenesis. This is the estimated # of your calories that MFP uses to set your goal for the day as they don't include exericse. This covers your BMR + normal daily activities (sedentary, lightly active, active). My NEAT is 1800 calories (sedentary)

TDEE - Total Daily Energy Expenditure. This is the estimated # of calories to cover NEAT plus exercise. Also known as maintenance calories. My TDEE is around 2100 calories

If you don't eat back earned calories, your NET daily intake will likely be below your BMR and this is just not healthy. That's like trying to run a car with barely enough oil or gasoline - it's just not going to work well for you. Take care of your body and it will take care of you!

I make sure to NET at least 1500 calories but my average is somewhere around 1700. I still lose weight because that's still 400 calories less than my TDEE.

Hope that helps!

AHHHHHH!!!! Thank you for breaking it down like that in such detail! I saw someone else mention the gasoline analogy but it was too simple for me to correlate with the questions I had. I get it now! Thank you so much! This was driving me bananas! Lol