NET CALORIES - I DONT UNDERSTAND!

Debbe2 · February 2013

Hi all, Im really struggling to get my head around net calories and what calories I should be eating.

I have a daily target of 1200 calories (Im only 5ft 1/2 inch) in order to loose 1-2lb per week. I make sure I have 3 healthy meals a day and snacks and I never feel hungry. Im normally within 10-20 calories of my target, but do go over if I feel the need (like yesterday for pancake day!!).

Anyway, Im making an effort to get in exercise most days with a good walk and some swimming.....nothing too vigorous!.....and am burning between 500 - 1000 calories a day. Now my mind is telling me that this exercise may help me loose more weight, will help me tone as I loose, and will give me the calories if I feel I want to consume over my 1200 goal.

Yesterday on my diary a friend commented that Id eaten way to few calories, that my net calories was too low and that I should eat back the calories I burn. This upset me a little as I felt I had achieved a really good day with food and exercise.This was yesterdays figures:

Goal - 1200
Food - 1425 (slightly higher than normal)
Exercise - 1163 (slightly higher than normal)
Net - 262
Remaining - 938

Now what is confusing for me is that if I had not done that exercise then I would have in theory overeaten that day! Therefore as I normally stick to around 1200 then surely if I do not want to eat more food then I shouldnt exercise?? Or if I do exercise I need to eat more even if I dont want it and am not hungry?? I really struggle to see the point of just eating for the sake of it.

Sorry if this post is confusing.....but its probably because Im confused while writing it! Basically I want to watch what i eat...hence not watching was what put on the weight in the first place....but I want to keep healthy at the same time!

Can anyone shed some light on what I am doing right/wrong, what your suggestions for me are and mostly what NET calories actually means to my weight loss.

Thank you for reading

Trisha

Hi Trisha,
I also am 5' 1/2" like you.
I lost all my weight keeping my net under 1200 calories a day. I exercise a lot. For my body it's simply calories in verses calories out. I have a Registered Dietician and an Exercise Therapist as well as a medical health care team that I work with. They have all told me for my height and physical structure and age I need to be eating around 1200 calories a day to maintain my weight and less to loss it. Either way I must exercise and incorporate all sorts of physical activity to be the strongest and healthiest I can be. And I am very strong!! I am not weak or tired and have not gone into "starvation mode". Seek a highly renowned professionals advice if possible and find what works for you! Indeed when I have listened to my well meaning, caring and highly cherished MFP friends telling me to eat more calories my weight starts to climb. Being little doesn't afford us all the same caloric considerations. I have been overweight my entire life until the past 2 years and I am 56 years old. Both these factors play a role in the net calories I really need to stay close to to remain healthy and fit and the size and weight I want to be. Whatever you do, make sure to give yourself plenty of good nutritious and satisfying food. Pay attention to what you eat and drink plenty of water. Move lots. A good multivitamin won't hurt either.
Good luck!

smh1067 · February 2013

I just wanted to publicly apologize and say I'm truely sorry for upsetting you, that wasn't my intention. I know you are putting a lot of effort in, I was just trying to be helpful and share the knowledge I'd gleaned from this site and all of its helpful memebers because I didn't want to see you stall out. It just seemed that you were confused that you went over when MFP said you hadn't. As you can see, there are lots of opinions out there, that was just mine. I will keep my "helpful" comments to myself from now on and just be there to support your decisions. Again, so sorry! :flowerforyou:

SMH1067.... You've earned your seat here! Disagreement stimulates intelligent conversation. Don't let what I say discourage you one bit. notsolittlesi is right... your a sweetheart!

Happy valentines day!

Thanks for your kind words! And I agree about creating intelligent conversation, just didn't want to discourage anyone's efforts. What a great community we have here! Happy early Valentines Day to you too!

secretlyeloped · February 2013

I had this same question! Thank you to the poster and all who responded!

la_ro · February 2013

You don't necessarily have to eat more. You could just use higher calorie components in the food you already plan to eat on heavy exercise days. For example, if you usually use a spritz of cooking spray to prepare your food, you could instead use some full-fat butter. I'm sure if you search around the forums here you could find other such ways to boost calories without really having to eat more.

WorkHardPlaySmart · July 2013

I need some friends to add onto my fitness pal, so I could hear others opinions and view what their doing. Motivation!
I need emails please!

megsmom2 · July 2013

Hi...I have a heart rate monitor so all my exercise is accurate other than my swimming as my HRM cant be used in the water. Sorry what number do I need to get to zero?...is it the NET number? Sorry if I sound stupid but my exercise is having a leisurely walk or a slow swim, so im not feeling warn out etc so still struggle to understand that I need to eat more so thinking I just wont go for the swim...or if I do will drive rather than walk there. I totally understand my body needs calories but my food is my first focus and i really dont want to eat food that I dont want. Trisha x

Your net should be 1200.

If you don't want to eat, don't. But, eventually your weight loss will stall and you won't be able to figure out why. It will be because you are not eating enough.

yup. this.

uuunknownnn · April 2014

"Actually, it's living off the stored energy in fat and muscle cells whenever there is a calorie deficit. Sort of the whole idea behind losing weight. Exercise is basically meant to conserve the lean muscle mass that would otherwise be lost when dieting. In any event, the "experts" - both on MFP and IRL - differ on whether to eat back some, all or none of your exercise calories. I've settled somewhere in the middle - i.e., if I'm hungry, I still eat. It's merely the choice of what I put in that has changed dramatically. Good luck to the OP with figuring out what works best for YOU!"

That's true, but having net under 1,200 puts you in starvation mode and you're not burning anymore. Everyone's body burns more than 1,200 cals just from daily life, so even without excercise, eating 1,200 will burn calories and therefore lose weight.

NDD57 · April 2014

I'm sort of new to this so I'm needing some input. I'm 56 yrs. old. My beginning weight was 213 lbs. I started exercising and changing the way I eat (I don't believe in dieting but changing your lifestyle) as of the 1st of the year. As of this date I have lost 27 lbs meaning I have lost this weight in 3 1/2 months. I have my calorie intake at 1600 calories. I'm walking around 5+ miles per day, 7 days per week. I also do weight training 3 times per week and count my steps which on most days is way over 10,000 steps. On weekends I'm not exactly following the 1600 calories but still exercising. I started to feel really weak this week & couldn't figure out as to why until I started to read all these notes. Obviously I'm not eating enough but then I feel that if I eat more, specially at my age, that I'm never going to lose the weight. The following is an example from today but usually I eat less than or right at 1600 calories and exercise anywhere from 800 to 1100 calories.
Calories - 1600
Food - 2042
Exercise - 1499 (walking, gardening, mowing)
Net - 503
I don't want to stall my weight loss but I want to do this correctly specially at my age. Thanks

snazzyjazzy21 · April 2014

.

snazzyjazzy21 · April 2014

I'm sort of new to this so I'm needing some input. I'm 56 yrs. old. My beginning weight was 213 lbs. I started exercising and changing the way I eat (I don't believe in dieting but changing your lifestyle) as of the 1st of the year. As of this date I have lost 27 lbs meaning I have lost this weight in 3 1/2 months. I have my calorie intake at 1600 calories. I'm walking around 5+ miles per day, 7 days per week. I also do weight training 3 times per week and count my steps which on most days is way over 10,000 steps. On weekends I'm not exactly following the 1600 calories but still exercising. I started to feel really weak this week & couldn't figure out as to why until I started to read all these notes. Obviously I'm not eating enough but then I feel that if I eat more, specially at my age, that I'm never going to lose the weight. The following is an example from today but usually I eat less than or right at 1600 calories and exercise anywhere from 800 to 1100 calories.
Calories - 1600
Food - 2042
Exercise - 1499 (walking, gardening, mowing)
Net - 503
I don't want to stall my weight loss but I want to do this correctly specially at my age. Thanks

Okay, first thing is your calorie burn. I highly doubt you're burning that, to be brutally honest. It'd take me running a constant 10min mile for over 3.5 hours straight to burn 1500cals. MFP grossly overestimates it's calorie burns, so you'd want to be eating back a MAX of 75%, most people settle for 50%. You haven't provided your height, but 1600cals doesn't sound unreasonable, but it depends on what you've set your goal at. How man lbs are you trying to lose a week and are you set as lightly active, active, etc?

And NET cals. This is the problem. If you log your exercise (say 50% of what MFP says), you're meant to eat those back. Your net shouldn't be 500, your net should be at least 1600, which is your calorie goal (with your deficit already built in). Does this make sense?

NDD57 · April 2014

I'm 5'4"...My calorie burned was actually that much for today. I had over 20,000 steps today by walking at a speed of 3.5 mph uphill, mowing pushing a mower, and doing gardening walking up and down a hill, etc. and I actually didn't put everything down. Today was not a typical day but on average I burn between 800 and 1000 calories. I do a lot of walking by exercising and also in my job. I put lightly active and I would like to lose between 1.5-2 lbs/wk. I'm starting to make sense of this net thing. Bottom line, it looks like I'm sabotaging my own weight loss by not eating enough which sort of goes against everything I have ever believed. I don't want to lose it too fast but I don't want to take 3 yrs to lose it either. So slower is better in the long run but I want to make sure I'm doing this the smart way. Thanks.

juliefitnessgoal · July 2014

Thank you this really helped me! I thought they were "bonus" too but the hubby and I couldn't Agee on this! LOL!

derik999 · July 2014

Ok so MFP calculates 3K calories burned per day from normal daily activity. Net calories consumed per day for 2lbs of weight loss per week is 2k.

So basically through diet, exercise, or both, I have to create that 1k calorie deficit; and if I create that calorie deficit 100% through diet then any exercise on top of that will take me below 2K, and thus I'll have to eat some of those calories back to stay at or near 2k?

Is that it in a nutshell?

jakichan · July 2014

I never trust "calculations" of energy burn that aren't based on real-time data like a heart rate monitor, and even then it's probably off.

Cycling is my main sport, and so I found this interesting:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading

It compares calorie output from cycling via 3 methods: Time/distance/weight, heart rate monitor, and something called a power meter. For those who don't ride a power meter is an expensive gadget that measures how hard you're pushing on the pedals. It also can add up how much work (in the physics sense) you've done in the form of kilojoules. Folks usually estimate a 1:1 kJ to kCal conversion because your body isn't that efficient.

The guy gives an example of one ride. HIs heart rate was lower than expected because he was about to get sick. The power meter recorded 2678 kJ of work, so 2678 kCal of burn. But the heart rate data was 1938 kCal - that's a 1000 calorie difference. And then to top it off, using a standard time/distance calculation (like the kind that MFP would do) it's 3648 kCal - another 100 calorie difference the other way. That's a range of 2000 calories for a single activity! Which one is right? The work recorded by the power meter is an objective measurement, but it's hard to say how efficient he was that day. I might be inclined to split the difference between those two. But the time/distance calculation is always going to be really rough, so I'd avoid that one.

You're never going to know your burn for sure, but the more accurate you can be the better. I try to assume the estimation is high.

NET CALORIES - I DONT UNDERSTAND!

Replies

Categories