Do I correctly understand Net Cals?

iwerkouttttt
iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
in Health and Weight Loss
Okay so here's the deal. I'm a 19 year old female and I live in the United States. I'm 124 pounds and I stand at 5 foot 6 inches. I downloaded the My Fitness Pal app on my iPod Touch about a week ago. For days upon days I was having the hardest time understanding Net Calories. Here's what I know so far:

Calories Consumed - Calories Lost/Burned = Net Calories (goal calories for the day?)

MFP recommended that if I want to lost 1 pound PER WEEK, while working out 4 times per week, I should consume a Net Calorie of 1,200 per day. So correct me if I'm wrong but is MFP telling me that if I want to reach my Net Calorie goal of 1,200 calories PER DAY, that I can eat 1,440 calories and then burn off 240 calories at the gym? (Because 1,440 - 240 = 1,200)

So basically on the days that I don't go to the gym, which is 3 days a week, I need to only eat 1,200. Because I won't be working out that day. So the exercise is just like an extra step, but that's alright because it's definitely worth it.

I think I understand it. This is what I have so far today my "Your Daily Summary".
(June 4, 2013)

Goal: 1,200
Food: + 413
Exercise: - 0
Net: 413

So if I eat 787 more calories, that meets 1,200 calories for today. But since I'm working out tonight I should eat +240 plus the 787 calories, and then burn off that 240 calories at the gym. Yes? No?


Also, have those who've tried this way of losing weight find it successful? I always thought if I burned more than I ate, I'd lose weight for sure. So I tried to eat as little as possible. But I always hear that your body needs at least 1,200 calories a day just to fuel itself.. So I suppose it makes sense. I just feel like 1,200 is a lot to eat.

Replies

  • WifeofPJ
    WifeofPJ Posts: 312
    You understand Net Calories correctly. Do though understand that you are not overweight so you may not see the results of 1 lb per week at your current weight you may see a much slower weight loss which is what happens to everyone as they get closer to their goal weight.
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    You understand Net Calories correctly. Do though understand that you are not overweight so you may not see the results of 1 lb per week at your current weight you may see a much slower weight loss which is what happens to everyone as they get closer to their goal weight.

    Thank you very much!
    I'm glad I understand now.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    You are correct...however, being at your current weight, you shouldn't be so restrictive in your calorie intake. The leaner you are, the more muscle you burn with a big calorie deficit. Also, your body will not respond according to the math when you're at a healthy weight. Really, you should just eat a maintenance level of calories and work on body composition...i.e. hit the weight room. Your weight is just fine for your height.
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    You are correct...however, being at your current weight, you shouldn't be so restrictive in your calorie intake. The leaner you are, the more muscle you burn with a big calorie deficit. Also, your body will not respond according to the math when you're at a healthy weight. Really, you should just eat a maintenance level of calories and work on body composition...i.e. hit the weight room. Your weight is just fine for your height.


    Will I see any results if I stick to what I'm doing? (1,200 cal per day)
    At first when I got MFP I set it to lose .5 lbs per week, and it gave me a net cal of 1,440 cal per day. Then I changed it to 1 lb per week and it gave me a net cal of 1,200.
    Should I have gone with a net cal of 1,440?
  • JAllen32
    JAllen32 Posts: 991 Member
    Yes, that is correct. But the one thing I don't think you understand, is that the 1200 calorie goal already has a build in deficit of 500 calories. Simply put: (and this is not exact numbers for everyone)

    You need 1700 to live.
    But you only eat 1200.
    That = a 500 calorie deficit per day.
    Which is a pound a week. (3500 cals = 1lb)

    Its set up so you get a deficit without exercise. So if you do burn extra calories, you need to eat them back. Otherwise you'll get something like this.

    Need 1700
    Eat 1200
    Burn 400
    Net = 800 <---- too low!
  • JAllen32
    JAllen32 Posts: 991 Member
    You are correct...however, being at your current weight, you shouldn't be so restrictive in your calorie intake. The leaner you are, the more muscle you burn with a big calorie deficit. Also, your body will not respond according to the math when you're at a healthy weight. Really, you should just eat a maintenance level of calories and work on body composition...i.e. hit the weight room. Your weight is just fine for your height.


    Will I see any results if I stick to what I'm doing? (1,200 cal per day)
    At first when I got MFP I set it to lose .5 lbs per week, and it gave me a net cal of 1,440 cal per day. Then I changed it to 1 lb per week and it gave me a net cal of 1,200.
    Should I have gone with a net cal of 1,440?
    Yes, I would suggest you go with the higher number. Especially if you are working out.
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    Yes, that is correct. But the one thing I don't think you understand, is that the 1200 calorie goal already has a build in deficit of 500 calories. Simply put: (and this is not exact numbers for everyone)

    You need 1700 to live.
    But you only eat 1200.
    That = a 500 calorie deficit per day.
    Which is a pound a week. (3500 cals = 1lb)

    Its set up so you get a deficit without exercise. So if you do burn extra calories, you need to eat them back. Otherwise you'll get something like this.

    Need 1700
    Eat 1200
    Burn 400
    Net = 800 <---- too low!



    If my net cal is 1,700 I should eat that, but then when I go to the gym and I lose, say 300 cals, I need to eat them back? Then why go to the gym if I need to eat the calories back? I can see doing that on a day where I do in fact go to the gym, but not on days when I don't?
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    I haven't ever tried to lose weight before so I trust your all's opinions.

    Since I'm now going with 1,440 calories per day instead of 1,200 per day, here's my stats

    Goal: 1,440
    Food: + 413
    Exercise: - 0
    Net: 413

    Now I need to consume + 1,027 AND +500 (since that's what I try to burn at the gym every time I go, 4x per week), then burn that 500 off to get my net calorie of 1,440. Then on the days I don't go I just eat 1,440 cals, yadda yadda..
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    I haven't ever tried to lose weight before so I trust your all's opinions.

    Since I'm now going with 1,440 calories per day instead of 1,200 per day, here's my stats

    Goal: 1,440
    Food: + 413
    Exercise: - 0
    Net: 413

    Now I need to consume + 1,027 AND +500 (since that's what I try to burn at the gym every time I go, 4x per week), then burn that 500 off to get my net calorie of 1,440. Then on the days I don't go I just eat 1,440 cals, yadda yadda..
  • Nessiechickie
    Nessiechickie Posts: 1,392 Member
    You are correct...however, being at your current weight, you shouldn't be so restrictive in your calorie intake. The leaner you are, the more muscle you burn with a big calorie deficit. Also, your body will not respond according to the math when you're at a healthy weight. Really, you should just eat a maintenance level of calories and work on body composition...i.e. hit the weight room. Your weight is just fine for your height.

    ^^^^^
    I recommend doing weights as well
  • erikkmcvay
    erikkmcvay Posts: 238 Member
    One thing to remember is that you must calculate your BMR correctly first. That is your Basal Metabolic Rate which is based on age, gender, weight and activity. So, for example as a 47 yr old male who's 234lbs and works at a computer all day (you do not include exercise) I need/ burn 2440 calories per day. So, to lose 2lbs per week I need to eat 7000 calories LESS per week or 1000 cals less per day -- thus my daily caloric target is 1440 calories.

    Now, if I burn 1171 calories riding my mountain bike (I did today on a 13 mile ride) then I can either eat 2611 calories today and still hit my 1000 calorie deficit OR I can eat some total up to that and beat my 1000 calorie deficit goal (I do this often and it can result in greater weight loss).

    It's also important to track your dietary fiber (much higher then most think it should be at 25 per day for women and 38 per day for men) and sodium (should be only 2500 per day unless balanced well with the other electrolytes AND/OR you have high Blood pressure etc in which case it should not be above 1500 according to the Mayo Clinic).

    So, be sure to correctly choose your work/lifestyle when updating your goals so MFP chooses the right BMR -- which you can also check online yourself. Remember, your daily exercise doesn't count towards BMR, just you work and daily life (do you sit on a computer all day like me? Then it's sedentary no matter how much you ride afterwards).

    Hope that helps.
    Erik
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    If my net cal is 1,700 I should eat that, but then when I go to the gym and I lose, say 300 cals, I need to eat them back? Then why go to the gym if I need to eat the calories back? I can see doing that on a day where I do in fact go to the gym, but not on days when I don't?

    Because the exercise calories is purely what it takes to move you mechanically during the workout time you log. Nothing more.

    To actually make improvement from the exercise takes more calories.

    Are you doing the exercise to actually have some improvements?

    Then you need to feed the workout.

    Again, as ones have said, you are at healthy weight, and if you try to take much of a deficit you'll just lose muscle mass, some of it somewhere.

    That all by itself will lower your metabolism, and your weight. So now you burn less because of less muscle. Now you burn less because of weighing less.
    Now you MUST eat less and have much smaller margin for error. Meaning you eat in excess, you'll pack on weight. Vacation week could be terrible. Slight overage everyday is bigger % for you then, compared to if your maintenance level was higher.

    Set it to maintenance, which is non-exercise maintenance. You eat that everyday with normal daily non-exercise activities and you would in theory not gain or lose.

    You exercise to actually make body improvements, you eat those calories back. Your body is left with enough to supply extra calories to repair from the exercise and make body improvements, while using fat for that work.

    Be aware that body improvements rarely have weight loss as side effect, but water weight gain. But needed water weight in addition to muscle if doing lifting and enough protein. But that increased water weight is even higher LBM, which is higher metabolism - even without extra muscle.
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    If my net cal is 1,700 I should eat that, but then when I go to the gym and I lose, say 300 cals, I need to eat them back? Then why go to the gym if I need to eat the calories back? I can see doing that on a day where I do in fact go to the gym, but not on days when I don't?

    Because the exercise calories is purely what it takes to move you mechanically during the workout time you log. Nothing more.

    To actually make improvement from the exercise takes more calories.

    Are you doing the exercise to actually have some improvements?

    Then you need to feed the workout.

    Again, as ones have said, you are at healthy weight, and if you try to take much of a deficit you'll just lose muscle mass, some of it somewhere.

    That all by itself will lower your metabolism, and your weight. So now you burn less because of less muscle. Now you burn less because of weighing less.
    Now you MUST eat less and have much smaller margin for error. Meaning you eat in excess, you'll pack on weight. Vacation week could be terrible. Slight overage everyday is bigger % for you then, compared to if your maintenance level was higher.

    Set it to maintenance, which is non-exercise maintenance. You eat that everyday with normal daily non-exercise activities and you would in theory not gain or lose.

    You exercise to actually make body improvements, you eat those calories back. Your body is left with enough to supply extra calories to repair from the exercise and make body improvements, while using fat for that work.

    Be aware that body improvements rarely have weight loss as side effect, but water weight gain. But needed water weight in addition to muscle if doing lifting and enough protein. But that increased water weight is even higher LBM, which is higher metabolism - even without extra muscle.

    I understand but not totally about the water weight.
    Every day that I work out (4x per week) I walk (3.5 mph, uphill) or use the stairclimber (level 7-9) for 20 minutes.
    I do lifts and pulls but I feel like it's just bulking me up, and I don't feel like I'm not losing any weight at all.
    Should I do more cardio/aerobics to burn body fat?

    My net cal is 1,440 cals per day if I want to lose .5 lbs per week.
    Will I see improvements if I eat (1,440 + 300) calories, and then burn off 300?
    (Or I guess I could also eat 1,440, burn off 300, and then eat that 300 back)


    Sorry, it's all so confusing to me for some reason.
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    One thing to remember is that you must calculate your BMR correctly first. That is your Basal Metabolic Rate which is based on age, gender, weight and activity. So, for example as a 47 yr old male who's 234lbs and works at a computer all day (you do not include exercise) I need/ burn 2440 calories per day. So, to lose 2lbs per week I need to eat 7000 calories LESS per week or 1000 cals less per day -- thus my daily caloric target is 1440 calories.

    Now, if I burn 1171 calories riding my mountain bike (I did today on a 13 mile ride) then I can either eat 2611 calories today and still hit my 1000 calorie deficit OR I can eat some total up to that and beat my 1000 calorie deficit goal (I do this often and it can result in greater weight loss).

    It's also important to track your dietary fiber (much higher then most think it should be at 25 per day for women and 38 per day for men) and sodium (should be only 2500 per day unless balanced well with the other electrolytes AND/OR you have high Blood pressure etc in which case it should not be above 1500 according to the Mayo Clinic).

    So, be sure to correctly choose your work/lifestyle when updating your goals so MFP chooses the right BMR -- which you can also check online yourself. Remember, your daily exercise doesn't count towards BMR, just you work and daily life (do you sit on a computer all day like me? Then it's sedentary no matter how much you ride afterwards).

    Hope that helps.
    Erik



    I am very sedentary. I mostly sit all day long except for the gym at night.
    http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ says that I have a BMR of 1415.3
    But the BMR used on MyFitnessPal.com says I have a BMR of 1,354 calories/day* (meaning I should eat 1,354 cals a day??)
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    Now that I know how the Net Calories work, I am focused on what I can do to burn some body fat away.
  • erikkmcvay
    erikkmcvay Posts: 238 Member
    I am very sedentary. I mostly sit all day long except for the gym at night.
    http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ says that I have a BMR of 1415.3
    But the BMR used on MyFitnessPal.com says I have a BMR of 1,354 calories/day* (meaning I should eat 1,354 cals a day??)

    Mine is 2105.92 which then must be multiplied by your activity level which in my case is 1.2 leaving me with a daily caloric need of 2527 calories.

    MFP tells me it should be 2450 so I know that my daily caloric needs are somewhere in there (more likely 2527 since I trust the calculator more).

    Now that I know that (I did this exercise months ago actually but periodically check it as I lose weight) I leave the MFP daily goal of 1450 (1000 less per day) and know that I have some 'wiggle room' in there :)

    For me it's probably less of an issue then some however because I've worked my way up to burning about 1000 calories per day in cardio (900-1200) except on days off but if I'm a little over on days off cardio I make up for it on days on.

    The key, I think, is to view it as a guideline only. Sure it works but it's just a guide.

    Also, remember, MFP seems to use generic models for everything so when you record cardio (like walking or gardening for example) know that MFP is going to give you the lowest common denominator for calories burned. Better to use something like mapmyride.com to track calories burned walking or riding and then to manually input those here because they are more accurate.

    For example try this: input walking at 4mph for 1 hour (4 miles) and see how many calories it gives you, then input walking 4 mph for 50 minutes (4 miles but a little faster so you had to burn more calories) and see what it gives you....hint: it will be less even though you had to be walking faster and burning more if you walked 4 miles in 50 minutes rather then 60.

    Key is to stick with it and learn as much as you can for your daily needs (BMR times activity level -- the next step on the page).
  • iwerkouttttt
    iwerkouttttt Posts: 19
    I am very sedentary. I mostly sit all day long except for the gym at night.
    http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ says that I have a BMR of 1415.3
    But the BMR used on MyFitnessPal.com says I have a BMR of 1,354 calories/day* (meaning I should eat 1,354 cals a day??)

    Mine is 2105.92 which then must be multiplied by your activity level which in my case is 1.2 leaving me with a daily caloric need of 2527 calories.

    MFP tells me it should be 2450 so I know that my daily caloric needs are somewhere in there (more likely 2527 since I trust the calculator more).

    Now that I know that (I did this exercise months ago actually but periodically check it as I lose weight) I leave the MFP daily goal of 1450 (1000 less per day) and know that I have some 'wiggle room' in there :)

    For me it's probably less of an issue then some however because I've worked my way up to burning about 1000 calories per day in cardio (900-1200) except on days off but if I'm a little over on days off cardio I make up for it on days on.

    The key, I think, is to view it as a guideline only. Sure it works but it's just a guide.

    Also, remember, MFP seems to use generic models for everything so when you record cardio (like walking or gardening for example) know that MFP is going to give you the lowest common denominator for calories burned. Better to use something like mapmyride.com to track calories burned walking or riding and then to manually input those here because they are more accurate.

    For example try this: input walking at 4mph for 1 hour (4 miles) and see how many calories it gives you, then input walking 4 mph for 50 minutes (4 miles but a little faster so you had to burn more calories) and see what it gives you....hint: it will be less even though you had to be walking faster and burning more if you walked 4 miles in 50 minutes rather then 60.

    Key is to stick with it and learn as much as you can for your daily needs (BMR times activity level -- the next step on the page).


    BMR is the amount of calories my body can burn in a day? I will have to read up on this more, or get a book. I have a lot to learn. I am still confused about this! Arg. Thanks so much for your help. I'm going to re-read your post as many times as I have to to understand it, ha.
  • herblackwings39
    herblackwings39 Posts: 3,930 Member
    MFP is easy. On your food diary there's a section "Your Daily Goal". Eat that number or close to it and you'll net your calories. On non-exercise days it will stay the same. If you exercise it will go up. Your deficit is built into the original number before exercise. Doing nothing will still show a loss if you have weight to lose.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I understand but not totally about the water weight.
    Every day that I work out (4x per week) I walk (3.5 mph, uphill) or use the stairclimber (level 7-9) for 20 minutes.
    I do lifts and pulls but I feel like it's just bulking me up, and I don't feel like I'm not losing any weight at all.
    Should I do more cardio/aerobics to burn body fat?

    My net cal is 1,440 cals per day if I want to lose .5 lbs per week.
    Will I see improvements if I eat (1,440 + 300) calories, and then burn off 300?
    (Or I guess I could also eat 1,440, burn off 300, and then eat that 300 back)

    Sorry, it's all so confusing to me for some reason.

    Still not sure why you want to actually lose weight - you want to lose fat really, right?

    Weight is fine, but if you drop a few lbs in the process of losing more fat weight, that's decent, right?

    The only way to lose fat weight but not total weight is to gain LBM, hopefully some muscle too, as that will increase your metabolism.

    If you think you are getting bulking, you have a self-image issue, as women can barely get bulky, and I doubt the little lifting stuff you are doing is causing that.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/894293-ladies-weight-lifting-will-make-something-bulky

    You really need to wrap your mind around the fact that no one sees a scale on your back with your current weight on it. At least, I sure hope you don't do that.

    They see you, in clothes, or swimsuit. And lighter weight but fat hanging over is going to stand out a whole lot more than heavier weight but solid, fat only in the right places.

    You should set goal to maintain, lift total body 3 x weekly for 45-60 min each session. And easy cardio on rest days.

    And then eating correctly for that level of exercise, or indeed eating back exercise calories when done.

    That will see the most fat drop and most body improvement.
  • erikkmcvay
    erikkmcvay Posts: 238 Member
    Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR); the number of calories you'd burn if you stayed in bed all day.

    Your daily caloric needs (the calories you burn in a normal day without exercise) are calculated by multiplying your BMR times your activity level using the following:
    Harris Benedict Formula

    To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:

    If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
    If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
    If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
    If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
    If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9
    http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

    The key is to understand those rates. For me I work on a computer all day and then either watch TV in the evening (not so much) or play darts (I used to be one of the top steel tip players in the US (Top 100) and No.1 in my region) which isn't exactly physically stressful after all....sure I cycle a lot (2-3 times a week) and walk nearly every day but that's extra. So I use sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2 to arrive at my daily caloric needs.

    But that's not the end all be all because it doesn't tell you what you need to make that up.

    I used to body build (long long ago) and doing so taught me that protein is VERY important when considering weight loss or muscle gain. Weight is really not relevant so much to a body builder or person interested in fitness because muscle weighs a lot more then fat. For example when I was a sgt in the Army (I was a Marine who later went Army) I weighed in at 232 lbs. I had to be taped every 6 months because I was 'overweight' but I laughed at that and my 1st hated it. Why? I benched 350lbs and had a 32inch waist that's why. I wasn't fat, in fact I was incredibly fit. On the other hand I'm now 234 and I have a 39.5" waist and I'm getting fit but I'm definitely NOT slim and trim! lol

    So what's the point? Start with defining your real intention: at 124 lbs you're not overweight so what's the goal and why? Be honest. If it's just body fat you want to lose and not 'weight' specifically then perhaps you should concentrate on eating your daily caloric needs, balancing the foods you eat and hitting the gym. After all, replacing body fat with muscle will make you look better and gain weight rather than lose wait -- oh and women CANNOT end up looking like men without steroids so no worries there.

    So, here's the balance I use (and it's NOT for everyone or perfect): 55% carbs (yes carbs BUT not WHOLE GRAINS), 25% protein (I supplement my meals with protein shakes using water and powder only) and 20% fats (try to get these with olive oil and other natural sources.

    YOU must have dietary fiber and women need 25 grams a day so when working on a diet (what you eat daily is a diet) make sure you include 25 grams of dietary fiber (or close to it depending on what you eat in calories per day).

    Sodium: MFP sets sodium at 2500mgs per day -- that's ok for young people and those who don't have heart problems, high BP etc. Make sure it stays there or lower unless you know how to balance it with the other electrolytes (you can have more sodium if you have the right balance).

    Stay away from 'white death' -- that's what we used to call things like white bread, mayo, salad dressing, potatoes, white rice etc -- anything processed really (mac-n-cheese is a no no).

    AND if you workout a lot, increase the protein before increasing the carbs if you can. You could go to 50/30/20 for example.

    FAT's are extremely important so don't cut them out either! Just get good fats.

    Lastly, don't overdue the workouts or stress too much. At 124lbs the key is to find good foods to eat and be active, the body will take care of itself.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    For example try this: input walking at 4mph for 1 hour (4 miles) and see how many calories it gives you, then input walking 4 mph for 50 minutes (4 miles but a little faster so you had to burn more calories) and see what it gives you....hint: it will be less even though you had to be walking faster and burning more if you walked 4 miles in 50 minutes rather then 60.

    Well of course that will fail. The formula for walking 4mph is different than walking faster than 4mph, which 4 miles in 50 is.

    Use this and you'll see that MFP is using the same thing, but they only have so many speeds in the database, and they are correct, if you happen to be doing that speed.
    But you have to pick the right one, or adjust accordingly.
    Also, it has to be flat for MFP database entries.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
  • EmmaKarney
    EmmaKarney Posts: 690 Member
    You are correct...however, being at your current weight, you shouldn't be so restrictive in your calorie intake. The leaner you are, the more muscle you burn with a big calorie deficit. Also, your body will not respond according to the math when you're at a healthy weight. Really, you should just eat a maintenance level of calories and work on body composition...i.e. hit the weight room. Your weight is just fine for your height.


    Will I see any results if I stick to what I'm doing? (1,200 cal per day)
    At first when I got MFP I set it to lose .5 lbs per week, and it gave me a net cal of 1,440 cal per day. Then I changed it to 1 lb per week and it gave me a net cal of 1,200.
    Should I have gone with a net cal of 1,440?

    You'd be much better off with the 1440.

    I'm 5ft 6 also and weigh 129 - I'm almost at my goal of 125 and my net calorie goal is 1450. I often go up to 100 over this and I am still losing weight at a very slow but consistent pace.
  • katscoots
    katscoots Posts: 255 Member
    You do understand the net calories, and you will probably eventually see results, but you'll be losing muscle instead of fat. If you want better definition, you need to lift weights and shape your body - not starve yourself to lose pounds. Talk to a nutritionist or a doctor about body fat composition because you already look very thin and your weight/height ratio puts you at a BMI that is very close to underweight. If you eat too little and your body is starving, you will not be healthy and will lose muscle, as I stated before.
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    You'd go to the gym to condition your body and help it build muscle... Also it means you can enjoy more food that day and still lowe weight so long as you nettle same. You could use it as additional deficit, Butler you. Current weight/size, you probably shouldn't bother "storing" them and just eat the calories back to help give your bod. Adequate nutrition to change body composition.
  • erikkmcvay
    erikkmcvay Posts: 238 Member


    Well of course that will fail. The formula for walking 4mph is different than walking faster than 4mph, which 4 miles in 50 is.

    Use this and you'll see that MFP is using the same thing, but they only have so many speeds in the database, and they are correct, if you happen to be doing that speed.
    But you have to pick the right one, or adjust accordingly.
    Also, it has to be flat for MFP database entries.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    All calculators are not created equal but I don't agree with MFP's at all. Look at them more closely and you will note that they are generic. Example is that they have 3mph, 3.5mph and 4mph and then you choose minutes at that pace.

    Well 50 minutes at 4mph is quite a bit different then 50 minutes at 3.75mph so if you round down you're wrong and if you round up you are wrong. Heck, even at 4mph if you walk around town (which is what I do) then it most likely will be wrong (it always is for me). I've done many different tests and calculators and found that MFP's always yields a low result. Using mapmyrides appears far more accurate so I've done that and manually put the cals burned into MFP's for my daily log.....45 pounds light and I think it's working.

    Now, perhaps if you were on a treadmill that is flat (no grade) etc then perhaps it would be fine and there is nothing wrong with using a low number either (after all, if you burned 500 cals but recorded only 400 then you are more likely to not overeat).

    Another thing to note is that averages aren't very good either. For example, if you ride at 14mph around town but have to stop at intersection and then take off and speed back up and record an average of 13mph because of it then what you burned in energy will be greater then predicted by an average calculator because it takes more energy to start and stop repeatedly (this is why hybrid cars do so well by the way). It's more difficult to maintain a higher rate of average speed when you are constantly stopping and starting so if mapmyride tells you that you burned 1000 calories riding 13 miles at 13 miles per hour (just an example, not real numbers) then it's more likely you actually burned more based on the above).

    None of that matters though because all that really matters is that you see results in the end :)
  • dowhatsbestforyourself
    dowhatsbestforyourself Posts: 3 Member
    The reason that the metabolic rate slows with prolonged dieting of less than 1,200 calories per day is a chain reaction of physiologic responses to the stress associated with such a restricted diet. Your body initially adapts to the stress of low caloric intake by engaging the "fight or flight" stress response, which has several negative consequences, despite you seeing lower numbers on the scale. The "fight or flight" response stimulates the breakdown of muscle in order to supply the body with enough fuel (glucose) to maintain the blood sugar levels in the absence of sufficient dietary calories. This "fight or flight" stress response will eventually wear out, thus slowing the metabolic rate to compensate for what the body perceives as starvation.
    Some studies referenced at LiveStrong.com indicate that long-term dieting and calorie restriction can lower your metabolism by up to 40 percent and can take up to one year to correct.
  • erikkmcvay
    erikkmcvay Posts: 238 Member
    The reason that the metabolic rate slows with prolonged dieting of less than 1,200 calories per day is a chain reaction of physiologic responses to the stress associated with such a restricted diet. Your body initially adapts to the stress of low caloric intake by engaging the "fight or flight" stress response, which has several negative consequences, despite you seeing lower numbers on the scale. The "fight or flight" response stimulates the breakdown of muscle in order to supply the body with enough fuel (glucose) to maintain the blood sugar levels in the absence of sufficient dietary calories. This "fight or flight" stress response will eventually wear out, thus slowing the metabolic rate to compensate for what the body perceives as starvation.
    Some studies referenced at LiveStrong.com indicate that long-term dieting and calorie restriction can lower your metabolism by up to 40 percent and can take up to one year to correct.

    This is one of the reasons I support eating your exercise calories :) If you do a lot of cardio I think it's quite safe and even agreeable to crank up the calories to match or closely match as the body then thinks "yay! I'm not starving!"

    When I was body building we used to do a 10% under/over diet to lose bodyfat. What we'd do is drop our daily intake by 10% below needs for 3 days and then crank it up to 10% over for one day. This seemed to keep the metabolic rate speeding along nicely.

    I don't do that now, however, but I also don't eat the lower amounts some try to eat -- for me my target on non cardio days is 1450 cals but I do cardio 5+ days a week so typically eat closer to 2000 a day. This way I lose weight without going insane!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    All calculators are not created equal but I don't agree with MFP's at all. Look at them more closely and you will note that they are generic. Example is that they have 3mph, 3.5mph and 4mph and then you choose minutes at that pace.

    Well 50 minutes at 4mph is quite a bit different then 50 minutes at 3.75mph so if you round down you're wrong and if you round up you are wrong. Heck, even at 4mph if you walk around town (which is what I do) then it most likely will be wrong (it always is for me). I've done many different tests and calculators and found that MFP's always yields a low result. Using mapmyrides appears far more accurate so I've done that and manually put the cals burned into MFP's for my daily log.....45 pounds light and I think it's working.

    Now, perhaps if you were on a treadmill that is flat (no grade) etc then perhaps it would be fine and there is nothing wrong with using a low number either (after all, if you burned 500 cals but recorded only 400 then you are more likely to not overeat).

    Another thing to note is that averages aren't very good either. For example, if you ride at 14mph around town but have to stop at intersection and then take off and speed back up and record an average of 13mph because of it then what you burned in energy will be greater then predicted by an average calculator because it takes more energy to start and stop repeatedly (this is why hybrid cars do so well by the way). It's more difficult to maintain a higher rate of average speed when you are constantly stopping and starting so if mapmyride tells you that you burned 1000 calories riding 13 miles at 13 miles per hour (just an example, not real numbers) then it's more likely you actually burned more based on the above).

    None of that matters though because all that really matters is that you see results in the end :)

    Oh yeah, riding is really bad estimates off calc's. Well, unless you have a long ride, and equal wind and hills to balance out.
    But short rides with stops and hills and wind is so bad, especially with database entries.

    Was that 18 mph avg because I wasn't peddling downhill the whole way nice and easy, or in pace line with only mere minutes actually pulling, otherwise drafting.
    Was that 14 mph avg because of total uphill, or in to headwind, ect.

    You are correct at rounding on the walking speeds, and it must be consistent. It's great for treadmill, if you limit yourself to those paces available. Otherwise, that other calc is more accurate since you can include incline.

Categories