Desperately Seeking Advice About Net Calories!!!

Options
Go4it1985
Go4it1985 Posts: 169 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hi All,
I THOUGHT I knew what I was doing but now I've started incorporating exercise, I have a MFP friend whose telling me my net carbs are waaay too low. I REALLY don't want to damage my metabolism by not eating enough so I hope you can assist...

Firstly I am confused about net calories. Yes, I know they are the leftover calories at the end of the day and they include the exercise calories gained..

1.) But the question is should my Net Calories be at a minimum the BMR score or TDEE score??

So here are my numbers. I'm am 100kg or 220lbs and trying to ensure a minimum of 1/2kg or 1lb weight loss per week. If I could get higher that would be a bonus.

BMR scores = 1745, 1798, 1792. I am using 1792 as it is the most conservative for BMR.

TDEE scores = 2093, 2148, 2150. I am using 2148 as it is the "average/median" score for TDEE

So deficit of 3500 calories to create that 1/2kg weight loss.

BMR - 1792-500 = 1292 maximum eating calories

TDEE - 2150-500 = 1650 maximum eating calories


So I have set my calorie limit at 1500 calories but tend to be eating between 1300 - 1500.


However, I have been exercising the last couple of days so have burned off around 400-500 calories per session.

My MFP friend is telling me I need to be eating more (i.e. 1300 or 1500 should be my NET Calorie Goal).

Is she right? Am I not giving my body enough fuel?

Then what is the point of my exercise if I'm eating at the same level (1300 calories)? How then does someone create a 7000 calorie deficit to create a 1kg weight loss per week???

I appreciate your answers (sooo confused!)

THANK YOU. By the way my diary is open if you would like to see.

Replies

  • CipherZero
    CipherZero Posts: 1,418 Member
    Options
    If you're using MFP's food tracker, you want your NET calories to maintain weight loss at an acceptable speed. The problem with losing weight too fast isn't so much starvation mode (which doesn't exist until you get to ultra-low calorie restrictions anyway) but getting base nutrition and maintainability in your diet.

    So, if MFP claims you need 1500 calories a day to lose a pound a week, and you burn 600 calories with exercise in a day, you can eat 2100 calories that day.

    It's worked for me.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    The thing is, if you're aiming for 1 lb loss a week, you need a deficit of 500 calories. But if you exercise for 500 more, your deficit will be 1000 calories. At some point it's just too much.

    If you use what MFP tells you, you're supposed to enter your exercise and eat back those calories - it can be tricky though, as you pretty much need a heart rate monitor to know how many calories you burn. But the 500 calorie deficit is included when you set up your goal, so to maintain that deficit you have to eat the exercise calories back. Yes, you can wonder what's the point, but it's good for you, and it lets you eat more, so it's really worth it to exercise (plus it can prevent muscle loss). In the end, your net calories should be what your basic MFP goal is.

    Another option is to do TDEE-20% (I use http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/). You just enter everything and eat what it tells you at a 20% deficit, without having to worry about entering exercise calories as it's included in the calculation. It's what I've been doing pretty much.

    For what it's worth, I was 96 kg when I started, and I've been eating pretty much 1600-1700 the whole time. I wasn't very active at first but increased it progressively. Now I'm somewhere between lightly and moderately active I guess. I'm 35, so if you're younger you could probably eat more too, depending on how much you work out. I've lost 62 lbs in 10 months this way.
  • bacitracin
    bacitracin Posts: 921 Member
    Options
    You already set up the deficit. Now you're just trying to run on empty.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Based on your weight, IMO you are considerably over-estimating your BMR and TDEE. That weight for an average height female is going to be 50% body fat, possibly more. That leads to a BMR of around 1400, not the nearly 1800 you are using.

    It is also extremely unlikely you are burning 500 calories per session of exercise, as that requires a reasonable level of fitness. For comparison, a person at 220 pounds needs to run nearly 4 miles to burn 500 net calories. If you can't run 4 miles in the 45 minutes (or whatever) of your exercise session, you are almost certainly burning far fewer calories than you think. At a minimum, I would cut your estimate in half.

    So....BMR of 1400, sedentary TDEE of 1750, if you exercise 3 times a week, add 100 calories/day to that, so call it 1850 TDEE.

    Your 20% deficit number is then 1480 calories/day, leaving you a deficit of right around 400 calories/day.
  • Fiveling
    Fiveling Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    If you're doing the TDEE method, then it should have incorporated your exercise when calculating your TDEE, therefore it is your /total/ calories you're looking at.

    For example, for me, I (aim to) exercise 6 times a week (burning around 300 cal a time). Entering this and weight/height/age/fat % into the calculator (http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/) gives me an average daily expenditure of 2234 - that is, including my exercise, on average I should burn that many calories a day. I took 500 away from that, and aim to eat 1700 a day /total/ regardless of the exercise I did that particular day. In two weeks I've lost 0.7kg - 1.5 lbs - and I think the only reason that wasn't quite 2lbs was because I missed out a few exercise sessions.

    So it depends on the method you're using. The TDEE method has you eat around the same calories every day, regardless of that particular day's exercise. The MFP method has the amount you eat per day vary dependent on the exercise you do.

    Does that make sense? I know it confused me at first.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    You are misunderstanding what BMR is.
  • jmsutton3
    jmsutton3 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Technically, MFP uses a TDEE method too don't they? At least when I put in sedentary lifestyle, it gives me a daily calorie burn well over my BMR. It's clearly multiplying BMR by something. It's just also equally clearly a different formula than some other TDEE calculators
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    Technically, MFP uses a TDEE method too don't they? At least when I put in sedentary lifestyle, it gives me a daily calorie burn well over my BMR. It's clearly multiplying BMR by something. It's just also equally clearly a different formula than some other TDEE calculators

    MFP uses a NEAT calculator, Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is the energy expended for everything we do that is not sleeping, eating or sports-like exercise.

    This is why, when you exercise, it adds more calories for you to eat. It doesn't include exercise in its calculation. You maintain your same calorie deficit.

    Example:

    1200 (the amount MFP tells you to eat)
    -300 (amount you burned in exercise)
    +300 (more food you ate for the exercise)
    =1200 (you still maintained the amount of deficit needed to lose x pounds per week)
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    You are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

    If you are doing TDEE method, then forget "net" calories. Your TDEE goal should be the amount of calories you consume everyday and it stays the same.

    If you are following MFP, then your "net" calories should be the same as your MFP goal is. So if MPF gives you 1400, you eat 1400. If you exercise and burn 300 you eat 1400 plus the 300. That gives you 1700 calories with a net of 1400.

    BMR is a nice to know, a nice guideline to keep your numbers above, but either of the above two methods are easier.

    Edited to add - most people don't even consider net carbs. Unless you are following a low carb diet that has your track them, I don't see the relevence.
  • Collier78
    Collier78 Posts: 811 Member
    Options
    .

    It is also extremely unlikely you are burning 500 calories per session of exercise, as that requires a reasonable level of fitness. For comparison, a person at 220 pounds needs to run nearly 4 miles to burn 500 net calories. If you can't run 4 miles in the 45 minutes (or whatever) of your exercise session, you are almost certainly burning far fewer calories than you think. At a minimum, I would cut your estimate in half.

    I'm slightly confused by where you came up with this. I'm a 260lb female who is 5'10" and I can run for 45 minutes straight (thanks to C25K training) with my HRM I burn on average 500-550 calories running for 45-50 minutes and I'm slow enough that I only make it about 3.5 miles...what does my distance have to do with my burn??
  • acogg
    acogg Posts: 1,870 Member
    Options
    The calories in and the calories burned are only estimates. You will need to find the right balance for your goals. That can take time and there is no one answer that fits everyone. I have an MFP friend who is wheelchair bound, but she can swim regularly. She has been eating 1000 calories a day for a year now. So far her metabolism is right on track. Try to stay within a sustainable level of calorie deficit is the best advice I can give. Patience and time are key.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Then what is the point of my exercise if I'm eating at the same level (1300 calories)? How then does someone create a 7000 calorie deficit to create a 1kg weight loss per week???

    That 1300 calorie level is already at a deficit.

    If 1300 calories is your goal that MFP gives you for 2lbs a week, that already including the -1000 calories a day you need to take off. That means your body needs 2300 calories, but you are only feeding it 1300. By exercising, you are making a larger deficit. In order to maintain your "reasonable" deficit (which we do for many reasons), you eat those calories back, keeping your deficit around -1000.
    *2lbs a week, or -1000 calories a day is often too aggressive a goal for many people. This is assuming it is an appropriate goal for you.
  • Sjenny5891
    Sjenny5891 Posts: 717 Member
    Options
    If you are eating 1500, you already have a deficit. You need to eat back your exercise calories.

    When I started I weighed 190lb. Going with a 2lb a week loss MFP put me on 1200 calories a day. You add 500 calories a day for breastfeeding then the 500 a day for exercise ( I walked the baby a LOT) I was eating around 2100 calories a day but still losing 2lb a week.
  • Go4it1985
    Go4it1985 Posts: 169 Member
    Options
    Thank You All for Your Responses and Advice. I will definitely take it all into account. Sorry I wasn't back sooner to check (I was not on MFP yesterday due to distressing news).
  • guroprincess
    guroprincess Posts: 140
    Options
    Your BMR has little to do with your deficit. It's just what you'd need to eat if you were comatose. (I agree with someone else on this thread who says your actual BMR probably isn't 1800.)

    For 1lb loss per week, you should probably be netting around 1650 calories per day.

    If you eat 1650 calories, then do 650 calories worth of exercise, your MFP net would be 1000. No woman is meant to net under 1200 calories per day as a general rule. So in this situation, you'd have to eat another 200 calories to be at the absolute minimum recommended.

    If you're using the TDEE method, it takes into account your exercise level already (sedentary, lightly active, etc.) So just set your calories and focus on hitting those without paying attention to eating back your exercise calories like MFP says.

    If you're using the MFP method, you should really be eating back your exercise calories.

    I use the TDEE method (-25% for me since I'm obese). I only focus on hitting around the number it gave me and don't bother with the "extra" calories MFP gives me because estimated burns on MFP are over-exaggerated and even with a HRM it's damn near impossible to tell exactly what you burned.

    ETA: It's true that if your only focus is weight loss, then you can do that without exercising at all. But if you're focusing on all around fitness, you really want a good exercise program. It helps immensely with cardiovascular health, oxygen use, resting heart rate, blood pressure, metabolism, strength, bone density, and all of that fun stuff.
  • ilovefitness36
    ilovefitness36 Posts: 31
    Options
    I'm confused with this as well.

    I'll first start off by giving you my stats.

    Current weight: 130lbs
    5"2', 38 year old FEMALE
    Goal weight 115. (Where I used to be)
    Current daily caloric intake 1200.

    Now, before you start by saying, "I'm eating too little", well unfortunately for me, when I was eating 1500 cals per day, I was GAINING WEIGHT, regardless of how much I worked out. I'm not sure how much of it was muscle, because my measurements were not going down. They were staying the same!!

    I do sled training and typically burn anywhere from 400-500 calories per workout and that's using a Polar HRM!

    Now - MY understanding of how to lose a pound, is for your net calories to be in a DEFICIT. So, I say I eat 1200 per day. My understanding is to burn all those calories off so that my NET calories are -XXXX whatever number. (MINUS) the number should be in RED.

    I know it doesn't make sense to me, but this is why I question it:

    My neice - she's 21, and weighs considerably more than I do, but she can burn anywhere from 1200-1500 on LEVEL 15 on an eliptical for 1 hour. She's lost 30lbs in the course of a few months. I know she weighs more, so she can BURN MORE, but COME ON!! I can't burn that much in 1 hour!! Maybe 3 hours, but who works out for 3 hours!!!

    Am I on the right track of how this works? Please steer me in the right direction. Sometimes I hear NOT to eat back your excercise calories and sometimes I hear I should. Because there are so many different things being said, it's left me confused.

    Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, I believe the 'starvation mode' is a myth.

    Feedback is appreciated.

    Thanks.

Categories