Calorie Counting 101
Replies
-
With relation to this topic AND calories burned by exercise:
I noticed that this app focuses on NET calories (I.e calories eaten minus calories burned through exercise). I am not sure whether to go by the total amount of calories eaten or the net calories.... I am trying to stick to 1100 cals a day, and 30min to 60mins brisk walking. When I add the exercise this app subtracts calories (often 500 to 700) off my actual intake then tells me I haven't eaten enough.
Do I follow total calories or net calories?0 -
I don't bother worrying about all the number. I just pick a reasonable number, say 10 calories per lb you weigh, and eat that number every day. If after a few weeks I've lost no weight, I decrease the number. Repeat this process until you are losing weight at a reasonable pace. 1100 calories is really going to be quite low for all but the most petite women. Unless you are around 5'1 or less and working on your last 10 lbs, 1100 calories is probably too low.kalotinagatis wrote: »With relation to this topic AND calories burned by exercise:
I noticed that this app focuses on NET calories (I.e calories eaten minus calories burned through exercise). I am not sure whether to go by the total amount of calories eaten or the net calories.... I am trying to stick to 1100 cals a day, and 30min to 60mins brisk walking. When I add the exercise this app subtracts calories (often 500 to 700) off my actual intake then tells me I haven't eaten enough.
Do I follow total calories or net calories?0 -
I don't bother worrying about all the number. I just pick a reasonable number, say 10 calories per lb you weigh, and eat that number every day. If after a few weeks I've lost no weight, I decrease the number. Repeat this process until you are losing weight at a reasonable pace. 1100 calories is really going to be quite low for all but the most petite women. Unless you are around 5'1 or less and working on your last 10 lbs, 1100 calories is probably too low.kalotinagatis wrote: »With relation to this topic AND calories burned by exercise:
I noticed that this app focuses on NET calories (I.e calories eaten minus calories burned through exercise). I am not sure whether to go by the total amount of calories eaten or the net calories.... I am trying to stick to 1100 cals a day, and 30min to 60mins brisk walking. When I add the exercise this app subtracts calories (often 500 to 700) off my actual intake then tells me I haven't eaten enough.
Do I follow total calories or net calories?
0 -
So is it true that you need to do at least 30 minutes straight exercise before u get a real calorie burn?0
-
I am so confused on how this works. my total calorie intake is 1200 but if i eat 1600 and burn 400 i'm still at my goal of 1200 right? will I still lose weight if i meet my goal of 1200 everyday as long as i burn off to make it 1200? for example today cal goal is 1200. i ate 1900 but burned off 900 in exercise. so net is 1000. thats good right? eventually i will lose weight right? or do i ignore the burn part and just focus on the calories and make sure i'm not eating more than 1200 a day?0
-
No. Your body burns calories all day every day. The amount of time you do cardio effects how much calories you burn, but you are always burning them.atroanirbas wrote: »So is it true that you need to do at least 30 minutes straight exercise before u get a real calorie burn?
see my previous comment about just picking a reasonable number and seeing what happens, then adjusting based on results.aurora1111616 wrote: »I am so confused on how this works. my total calorie intake is 1200 but if i eat 1600 and burn 400 i'm still at my goal of 1200 right? will I still lose weight if i meet my goal of 1200 everyday as long as i burn off to make it 1200? for example today cal goal is 1200. i ate 1900 but burned off 900 in exercise. so net is 1000. thats good right? eventually i will lose weight right? or do i ignore the burn part and just focus on the calories and make sure i'm not eating more than 1200 a day?
0 -
No. Your body burns calories all day every day. The amount of time you do cardio effects how much calories you burn, but you are always burning them.atroanirbas wrote: »So is it true that you need to do at least 30 minutes straight exercise before u get a real calorie burn?
see my previous comment about just picking a reasonable number and seeing what happens, then adjusting based on results.aurora1111616 wrote: »I am so confused on how this works. my total calorie intake is 1200 but if i eat 1600 and burn 400 i'm still at my goal of 1200 right? will I still lose weight if i meet my goal of 1200 everyday as long as i burn off to make it 1200? for example today cal goal is 1200. i ate 1900 but burned off 900 in exercise. so net is 1000. thats good right? eventually i will lose weight right? or do i ignore the burn part and just focus on the calories and make sure i'm not eating more than 1200 a day?
But what we are trying to work out is do we go by TOTAL calories we set to eat daily, or the NET calories (I.e. total food eaten (eg 1100) minus exercise (eg 500) = which means I habe only reallt eaten net calories of 600 that day).
Sorry if I keep confusing people.
0 -
I saw a food scale at a thrift store the other day. I almost purchased it for 45 cents. I am going back to get it, but my hubby is going to bring something to weigh and will weigh it with the weigh bowl on it set to 0. Although I have been pretty close because I did lose 2 lbs in the last 4 days (so I think), but I would like to be more accurate. I could also be cheating myself out of calories I could have. I generally round up just to be sure. Great topic and very helpful.0
-
kalotinagatis wrote: »
No. Your body burns calories all day every day. The amount of time you do cardio effects how much calories you burn, but you are always burning them.atroanirbas wrote: »So is it true that you need to do at least 30 minutes straight exercise before u get a real calorie burn?
see my previous comment about just picking a reasonable number and seeing what happens, then adjusting based on results.aurora1111616 wrote: »I am so confused on how this works. my total calorie intake is 1200 but if i eat 1600 and burn 400 i'm still at my goal of 1200 right? will I still lose weight if i meet my goal of 1200 everyday as long as i burn off to make it 1200? for example today cal goal is 1200. i ate 1900 but burned off 900 in exercise. so net is 1000. thats good right? eventually i will lose weight right? or do i ignore the burn part and just focus on the calories and make sure i'm not eating more than 1200 a day?
But what we are trying to work out is do we go by TOTAL calories we set to eat daily, or the NET calories (I.e. total food eaten (eg 1100) minus exercise (eg 500) = which means I habe only reallt eaten net calories of 600 that day).
Sorry if I keep confusing people.
I think it depends on which "method" you want to use. MFP expects you to eat (at least some of) your earned exercise calories back. Vismal is suggesting you just pick a reasonable calorie amount and stick to it, letting your activity determine how many calories you need a day and at what point you'll lose on a regular basis. This is pretty much the TDEE minus 15 or 20 percent method.
I think the downside to MFP's method is you may not select the correct activity level to begin with and/or you may overestimate your calories burned.
One way to adjust calories while still using the MFP method is to increase or decrease your activity level, depending on how you lose, or adjust the pounds you want to lose each week.
As an example, I'll give you my current situation. I've lost about 60 pounds and weigh just under 170. I am sedentary, maybe lightly active. If I chose sedentary and set the goal to lose 1 pound a week, MFP gives me a 1200 calorie allowance (I'm 64 btw so my calorie goal is a bit lower) which is really more like 1150 according to my Fitbit, but MFP won't set a calorie goal below 1200. BUT, if I change my activity level to lightly active and increase my pounds per week loss goal to 1.5, MFP STILL gives me 1200 as a daily calorie goal. So, its pretty easy to see that in order to see a weekly loss above 1/2 pound I need to eat around 1200 calories.
If I walk a mile a day I can eat a couple hundred calories, maybe a few hundred more and still lose. Its up to me to move enough to either get more to eat or lose more each week.
0 -
kalotinagatis wrote: »
No. Your body burns calories all day every day. The amount of time you do cardio effects how much calories you burn, but you are always burning them.atroanirbas wrote: »So is it true that you need to do at least 30 minutes straight exercise before u get a real calorie burn?
see my previous comment about just picking a reasonable number and seeing what happens, then adjusting based on results.aurora1111616 wrote: »I am so confused on how this works. my total calorie intake is 1200 but if i eat 1600 and burn 400 i'm still at my goal of 1200 right? will I still lose weight if i meet my goal of 1200 everyday as long as i burn off to make it 1200? for example today cal goal is 1200. i ate 1900 but burned off 900 in exercise. so net is 1000. thats good right? eventually i will lose weight right? or do i ignore the burn part and just focus on the calories and make sure i'm not eating more than 1200 a day?
But what we are trying to work out is do we go by TOTAL calories we set to eat daily, or the NET calories (I.e. total food eaten (eg 1100) minus exercise (eg 500) = which means I habe only reallt eaten net calories of 600 that day).
Sorry if I keep confusing people.
You just pick a number, and eat that number. That's it. You don't eat back exercise calories or deviate from the number at all. If your number is 1700, eat 1700 calories every day for a few weeks. If you lose weight, great! Keep eating 1700. If you do not, reduce to 1600 and repeat. If you get to the point where your number is low enough that you really should be losing weight and you aren't, reread the initial guide and make sure you are tracking accurately.kalotinagatis wrote: »
No. Your body burns calories all day every day. The amount of time you do cardio effects how much calories you burn, but you are always burning them.atroanirbas wrote: »So is it true that you need to do at least 30 minutes straight exercise before u get a real calorie burn?
see my previous comment about just picking a reasonable number and seeing what happens, then adjusting based on results.aurora1111616 wrote: »I am so confused on how this works. my total calorie intake is 1200 but if i eat 1600 and burn 400 i'm still at my goal of 1200 right? will I still lose weight if i meet my goal of 1200 everyday as long as i burn off to make it 1200? for example today cal goal is 1200. i ate 1900 but burned off 900 in exercise. so net is 1000. thats good right? eventually i will lose weight right? or do i ignore the burn part and just focus on the calories and make sure i'm not eating more than 1200 a day?
But what we are trying to work out is do we go by TOTAL calories we set to eat daily, or the NET calories (I.e. total food eaten (eg 1100) minus exercise (eg 500) = which means I habe only reallt eaten net calories of 600 that day).
Sorry if I keep confusing people.
0 -
Great post.....I totally agree with you in everything u have said!!0
-
This was so helpful! The condiment trick is genius. I do hope you could add exercise estimates eventually (if you're knowledgeable on that subject) because that's so hard to track. Would we maybe reverse the adding 10% like you did with the food and subtract 10% of the exercise calories? Definitely sticky this!
0 -
thanks for the helpful post .. needed the extra reminders0
-
Thank you so much for this info! I have been logging my food on MFP for over 40 days straight and I am losing...slowly...but I think getting a kitchen scale would really help. I have been on this journey for a long time now and finally have the right mindset to keep going forward. So any extra tip in the right direction helps. Thank you!0
-
Thank you!
Some of this seems so obvious and yet we all look over it so thank you for putting it out there and so simply
x0 -
I have been struggling with with my weight almost my whole life. . Love food... and you don't realize how small portions really are... good way to make sure calorie counts are accurate for me are packages that tell you the count of the item to the calories... like 5 pieces is 100 calories or 8 pieces is 50 calories... much easier to count out and stop and love the individual serving bags of nuts, crackers, etc... makes things easier0
-
You have to be careful doing that. Many times the packages lie. I have a snack I eat frequently, greek yogurt bites. The package states 1 serving is 9 bites or 40 grams. They are 190 calories per serving. When I weigh the bites out, 6 of them weigh 40 grams so eating 9 would about 285 calories. That's almost 100 calories off. Now that seems insignificant, but it really isn't. If I eat them 10 times in a month, that's 1000 calories. And that is just 1 single food. If I have a few other foods with similar discrepancies, then I've possible eaten away a sizable portion, if not all, of my caloric deficit. I'm glad you brought this up because it just shows how careful you must be with tracking calories, and why so many people think they are eating so little and not losing weight. 9 times out of 10, when you aren't losing weight, and your calories indicate you should be, you are eating too much. Most often it's because you don't even realize you are doing it!retailwizard1 wrote: »I have been struggling with with my weight almost my whole life. . Love food... and you don't realize how small portions really are... good way to make sure calorie counts are accurate for me are packages that tell you the count of the item to the calories... like 5 pieces is 100 calories or 8 pieces is 50 calories... much easier to count out and stop and love the individual serving bags of nuts, crackers, etc... makes things easier
0 -
The packages lie?!?!0
-
starsarai720 wrote: »The packages lie?!?!
Yep! I could've gone my whole life without knowing that :laugh:
0 -
starsarai720 wrote: »The packages lie?!?!
Yep! I could've gone my whole life without knowing that :laugh:
It explains SO MUCH!0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »starsarai720 wrote: »The packages lie?!?!
Well...the calories are accurate for the grams listed. Just not necessarily for the number of pieces. Another reason the scale is a lifesaver and brings me peace of mind.
Oh! Thank you for the clarification.0 -
Following thanks so much0
-
I am new at all this calorie counting and eating cleaner....so thanks for a great post! Helped alot!0
-
My bubble has been bursted... As a mom of 3 who works full time I'm really busy. I thought as long as I got something pre packaged I would be safe and not have to weigh it out :-(. I just started weighing out all my solid foods and I'm amazed and horrified that I have been over eating due to pure ignorance. Before this thread I had no idea you were only suppose to use measuring cups for liquids! My eyes have been opened so thank you.0
-
Great guide - thank you! I love your idea about how to weigh condiments. I don't actually weigh them myself at the moment, but if I'm going to be precise I'll know what to do. It would also work for lots of other things that come in a container, now that I think of it - butter, flour, pickles, cheese, yoghurt, you name it! I've been weighing things as they go into the bowl/pot/plate, but sometimes it's difficult to see the scale under the plate. It might often be easier to find out how much you've taken out of the original container. It's one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments!0
-
As a relative newcomer (only been doing this since December) this was great! I'm learning that self-education is half the battle when it comes to not only weight loss but also health and nutrition. Thanks so much for sharing!0
-
It's unfortunate that prepackaged products get away with this. I understand that there is going to be some variance, but some products are consistently 20% or more over what they say they should weigh. I also find that for every 1 product that actually weighs less then what the serving claims, there are about 20 that weigh more. The cynic in me says that this cannot be a coincidence.My bubble has been bursted... As a mom of 3 who works full time I'm really busy. I thought as long as I got something pre packaged I would be safe and not have to weigh it out :-(. I just started weighing out all my solid foods and I'm amazed and horrified that I have been over eating due to pure ignorance. Before this thread I had no idea you were only suppose to use measuring cups for liquids! My eyes have been opened so thank you.
I put containers on my scale almost as often as I put food on it. It's extremely convenient.Great guide - thank you! I love your idea about how to weigh condiments. I don't actually weigh them myself at the moment, but if I'm going to be precise I'll know what to do. It would also work for lots of other things that come in a container, now that I think of it - butter, flour, pickles, cheese, yoghurt, you name it! I've been weighing things as they go into the bowl/pot/plate, but sometimes it's difficult to see the scale under the plate. It might often be easier to find out how much you've taken out of the original container. It's one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments!
0 -
I've been calorie counting to the gram about a month now. It's very much a reeducation. Where before a plate of nachos is now enough to serve 8 people; is eye opening. Mind you I know there is no way I could eat one serving and be satisfied so I use 2 servings and just keep counting the calories.
I may be approaching this the wrong way but where does Macros and minimum amount protein and fiber come in. Where does Fat,carbs,protien, salt come in the calorie counting view. How does it matter?
0 -
When I am searching for foods, many times the food will only have a choice of weighing per ounce. From the comments on here, I realize I should be using grams, so what do you do when there is only an ounce choice in the food search results. Also, sometimes the grams say 100 grams (rather than 1 gram), so then do you just do the math and enter something like .25 in the serving size? Still trying to get in the groove of this, but love it so far.0
-
When I am searching for foods, many times the food will only have a choice of weighing per ounce. From the comments on here, I realize I should be using grams, so what do you do when there is only an ounce choice in the food search results. Also, sometimes the grams say 100 grams (rather than 1 gram), so then do you just do the math and enter something like .25 in the serving size? Still trying to get in the groove of this, but love it so far.
1 ounce=28 grams. Most food scales will allow you to weigh in both (grams is preferred because of tighter accuracy/ease of use throughout most of the world). And yes. If you have something that weighs 25 grams, enter .25 servings.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions