Total calories consumed vs net calories: which should I be basing my diet off of?

Options
EllieBellie1989
EllieBellie1989 Posts: 4 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi I'm ellie and I'm trying to lose some weight (not much, like 15 lbs), and get more toned. I try to avoid carbs and try to get a lot of protein so I can build muscle while losing fat. One of the reasons I need to diet is because I had an issue with overeating/drinking that backfired and now I have stomach troubles all the time and I get nauseous/ulcers/reflux a lot. Don't worry, my doctors know about this.

I work out about every other day, doing weights and cardio. I log my exercise and my foods on here. I know in order to lose weight healthily, I need to avoid falling under 1200 calories as much as possible. Most days I can eat more than that without getting nauseous. But when I work out, I notice my "net calories" (calories eaten - calories burned from exercise) sometimes is quite a bit below 1200. Like today I think it's 973 or something.

Should I be eating more? Or exercising less? I mean, should my "net calories" be over 1200, or should I only worry about actual calories eaten?

Replies

  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    If you're logging accurately your net should be at least 1200.
  • EllieBellie1989
    EllieBellie1989 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Ok
    So I should definitely be eating more calories to make up for the ones I've lost while exercising.
  • EllieBellie1989
    EllieBellie1989 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    My friend suggests eating more jerry lol
  • richardgavel
    richardgavel Posts: 1,001 Member
    Options
    EllieBellie1989 wrote: »
    Ok
    So I should definitely be eating more calories to make up for the ones I've lost while exercising.

    As someone on the other side of that idea, I do not eat more calories to make up for exercise. I still shoot for the original "non-exercise" count each day (though I don't beat myself up if I go over because of the exercise). And I have plenty of energy for exercise (4-7 miles runs or 1500-2500 yd swims or time on bicycle). But base your decision on hunger or energy levels. If your body is telling you to eat more to compensate, then eat more.
  • MrsJBro
    MrsJBro Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    Calculate your Basal Metobolic Rate (BMR). THAT is the number of calories personalized to you that you should not go under. Your BMR is the amount of calories your body needs just to survive, coma style. It's the amount of calories you need to feed your organs and use that big ol brain of yours. You will still lose weight netting your BMR value. You will also lose weight going under the BMR, but that is when your body goes into starvation mode (not good). The body starts breaking down more protein (muscle) to use as fuel, this reducing your metabolism to compensate for the drastic reduction in calories.

    There are lots of BMR calculators online.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    MrsJBro wrote: »
    Calculate your Basal Metobolic Rate (BMR). THAT is the number of calories personalized to you that you should not go under. Your BMR is the amount of calories your body needs just to survive, coma style. It's the amount of calories you need to feed your organs and use that big ol brain of yours. You will still lose weight netting your BMR value. You will also lose weight going under the BMR, but that is when your body goes into starvation mode (not good). The body starts breaking down more protein (muscle) to use as fuel, this reducing your metabolism to compensate for the drastic reduction in calories.

    There are lots of BMR calculators online.

    Starvation mode doesn't work like that. My net is about 1300 and my BMR is 1600. I've always lost fine.
  • WendyLaubach
    WendyLaubach Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    FWIW, I ignore net calories completely and focus on staying within my usual calorie range. If I've worked really hard one day and am feeling unusually hungry, I might supplement with a snack in the 100-150 calorie range. I treat it like an Advil: apply a small amount of food and see if I don't feel better in 30 minutes. Since my exercise is pretty steady, I don't have too many upswings and downswings in hunger or need.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    EllieBellie1989 wrote: »
    Ok
    So I should definitely be eating more calories to make up for the ones I've lost while exercising.

    Absolutely, if you have a low calorie goal like you do, and especially if your goal is more to recomp (lose fat and add muscle while staying around the same weight to improve overall appearance). MFP's method is to give a calorie goal based on no exercise and to eat back exercise, although you need to be somewhat conservative in estimating those calories (I usually cut them down some).

    Another alternative is to use a calculator to get your TDEE including your exercise and then cut 20% (or a lower number) off of that. If you did that you would not eat back exercise, but it would be a higher number to start with.

    You also need to be eating close to maintenance to gain muscle -- it's not going to happen on 1200. So that's another reason to eat back exercise calories (or use the TDEE approach plus no more than a 10% cut) if your goal is more to recomp.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    malibu927 wrote: »
    MrsJBro wrote: »
    Calculate your Basal Metobolic Rate (BMR). THAT is the number of calories personalized to you that you should not go under. Your BMR is the amount of calories your body needs just to survive, coma style. It's the amount of calories you need to feed your organs and use that big ol brain of yours. You will still lose weight netting your BMR value. You will also lose weight going under the BMR, but that is when your body goes into starvation mode (not good). The body starts breaking down more protein (muscle) to use as fuel, this reducing your metabolism to compensate for the drastic reduction in calories.

    There are lots of BMR calculators online.

    Starvation mode doesn't work like that. My net is about 1300 and my BMR is 1600. I've always lost fine.

    Yeah, BMR is pretty meaningless. It's just an estimate of the amount you'd need to maintain weight if you were totally inactive. (Your body doesn't know if you are above or below it.) What's important is actual maintenance and of course one wants to eat below that if one is trying to lose.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    MrsJBro wrote: »
    Calculate your Basal Metobolic Rate (BMR). THAT is the number of calories personalized to you that you should not go under. Your BMR is the amount of calories your body needs just to survive, coma style. It's the amount of calories you need to feed your organs and use that big ol brain of yours. You will still lose weight netting your BMR value. You will also lose weight going under the BMR, but that is when your body goes into starvation mode (not good). The body starts breaking down more protein (muscle) to use as fuel, this reducing your metabolism to compensate for the drastic reduction in calories.

    There are lots of BMR calculators online.

    BMR is a useless number except as a starting point to calculate TDEE. It doesn't matter if you eat above or below it. TDEE (BMR + calories used by regular daily activity + purposeful exercise), on the other hand, is the most important number. You need to eat that to maintain, below it to lose, and above it to maintain. NEAT (BMR + calories used in daily activity) is another important number, and the one MFP uses. If you are using this number, you need to eat back your exercise calories or else you will have too much of a deficit and can easily lose lean body mass.

  • shrcpr
    shrcpr Posts: 885 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    Hi, Ellie. As you can see, this question has as many answers as people answering! :) I think this is one of those areas where you just have to figure out what works for you. I typically eat back a portion of my exercise calories so that I'm not hungry or feeling worn out.
    richardgavel wrote: »
    As someone on the other side of that idea, I do not eat more calories to make up for exercise. I still shoot for the original "non-exercise" count each day (though I don't beat myself up if I go over because of the exercise). And I have plenty of energy for exercise (4-7 miles runs or 1500-2500 yd swims or time on bicycle). But base your decision on hunger or energy levels. If your body is telling you to eat more to compensate, then eat more.

    +1 on the bold part.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    Just to add - MFP calorie goals assume you will eat back your exercise calories. If you tell MFP you want to lose 1 lb per week, the goal it gives you is without exercise. It assumes you will eat back your exercise calories. Obviously everyone has to figure out what works best for them, but you should remember that when deciding.

    Regardless, since preserving or even building muscle is one of your goals, you should eat as much as you can while still hitting your weight loss goals, and you should net at least 1,200. Good luck!
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    1200 is MFP's default minimum, so unless you are older or very petite then it is already a low number for you.

    If you want to keep more lean muscle while losing weight (gaining muscle at a deficit highly unlikely)....then eat more and lose a bit slower.

    TDEE with exercise included, then take a percentage off is another approach.
  • Working2BLean
    Working2BLean Posts: 386 Member
    Options
    MFP calorie burns are wildly exaggerated

    I had MFP give 1628 for an hour hard bike ride this morning. My bike mounted Garmin Edge 500 said 608. The new VivoActive I got on Black Friday ported automatically into MFP as set up to do, at 568 calories burned

    MFP was triple!!

    Be very careful eating back the calories MFP gives you
  • EllieBellie1989
    EllieBellie1989 Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    So I've decided after working out to buy a protein drink to help add on a bit to my calories. The one I have had very little sugar or fat and has 50 g protein and lots of vitamins. As far as hunger or energy go, I really don't get terribly hungry anymore now that I've cut out sugary foods and eat more lean proteins. And since I've begun working out again my energy levels are much higher. Thanks for all of your guys help. Is there any other advice you'd like to give me in general?
  • tiffkittyw
    tiffkittyw Posts: 366 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Just to add - MFP calorie goals assume you will eat back your exercise calories. If you tell MFP you want to lose 1 lb per week, the goal it gives you is without exercise. It assumes you will eat back your exercise calories. Obviously everyone has to figure out what works best for them, but you should remember that when deciding.

    Regardless, since preserving or even building muscle is one of your goals, you should eat as much as you can while still hitting your weight loss goals, and you should net at least 1,200. Good luck!

    I disagree with needing to eat above 1200 net. It all depends on your age, weight, height, and activity level. I burn about 1,900-2,000 calories a day per my Fitbit and my gross daily average intake is 1,545 and my net is 1,031. I'm losing about 1-1.5 lbs a week depending on the various factors ( water weight etc...). By the way I pre log my week and go off weekly daily averages.
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    tiffkittyw wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Just to add - MFP calorie goals assume you will eat back your exercise calories. If you tell MFP you want to lose 1 lb per week, the goal it gives you is without exercise. It assumes you will eat back your exercise calories. Obviously everyone has to figure out what works best for them, but you should remember that when deciding.

    Regardless, since preserving or even building muscle is one of your goals, you should eat as much as you can while still hitting your weight loss goals, and you should net at least 1,200. Good luck!

    I disagree with this. It all depends on your age, weight, height, and activity level. I burn about 1,900-2,000 calories a day per my Fitbit and my gross daily average intake is 1,545 and my net is 1,031. I'm losing about 1-1.5 lbs a week depending on the various factors ( water weight etc...).

    I'd say kimney is pretty much spot on, by OPs age and muscle building/retention goals.

    OP, if you're interested in "building muscle while losing fat".....which is extremely hard to do....I'm confident you're cutting at far too low of an intake (the 973 you entered) to maintain any muscle, let alone build anything.

    We know your age, but what is your height, weight, and exercise regimine? You should be eating more for your goals, but this will help give us a better idea.

    Also, how do you get your calorie burned estimation along with how do you estimate how many calories you eat per day (do you actually weigh your food, guess, eyeball, look it up in the database, etc...)

Categories