Question on net calories under weekly goal

kenziedriscoll
kenziedriscoll Posts: 32 Member
edited June 2016 in Health and Weight Loss
Alrighty here. I'm new to this so I apologize if this is a silly question. I took a snap shot of both of these charts today. First one was around 1:45pm and second one was just when I completed my diary for the day a few mins ago. Can someone tell me why "net calories under weekly goal" changed and why to such a smaller number? And what that number exactly means...and also, does this chart show that I'm doing this correctly? I'm still learning on how to read these things. Total newcomer here ca65xsuukdgj.png
izytewyb1huj.png

Replies

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,156 Member
    It changed because in the first instance you were at (roughly) 600 calories eaten for today, and in the second, you were somewhere in the neighborhood of 1300-1400. (I don't know the exact number; I'm guessing it based on the day's bar in the bar graph.) That implies that you'd eaten an additional 700-800 calories between the two snapshots. 1390 net calories under weekly goal - 678 net calories under weekly goal = 712, which I'm guessing is the exact number of calories you logged for today between the first snapshot and the second. (However, given that MFP sometimes rounds differently, or messes up the details arithmetically, it may not be exact! But this is the correct general explanation, I'm pretty sure.)

    "Net calories under (over) weekly goal" is just ((Daily goal calories x 7) - total net calories logged in the 7-day period).

    You're doing fine. You want to be near your weekly goal, maybe just a tad under. If your exercise calories are estimated from minimal data, and you get a fair amount of exercise, you might want to be under by a bit more (people vary in how they handle this).
  • kenziedriscoll
    kenziedriscoll Posts: 32 Member
    edited June 2016
    I think that confused me. (Sorry)--so that number (total calories under weekly goal) needs to be where, roughly? I went to Tuesday of last week and looked and that number was in the thousands, like 2,200- but at the end of this week, it was only 3 digits. I'm so lost. Sorry. I think I've confused everyone around me including myself. This pic below was last week, the pic above in my ORiginal post was last night. o4kl38p10kkj.png
  • Ws2016
    Ws2016 Posts: 432 Member
    To answer to your question in the second post, people don't have a target for net calories under goal. They shoot for the goal. That said, I would assume most people would rather end a week at net under than net over.

    To your first post, @AnnPT77 is correct - your net went down because you consumed more during that last day between the times you took the snapshot.

    Make sense?
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    I'm not sure what you set your target rate of loss, but let's say you set it to 1lb per week. If you log accurately (including accurate burn for exercise) and every week your "net calorie under goal" =0, then you'd lose 1lb per week on average.

    If your "net calorie under goal" is 500 for the week, then you'd lose on average 1.14 lbs per week.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    You've gotten the answers to your specific questions above, to reiterate:

    the number changed because you ate more food that day so your total calories in was now closer to your goal.

    Your goal on MFP has a deficit built in for each day. If you set yourself to lose 1 lb/week then you would have a 500 cal deficit from your estimated maintenance level already built into your daily goal (3500 cal deficit for the week). If you aim to be right at your goal calories each day, then you would lose at that rate, and your weekly calories should be close to the goal as well. But even if you are slightly over, you would not necessarily prevent yourself from losing that week.

    A lot of people don't even look at those weekly numbers, they focus on individual days. Personally I like the weekly roll up. I tend to be a little more strict during the week because I like to indulge on the weekend. So I might purposely come in 100-200 cals under goal on the week days so I can bank those extra calories for going out to dinner or other events on the weekend. That would give me 500-1000 extra calories, and the weekly summary you are showing let me know that I am still under my overall weekly goal and as such, should still lose or maintain as planned. One caveat, I am in maintenance and so I have a higher calorie goal so being 200 cals under for a few days isn't a big deal. I would not recommend that approach for people eating 1200 cals.
  • kenziedriscoll
    kenziedriscoll Posts: 32 Member
    Ws2016 wrote: »
    To answer to your question in the second post, people don't have a target for net calories under goal. They shoot for the goal. That said, I would assume most people would rather end a week at net under than net over.

    To your first post, @AnnPT77 is correct - your net went down because you consumed more during that last day between the times you took the snapshot.

    Make sense?

    Yes, thank you I appreciate the explanation!
  • kenziedriscoll
    kenziedriscoll Posts: 32 Member
    Thanks everyone, appreciate the help!
  • teetertatertango
    teetertatertango Posts: 229 Member
    The short answer is that if, at the end of the week, your net calories under weekly goal is 0, you have hit your target for the week perfectly (the target already includes your intended deficit), so you should lose (on average) at the rate you set up in MFP (.5,1,2, etc.)

    The number only really makes sense when you have a completed week.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    I use the weekly average figures to make me on target - so my daily target is 1390, but sometimes I eat more, and sometimes a bit less. I aim for my NET to be around 1300 (given that calorie burns can be off) but ignore the calories under weekly goal target (which having just read the post above suggests that figure should be zero and that makes sense!!).

    I also have worked out what my average TOTAL calorie range should be (as calorie burn estimates can be off) so I look at that figure too. For me (5', 140lbs, 40y female) I've set that at around 1750 average. I aim for this, and in fact am losing slightly faster than anticipated even though my general average can be a bit more.

    The key to using the average as well is that you need to make sure you have completed all your calories for each day you are looking at. Sometimes I throw some figures in for dinner based on what I MIGHT eat, then I can tweak as necessary

  • kenziedriscoll
    kenziedriscoll Posts: 32 Member
    edited June 2016
    teetertatertango wrote: »
    The short answer is that if, at the end of the week, your net calories under weekly goal is 0, you have hit your target for the week perfectly (the target already includes your intended deficit), so you should lose (on average) at the rate you set up in MFP (.5,1,2, etc.)

    The number only really makes sense when you have a completed week.

    Yes I agree on the number only making sense when you've completed a week also. Thank you. So if the number is at 298 at the end of the week (just making a number here) then I was UNDER my goal, meaning rather than hitting it perfectly I went under so I'm still doing well, might lose more than I've rated myself to lose, does that sound correct?
  • lexbubbles
    lexbubbles Posts: 465 Member
    edited June 2016
    kenziedriscoll wrote: »
    teetertatertango wrote: »
    The short answer is that if, at the end of the week, your net calories under weekly goal is 0, you have hit your target for the week perfectly (the target already includes your intended deficit), so you should lose (on average) at the rate you set up in MFP (.5,1,2, etc.)

    The number only really makes sense when you have a completed week.

    Yes I agree on the number only making sense when you've completed a week also. Thank you. So if the number is at 298 at the end of the week (just making a number here) then I was UNDER my goal, meaning rather than hitting it perfectly I went under so I'm still doing well, might lose more than I've rated myself to lose, does that sound correct?

    Yup, anything under your net goal = more weight lost. 3,500 cals = 1lb so in theory you've got like... a little less than 0.1lb extra loss there.

    I say "in theory" because nobody is completely absolutely 100% accurate with their food logging.

    Shoot for the goal. If you miss it doesn't matter unless you're WAY off-base and over by a stupid high amount. I don't think anyone really bothers with it, actually? But if you have a day where you go over (whether planned or not), you can still make sure the whole week is in check. I suppose it can be useful in that respect
  • kenziedriscoll
    kenziedriscoll Posts: 32 Member
    lexbubbles wrote: »
    kenziedriscoll wrote: »
    teetertatertango wrote: »
    The short answer is that if, at the end of the week, your net calories under weekly goal is 0, you have hit your target for the week perfectly (the target already includes your intended deficit), so you should lose (on average) at the rate you set up in MFP (.5,1,2, etc.)

    The number only really makes sense when you have a completed week.

    Yes I agree on the number only making sense when you've completed a week also. Thank you. So if the number is at 298 at the end of the week (just making a number here) then I was UNDER my goal, meaning rather than hitting it perfectly I went under so I'm still doing well, might lose more than I've rated myself to lose, does that sound correct?

    Yup, anything under your net goal = more weight lost. 3,500 cals = 1lb so in theory you've got like... a little less than 0.1lb extra loss there.

    I say "in theory" because nobody is completely absolutely 100% accurate with their food logging.

    Shoot for the goal. If you miss it doesn't matter unless you're WAY off-base and over by a stupid high amount. I don't think anyone really bothers with it, actually? But if you have a day where you go over (whether planned or not), you can still make sure the whole week is in check. I suppose it can be useful in that respect

    Thanks! If I were over my net calories for the week though, would it be a negative number? As long as it says the word "under" we're ok, is that close to accurate? Lol.
  • lexbubbles
    lexbubbles Posts: 465 Member
    kenziedriscoll wrote: »

    Thanks! If I were over my net calories for the week though, would it be a negative number? As long as it says the word "under" we're ok, is that close to accurate? Lol.

    I don't know if it shows as a negative number, or if the number is in red, or if it says "x cals over" instead of "x cals under". I... honestly don't look at mine enough to tell you. It's possible I've never looked it it. It'll be obvious when it's over compared to under, though.

    In short

    At goal = on target for MFPs prediction whatever you've set that to (1lb/week or whatever)
    Anything over = less of a loss
    Anything under = more of a loss

    But given natural logging discrepancies/inaccuracies, I really REALLY wouldn't worry if it was within a few hundred cals either way over the course of an entire week. In your picture you were 678 under for the week which is... nothing, really. That's less than 100cal/day. You're doing fine. Don't sweat it.

    If you're meeting, or close to, your targets daily when you complete your diary you can just ignore it since it's not providing any new information.

    Really the only use I can see for it is if you have a blowout day (like a party or something) and wanna make sure you're still on track over the course of a week and that you're at least ~somewhere near~ the goal number.
  • kenziedriscoll
    kenziedriscoll Posts: 32 Member
    lexbubbles wrote: »
    kenziedriscoll wrote: »

    Thanks! If I were over my net calories for the week though, would it be a negative number? As long as it says the word "under" we're ok, is that close to accurate? Lol.

    I don't know if it shows as a negative number, or if the number is in red, or if it says "x cals over" instead of "x cals under". I... honestly don't look at mine enough to tell you. It's possible I've never looked it it. It'll be obvious when it's over compared to under, though.

    In short

    At goal = on target for MFPs prediction whatever you've set that to (1lb/week or whatever)
    Anything over = less of a loss
    Anything under = more of a loss

    But given natural logging discrepancies/inaccuracies, I really REALLY wouldn't worry if it was within a few hundred cals either way over the course of an entire week. In your picture you were 678 under for the week which is... nothing, really. That's less than 100cal/day. You're doing fine. Don't sweat it.

    If you're meeting, or close to, your targets daily when you complete your diary you can just ignore it since it's not providing any new information.

    Really the only use I can see for it is if you have a blowout day (like a party or something) and wanna make sure you're still on track over the course of a week and that you're at least ~somewhere near~ the goal number.

    Perfect explanation, thank you!

Categories