Question regarding calorie deficit
Options
Replies
-
Wow I guess working out for a hour total with my heart rate around 70 to 75% of my maximum heart rate isn't "sufficient" enough to burn. Since it's only
walking at 3mph at a incline 6.
I haven't been eating back any of my exercise calories since I started. So guess I'll just continue not to.
You said you did 3 mph and incline 6 degrees for an hour.
I weighed 186.8 this morning. This afternoon I input my weight to my treadmill as 186 lb, and did 20 minutes at 4 mph with a 5 degree incline. I did not have my heart rate monitor strap in place. I 'feel' that my heart rate was about what it had been when on other occasions it was measured in the high 140's.
The treadmill calculated that I burned 206 calories.
Your 3 mph and 6 degrees would, I believe, indeed burn 400 calories in an hour.0 -
Ok so I've posted on here before and got mixed opinions. I need to know if I'm looking at this correctly.
I live a pretty sedentary lifestyle as I'm a stay at home mom and business owner. I do spend a good amount of the day at the computer doing invoices, keeping up bookkeeping etc. I do walk on the treadmill for a hour a day (30 min in the morning and 30 min in the evening) as that's all I'm allowed to do until my heart doc clears me for more.
MyFitnessPal wanted to set me at 1200 calories a day but my heart doc said that is to low and he said no lower than 1350 a day for most women. He said I needed to figure out my how much my body needs and then subtract 500 from that and I would be at a 500 calorie deficit a day which would equal 1 pound a week weight loss.
So if I then add 60 min of walking and say burn 400 calories I would need to eat most of those back. I use a HRM that syncs to my Apple Watch and I walk at 3mph on a incline. My heart rate easily gets up to 135 to 140. So I believe my calorie burn is correct.
For instance yesterday after logging all my meals and with my exercise I only netted 857 calories. That's way to low right?
I've always been told that the 500 calorie a day deficit is either done through diet or exercise alone or a mixture of both, but not to exceed the 500 a day. If you do both diet and exercise and exceed the 500 calorie a day deficit then you need to replace most (50 to 75%).
i think you need is a great heart rate monitor to keep track how many kal your burning in a 24hr time frame.
once you have that number then sub track 500 kcal from that.
Then use the use the heart rate monitor to monitor how many kcal you burn during the walk.
Don't eat your kcal back unless your doctors say to.
0 -
Don't trust MFPs exercise calculations, they vastly overestimate. Tried to tell me I burned 1000 calories cleaning for 3 hours. Bull..0
-
Commander_Keen wrote: »Ok so I've posted on here before and got mixed opinions. I need to know if I'm looking at this correctly.
I live a pretty sedentary lifestyle as I'm a stay at home mom and business owner. I do spend a good amount of the day at the computer doing invoices, keeping up bookkeeping etc. I do walk on the treadmill for a hour a day (30 min in the morning and 30 min in the evening) as that's all I'm allowed to do until my heart doc clears me for more.
MyFitnessPal wanted to set me at 1200 calories a day but my heart doc said that is to low and he said no lower than 1350 a day for most women. He said I needed to figure out my how much my body needs and then subtract 500 from that and I would be at a 500 calorie deficit a day which would equal 1 pound a week weight loss.
So if I then add 60 min of walking and say burn 400 calories I would need to eat most of those back. I use a HRM that syncs to my Apple Watch and I walk at 3mph on a incline. My heart rate easily gets up to 135 to 140. So I believe my calorie burn is correct.
For instance yesterday after logging all my meals and with my exercise I only netted 857 calories. That's way to low right?
I've always been told that the 500 calorie a day deficit is either done through diet or exercise alone or a mixture of both, but not to exceed the 500 a day. If you do both diet and exercise and exceed the 500 calorie a day deficit then you need to replace most (50 to 75%).
i think you need is a great heart rate monitor to keep track how many kal your burning in a 24hr time frame.
once you have that number then sub track 500 kcal from that.
Then use the use the heart rate monitor to monitor how many kcal you burn during the walk.
Don't eat your kcal back unless your doctors say to.
I have a heart rate monitor, Apple Watch and a Fitbit
0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »I think the burn is reasonable. I used to burn that much while losing even when I was close to goal, and I always ate back every calorie and lost right on schedule.
But it really doesn't matter, OP. Do it one way for a month. If you've lost as much as expected then great! Keep going. If you haven't lost as much as expected, eat back less calories for awhile and see if that's better. Adjust as needed, but not too often. You have to give something a chance to work before you switch.
Yeah i never planned on eating back all my calories just maybe 50%. That way it does give room for error. I know their not 100%. I wore a Fitbit today as well and my Apple Watch that was connected to my polar chest strap said I burned 225 calories during my 38 min workout and the Fitbit said I burned 295. lol.
Just FYI, the Fitbit burn also includes your basal rate, not just the additional calories burned performing exercise2 -
My Apple Watch separates my active calories from my total calories during each workout. Still not 100% sure why lol. It also doesn't monitor my heart rate at all times either. It takes it I think every 10 min.
I did a test of my own today during my workout. I wore my Apple Watch with the HRM connected to it AND I wore my old Fitbit HR. My Apple Watch said I burned 225 calories during a 38 min walk at 3mph at a incline of 4 with my heart rate at 135 which is around 70% of my maximum heart rate. The Fitbit said I burned 295 calories. Fitbit said my heart rate was 130 yet I burned more calories. Steps wise they were both right around each other.
Just wanted to point out that your Fitbit and Apple Watch are giving you the same calories burned number. The Apple Watch breaks it down into 'active calories' which are burned in addition to what you would burn just sitting around (RMR) and total which is active+RMR. Fitbit just gives you total.
Apple Watch total = Fitbit = 295
0 -
amygarcia0212 wrote: »My Apple Watch separates my active calories from my total calories during each workout. Still not 100% sure why lol. It also doesn't monitor my heart rate at all times either. It takes it I think every 10 min.
I did a test of my own today during my workout. I wore my Apple Watch with the HRM connected to it AND I wore my old Fitbit HR. My Apple Watch said I burned 225 calories during a 38 min walk at 3mph at a incline of 4 with my heart rate at 135 which is around 70% of my maximum heart rate. The Fitbit said I burned 295 calories. Fitbit said my heart rate was 130 yet I burned more calories. Steps wise they were both right around each other.
Just wanted to point out that your Fitbit and Apple Watch are giving you the same calories burned number. The Apple Watch breaks it down into 'active calories' which are burned in addition to what you would burn just sitting around (RMR) and total which is active+RMR. Fitbit just gives you total.
Apple Watch total = Fitbit = 295
Makes sense. So I guess my Apple Watch is pretty spot on with a Fitbit. So if I'm getting two devices that are giving me roughly the same calories burned while working out would you say that my burn isn't to far off from what their saying?
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Wow I guess working out for a hour total with my heart rate around 70 to 75% of my maximum heart rate isn't "sufficient" enough to burn. Since it's only
walking at 3mph at a incline 6.
I haven't been eating back any of my exercise calories since I started. So guess I'll just continue not to.
I don't think you're understanding...all people are saying is that devices and machines and data bases, etc are all just estimations...nobody is saying that you're not burning calories...they're just telling you to be conservative as energy expenditure is difficult to estimate and often these devices over estimate. And like I said up thread, it's going to include your basal burn...so at minimum you would want to deduct that.
All people are telling you is that it's an estimate, not gospel. That's it...there should always be an allowance for estimation error...I always just knocked off my basal calories which if I recall was about 20% or so.
I understand what you're saying. What got me was people saying it wasn't possible because they only burned such amount of calories doing something else and it wasn't possible because I'm "just walking". 3mph is a brisk walk for me since I'm only 5'3 and I incline it to 6. Sometimes I walk at 3.5. I technically do a total time of around 74 to 75 min. But I just said 60 min because that 74 min includes 5 min of warm up and cool down and I don't really count that. I can get on my elliptical and do 5mph and my heart rate be at 70 to 75% for a hour and burn just as much as I did walking at 3mph at a incline of 6.
But again I know it's all an estimate and that's mainly why I haven't been eating any of my exercise calories back for that simple fact.
I just don't think it's right for someone to be like well I do a hour on this machine and I only burn this amount so it's not possible your burning that because your "Just walking". Everyone's body is different and people do workout at different levels.
It's possible!0 -
At least you can walk briskly. I walk on crutches, I can't run, climb, do most aerobic exercises most can do. So instead of dwelling on what I can't do, I find things I can do. I do walk - 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile every few days when the weather is decent. I lift weights and do other exercises that I can do sitting down or standing in one place as long as I can balance and only need to use one hand.kshama2001 wrote: »Ok so I've posted on here before and got mixed opinions. I need to know if I'm looking at this correctly.
I live a pretty sedentary lifestyle as I'm a stay at home mom and business owner. I do spend a good amount of the day at the computer doing invoices, keeping up bookkeeping etc. I do walk on the treadmill for a hour a day (30 min in the morning and 30 min in the evening) as that's all I'm allowed to do until my heart doc clears me for more.
MyFitnessPal wanted to set me at 1200 calories a day but my heart doc said that is to low and he said no lower than 1350 a day for most women. He said I needed to figure out my how much my body needs and then subtract 500 from that and I would be at a 500 calorie deficit a day which would equal 1 pound a week weight loss.
So if I then add 60 min of walking and say burn 400 calories I would need to eat most of those back. I use a HRM that syncs to my Apple Watch and I walk at 3mph on a incline. My heart rate easily gets up to 135 to 140. So I believe my calorie burn is correct.
For instance yesterday after logging all my meals and with my exercise I only netted 857 calories. That's way to low right?
I've always been told that the 500 calorie a day deficit is either done through diet or exercise alone or a mixture of both, but not to exceed the 500 a day. If you do both diet and exercise and exceed the 500 calorie a day deficit then you need to replace most (50 to 75%).
Personally I would count maybe 200 calories total for 1 hour on the treadmill.
Well if that's the case then I'm not going to bother even working out anymore and taking the chance of having a cardiac event for 200 calories.
You sound frustrated and confused. Maybe you should be discussing this with your heart doctor. That way you can get information specific to you and your condition.
I know you've been cleared for walking, but does your doctor also want you to walk?
Regardless, you shouldn't be netting 900 calories, so do eat more and do eat back at least 50% of your exercise calories. I realize some days your Chron's prevents you from this, so make it average out over the course of a week.
I am frustrated to a certain extent. More so frustrated I can't do anything but a moderate/brisk walk (which is killing my knee's lol).
Before the heart issues I would run, I could do an elliptical and strength training. I would burn quite a bit. But now I'm limited. Yes I know 200 calories burned is better than nothing and the benefits of walking are extremely beneficial for cardiovascular health. But in the end it's frustrating.
I basically have to get off 20 pounds with no issues with my heart before he will determine it's ok for me to start running again and incorporate strength training.
Just stinks having limitations.
Do what you can do and quit dwelling on what you can't do.5 -
Op I hope you make a speedy recover without the need of intrusive medical procedures. Good luck on your journey and keep us updated on your status . I an gonna root for you!1
-
TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.2 -
amygarcia0212 wrote: »My Apple Watch separates my active calories from my total calories during each workout. Still not 100% sure why lol. It also doesn't monitor my heart rate at all times either. It takes it I think every 10 min.
I did a test of my own today during my workout. I wore my Apple Watch with the HRM connected to it AND I wore my old Fitbit HR. My Apple Watch said I burned 225 calories during a 38 min walk at 3mph at a incline of 4 with my heart rate at 135 which is around 70% of my maximum heart rate. The Fitbit said I burned 295 calories. Fitbit said my heart rate was 130 yet I burned more calories. Steps wise they were both right around each other.
Just wanted to point out that your Fitbit and Apple Watch are giving you the same calories burned number. The Apple Watch breaks it down into 'active calories' which are burned in addition to what you would burn just sitting around (RMR) and total which is active+RMR. Fitbit just gives you total.
Apple Watch total = Fitbit = 295
Makes sense. So I guess my Apple Watch is pretty spot on with a Fitbit. So if I'm getting two devices that are giving me roughly the same calories burned while working out would you say that my burn isn't to far off from what their saying?
I'm a 'flatlander' and prefer to walk outside, but it seems the sweet-spot for me when eating back calories is about 80cals/mile [5'5", 140lb, years of CICO tracking].
Then I stumbled on this article recently
http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning
It sort of confirmed that was a reasonable conclusion; FYI - it puts you at ~100cal/mile, which is comparable to the numbers you're seeing.
Bottom Line - give it a few weeks, watch your trends and adjust accordingly.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You said you had MFP set up for 1.5 lb loss/week, but your doctors numbers (the 500 calorie deficit) are for 1 lb. Also, with MFP, you do eat calories back. Worrying about the specific number doesn't matter much -- I'd estimate a daily number like deficit of 1 lb from MFP + 300/day for exercise -- it would probably be something like 1600 or 1700 gross, no need to worry about exercise calories (assuming you keep doing exercise). Then go by results which I think is what your doctor is saying about finding the number that works for you.
If you are losing too fast, eating more is a good idea, and you seem to be eating quite low which can be stressful.
Mine is currently set at 1.5 loss a week at sedentary and it gives me 1390 calories a day.
So for 1 lb/week at sedentary you'd get 1640. If you aren't currently eating your 1390 net I'd try that, though (with 50% of exercise calories -- that sounds like a great approach).I normally try to eat up to 1200 but I wasn't including my exercise calories. When I realized I'm losing a little to quickly I bumped up my calorie intake and was going to eat back about 50% of my exercise calories and see how that goes. But some days I just don't have an appetite thanks to my Crohns. That's the reason I gained weight in the first place. Being on restrictions by my heart doc and a new Crohns medication. The Crohns meds themselves are known to cause weight gain.
What are you losing and for how long? Are there higher cal foods you can include when you need that don't bother you?
I also agree with the person who said that focusing on weekly calories might work well for you.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.
No, what I said is correct. Your net calories is the number of calories you eat minus the number of calories you burn, just like your net income is your gross pay minus expenses like deductions and taxes that are taken out. TDEE includes your exercise (which MFP does subtract) but also other things that use calories. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is zero then your weight will remain constant. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is positive then your will increase. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is negative then your weight will decrease.
This cannot be said of the MFP Net. With the MFP Net you will remain the same weight if your MFP Net matches you goal calories plus your chosen calorie deficit.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.
No, what I said is correct. Your net calories is the number of calories you eat minus the number of calories you burn, just like your net income is your gross pay minus expenses like deductions and taxes that are taken out. TDEE includes your exercise (which MFP does subtract) but also other things that use calories. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is zero then your weight will remain constant. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is positive then your will increase. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is negative then your weight will decrease.
This cannot be said of the MFP Net. With the MFP Net you will remain the same weight if your MFP Net matches you goal calories plus your chosen calorie deficit.
Okay thank you for explaining how you were looking at this, but you're muddying the waters here because arguing over what someone's TRUE net is depends on what method they're using.
The net depends on whether you're using the TDEE or NEAT method to account for exercise and deficit.3 -
So eat back half the calories burned? I try to eat up to my calorie goal with no exercise because I feel like mfp over estimates burned calories0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »Rather than arguing with how much the OP burns in an hour of walking (though I don't find it unreasonable - keep in mind she is walking at an incline which influences things; at 135 pounds and no incline I burn about 300 per hour walking at 4.0 which is a brisk pace for me) I want to point out one reason to discount the exercise calories a little. If you were not walking, you would have still burned thru 70-100 calories. That is already accounted for in your BMR, daily activity level.
So listen to your doctor. Eat a minimum of 1350 calories per day, and feel free to eat some additional from your workout calories earned if you feel you need them.
if she is truly burning 400 a day then that would leave her netting 950 calories a day ...
I feel like we need to remind people that there is a difference between the MFP Net and the actual net calories. The MFP Net ignores BMR, so a positive net is desirable. But our goal should be to have a net of zero if we are maintaining our weight and a negative net if we are trying to lose weight. The MFP Net has no meaning in relationship to health concerns.
Huh? How do you figure that? MFP defines your daily calorie allotment as a cut from TDEE. TDEE is figured from BMR, so BMR is most certainly factored into the equation. Having a negative net in MFP is not in any way a desirable or healthy thing to do.
If you're going to maintain your weight, you would want to have a caloric balance equal to your TDEE. If you want to lose weight, you want to have a (reasonable) caloric deficit from your TDEE. If MFP gives you a calorie goal of 1650 calories per day, that's already factored as a deficit from your TDEE so at the end of the day you'd want to net 1650 calories. That means you're in a caloric deficit and over time you will lose weight/fat.
Saying that somebody should strive for a negative (as in sub-zero) net is terrible and dangerous advice. I sincerely hope I'm not the only person who realizes that.
MFP give you a calorie allotment and then subtracts your exercise calories and calls that net. However, your true net calories is the number of calories you eat during a day minus your TDEE for that day. MFP only subtracts part of the TDEE for the day, so the MFP Net is meaningless when we look at information outside of MFP.
Wut?
Your TDEE is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure. That includes your exercise calories. That doesn't come into play on MFP unless you have it set up to use it that way.
MFP uses NEAT, which is your BMR + an activity factor which you select, then it assumes you will eat back (add in) exercise calories. Your net calories are your caloric intake minus your exercise calories. This should ideally equal your NEAT (calorie goal) + exercise calories.
We are saying the same thing. MFP doesn't subtract TDEE. It only subtracts the exercise calories that you report.
You're leaving a word out of your sentence there that changes the meaning entirely.
I think you mean to say that MFP doesn't subtract FROM TDEE.
Saying that it doesn't subtract TDEE itself makes no sense.
At any rate, subtracting from TDEE is a method of calculating deficit, and exercise calories don't factor into that nor do net calories, because they're already factored in.
No, what I said is correct. Your net calories is the number of calories you eat minus the number of calories you burn, just like your net income is your gross pay minus expenses like deductions and taxes that are taken out. TDEE includes your exercise (which MFP does subtract) but also other things that use calories. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is zero then your weight will remain constant. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is positive then your will increase. If you subtract your TDEE from the calories you eat and the result is negative then your weight will decrease.
This cannot be said of the MFP Net. With the MFP Net you will remain the same weight if your MFP Net matches you goal calories plus your chosen calorie deficit.
Okay thank you for explaining how you were looking at this, but you're muddying the waters here because arguing over what someone's TRUE net is depends on what method they're using.
The net depends on whether you're using the TDEE or NEAT method to account for exercise and deficit.
If someone hadn't tried arguing against it it would have helped clear things up rather than muddy the waters. The problem is that people start talking about how a woman shouldn't eat less than 1200 calories and the next thing you know they are saying that her net calories shouldn't be below 1200. But the 1200 calories rule isn't based on MFP but on studies that use net in the traditional sense.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions