How many Net Calories do you want to aim for?

vivalaglam689
vivalaglam689 Posts: 2
edited October 1 in Health and Weight Loss
I'm so confused with this whole "net calorie" thing. I aim for a 1200 calorie intake, and I usually only do cardio for 45 minutes every few days. Today I worked out for 2 hours because I had the energy to.

Intake: 1403
What I burned from exercise: 1046
Net Calories: 357

I've been searching for this answer for a good half hour and I am still lost! Are my net calories too low??? I'm confused as to if I'm going to go into "starvation" mode or not. Thanks for the help in advance!

Replies

  • methetree
    methetree Posts: 381
    My personal experience thus far...

    Your net calories need to be higher. I lost for awhile with low net like that then BAM! hit a big plateau and it sucked.

    I did a ton of research, looking at BMR, different calculators across the internets, and lots of info on this site.

    I discovered that I have to net around 1000 to 1200 calories to consistently lose. My body likes having fuel.

    Good luck with your journey...
  • Gary1977
    Gary1977 Posts: 804 Member
    Your net is WAAAYYYY too low. You need to net at LEAST 1200 per day. Eat back your exercise calories (at least part anyway):flowerforyou:
  • xraychick77
    xraychick77 Posts: 1,775 Member
    i aim for 1800 period. regardless of if i work out or not.

    the 1800 already takes into account my activity level which includes my every day workouts..another reason to NOT eat back.

    you dont NEED 1200 cals..that is another diet myth. and i highly doubt you actually burned that many cals in 2 hrs.
  • taso42_DELETED
    taso42_DELETED Posts: 3,394 Member
    Yep, way too low. If you aim for 1200, then your net should be 1200. Also, 1200 happens to be a recommended bare minimum level for women, so you're right on the line. For long term success and well-being, you should net 1200 or more every day.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    Your net calories are the actual number of calories your body has to use for fuel.

    For example my NET calorie goal for a day is 2300. Today, I went to the gym and I burned 391 calories. If I don't eat back my 391 exercise calories - my NET calories will actually be 1909. I know that 1909 is too low for my body, so I'm going to eat back my 391 calories which will bring my NET back up to 2300. However, my TOTAL calories will show as 2691. But, I didn't NET 2691 because I burned 391 of those calories at the gym.

    And yes, 357 NET calories is FAR too low. Your body won't be able to complete basic functions (like growing hair, digesting food, etc) if you are only consuming 357 NET calories.

    NET calories are more important than TOTAL calories since they are the actual number of calories your body is getting.
  • InaWarZone
    InaWarZone Posts: 35
    I'm guessing you used the exercise calculator here, which I have found grossly over-estimates how many calories are burned. I use our gym bike every day and it shows about half the calories burned as what this site says.

    Anyone else seen that?
  • porffor
    porffor Posts: 1,210 Member
    Hmm this is really interesting. I've been 'stuck' for a month or more now, losing then gaining the same few lbs. :(

    I have occasionally 'eaten' my calories burned but if they're over exagerated then that'll be part of the problem. :( I ride my horse for exercise so I had guessed it would vary, as lets face it rides can be fast n' sweaty or leisurely. I do both it has to be said.

    I had a meal out 2 days ago and it got the scales to shift.. so go figure! I likely needed a 'sem-bad' day to sort it out.

    Gonna have to shift around my calories and see how it goes.
  • jfinnivan
    jfinnivan Posts: 360 Member
    The calorie numbers on exercise machines are usually way off. Likewise the numbers given by MFP. The best way to get a more accurate estimate of calorie burn is with a heart rate monitor. You can get a decent one for $50 or so.
  • catherine1979
    catherine1979 Posts: 704 Member
    I aim to net between 1500 and 1700 a day.
  • MaggieP86
    MaggieP86 Posts: 43
    I'm so confused with this whole "net calorie" thing. I aim for a 1200 calorie intake, and I usually only do cardio for 45 minutes every few days. Today I worked out for 2 hours because I had the energy to.

    Intake: 1403
    What I burned from exercise: 1046
    Net Calories: 357

    I've been searching for this answer for a good half hour and I am still lost! Are my net calories too low??? I'm confused as to if I'm going to go into "starvation" mode or not. Thanks for the help in advance!

    I studied forums for a few days to get the answer to this. Here's what's going on (I think -- correct me if wrong)

    MFP gives you a calorie range based on your BMR, your Basal Metabolism Rate, the amount of calories you would burn if you laid in bed all day and did nothing. They ask that you eat semi-between your caloric intake for the day and your BRM level. As you see on your food diary, as you work out, they increase the number of calories you should eat that day.

    If you eat significantly under your calories your body goes into 'starvation mode', saving food/fat to survive. In your example, while you ate your caloric range, you burned more than your BMR (consider it 'more than expected'), meaning you should eat more than expected.

    Think of it like a car -- if you drive 10 miles, you need 10 miles worth of gas. If you drive 100 miles, you need extra gas. If you burn 1600 calories, you need 1500-1600 calories...but if you burn 2600 calories you need to eat more to fuel it.
  • SkateboardFi
    SkateboardFi Posts: 1,322 Member
    Also, 1200 happens to be a recommended bare minimum level for women, so you're right on the line. For long term success and well-being, you should net 1200 or more every day.

    ^this. if your goal calories were higher, say, around the 'maintenance' range it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal, but since you're like me, at the 1200 cal range, it would be smart to eat at least SOME back, i try to eat all of mine back. if you don't, and you do it for a long period of time, your body may go into 'starvation mode'; you'll lose weight at first, but then your body begins to store fat to survive, and then as soon as you start eating normally again, the weight shoots right back up at an alarming rate *this has happened to me*
    I'm guessing you used the exercise calculator here, which I have found grossly over-estimates how many calories are burned. I use our gym bike every day and it shows about half the calories burned as what this site says.

    Anyone else seen that?

    it's funny because before i got my heart rate monitor i thought that mfp was greatly over-estimating my exercise cals, but what i found out was that on certain exercises, it would be like 10 calories over, and on others mfp UNDER estimated what i was burning, so i guess it all depends, because at the same time, these numbers only change with the minutes spent on an exercise, not taking into account the effort and strain (if you use weights and increase consistently) involved in your workout. i will say this. if you're going to go through the trouble of counting calories and monitoring your intake, you might as well invest in a good hrm so you can have an accurate estimate of what you are burning and what you should be eating
  • InaWarZone
    InaWarZone Posts: 35
    The calorie numbers on exercise machines are usually way off. Likewise the numbers given by MFP. The best way to get a more accurate estimate of calorie burn is with a heart rate monitor. You can get a decent one for $50 or so.

    Thanks, I'll get one coming.
  • MaggieP86
    MaggieP86 Posts: 43
    The calorie numbers on exercise machines are usually way off. Likewise the numbers given by MFP. The best way to get a more accurate estimate of calorie burn is with a heart rate monitor. You can get a decent one for $50 or so.

    Thanks, I'll get one coming.

    I've seen Bodybuggs going on ebay and craigslist for $30-$80. They're monitors you wear all day that record ALL caloric burn throughout the day with from what I've understood to be high accuracy. Only thing about them is that you pay a monthly subscription to Apex to be able to upload info.

    Most of the ads i've seen for them say the previous owner lost all the weight they needed and are now selling them. I plan to get one shortly!
  • vivalaglam689
    vivalaglam689 Posts: 2
    Oh goodness....I didn't realize how low it was haha. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'll have to try to exercise...LESS haha thanks you guys :)
  • MaggieP86
    MaggieP86 Posts: 43
    Oh goodness....I didn't realize how low it was haha. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'll have to try to exercise...LESS haha thanks you guys :)

    Ha ha hold on there bud :)
    Not always needed to workout less. Just make sure you're eating your workouts. If you burn 500 calories, eat some of it back.

    For example -- the day the net calories in the OP were 300, 700-900 of that could have been eaten back.

    Workouts don't need to be lower, but intakes shouldn't be so low that they're not supplying your body with the energy needed.
  • alyssamiller77
    alyssamiller77 Posts: 891 Member
    I'm guessing you used the exercise calculator here, which I have found grossly over-estimates how many calories are burned. I use our gym bike every day and it shows about half the calories burned as what this site says.

    Anyone else seen that?

    All of our equipment in the gym at work has heart rate monitoring built in. I've found that typically the machines read a little higher than what MFP estimates (although not always). Ultimately I think a lot of it depends on the intensity of your workout. I can do the eliptical trainer for 45 minutes at a leisurely cadence and resistance and burn 300 cal or I can do the same time with high resistance and a faster cadence and burn 600 cal or more. MFP doesn't have the ability to really account for the differences in intensity (at least not very accurately) so I usually go with what the machine says. My workouts are usually pretty high intensity so that's probably why the machines give me higher numbers than MFP.
  • alyssamiller77
    alyssamiller77 Posts: 891 Member
    The calorie numbers on exercise machines are usually way off. Likewise the numbers given by MFP. The best way to get a more accurate estimate of calorie burn is with a heart rate monitor. You can get a decent one for $50 or so.

    Are you saying this based on experience? If so was that experience with machines that had HRM's built in? The ones I use are all gym quality brands with HRM's and they allow you to enter age and weight as well. I've found them to be rather accurate as long as you use the HRM.
  • 12by311
    12by311 Posts: 1,716 Member
    The calorie numbers on exercise machines are usually way off. Likewise the numbers given by MFP. The best way to get a more accurate estimate of calorie burn is with a heart rate monitor. You can get a decent one for $50 or so.

    Are you saying this based on experience? If so was that experience with machines that had HRM's built in? The ones I use are all gym quality brands with HRM's and they allow you to enter age and weight as well. I've found them to be rather accurate as long as you use the HRM.

    Forgive my ignorance....but how does the machine know your heart rate. The treadmill I have, measures HR when I hold onto the handle at the front. Obviously, I'm not going to run 3 miles holding onto that...so the burn it gives me is off.
  • alyssamiller77
    alyssamiller77 Posts: 891 Member
    I usually am on the Eliptical or the bike, either one I'm holding the handles with the heart rate pad pretty much the entire time. I've checked it against an HRM I borrowed from a fellow referee, and they've been accurate. All of our equipment is a mix of Nautilis, Landice, or Matrix (so in other words commercial Gym quality) and is well maintained. I'm not sure if maybe home level equipment is less reliable which is why I was aksing.
  • taso42_DELETED
    taso42_DELETED Posts: 3,394 Member
    Forgive my ignorance....but how does the machine know your heart rate. The treadmill I have, measures HR when I hold onto the handle at the front. Obviously, I'm not going to run 3 miles holding onto that...so the burn it gives me is off.

    Some machines are compatible with the polar chest straps. My treadmill at home is, and I understand that a lot of gym machines are. My treadmill also has the handle-sensor, but the numbers it gives via the handle are WAY off compared to the strap, or compared to my garmin strap w/ watch.
  • fantaziamontero
    fantaziamontero Posts: 1
    i normally burn about 680-700 calories in one hour of cardio . so it is totally possible to burn that many calories during two hours .
  • lillebanon
    lillebanon Posts: 214 Member
    You don't want to net less than your BMR.
    I talk about eating more in my recent blog post:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lillebanon/view/my-take-on-eating-more-to-weigh-less-254554
    Also, visit this helpful group:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    First you are overtraining.
    No need to burn that many calories with such diminishing returns when it comes to fat loss.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538381-in-place-of-a-road-map
  • dlwyatt82
    dlwyatt82 Posts: 1,077 Member
    Your net calories should be whatever your original target was, as shown on MFP, plus or minus 100 ish.
  • sabolfitwife
    sabolfitwife Posts: 423 Member
    The calorie numbers on exercise machines are usually way off. Likewise the numbers given by MFP. The best way to get a more accurate estimate of calorie burn is with a heart rate monitor. You can get a decent one for $50 or so.

    How do the heart rate monitors work? I'm considering buying one... Does the cheap ones give just a heart rate and nothing else or do the fancy ones actually tell you how much your burning etc?
  • dlwyatt82
    dlwyatt82 Posts: 1,077 Member
    You don't want to net less than your BMR.
    I talk about eating more in my recent blog post:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lillebanon/view/my-take-on-eating-more-to-weigh-less-254554
    Also, visit this helpful group:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less

    That "don't net less than your BMR" advice is crap unless you're following the rest of the guidelines in the EMTWL group (which involves setting a higher initial calorie target, and not logging much separately in the MFP exercise diary). I've posted the math around that statement several times, including in the EMTWL group at some point.
  • lillebanon
    lillebanon Posts: 214 Member
    You don't want to net less than your BMR.
    I talk about eating more in my recent blog post:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lillebanon/view/my-take-on-eating-more-to-weigh-less-254554
    Also, visit this helpful group:
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less

    That "don't net less than your BMR" advice is crap unless you're following the rest of the guidelines in the EMTWL group (which involves setting a higher initial calorie target, and not logging much separately in the MFP exercise diary). I've posted the math around that statement several times, including in the EMTWL group at some point.

    Well, I wholeheartedly suggest following the rest of the guidelines in the EMTWL group. :laugh:
  • Nana_Booboo
    Nana_Booboo Posts: 501 Member
    I aim for what MFP tells me to aim for which is 1380 net at the end of the day. Depending on my exercise that could be eating as much as 2300 calories and I also suggest a HRM or something to track your exact burn. The gym machines and MFP over compensate (at least in my experience) comparing those to my HRM. The healthier my hear gets the harder I have to work, also. Pay attention to the message MFP gives you when you complete your day under the part that says "if every day is like today you'll weigh .... then read the rest.

    For me, planning my day ahead of time (usually the night before) gives me a chance to hit all my nutritional goals (vit, calcium, protein) and I also log the exercise I'm planning to do so I can fuel my body properly.

    Hope this helps
  • Love_Is_My_Fuel
    Love_Is_My_Fuel Posts: 211 Member
    very possible to burn that many in 2 hours,,,I have a heart rate monitor/calorie counter and burn 700 in 50 minutes. also plus size so the more you weigh the more you burn
This discussion has been closed.

Categories