Total Cals v Net Cals
Options
cammiecane
Posts: 62 Member
Hello everyone! So I just noticed last night while taking a closer look at the food diary that it lists my total cals and something called net cals. Maybe I’m dumb but for the life of me I can’t figure out what they’re for. One day I had -59 net cals? Are these important or can I just focus on the total cals? Thanks!!
0
Replies
-
Net calories are to ensure you don't eat too little while you're losing weight. Regularly netting -59 calories would be incompatible with life, you'd be expecting your body to run on absolutely nothing . . . less than nothing.
In the context of one day it doesn't really matter. Doing that day after day after day is not a good idea.
Do you exercise a lot or do you have a synced fitness tracker on your account?2 -
total calories are what you have eaten
net calories = calorie goal + exercise - food eaten
if you are frequently way under on net calories then you may need to eat more of your exercise calories. -59 probably isn't a big deal.1 -
cammiecane wrote: »Hello everyone! So I just noticed last night while taking a closer look at the food diary that it lists my total cals and something called net cals. Maybe I’m dumb but for the life of me I can’t figure out what they’re for. One day I had -59 net cals? Are these important or can I just focus on the total cals? Thanks!!
That's bad...like really bad.
Net cals are you calories less your exercise. So if I eat 2300 total calories and exercise 700 calories, my net calories would be 2300-700=1,600 calories...which would be the same thing as me just eating 1600 calories.
The way this tool is designed, you're supposed to eat back exercise calories to account for that activity...essentially, what you've done is the equivalent of eating nothing. You're destroying your body if this is something that is happening with frequency.1 -
If you are logging accurately, you're not eating much at all. Is there a reason why you're so often under your goal?0
-
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »total calories are what you have eaten
net calories = calorie goal + exercise - food eaten
if you are frequently way under on net calories then you may need to eat more of your exercise calories. -59 probably isn't a big deal.
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong...when I see -59 net calories wouldn't that mean she's in the negative...like eating 800 calories total or something and doing 859 calories of exercise leaving her with negative 59 net calories.
Or does this mean just 59 calories less than her net calorie target?0 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »total calories are what you have eaten
net calories = calorie goal + exercise - food eaten
if you are frequently way under on net calories then you may need to eat more of your exercise calories. -59 probably isn't a big deal.
Net calories are calories consumed after additional exercise has been factored in. Assuming that it's an accurate estimate for calorie burned through exercise, -59 would be a pretty big deal for anyone, IMO. In the context of one day, it isn't going to cause any issues. But repeating often would be concerning.0 -
Having -59 calories "remaining" is fine. Netting -59 calories is by no means okay. That means that any exercise you did cancelled out what few calories you ate that day leaving you with nothing to live on. You should be netting your actual calorie goal, or, at least, come close to it.
Looking at your diary you are logging very few calories though I do see some erroneous entries. As you're not using a food scale, it's hard to see what your actually taking in but your goal is in the area of 1550 but you're only logging around 1000 or significantly fewer and exercising on top of that. That is not healthy at all.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Net calories are to ensure you don't eat too little while you're losing weight. Regularly netting -59 calories would be incompatible with life, you'd be expecting your body to run on absolutely nothing . . . less than nothing.
In the context of one day it doesn't really matter. Doing that day after day after day is not a good idea.
Do you exercise a lot or do you have a synced fitness tracker on your account?cwolfman13 wrote: »
That's bad...like really bad.
Net cals are you calories less your exercise. So if I eat 2300 total calories and exercise 700 calories, my net calories would be 2300-700=1,600 calories...which would be the same thing as me just eating 1600 calories.
The way this tool is designed, you're supposed to eat back exercise calories to account for that activity...essentially, what you've done is the equivalent of eating nothing. You're destroying your body if this is something that is happening with frequency.
The -59 thing was only one time. The only reason I mentioned it was because I couldn’t understand how I could have - calories. That day was an anomaly because I was super nauseous almost the whole day so I really only ate dinner. So I only had 500 something calories and burned 600 something via exercise. That’s not the norm at all. Aside from that day, my net cals have ranged anywhere from 255 to 1471.
I have been getting in a lot more exercise recently so that’s why they’ve been on the lower side lately, I think. I’ve been trying to get in 2-3 workouts a day.
I’ve been measuring somewhat accurately. I didn’t have a scale until yesterday as it had run out of batteries and I finally bought some last night. I do measure out everything and then add 10 percent more to what i measure since I know the accuracy isn’t the greatest. Now I can start weighing though so that’ll be better.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are logging accurately, you're not eating much at all. Is there a reason why you're so often under your goal?
The problem seems to be that I usually skip lunch. I have a fairly new business so I’m usually so busy during the day that I either forget to eat completely or just have a couple of snacks instead, since I don’t need to prepare them. For example, yesterday, I was in meetings all day from 11am to 6pm so I didn’t get to eat dinner until after 9pm, I believe.
0 -
yes your net calories are supposed to be the goal MFP gives you so if your calorie goal is 1400 then you should be netting 1400 after purposeful exercise.not netting in the negatives which would be like not eating at all and then working out. long term its not healthy and you will crash and burn.1
-
See where it says "Goal?" That's how much you're supposed to be eating or close to it. You need to account for your exercise...and if you're going to exercise 2-3x per day (which is a bit over the top) then you need to learn how to feed it.2
-
cammiecane wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Net calories are to ensure you don't eat too little while you're losing weight. Regularly netting -59 calories would be incompatible with life, you'd be expecting your body to run on absolutely nothing . . . less than nothing.
In the context of one day it doesn't really matter. Doing that day after day after day is not a good idea.
Do you exercise a lot or do you have a synced fitness tracker on your account?cwolfman13 wrote: »
That's bad...like really bad.
Net cals are you calories less your exercise. So if I eat 2300 total calories and exercise 700 calories, my net calories would be 2300-700=1,600 calories...which would be the same thing as me just eating 1600 calories.
The way this tool is designed, you're supposed to eat back exercise calories to account for that activity...essentially, what you've done is the equivalent of eating nothing. You're destroying your body if this is something that is happening with frequency.
The -59 thing was only one time. The only reason I mentioned it was because I couldn’t understand how I could have - calories. That day was an anomaly because I was super nauseous almost the whole day so I really only ate dinner. So I only had 500 something calories and burned 600 something via exercise. That’s not the norm at all. Aside from that day, my net cals have ranged anywhere from 255 to 1471.
I have been getting in a lot more exercise recently so that’s why they’ve been on the lower side lately, I think. I’ve been trying to get in 2-3 workouts a day.
I’ve been measuring somewhat accurately. I didn’t have a scale until yesterday as it had run out of batteries and I finally bought some last night. I do measure out everything and then add 10 percent more to what i measure since I know the accuracy isn’t the greatest. Now I can start weighing though so that’ll be better.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are logging accurately, you're not eating much at all. Is there a reason why you're so often under your goal?
The problem seems to be that I usually skip lunch. I have a fairly new business so I’m usually so busy during the day that I either forget to eat completely or just have a couple of snacks instead, since I don’t need to prepare them. For example, yesterday, I was in meetings all day from 11am to 6pm so I didn’t get to eat dinner until after 9pm, I believe.
Got it. Thanks for explaining. I never worry about days that I'm sick or not feeling well so I wouldn't worry about that one day where you netted -59.
Assuming you're measuring accurately (and it sounds like you're getting on track there), you want to generally net around your actual original goal. So if your goal is 1,500, then you want to generally net right around 1,500. Days where you're a bit over or under aren't going to be that important.
Do you mean 2-3 workouts a week or 2-3 a day?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »See where it says "Goal?" That's how much you're supposed to be eating or close to it. You need to account for your exercise...and if you're going to exercise 2-3x per day (which is a bit over the top) then you need to learn how to feed it.janejellyroll wrote: »
Got it. Thanks for explaining. I never worry about days that I'm sick or not feeling well so I wouldn't worry about that one day where you netted -59.
Assuming you're measuring accurately (and it sounds like you're getting on track there), you want to generally net around your actual original goal. So if your goal is 1,500, then you want to generally net right around 1,500. Days where you're a bit over or under aren't going to be that important.
Do you mean 2-3 workouts a week or 2-3 a day?
Thanks guys! I didn’t even know there was a net calories until yesterday, but now that I do, I’ll definitely work to get it to where it’s supposed to be. I think I’ll do what I did before and drink a protein shake after each workout. Should help my muscles and give me a bunch of extra calories.
2-3 workouts a day. The hubby is super-supportive of my weight loss goals (probably cause he doesn’t want me fat anymore. Lol) so we do a family walk every day. Aside from that, I alternate between a more intense cardio activity and a body weight/ light weight circuit. I also try to get in 20-30 minutes of stretching a day as well.2 -
cammiecane wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »See where it says "Goal?" That's how much you're supposed to be eating or close to it. You need to account for your exercise...and if you're going to exercise 2-3x per day (which is a bit over the top) then you need to learn how to feed it.janejellyroll wrote: »
Got it. Thanks for explaining. I never worry about days that I'm sick or not feeling well so I wouldn't worry about that one day where you netted -59.
Assuming you're measuring accurately (and it sounds like you're getting on track there), you want to generally net around your actual original goal. So if your goal is 1,500, then you want to generally net right around 1,500. Days where you're a bit over or under aren't going to be that important.
Do you mean 2-3 workouts a week or 2-3 a day?
Thanks guys! I didn’t even know there was a net calories until yesterday, but now that I do, I’ll definitely work to get it to where it’s supposed to be. I think I’ll do what I did before and drink a protein shake after each workout. Should help my muscles and give me a bunch of extra calories.
2-3 workouts a day. The hubby is super-supportive of my weight loss goals (probably cause he doesn’t want me fat anymore. Lol) so we do a family walk every day. Aside from that, I alternate between a more intense cardio activity and a body weight/ light weight circuit. I also try to get in 20-30 minutes of stretching a day as well.
Okay, initially I was worried about 2-3 workouts a day because it sounds like a LOT, but I think a family walk, a more intense cardio workout with some resistance training, and a session of stretching sounds like a fun and sustainable routine. I'm glad your husband is supportive of your goals -- that makes it much easier. Good luck!3 -
cammiecane wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Net calories are to ensure you don't eat too little while you're losing weight. Regularly netting -59 calories would be incompatible with life, you'd be expecting your body to run on absolutely nothing . . . less than nothing.
In the context of one day it doesn't really matter. Doing that day after day after day is not a good idea.
Do you exercise a lot or do you have a synced fitness tracker on your account?cwolfman13 wrote: »
That's bad...like really bad.
Net cals are you calories less your exercise. So if I eat 2300 total calories and exercise 700 calories, my net calories would be 2300-700=1,600 calories...which would be the same thing as me just eating 1600 calories.
The way this tool is designed, you're supposed to eat back exercise calories to account for that activity...essentially, what you've done is the equivalent of eating nothing. You're destroying your body if this is something that is happening with frequency.
The -59 thing was only one time. The only reason I mentioned it was because I couldn’t understand how I could have - calories. That day was an anomaly because I was super nauseous almost the whole day so I really only ate dinner. So I only had 500 something calories and burned 600 something via exercise. That’s not the norm at all. Aside from that day, my net cals have ranged anywhere from 255 to 1471.
I have been getting in a lot more exercise recently so that’s why they’ve been on the lower side lately, I think. I’ve been trying to get in 2-3 workouts a day.
I’ve been measuring somewhat accurately. I didn’t have a scale until yesterday as it had run out of batteries and I finally bought some last night. I do measure out everything and then add 10 percent more to what i measure since I know the accuracy isn’t the greatest. Now I can start weighing though so that’ll be better.janejellyroll wrote: »If you are logging accurately, you're not eating much at all. Is there a reason why you're so often under your goal?
The problem seems to be that I usually skip lunch. I have a fairly new business so I’m usually so busy during the day that I either forget to eat completely or just have a couple of snacks instead, since I don’t need to prepare them. For example, yesterday, I was in meetings all day from 11am to 6pm so I didn’t get to eat dinner until after 9pm, I believe.
So you're too busy to eat, but you're working out 2-3 times a day? On top of that you're netting very few calories? That's a recipe for an eating disorder and/or a massive kickback when you "finish" dieting.1 -
Now I know why I've been a little hungrier lately. I've been reading this wrong. Thanks all for the posts.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions