Beginning to think it's Calories consumed vs. NET instead

I only struggled with net calories when I started working out. Before I was working out, net calories were fine because I had no exercise to speak of, which meant calories consumed = net calories.

My TDEE is 2600 and my BMR 1600. MFP used to set net goal for 1700 net calories. I would try to reach that goal, but found myself eating about 2500-2600 calories a day to do so. This seemed counter intuitive since that's how much I would eat to MAINTAIN and I wanted to lose.

Now I ignore net. I pay attention to my TDEE and BMR. I always consume above my BMR and I take my deficit from my TDEE. I eat about 2200 calories a day which is a 400 calorie deficity from TDEE. Basically I target somewhere less than TDEE but more than BMR for calories consumed.

Here's another way I think of it:

I have 12 lbs to lose, which means I have 42,000 calories in excess storage (3500 calories = 1 lb, so 12 lb x 3500 = 42,000 calories). I need to burn those storage calories off.

I burn a total of 2600 calories from living/breathing/pumping blood (BMR) and exercise/normal life. But I feed my body 2200 calories a day and then it uses 400 calories from my 42,000 calories of storage to cover my energy needs of 2600 calories. I am whittling my 'storage' calories, or excess pounds away at 400 cal/day.

ETA: And I meant to say that this took trial and error over a 2 month plateau for me to figure out. Once I figured out that I was eating enough calories to maintain my weight, it was no suprise I wasn't losing. Then it took a few more weeks to find the sweet spot. At a 400 calorie deficit I lose about 0.5 lb/week. I'm also doing heavy lifting and very close to my goal weight, so I'm not surprised.

Everyone is different and I don't presume to know what works for anyone else. However, on the advice of many people on here, a while back I tried eating back my workout calories and very quickly my weight loss came to an abrupt halt (and I actually started gaining). I don't see the necessity in eating everything back, I see the necessity in eating good foods that will keep the body running.

What about a marathon runner? Net comes into play there. What about if you want to keep your muscle mass? Your body will eat away at your muscles if you dont feed them. You will loose, but will it be fat or muscle? Never net under 1200 (give or take 100, depending on the person). Do you want to be skinny or healthy....I vote for healthy.

I am not advocating eating under 1200 calories at all....... I am saying that many eat their TDEE and don't eat back what they exercise off...... even if it's under their BMR..... 1200 calories is just simply a #, it could be someone's BMR or it could be 400 calories below

I think most of the time this is a result of underestimating calories eaten and/or overestimating calories burned.

Okay so I figure things out a little differently, since I am a breastfeeding mommy.

I calculate my BMR just as anyone else does and it comes to 1499.

I then do the Fat2FitRadio idea of eating the TDEE of my goal weight, which is 150 lbs. So that TDEE is 1696. This is all set towards sedentary. Trust me I am not sedentary I am a mom of 6 (5 of which are boys).

I have to add in only 300 calories for breastfeeding since my little one is 10 months old.

My TDEE would be 1996, basically 2000.

This week I started to eat about that much daily and net around 1700-1800. I haven't exercised this week really, but when I do I eat a lot of them back. (I use a HRM)

I weigh in "officialy" tomorrow, but this week I am already down 2.5 pounds. That will make 32 pounds lost since January.

You see though we all have different genetics, and what works for me might not work for others.

I don't believe in going to far from your BMR or under 1200 just because I would not be able to function.

I like your thought process, and eating for "the future you"

The issue is people not understanding the terms they are using. Or, they are underestimating the calories they are actually eating, or overestimating their burn.

For example, just in this thread someone said they don't know why anyone would eat over BMR.

BMR means basal metabolic rate. It is the number of calories they would feed you if you were in a coma, just to keep you alive.

I said that and I know perfectly well what it means. Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight. If you lose, that would just mean that the calculated BMR isn't correct for you (which it often isn't). You have to consume (absorb) less calories than your body will use in order to lose weight.

People on this site rely very heavily on BMR and TDEE calculation formulas when those are just formulas for the average person. It's only going to be a rough estimate on a personal level.

I hate to say this but no.....you totally do not get what BMR is if this is your explanation.

Agreed...BMR is not have many calories you burn in a day w/out any exercise, it is how many you burn if you are not functioning at all (like someone else said...in a coma). If you get out of bed you have already used more calories than your BMR. Eating between BMR and TDEE will allow you to lose weight.

What about a marathon runner? Net comes into play there. What about if you want to keep your muscle mass? Your body will eat away at your muscles if you dont feed them. You will loose, but will it be fat or muscle? Never net under 1200 (give or take 100, depending on the person). Do you want to be skinny or healthy....I vote for healthy.

The issue is people not understanding the terms they are using. Or, they are underestimating the calories they are actually eating, or overestimating their burn.

For example, just in this thread someone said they don't know why anyone would eat over BMR.

BMR means basal metabolic rate. It is the number of calories they would feed you if you were in a coma, just to keep you alive.

I said that and I know perfectly well what it means. Once you take activity calories earned and eaten back out of the equation, if you eat over your BMR you will gain weight. If you lose, that would just mean that the calculated BMR isn't correct for you (which it often isn't). You have to consume (absorb) less calories than your body will use in order to lose weight.

People on this site rely very heavily on BMR and TDEE calculation formulas when those are just formulas for the average person. It's only going to be a rough estimate on a personal level.

I hate to say this but no.....you totally do not get what BMR is if this is your explanation.

Agreed...BMR is not have many calories you burn in a day w/out any exercise, it is how many you burn if you are not functioning at all (like someone else said...in a coma). If you get out of bed you have already used more calories than your BMR. Eating between BMR and TDEE will allow you to lose weight.

Did I say "exercise"?

It depends on how honest you are with your tracking and it probably depends on a lot of different factors for different people. I always eat back my exercise calories. I am a religious logger of what I eat. I weigh and measure my food. Also, you have to be honest about your activity level when setting up the "net" requirements. I have a desk job - yes, I move around a little and I exercise about an hour a day - but for most of the day - i am sitting at a computer or in a meeting or in a car. I'm constantly moving at home, but i still consider my daily life only lightly active.

The way MFP has it set up has worked for me. I'm down 20 lbs since December.

My TDEE is higher than my "net", but all in all I probably end up eating that many calories when I exercise and eat back my exercise calories regardless of the "net"