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

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 just doesn't seem to make sense what you are saying...yes, if you were in a coma and you were getting more than your BMR in a feeding tube you would gain weight...but it has no real life application. Everyone on these boards are using more than their BMR calories because they are awake and typing...so I guess I just don't get the purpose of what you are saying...

A defence is in the works....wait for it.

math is hard

I hear this! my head hurts.....

The more I watch people's weight loss journey's the more I am convinced that as long as your "calories consumed" is over your BMR it does not matter what you burn off.....

I have tried all methods, eating 1200 and excercise cal back, eating my BMR plus exercise calories, eating TDEE -15%, and the people I see with the greatest results and consistant weight losses are the ones who regularily eat over their BMR, closest to maintenance and don't bother with worrying about their net calories even if they are UNDER their BMR...

Could it be that eating back what you burn off is the reason people are not losing weight ? Maybe our body's do not care if we net below our BMR as long as we EAT/CONSUME over BMR's ????

I think the word NET is what is screwing everyone up on here.....just eat over your BMR and leave it at that !

Thoughts ???

I posted very similar thoughts about a week ago. A couple people got it, most didn't. As far as I can tell, "netting BMR" can mean one of two things:

If you ignore the MFP interface (which treats calories from your activity level and calories from exercise differently), then "netting BMR" means the same as "eating TDEE", which would result in no weight gain or loss.

If you use MFP's display of calories, then people who set a higher activity level in their profile can eat more calories while still looking like they "net their BMR", even if they have identical caloric intake and TDEE as someone who set their activity level to Sedentary and just logged more exercise. In other words, what MFP shows as your Net Calories for the day are completely meaningless when compared to your BMR.

It may be a good thing to consume more calories (gross, not net) than your BMR. I don't know that for certain one way or another, but beyond that, the only thing that matters is TDEE. Eat less than TDEE, lose weight over time.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/566837-exercise-calories-versus-daily-activity-eating-bmr

You should eat back half of how many calories you burn during exercise. NOT ALL. So if your goal is 1500 and you burn 500 calories your net would be 1,000 so you need to eat back 250 calories at a minimum. If you don't eat within 30 minutes of working out you lose half of your workout. I think it's more of what type of calories and foods people are putting into their bodies then eating back exercise calories. It also depends on a million different factors, age, gender, etc.

Sorry, I hate to potentially start another sub-thread here, but there is no evidence to suggest eating 30 minutes after a workout is better than eating say 4 hours after a workout (unless you are hungry of course!). Also, the only reason why you should not eat all your exercise calories back, assuming you already have an appropriate deficit built into your base and your base target does not include exercise, is really because of the fact that MFP and the exercise machines usually over-estimate them.

It just doesn't seem to make sense what you are saying...yes, if you were in a coma and you were getting more than your BMR in a feeding tube you would gain weight...but it has no real life application. Everyone on these boards are using more than their BMR calories because they are awake and typing...so I guess I just don't get the purpose of what you are saying...

Agreeing with the OP. That if your NET is below BMR it's not a problem. Going to happy hour now so that's all the explanation I can give for now. :drinker:

Well I enjoyed our chat...I'm pretty sure I burned several calories just trying to figure out what the heck you were trying to say...so thank you. Enjoy your happy hour...you've earned it!

You should eat back half of how many calories you burn during exercise. NOT ALL. So if your goal is 1500 and you burn 500 calories your net would be 1,000 so you need to eat back 250 calories at a minimum. If you don't eat within 30 minutes of working out you lose half of your workout. I think it's more of what type of calories and foods people are putting into their bodies then eating back exercise calories. It also depends on a million different factors, age, gender, etc.

Sorry, I hate to potentially start another sub-thread here, but there is no evidence to suggest eating 30 minutes after a workout is better than eating say 4 hours after a workout (unless you are hungry of course!). Also, the only reason why you should not eat all your exercise calories back, assuming you already have an appropriate deficit built into your base and your base target does not include exercise, is really because of the fact that MFP and the exercise machines usually over-estimate them.

That's ok, it was so far off the chart that I just decided to let it go.......

Reedited - re-read and just realized what you were saying :blushing:

I'm good at math. I really am.

But when it comes to this site, I simply entered my numbers, told it I wanted to lose 2 pounds a week, and concentrated on making as many of the green numbers stay green but approach zero as closely as possible every single day. And I'm nowhere near perfect in that regard. Yet I'm averaging about 1-2 pounds a week of weight loss, I'm rarely hungry, my fitness levels are coming up (because exercising means I get to eat more food!), and I'm happy.

Seriously, the site makes things so simple, yet there's post after post trying to overcomplicate it. If it's not working for you, experiment with different levels of calories (or different balances of carbs/fat/proteins) until it does, because the BMR/TDEE/calories burned/calories consumed are just estimates anyway. But leave it on automatic for a little while and just learn about food to start with.

And what works for one person does not necessarily work for another. If I eat less, my weight loss speeds up for a short time then stalls, and I find my workouts start being less energetic. The site tells me that this is because I'm lowering the number of calories I burn while at rest, and I'm not feeding my body enough. Then I get hungry and start eating more and my weight pops up, then slowly begins to dwindle again as my exercise intensity gets better and I feel more energetic. The site tells me that I'm affecting my metabolic rate, and this explanation fits my experiences with self-experimentation on different exercise/diet types over the years. Is it bull****? Maybe, but it's reasonable-sounding bull**** that happens to work for me.

I'm not in this to become a nutritionist. I'm in this to learn about food, and healthy diets, and the fact that my old diet (which was full of good fats and fruits and protein and veggies and all the good stuff Momma told me to eat) was made of excellent components that were not in proper proportions to maintain my health. I'm learning what works for me, and the site is giving me great advice that is working.

For someone new to this site or someone who has been struggling with exact calculations of BMR/TDEE, etc, and gets confused, I'd respectfully suggest you just put down the calculator, go through the setup wizard, and follow the recommendations for a month or two. The people who put this plan together are not complete idiots, and while there are many paths to weight loss and you are free to chose your own, the site's chosen path seems to work pretty well (at least for me).

Bump

I'm good at math. I really am.

But when it comes to this site, I simply entered my numbers, told it I wanted to lose 2 pounds a week, and concentrated on making as many of the green numbers stay green but approach zero as closely as possible every single day.

People who are trying to lose 20 pounds or less are not usually able to lose 2 pounds a week *safely*. So the calorie goal given by MFP is not necessarily going to be sustainable for them.

bump

bump for laters.

Can someone help me

I've lost 22lbs
I've 71 lbs to lose
I'm 42 female 207lbs 5ft 2
I do 2 Zumba classes a week & 3 wii Zumba a week
3000 calories burnt
I was eating 1310 calories a day
Then lowered at mfp recommendation as I'd list 2x10lbs
My weightloss is stalling people have helped me saying I should eat more rat my net = my BMR 1649

Now after reading this I'm worried I shouldn't eat net of 1649

I've eaten 1350 or under Net since Tuesday as it was only 620 net before

Can someone tell me how many calories I should eat to lose 1-2 lbs a week do I eat net 1350 or calories 1649
Or something else ?

Thanks

It's a bit hard to pick the relevant numbers out of this. When you say "3000 calories burnt", is that your total for an average day? If so, then you can eat between 2000 and 2500 (total, not net) and be in a perfect zone for weight loss.

It's your total calories consumed versus TDEE (total calories burned) that matters. Throwing the "net" numbers around just confuses people.

My take on the 'netting your BMR' is:

- the studies are not totally conclusive either way
- as there is no evidence to say netting below your BMR does not impact your metabolic rate, why risk it?
- I can lose weight being below my TDEE and, as long as I am below that, in my opinion, eating more is good (I like food!!)
- eating at a higher amount just is more sustainable and allows me to go out, have treats etc etc more readily.

I suppose that I look at it from a different perspective. If someone is netting below their TDEE, whether by 500 cals or 1500 cals, the questions to me is why they are not losing weight (assuming that is is a real stall and not just a week or two masked by water weight fluctuations). Either way, they should be losing weight, and increasing the deficit, whether that takes you under your BMR or not, is not necessarily the right answer.