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

wow ,ok i didnt read everything however i just joined this week and i went to the gym each day excluding today and i lost 2 lbs so far this week what iam find funny is that i eat the 1200 cals suggested by this app per day and keep track of my exercise throughout the day as well now it doesnt matter to me weather i exercise or not i do not go over my 1200 cals . i have also seen if you under eat that your body goes into starvation mode and stores everything consumed so its a catch 22 . my thoughts here is you should try and at least work off what you consume in one day to loose weight am i wrong in that? dont over eat and dont under eat you body needs fuel to function

Not actually starvation mode when you undereat, though your body may be starving for certain things besides basic energy.
Slow down mode, for your metabolism is closer to truth.

If you really tried to "at least work off what you consume in one day" - that means you don't understand that your body, besides exercise, has needs too, like when sleeping. Please go to MFP - Tools - BMR Calc and at least read what BMR means, and you might calc what your body would like spend burning if it got it. If it doesn't, it'll slow down eventually.

Has anyone had their BMR tested? Using the calculators online I got anywhere from 1280 to 1620 but when I had my metabolism tested it read out at 1910 BMR so that changes things quite a bit. So unless you have an official test done what you think your BMR is can be quite wrong. I'm female, 5'6", 180 lbs. 44 years young.

There are only 3 calcs for BMR.

Harris-Benedict - oldest, used on most sites.
Mifflin - newer, used on MFP and a few, considered 5% more accurate than Harris.
Katch-McArdle - based on lean body mass, considered most accurate.

The studies those calcs are based on were for healthy weight people with avg Fat / LBM ratios, and were very tight bell curves, very good accuracy for the vast majority. So if the body is left to be at normal metabolism, it is indeed most likely decently accurate, within 5% either way.

The problem comes when you apply them outside the healthy weight range. The Harris and Mifflin inflate BMR for overweight or under-muscular. The Katch under-estimates for overweight.

Unless you were asleep for several hours hooked up to hose and mouth cover, you did not have your BMR tested.
You probably sat in a chair or laying for some minutes, and had your RMR tested.

Now, either they gave that figure to you straight forward as RMR, or the tech confused things and told you BMR, or they converted it before giving it to you and gave you a BMR figure.

But since it's so much higher than the calculated ones, I'm guessing it's RMR, which should indeed be higher than BMR by an amount.

Congrats, because that appears much higher than I've seen for RMR over BMR spreads.

Please keep your metabolism flying high! It's your best friend in weight loss. Look at that, you couldn't get that much exercise burn in a normal day, probably not including daily activity calories either.

I have a question.. I still have not figured this all out yet and I have been using this for almost 2 months now.. According to the calculator on this site it says my BMR is 2,280 ... after putting in my weight, height, age, sex, MFP gave me a calorie allowance of 1870 daily.. Is this too much? Should I lower it to 1200? I have a lot of weight to lose, so how important is it that I eat back my exercise calories?? Thanks for any info!

This site is not good with BMR since it doesnt know how much of you is actually fat and actually muscle. (This site says my BMR is 1360 but I went in the bod pod and it said I was 1189) Go the the gym and ask someone to get your body fat %. 1200 is pretty low for anyone but your BMR seems pretty high, unless you have ALOT of muscle. The more you have to loose, the lower you can go with cals. I was told by health and welness to eat a little above my BMR (I am eating 1350) . And if you work out, dont eat back your work out cals unless you net under 1200. So if you eat 1500 cals and work off 300, eat back 100. But this site is also pretty bad at saying you lost 600 cals for cleaning your house, when you only worked off 50. If you lift weights (which everyone should to help loose weight) you should eat a little more to feed your muscles.

This! Most people who have had their BMR actually tested come out with a lower number than generic online calculators!

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.

Ya I thought that was a totally bizarre thing to say. How can half your workout just "poof" disappear. Ummmm research!

I've done plenty of research http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/exercises/after-exercise-recovery-what-to-eat-and-drink.html

To quote:

These after-workout foods and drinks should be consumed as soon as possible after you are finished working out. Don’t wait longer than 30 minutes to refuel your body. For best results for after-workout recovery, combine protein and carbohydrates into one small meal. The combination of a protein- and carbohydrate-rich meal will increase your athletic performance and promote muscle recovery.

bump

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.

Ya I thought that was a totally bizarre thing to say. How can half your workout just "poof" disappear. Ummmm research!

I've done plenty of research http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/exercises/after-exercise-recovery-what-to-eat-and-drink.html

To quote:

These after-workout foods and drinks should be consumed as soon as possible after you are finished working out. Don’t wait longer than 30 minutes to refuel your body. For best results for after-workout recovery, combine protein and carbohydrates into one small meal. The combination of a protein- and carbohydrate-rich meal will increase your athletic performance and promote muscle recovery.

You misunderstood what I said. I never said okay you workout and eat 3 hours later and there goes your work out. But your muscles need to refuel soon after a workout and if nothing is going in then they have nothing to work with.

i find that if i work out and i am needing refuel then by all means i refuel within means and the best post workout is egg whites or protien bc it helps the mucsles so for me i do eat to refuel i still lost weight clean homemade pretien bars are the best

This site is not good with BMR since it doesnt know how much of you is actually fat and actually muscle. (This site says my BMR is 1360 but I went in the bod pod and it said I was 1189) Go the the gym and ask someone to get your body fat %. 1200 is pretty low for anyone but your BMR seems pretty high, unless you have ALOT of muscle. The more you have to loose, the lower you can go with cals. I was told by health and welness to eat a little above my BMR (I am eating 1350) . And if you work out, dont eat back your work out cals unless you net under 1200. So if you eat 1500 cals and work off 300, eat back 100. But this site is also pretty bad at saying you lost 600 cals for cleaning your house, when you only worked off 50. If you lift weights (which everyone should to help loose weight) you should eat a little more to feed your muscles.

This! Most people who have had their BMR actually tested come out with a lower number than generic online calculators!

Only because at the time most people have it tested they have been dieting with too extreme a deficit, and have stalled in their weight loss, and are wondering what is going on. They have already slowed their metabolism down, and the test just proves the point.

What the test should prove is it's time to eat more to speed it back up, rather than foolishly eating even less and forcing it slower.

The body comp BMR calc is very accurate for 95% of population with 5% spread, the others are within 10%.

Actually, I fail to see how BodPod test of bodyfat% could give any kind of BMR estimate - they probably just used the Katch formula in above case. And indeed, Katch compared to Mifflin on MFP is more accurate. So she had less muscle than expected for her age/weight/height.

Here is case study showing what happens all too often with diets.

A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.

According to your recommendation, this lady should have started eating at around 950 calories then. Sure glad they didn't all believe the RMR test was telling them where she should be, rather than the truth that she was where she should NOT be.

The random studies of BMR testing on healthy people NOT on a diet reveal great accuracy of the formula. Overweight the age/height/weight can be inflated, but the Katch is more accurate then.

I just checked the paperwork and you are so right! My RMR is 1901. I didn't realize it was different than BMR. It says my total energy output (TDEE I think) is 2669. Interesting.

Interesting backtracking available to BMR, from your RMR figure.

Cunningham RMR formula relates to LBM, which then used in Katch BMR calc that uses LBM, can give that estimate better.

RMR = 500 + (22 * LBM kg)
(1901 - 500) / 22 = LBM kg
LBM = 63.68 kg or 140.4 lbs

So that RMR of 1901 is expected for someone with a LBM of 140 lbs
So if you had a bodyfat% check at the time, and your lean body mass was more than 140 lbs, then your metabolism is less than expected. If less than 140 lbs, than RMR is more than expected.

BMR = 370 + (21.6 * LBM kg)
BMR = 1745

So that BMR is either higher or lower just as RMR is. And you can compare it to the MFP BMR calc, which they are using.

So I hope that wasn't a test done before you started dieting, and you don't know what it is now.

Not sure how they got TDEE, unless they gave you a special drink of heavy water. No, seriously, heavy water, and, uh, waited.

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

Netting bmr is not the same as eating tdee. My tdee is 2600, I eat around 2000 and net after exercise is around 1600 (bmr is 1568).

I'm at 1200 calories but I eat back all my exercise calories and go by weekly calories rather than daily. I'm losing the 1lb per week I'm supposed to be. Maybe weekly calorie counting is the way to go as there's some variance then?

I've read through this thread and it thoroughly took me down the rabbit hole, but now I'm back. I think there are a couple major problems that everyone here has (and these are my opinion with a healthy dose of deductive reasoning and skepticism):

1) The activity calculators cause a huge amount of error in TDEE. I mean, we obsess over a calorie here and a calorie there, and the multiplier meanwhile is multiplying the whole number by a guesswork factor!

2) Exercise Machines over-estimate calories. Period. There is a marketing benefit to estimating the calories high- e.g. if a machine tells you it is burning X number of calories and the effort seems a whole lot easier than plodding out that same calories on a treadmill (which is more correct) then you with a gym membership want that machine and the gym buys that machine. Arc trainers (at low resistance) are a great example. They have ridiculous calorie burns. Most of the research done on calorie burning for different activities has been done on walking, running and cycling. If your calories seem easier to get on anything else, they are probably wrong. .....Rant complete.
...almost. For HRM calories you can only use their calorie counter for cardio- even circuit training they can be really really off- like 1/3 too high...can't be used for strength training or yoga or stretching....ok rant complete.

3) If you eat back your exercise calories, you need to subtract your hourly BMR, that is your BMR/24. If your BMR is 2400, you need to subtract 100 calories per hour of exercise from your added exercise goal, because those calories are already included in your BMR.

4) As mentioned by many others, everyone should be using the Katch equation to estimate BMR- lean mass uses more calories than fat, so the more muscle you have the higher your BMR should be. Uh-Oh! Body fat is just ANOTHER estimate in this mix! The best way is to get it tested (using bod pod or DEXA) , second best would be to have a properly trained person use calipers and a close third would be to use an electrical impedence device- but its very important to follow the directions for the electrical impedence b/c your level of hydration/dehydration seriously affects the reading. Fourth best is to use the online calculators- and fourth is way, way behind the first 3.

5) People wrongly estimate their food portions when logging AND companies regularly underrepresent their portion size when calculating/printing their nutritional facts. This, like the calorie burns on the machines, is beneficial to the manufacturer- their calories PER WEIGHT SERVING are mostly correct, but the serving size you get in a package is commonly bigger than the weight listed.

So, my solutions are:
A)Use a low TDEE multiplier, like 1.2 or 1.1, and be diligent about entering all your daily activity, and be really careful to get those estimates as accurate as possible. A fitbit or similar device might be really useful for this purpose (I don't have one but I assume that would be the best way to capture everything). **Set your goal as your BMR x Low Multiplier, then eat back your exercise calories, but leave a buffer big enough to account for miscalculation** Also, I don't know what to do about strength training- I haven't figured that out yet. Theres just no good way to enter it! If your exercise calories don't give you a cushion of a couple hundred calories a day, you should cut your total number, but never go lower than your BMR.
B)If your gym (or wherever) does body composition testing get it done. Else, buy an inexpensive electrical impedence BF device and use it to track your progress. (even if its not super accurate, it should be the same amount of inaccurate all the time, so it should be a good tool to track progress).
C)Weigh EVERYTHING (that you can). Enter it in to your diary by grams, rather than portions like "1 Slice" that might be magically disappearing calories from your consumption totals. Obviously you can't weigh food when you're out, but every time you cut down the error will help.
D)KNOCK IT OFF with the 2-lb per week or 1-lb per week goals. They are calorie cuts that assume all of your weight loss will be fat loss (3500cal/lb fat). Muscle loss is like 600 or 800 cals/lb (not sure about that value) but people get super excited when their 3500 cal deficit creates like 5 lbs lost....If you lose MORE than you calculated, its not good, its either muscle loss or water. Let your lbs/week be determined by how hard you work every week, not some arbitrary number you want to work to- its more gratifying and less insane.

OR alternately, don't obsess with details and just eat when you're hungry and exercise- and see what works for you....Hahaha if that were a real option you wouldn't be on this site. :laugh: :laugh:

Ive lost 43 since march 1st
I don't eat back what I burned
Simply because...that's my deficit...why work out to burn calories if I'm just Goin to eat them back...it's a concept that dosent make any sense to me.

Ive lost 43 since march 1st
I don't eat back what I burned
Simply because...that's my deficit...why work out to burn calories if I'm just Goin to eat them back...it's a concept that dosent make any sense to me.

If you do not have a deficit built into your base target that makes absolute sense. However, MFP already builds a deficit in to the base target.

Sorry but a lot of over weight people have 'lost' that hunger feeling they don't know what it is as they've spent years comfort eating


To the poster above so should we work out our lean BMR and eat that my BMR is 1649 my lean BMR is 1340 I burn 3000 cardio exercise calories a week by fitbit?Should I eat 1340 gross calories a day or 1649?

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

Netting bmr is not the same as eating tdee. My tdee is 2600, I eat around 2000 and net after exercise is around 1600 (bmr is 1568).

Read the thread I linked, or the similar example I typed up a little later in this thread. What most people refer to as "net calories" is based on what MFP shows them, and it's meaningless. Two people with identical TDEE and calories consumed for the day will show different "net calories" based on which one had more calories in the activity multiplier versus logged exercise.