Beginning to think it's Calories consumed vs. NET instead
Options
Replies
-
I did read the thread. You should read my post, as I didnt say anything about 1200 or starving? My point is that *people* are loosing weight eating their cals back. I am one of them.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 think that's horrible advice. I always NET over BMR and eat back my exercise calories, and I've managed to hit goal/the bottom of the healthy BMI scale.
Read the whole thread before you judge.... I said I don't advocate eating 1200 calories or starving yourself.......0 -
I did read the thread. You should read my post, as I didnt say anything about 1200 or starving? My point is that *people* are loosing weight eating their cals back. I am one of them.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 think that's horrible advice. I always NET over BMR and eat back my exercise calories, and I've managed to hit goal/the bottom of the healthy BMI scale.
Read the whole thread before you judge.... I said I don't advocate eating 1200 calories or starving yourself.......
Eating back some or all exercise calories is a good thing; it means you're maintaining a roughly consistent deficit from your TDEE. It's the concept of comparing your "net calories" to BMR that is flawed, because 'net calories" only exist in the MFP interface, and are different depending on which activity level you selected (even if your overall calories consumed / burned are identical).
There would be no confusion or mistakes on this at all if MFP showed the numbers differently. If instead of subtracting the calories burned by your logged exercise from what you've already eaten for the day (which introduces the concept of "net calories"), they simply increased your target calories, everyone would be on the same page.0 -
i have to do it, i only read 2 pages and i am already shaking my head. lol why do we worry so much about the numbers? eat when you are hungry and pay attention to what you eat, eat healthy. if your not hungry DONT EAT!!!!!!
When I was young, extremely active, before I had a sedentary job requiring me to spend hours in front of a computer, that's basically what I did and I never had a problem. Now I'm older, with a slower metabolism, less active in general, quite sedentary because of an injury and I need to log my calories and get some idea of my nutrient distribution. For me, the 1,200 calories suggested by MFP is too high, but I'm trying not to worry about it until I recover.
I would never eat back my calories now unless I was engaging in an extraordinary amount of exercise. Sure, I might eat more because of the exertion, but the idea of trying to match the inflated calorie burn estimate provided by my devices would be a bad move.0 -
Hey everyone - this is the best calculator ever!
http://www.matthewscaloriecounter.com/calorie_calculators/daily_calorie_limit_calculator.aspx0 -
I tried following all the BMR and TDEE formulas for losing weight for 4 weeks and ended up gaining 2-4 lbs depending on the day. Even working out 6 days a week. I finally said screw it and went back to following MFP's guidelines to a T and started to lose weight again! I figure if I have managed to lose 29 lbs following mfp's guidelines it must work for me. I constantly change up my workouts and try to keep a lot of my numbers in the green, except for my protein. If I plateau then Ill change up my workout and what I eat. Till then this works very well for me.0
-
I tried following all the BMR and TDEE formulas for losing weight for 4 weeks and ended up gaining 2-4 lbs depending on the day. Even working out 6 days a week. I finally said screw it and went back to following MFP's guidelines to a T and started to lose weight again! I figure if I have managed to lose 29 lbs following mfp's guidelines it must work for me. I constantly change up my workouts and try to keep a lot of my numbers in the green, except for my protein. If I plateau then Ill change up my workout and what I eat. Till then this works very well for me.
I'm actually starting to think the same thing, which sucks because I was rather enjoying eating more. Lol.. But im not losing anymore and ive gone up and down a pound since increasing. ALL of the calculators I am using, and I mean all of them just don't show me as burning very much. I have approx 92 to 99 lbs of lean body mass, I'm 35, and 5 foot 1 and a half. If I don't work out, my tdee is right around 1600 and if I work out moderately 3 to 5 times a week, my tdee is right around 2,000. This gives me an allowance of 1100 ( under bmr so I won't eat that little ever) on non workout days to 1500 on workout days for weight loss calories to be eaten, not net. This is using the katch formula I found at http://www.cordianet.com/calculator.htm. Even when I have Mfp set to lose only 1 lb per week it puts me at a 1200 cal a day diet and even if I set it to .5 lbs a week it still only has me on a 1400 cal diet. And here i am I've been eating 15 to 1600 a day trying to up my calories based on all the other formulas that have been thrown around and no longer progressing. Since I only have 20 pounds left to get to goal and I'm so "petite" am I just doomed to a lower calorie diet for life? I have no problem working out because I enjoy it, but I am not a runner and so I can't compare myself to the other high cal eaters on this site who are also petite, who all seem to be running marathons or doing other really intense training:/0 -
If someone has a gain for more than four weeks, they are not eating below their TDEE. The problem is, all these calculations are based on estimates, which are based on estimates, which are based on more estimates. Your BMR is an estimate (based on an 'average' person), your activity level gives an estimated non-workout energy expenditure, calories expended during exercise is an estimate, and even what you eat is (I doubt everyone weighs 100% of what they eat).
The tools available are great, but thats all they are, tools.
It is not that you wil not lose weight if you do not eat exercise calories back, or if you go below BMR. The trick is to eat at a level that gives a reasonable deficit without going too low. If you are 'eating your calories back' and not losing for more than four weeks, you are eating at or above your TDEE - this does not negate the concept, it just means that the estimates are not right for you and you are not at a deficit.
The concept of 'less than TDEE = weight loss' is basically applicable to everyone, but everyone has individual variables that makes TDEE different for them.0 -
If someone has a gain for more than four weeks, they are not eating below their TDEE. The problem is, all these calculations are based on estimates, which are based on estimates, which are based on more estimates. Your BMR is an estimate (based on an 'average' person), your activity level gives an estimated non-workout energy expenditure, calories expended during exercise is an estimate, and even what you eat is (I doubt everyone weighs 100% of what they eat).
The tools available are great, but thats all they are, tools.
It is not that you wil not lose weight if you do not eat exercise calories back, or if you go below BMR. The trick is to eat at a level that gives a reasonable deficit without going too low. If you are 'eating your calories back' and not losing for more than four weeks, you are eating at or above your TDEE - this does not negate the concept, it just means that the estimates are not right for you and you are not at a deficit.
The concept of 'less than TDEE = weight loss' is basically applicable to everyone, but everyone has individual variables that makes TDEE different for them.
Is my approx tdee minus 500 cals a day reasonable? I am trying to get all of my food as precise as possible so i weigh everything and this is well, my full time job right now lol, so I figure I finally have the time, why not do it right? I won't eat below my bmr because I just don't think that's healthy when Im at an almost healthy weight already, but if I ate above my bmr by say 100 on non workout days and let's say 300 on workout days, does that seem too low? That comes out to about a 500 cal difference from tdee. I'm jut trying to get a few more opinions on this because Im starting to think because of my size and age I just shouldn't be eating as much as I was starting to think..... Oh lawdy, Im drivin myself crazy lol. It's not that I want to lose wight super fast, or that I want to be able to stuff my face with Doritos, I only started questioning this process when I started reading things that made me worry that 1200 was damagingly metabolism. THAT is the last thing I want to do at the age of 35 and having dieted on and off all my life already.0 -
If someone has a gain for more than four weeks, they are not eating below their TDEE. The problem is, all these calculations are based on estimates, which are based on estimates, which are based on more estimates. Your BMR is an estimate (based on an 'average' person), your activity level gives an estimated non-workout energy expenditure, calories expended during exercise is an estimate, and even what you eat is (I doubt everyone weighs 100% of what they eat).
The tools available are great, but thats all they are, tools.
It is not that you wil not lose weight if you do not eat exercise calories back, or if you go below BMR. The trick is to eat at a level that gives a reasonable deficit without going too low. If you are 'eating your calories back' and not losing for more than four weeks, you are eating at or above your TDEE - this does not negate the concept, it just means that the estimates are not right for you and you are not at a deficit.
The concept of 'less than TDEE = weight loss' is basically applicable to everyone, but everyone has individual variables that makes TDEE different for them.
Is my approx tdee minus 500 cals a day reasonable? I am trying to get all of my food as precise as possible so i weigh everything and this is well, my full time job right now lol, so I figure I finally have the time, why not do it right? I won't eat below my bmr because I just don't think that's healthy when Im at an almost healthy weight already, but if I ate above my bmr by say 100 on non workout days and let's say 300 on workout days, does that seem too low? That comes out to about a 500 cal difference from tdee. I'm jut trying to get a few more opinions on this because Im starting to think because of my size and age I just shouldn't be eating as much as I was starting to think..... Oh lawdy, Im drivin myself crazy lol. It's not that I want to lose wight super fast, or that I want to be able to stuff my face with Doritos, I only started questioning this process when I started reading things that made me worry that 1200 was damagingly metabolism. THAT is the last thing I want to do at the age of 35 and having dieted on and off all my life already.
TDEE minus 500 per day is the low end of what doctors recommend for sustainable weight loss, targeting approximately 1 pound loss per week.0 -
If someone has a gain for more than four weeks, they are not eating below their TDEE. The problem is, all these calculations are based on estimates, which are based on estimates, which are based on more estimates. Your BMR is an estimate (based on an 'average' person), your activity level gives an estimated non-workout energy expenditure, calories expended during exercise is an estimate, and even what you eat is (I doubt everyone weighs 100% of what they eat).
The tools available are great, but thats all they are, tools.
It is not that you wil not lose weight if you do not eat exercise calories back, or if you go below BMR. The trick is to eat at a level that gives a reasonable deficit without going too low. If you are 'eating your calories back' and not losing for more than four weeks, you are eating at or above your TDEE - this does not negate the concept, it just means that the estimates are not right for you and you are not at a deficit.
The concept of 'less than TDEE = weight loss' is basically applicable to everyone, but everyone has individual variables that makes TDEE different for them.
Is my approx tdee minus 500 cals a day reasonable? I am trying to get all of my food as precise as possible so i weigh everything and this is well, my full time job right now lol, so I figure I finally have the time, why not do it right? I won't eat below my bmr because I just don't think that's healthy when Im at an almost healthy weight already, but if I ate above my bmr by say 100 on non workout days and let's say 300 on workout days, does that seem too low? That comes out to about a 500 cal difference from tdee. I'm jut trying to get a few more opinions on this because Im starting to think because of my size and age I just shouldn't be eating as much as I was starting to think..... Oh lawdy, Im drivin myself crazy lol. It's not that I want to lose wight super fast, or that I want to be able to stuff my face with Doritos, I only started questioning this process when I started reading things that made me worry that 1200 was damagingly metabolism. THAT is the last thing I want to do at the age of 35 and having dieted on and off all my life already.
What you are doing sounds totally reasonable. When you get to about 10 lb to lose - drop it to 1/2 lb target.0 -
Yikes Id say. That would put me below 1200, hundreds below my bmr. Considering I eat into the 1900-2000 most days, I'd hardly call that sustainable.If someone has a gain for more than four weeks, they are not eating below their TDEE. The problem is, all these calculations are based on estimates, which are based on estimates, which are based on more estimates. Your BMR is an estimate (based on an 'average' person), your activity level gives an estimated non-workout energy expenditure, calories expended during exercise is an estimate, and even what you eat is (I doubt everyone weighs 100% of what they eat).
The tools available are great, but thats all they are, tools.
It is not that you wil not lose weight if you do not eat exercise calories back, or if you go below BMR. The trick is to eat at a level that gives a reasonable deficit without going too low. If you are 'eating your calories back' and not losing for more than four weeks, you are eating at or above your TDEE - this does not negate the concept, it just means that the estimates are not right for you and you are not at a deficit.
The concept of 'less than TDEE = weight loss' is basically applicable to everyone, but everyone has individual variables that makes TDEE different for them.
Is my approx tdee minus 500 cals a day reasonable? I am trying to get all of my food as precise as possible so i weigh everything and this is well, my full time job right now lol, so I figure I finally have the time, why not do it right? I won't eat below my bmr because I just don't think that's healthy when Im at an almost healthy weight already, but if I ate above my bmr by say 100 on non workout days and let's say 300 on workout days, does that seem too low? That comes out to about a 500 cal difference from tdee. I'm jut trying to get a few more opinions on this because Im starting to think because of my size and age I just shouldn't be eating as much as I was starting to think..... Oh lawdy, Im drivin myself crazy lol. It's not that I want to lose wight super fast, or that I want to be able to stuff my face with Doritos, I only started questioning this process when I started reading things that made me worry that 1200 was damagingly metabolism. THAT is the last thing I want to do at the age of 35 and having dieted on and off all my life already.
TDEE minus 500 per day is the low end of what doctors recommend for sustainable weight loss, targeting approximately 1 pound loss per week.0 -
I don't know why I read these threads.. they give me a HEADACHE! Huuuuh!0
-
If someone has a gain for more than four weeks, they are not eating below their TDEE. The problem is, all these calculations are based on estimates, which are based on estimates, which are based on more estimates. Your BMR is an estimate (based on an 'average' person), your activity level gives an estimated non-workout energy expenditure, calories expended during exercise is an estimate, and even what you eat is (I doubt everyone weighs 100% of what they eat).
The tools available are great, but thats all they are, tools.
It is not that you wil not lose weight if you do not eat exercise calories back, or if you go below BMR. The trick is to eat at a level that gives a reasonable deficit without going too low. If you are 'eating your calories back' and not losing for more than four weeks, you are eating at or above your TDEE - this does not negate the concept, it just means that the estimates are not right for you and you are not at a deficit.
The concept of 'less than TDEE = weight loss' is basically applicable to everyone, but everyone has individual variables that makes TDEE different for them.
Is my approx tdee minus 500 cals a day reasonable? I am trying to get all of my food as precise as possible so i weigh everything and this is well, my full time job right now lol, so I figure I finally have the time, why not do it right? I won't eat below my bmr because I just don't think that's healthy when Im at an almost healthy weight already, but if I ate above my bmr by say 100 on non workout days and let's say 300 on workout days, does that seem too low? That comes out to about a 500 cal difference from tdee. I'm jut trying to get a few more opinions on this because Im starting to think because of my size and age I just shouldn't be eating as much as I was starting to think..... Oh lawdy, Im drivin myself crazy lol. It's not that I want to lose wight super fast, or that I want to be able to stuff my face with Doritos, I only started questioning this process when I started reading things that made me worry that 1200 was damagingly metabolism. THAT is the last thing I want to do at the age of 35 and having dieted on and off all my life already.
What you are doing sounds totally reasonable. When you get to about 10 lb to lose - drop it to 1/2 lb target.
Actually,, CoderGal just reminded me of the caveat I forgot to include. If the 500 deficit takes you under your BMR - stick to at least your BMR,0 -
There would be no confusion or mistakes on this at all if MFP showed the numbers differently. If instead of subtracting the calories burned by your logged exercise from what you've already eaten for the day (which introduces the concept of "net calories"), they simply increased your target calories, everyone would be on the same page.
What you say MFP should do is EXACTLY what they do. "they simply increased your target calories"
On Your Food Diary page.
Totals - what you ate.
Your Daily Goal - your already deficit calorie goal plus any exercise calories you logged.
Remaining - Your Daily Goal minus Totals
And there is a footnote explaining why Your Daily Goal is higher - "*You've earned xxx extra calories from exercise today"
Only on the Goals page though, where your actual exercise is unknown yet, is terms with Net in them, and the footnote "Net Calories Consumed = Total Calories Consumed - Exercise Calories Burned"
And sadly those terms don't seem to be used elsewhere.
And I doubt many people ever see that closely or read it after they setup their stats, or they would have discovered their 1200 goal does NOT even allow for a 2 lb a week weight loss goal they think they got.0 -
I'm sure somewhere in this thread someone probably said what I'm about to....but here we go:
Weight Loss - If all we are talking about is weight loss, and not health, obesity, disease, etc...then consume less calories than you utilize. It's that simple...and then again, it's not.
BMR - Here's the problem with using formulas to calculate the BMR even though we all do it. The Harris-Benedict equation/formula is the most widely respected formula in use today to help calculate this number. THE PROBLEM is that data out of leading Universities including Harvard and Columbia suggest that when you lose weight your brain is triggered to reduce your metabolic rate........thereby trying to maintain the old weight set point.
What this means is that when YOU calculate your BMR for the weight you are.....it's probably lower if you are losing weight than someone who has always been that weight. HOLY CRAP! Right? Your brain slows your metabolic rate below what it should be for that weight so you gain the weight back! NO DANG FAIR!
One way to get closer to your real resting metabolic rate is get a "METABOLIC CART". This is a scientific assessment of your BMR. Problem is that as you lose weight it might have to be recalculated every 10-15 lbs.
The other problem in general here is that not only is calculating the BASAL METABOLIC RATE problematic, but so is estimating the actual caloric burn from exercise and the actual calorie intake from food (incorrect labels, underestimation of calorie intake, etc).
If all these calculations were 100 percent accurate and the calorie intake labels on foods were absolutely accurate, then NET CALORIES would be a very accurate indicator of projected weight loss.
BOTTOM LINE: Figure out for you what works. All the numbers are estimates. Find the level of what works for you.
WARNING: Many studies show that people who lose weight (and lean body mass along with fat) and get underweight or normal weight are actually at higher risk for Metabolic Syndrome (High blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease etc) than obese people who exercise greater than 30 minutes a day. Take that into consideration.
You can lower your risk of disease/metabolic syndrome just through exercise. Both resistance training (Weights) and Aerobic exercise seem to help in different ways and improve insulin sensitivity.
Mixing body building with aerobic activity in moderation will help you maintain lean body mass while losing weight. Calorie restriction is only part of the answer.
IF you want a science based discussion on this topic..see the following YOUTUBE video for a review. It's a bit heady, but if you only listen to the main points....you'll be surprised at what you might learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYCPQz9nhQs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
TexasTango
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter0 -
I'll tell you an experience I had. It's also the reason I don't do any aerobics directly. By that I mean, our entire existence is aerobic - even as I type this, so I won't get on a treadmill or go for a run. A while back I was eating at a specific deficit, and dropping fat every week in a predictable manner. My strength training was keeping my lean weight in check, and I felt fine. Enter MyFitnessPal. I started doing this aerobics training to see if I could speed up my fat loss. Well, the first thing I noticed was MFP automatically added back the calories I burned whenever I entered them. Which is really cool if you like to eat like me, but not during a cut. So I did what it said. Before this I would lose just a tad over 2lbs weekly, with no changes in lean weight. I did the aerobics (treadmill) for three weeks, while adding back the calories MFP told me to. I gained 4 pounds in a three week period. Each week I thought it was because my sleep was off, stress, work and that next week my weight would drop. Here I am training longer and harder, messing up my recovery from ST and gaining more fat than if I just sat on the couch. I learned a big lesson about aerobics in 1995 when I was running 3 miles a day and dieting while sitting at the same body weight for more than a month. I cut calories, and ran faster. This was the first time I ever really did any kind of aerobics outside of school gym class and wrestling. Nothing worked. I had gotten to sub 10% body fat before with just weight training and a hell of a lot more food. I thought for sure the running and dieting would get me to 5%. Ha! One day I just gave up. My friend said he was going to Miami Subs... I said, "Let's go. I'm fuggin' tired of chicken and broccoli." I ate like I didn't give a ****, because I didn't. Went back to my old ways, and within 3 weeks was 5lbs. lighter, and got some lean weight back. I guess every now and then I gotta jump on a treadmill to remind myself not to ever again.0
-
I have tried different ways. Eating frequently, eating less frequently, eating exercise calories, not eating them, lowish carbs, high protein blah blah.
I have come to the conclusion that I am just going for moderation in all things - eat to hunger but mostly healthily, not be rigid about things, and exercise as it fits my life. Logging and feeling like I need to exercise to earn more calories is not for me in the long run.
And since I adopted a more relaxed approach I have kept off all of the 13lbs I lost over the previous six months on MFP.0 -
I am only on my second week here and my BMR is around 1750, my calorie goal is 1360 a day assuming no exercise. I always try and eat around my calorie allowance as my target has my 1.5lb loss built into it so don't see why I need to eat any less. In my first week I lost around 4lbs which I know the majority is probably water and this week I am looking at around 3lbs loss, so at the minute it is working for me to eat around 400 calories a day below my BMR calories0
-
Yikes Id say. That would put me below 1200, hundreds below my bmr. Considering I eat into the 1900-2000 most days, I'd hardly call that sustainable.If someone has a gain for more than four weeks, they are not eating below their TDEE. The problem is, all these calculations are based on estimates, which are based on estimates, which are based on more estimates. Your BMR is an estimate (based on an 'average' person), your activity level gives an estimated non-workout energy expenditure, calories expended during exercise is an estimate, and even what you eat is (I doubt everyone weighs 100% of what they eat).
The tools available are great, but thats all they are, tools.
It is not that you wil not lose weight if you do not eat exercise calories back, or if you go below BMR. The trick is to eat at a level that gives a reasonable deficit without going too low. If you are 'eating your calories back' and not losing for more than four weeks, you are eating at or above your TDEE - this does not negate the concept, it just means that the estimates are not right for you and you are not at a deficit.
The concept of 'less than TDEE = weight loss' is basically applicable to everyone, but everyone has individual variables that makes TDEE different for them.
Is my approx tdee minus 500 cals a day reasonable? I am trying to get all of my food as precise as possible so i weigh everything and this is well, my full time job right now lol, so I figure I finally have the time, why not do it right? I won't eat below my bmr because I just don't think that's healthy when Im at an almost healthy weight already, but if I ate above my bmr by say 100 on non workout days and let's say 300 on workout days, does that seem too low? That comes out to about a 500 cal difference from tdee. I'm jut trying to get a few more opinions on this because Im starting to think because of my size and age I just shouldn't be eating as much as I was starting to think..... Oh lawdy, Im drivin myself crazy lol. It's not that I want to lose wight super fast, or that I want to be able to stuff my face with Doritos, I only started questioning this process when I started reading things that made me worry that 1200 was damagingly metabolism. THAT is the last thing I want to do at the age of 35 and having dieted on and off all my life already.
TDEE minus 500 per day is the low end of what doctors recommend for sustainable weight loss, targeting approximately 1 pound loss per week.
You're not making any sense... if TDEE minus 500 puts you below 1200, then eating 2000 calories would be at least your TDEE plus 300, and you'd be gaining weight.
You do understand that TDEE is your total calories burned for the day, including all exercise, BMR and random other activity, right? It's not just your original target before exercise.0 -
i read the first couple of pages and then gave up, i think peoples knowledge and terminology is the problem.
my bmr is 1960 so for me to lie in bed and doing nothing all day i burn 1960 calories. this is my bmr.
tdee is bmr + activity level + extra and above exercise calories non usual walks i.e walking home from work etc.
1960 (bmr) x (1.2 sedentary have an office job) + 350-450 exercise calories = tdee = 2702-2802 depending on gym
so my bmr is 1960 and my tdee is 2802, i want to eat 2200-2300 to lose 1lb a week on gym days and 1900 on non gym days.
i am eating above my bmr but still leaving a clorie defict on gym days and just below on non gym days.
but i agree it simple calories in vs out, if your 500 less everyday then you will lose weight. i have read an article saying that you should try to eat your bmr daily and up your exercise as this keeps your metabolism going better and does not try and prevent fat loss due to survival mode etc.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions