I'm still eating the same amount of food, my goal just reflects it better to start with and my NET now often shows that I'm meeting or exceeding my BMR number so I don't have to think about eating back any extra calories.

This is what drives me nuts. Your words: "I'm still eating the same amount of food." Yet you perceive your Net Calories as being different because you changed how the numbers were displayed on MFP, even though your TDEE and total calorie consumption didn't change.

Someone else might have actually changed the amount of food they were eating (which would very likely have been a mistake, one way or the other), instead of just fudging the numbers the way you did.

I didn't fudge any numbers. I discovered that my activity levels were wrong by watching my NET. We don't always know how active we really are. I needed to find out what my true TDEE level was and the NET number helped me do that by showing me that I was exercising more than I had put into my TDEE number in the first place. Without NET I wouldn't have known that I had done it wrong. I would still be GUESSING! Now when I run my numbers with the true activity level, everything works out the way it should, I don't have to worry about the Net calories anymore because I'm usually above BMR NET now.

NET is a great tool to help you figure out if you calculated your activity level properly. If someone just randomly ups their number without considering all the facts then of course they might screw up their progress. But NET isn't flawed just because someone doesn't understand HOW to use it. It's up to individuals to ask questions, learn the process. Anything can be used incorrectly if people don't find out how to use it the right way.

I'm not trying to insult you, but "fudge the numbers" is a very accurate description of what happened. If, as you say, you didn't change the actual amount of food you ate, then all you did was make it look different on MFP by having a different number of calories in your initial target versus your exercise diary.

You say that "Without NET, you wouldn't have known that you had done it wrong." I fail to see how you had done anything wrong, since you're still eating the same amount of food.

I'm sorry that there is still a misunderstanding on this...I may not be explaining it correctly or something, but your response does not accurately reflect what I was saying.

I think the point that might be still misunderstood is that by watching my NET and eating back the calories while my TDEE number was still wrong caused me to EAT MORE TOTAL CALORIES at that time which (although my TDEE was not correct) allowed me to eat correctly. The adjustments made afterwards with the TDEE (main goal) simply reflected what I learned during the period of watching my NET. I had already MADE the actual food adjustments but wanted to make sure my TDEE number (goal) on MFP was also accurately reflected.

As Kiki said, it's just different ways of doing things. I didn't fudge anything, I haven't made anything up, I used the tools provided me to accurately find out what my TDEE is. Now I know and my MFP numbers properly reflect that. NET was one of the most important tools I had to help me get there or else I'd still be telling myself and my main calorie goal number (TDEE) that I don't exercise as much as I do and I never would have started eating the right total amount of calories even though my TDEE was WRONG. I was scared to eat too much and I needed NET to tell me it was ok to eat more.

If you don't want to use NET, don't. there are plenty of other ways to do this. :happy: But for many of us, NET helps. A LOT. And we aren't 'making things up' or 'fudging' anything.

Again, you're missing a major point...we are not talking about people who use MFPs calculations. We are talking about people who do the calculations THEMSELVES. So if they calculate themselves using "sedentary" then log a bunch of exercise and ONLY eat the TDEE -15% that they calculated, they would be drastically under-eating (which is the point of this group, to STOP under eating, and help people to see just how much they are under-eating). Paying attention to the BMR will help them to know that, and adjust accordingly, so that they are eating enough. Then they will adjust to the right activity level setting and it.becomes.a NON issue. :yawn:

There is no mistake in telling a person who is under eating or over-exercising, not to do so. It would be a mistake NOT to.

If it really saddens you that much, there are plenty of people in the Main Forum who may agree w/you or want to argue over the subject. But that's not what this group is for. It's to help. If this group is not helping you, I'm sorry to hear that.... :ohwell:


Kiki

You're talking about situations that don't apply to my argument. If someone chose a low target calories and didn't eat their exercise calories back, you could just say "eat back your exercise calories". My point is that if someone IS eating back all their exercise calories (and thus, is eating at a healthy level), they may still look like they're "netting" less than their BMR, but they're fine, because your net calories compared to your BMR just don't matter.

Anyhow, I've made my argument, and all the data is all there for anyone who wants to make the effort to understand it. There's not much point in trying to state it again in different ways in this particular thread. Because the people in this group seem to be trying to start with a higher target and log little to no exercise, it doesn't affect your own practices much. If you tell someone else who isn't following the rest of the EMTWL practices to "net their BMR", though, and they follow your advice, you've probably just screwed up by getting them to eat too much or too little.

That's what I was trying to say, the situations that I'm giving ARE the point. That is what is preached in this group. I'm only talking to/advising people who are being told to follow the rest of EM2WL practices. Because we say NOT to eat back cals, we have to put in the "netting BMR" stipulation, for the person to get the "full" picture

But, I don't go on the Main Forums, pulling EM2WL concepts out of context. Though I can understand your concern for people who are, which makes more sense to me now. But I just wanted to let you know the groups stance on it. The people that we are dealing with in this group, don't apply to your argument in the first place. So the original post would have been better put in the Main Forum where maybe people are eating based on MFPs calcs, not those given here.

I do get what you're saying though...

See. Told ya we were basically saying the same thing

Again, you're missing a major point...we are not talking about people who use MFPs calculations. We are talking about people who do the calculations THEMSELVES. So if they calculate themselves using "sedentary" then log a bunch of exercise and ONLY eat the TDEE -15% that they calculated, they would be drastically under-eating (which is the point of this group, to STOP under eating, and help people to see just how much they are under-eating). Paying attention to the BMR will help them to know that, and adjust accordingly, so that they are eating enough. Then they will adjust to the right activity level setting and it.becomes.a NON issue. :yawn:

There is no mistake in telling a person who is under eating or over-exercising, not to do so. It would be a mistake NOT to.

Kiki

yup. THIS! :happy:

I'm new to this group but I can't imagine why someone would join this group and not read through the information provided and follow all of the EMTLM concepts.

If they aren't following all of the concepts then that's their problem.

I agree that maybe this thread should have gone in the main forum.

Because the people in this group seem to be trying to start with a higher target and log little to no exercise,

This statement is not accurate for everyone in this group. I might be for some but it is not the aim of this group. My goal is set to 15% off my TDEE and I log all intentional exercise and even on my days of cardio where I do Insanity I still "net" above my BMR.

That's what I was trying to say, the situations that I'm giving ARE the point. That is what is preached in this group. I'm only talking to/advising people who are being told to follow the rest of EM2WL practices. Because we say NOT to eat back cals, we have to put in the "netting BMR" stipulation, for the person to get the "full" picture

But, I don't go on the Main Forums, pulling EM2WL concepts out of context. Though I can understand your concern for people who are, which makes more sense to me now. But I just wanted to let you know the groups stance on it. The people that we are dealing with in this group, don't apply to your argument in the first place. So the original post would have been better put in the Main Forum where maybe people are eating based on MFPs calcs, not those given here.

I do get what you're saying though...

See. Told ya we were basically saying the same thing

Believe me, I have posted it out in the main forums. :laugh: And you're right, in combination with this group's advice on picking a high initial target, it's not really an issue. I do see many people just repeating the "net your BMR" part of it out in the main forums, though, which is a problem on its own.

I wonder if this is where I'm going wrong? 11 weeks of no weight loss for me (and a year or more before that where I wasn't actively "trying".


BMR is 1550 and TDEE is 2100-2400 (depends on if I pick lightly active or moderately) so I've been aiming to "NET" 1750 most days to stay above that BMR. Am I doing it wrong?? I'm obviously doing *something* wrong, as evidenced by my lack of success.

It's hard to answer that without knowing how much of the difference between your BMR and TDEE (550-950 calories) came from your activity modifier selection, and how much came from logging cardio exercise on MFP. The more exercise you log as cardio, the more MFP would be telling you to eat back, and you might have been eating at a much lower deficit than you intended.

What activity level have you currently selected?
What rate of weight loss did you select? 1 pound per week, or something different?
What does MFP currently list as your target calories?

Yes, lifting and cardio. Taking measurements too! No movement in 11 weeks. In fact, I tracked my weight every single day for the month of April looking for trends using https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/HackDiet and my weight trend is flat or gaining by the end of the month.

I actually used fitness frog to calc TDEE and BMR and then subtracted 15% so

TDEE = between 2100-2400 depending on workouts/week
Eat = 1700 net on light days and 1950 on workout days

but something is not working. I think I might be eating too much by shooting to "NET" these values. Maybe I should just eat a flat 1800 every day or something, regardless of exercise.

Gemi,
I would see this as a personal preference. I am not sedentary but I prefer to list myself as sedentary. This way if I sit on my butt all day and don's do anything I don't eat as much. For me it's too easy when you log activity for a weekly level (active) to say.....ehh I don't feel like working out today and eat the same amount.....one day turns into 2-3 etc. I like to eat......I workout to be able to do it more freely. That said my "number" is under my BMR. Even if I don't exercise I eat up to my BMR.

I do the same as you for the same reason!

I do the same thing...

Yes, lifting and cardio. Taking measurements too! No movement in 11 weeks. In fact, I tracked my weight every single day for the month of April looking for trends using https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/HackDiet and my weight trend is flat or gaining by the end of the month.

I actually used fitness frog to calc TDEE and BMR and then subtracted 15% so

TDEE = between 2100-2400 depending on workouts/week
Eat = 1700 net on light days and 1950 on workout days

but something is not working. I think I might be eating too much by shooting to "NET" these values. Maybe I should just eat a flat 1800 every day or something, regardless of exercise.

I'm still not clear on whether you logged anything as exercise in your MFP diary. If you calculated your TDEE (including exercise) via another website and used it as your target, then you shouldn't be logging the exercise calories on MFP, or you're double counting them and eating too much.

If you don't log anything in the MFP exercise diary (in other words, if all your calories burned were accounted for in your original target), then your net calories and gross calories are identical. You'd just be eating 1785-2040 calories (85% of 2100-2400) total.

Hmm yeah...I guess I've been trying to "net" above bmr (1550) everyday while also aiming to eat my TDEE-15% and getting confused. It is confusing on days where I aim to eat 1750-1800 but exercise off 400 at the gym and then feel like I should eat more to get my net up and it sounds like I've been eating too much, which sucks, cause I rather enjoy eating more.
Thanks everyone :embarassed:

Yes, lifting and cardio. Taking measurements too! No movement in 11 weeks. In fact, I tracked my weight every single day for the month of April looking for trends using https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/HackDiet and my weight trend is flat or gaining by the end of the month.

I actually used fitness frog to calc TDEE and BMR and then subtracted 15% so

TDEE = between 2100-2400 depending on workouts/week
Eat = 1700 net on light days and 1950 on workout days

but something is not working. I think I might be eating too much by shooting to "NET" these values. Maybe I should just eat a flat 1800 every day or something, regardless of exercise.

I'm still not clear on whether you logged anything as exercise in your MFP diary. If you calculated your TDEE (including exercise) via another website and used it as your target, then you shouldn't be logging the exercise calories on MFP, or you're double counting them and eating too much.

If you don't log anything in the MFP exercise diary (in other words, if all your calories burned were accounted for in your original target), then your net calories and gross calories are identical. You'd just be eating 1785-2040 calories (85% of 2100-2400) total.

Hmm yeah...I guess I've been trying to "net" above bmr (1550) everyday while also aiming to eat my TDEE-15% and getting confused. It is confusing on days where I aim to eat 1750-1800 but exercise off 400 at the gym and then feel like I should eat more to get my net up and it sounds like I've been eating too much, which sucks, cause I rather enjoy eating more.
Thanks everyone :embarassed:

I took a look at your food diary (hope you don't mind). What I see is that you are still all over the place. Your goal is to eat a set amount every day. So pick a number I will use mine 1900 and try to eat that much every day (with in your macros of course). So when looking at your food diary there are always three numbers the first is what you have eaten, your goal food (which always changes if you add your exercise cals.) and what you have left to eat. Don't worry about any number but your first number. Does this make sense? Now the next question is what do you have your activity level set for with MFP?