Net vs Gross calories - 3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community

rodeogirl · 12-03-2008, 01:22 AM

I sort of asked this before but I'm still confused so here goes.

I know that getting down into the 1000-1200 calorie range is too low for me. The past few days my gross calories have been fine but I've been walking to school and all over town so my net calories have been pretty low.

EDIT: And by pretty low I mean around 1000.

As far as being too low which really matters net or gross?

Thanks!!

fiberlover · 12-03-2008, 02:02 PM

Well, there are 2 schools of thought on this one. One is that the net calories don't matter as long as you get your gross in.

The other says to make sure your net = your RMR so that your body has enough calories to function on a daily basis.
On paper, weight loss is calories in less than calories out. However, I don't think that really works that way. Bodies change during weight loss, set points change.

The more reading I am doing, the more I am thinking that *net* calories should never go below 1200 (and a dietician has also noted this). Especially for those of us with a lot of weight to lose, when you think about having a caloric deficit and net calories of 800 or so for months on end - I think that's why we hit plateaus. I mean - that is serious calorie restriction for a long period of time.

So, I don't know. At your weight - you really should eat more. Now, saying that - I don't know how you are calculating your net. It's very easy to have those calculators telling you to eat 3000 calories to lose a pound a week

I use TDP and have lightly active settings - even though I move much more than this. I also consider the net calorie burn of activity instead of gross to help me decide how much to eat.
I have noticed my weight loss inching forward again, as I eat a little bit more.

kaplods · 12-03-2008, 02:20 PM

Your true net calories has to be less than 0 for any weight loss to occur. I'm not sure there's an accurate way to calculate how much activity level is "too much" before you need to add calories.

The scale and hunger are probably your best clues. If you've been at this a while and you're significantly losing more than 1% of your total body weight in a week - or if you're feeling exceptionally hungry much of the time (so that it's hard to stay on plan, or you feel weak or distracted) then upping calories a bit might be a wise choice.

Losing weight still isn't a very exact science, so trial and error is all we've got.

Thighs Be Gone · 12-03-2008, 02:52 PM

I know I have seen it here written too that not all calories are created equally. I so agree with that. Our bodies react to everything we are putting into them--not just calories!

PhotoChick · 12-03-2008, 03:03 PM

What kaplods said.

People use net vs. gross, but not really accurately.

Gross = ALL the calories that you take in over the day
Net = calories that are left after ALL your "deductions" - including your BMR

In order to lose weight, your net calories have to be less than 0.

So that means if you take in 1500 calories and your BMR is 1800, then you're at net -300. Weight loss occurs.

If you take in 2000 calories and your BMR is 1800, then you're net +200. Weight gain occurs.

If you take in 1500 calories, exercise 300 calories and your BMR is 1800, then your net is -600 calories. Weight loss occurs.

The question is, should your NET BEFORE BMR be less than 1200? I think this varies from person to person. If you weigh 250 or 300 lbs, then I suspect that you shouldn't let your NBB

(net before BMR) go below 1200. But that also ties in with the whole recommended weight loss rate of 1% per week. If you are 300 lbs and you drop your calories to below 1200 (whether by food only or with a combination of food and exercise), you're setting yourself up to lose too quickly. You're reducing your calories by too many at once.

But there are some people who are shorter, nearer their goal, whatever, who simply would not be able to lose weight if they didn't exercise themselves below 1200. For those people, it's probably ok to go below that level USING EXERCISE. For them, weight loss won't happen any other way.

But the key here is that there's a difference between eating under 1200 and exercisinhg to below 1200.

When you only eat 800 calories, you're only getting 800 calories worth of nutrients. And it's practically impossible to get in the nutrients that you need at 800 caolores - even if you ate super cleanly.

When you eat 1300 calories and exercise off 600 of them, you are still getting the NUTRITIONAL value of the 1300 calories. You don't burn off the vitamins and minerals that you take in with those calories.

So if you must drop your calories below 1200 to lose weight - maybe those last 5lbs or whatever, you should do it with exercise, not by not eating.

That's my researched opinion on the topic.

.

JayEll · 12-03-2008, 03:30 PM

What PhotoChick said!

Jay

Shannon in ATL · 12-03-2008, 03:50 PM

Another "What PhotoChick said"!

I am at a pretty low weight and my maintenance calorie level is 1756 according to The Daily Plate if I'm sedentary. I typically eat around that range, and then exercise. As I'm not sedentary and log my exercise, I sometimes have it showing a net calorie count of below 1200, especially if I didn't get all the way up to the 1756 that day. When I was actively dieting I ate 1200-1300 calories for the first few months and exercised - I always showed a net calorie under 1200 on those days.

I never never never ate less than 1200 calories. (Well, to be totally honest, never after the first month when I joined this website and read all the posts on never going under 1200.

) Any calorie deficit under 1200 came from exercise.

ghost · 12-03-2008, 04:18 PM

I think photochick nailed this one on the head. I am one of those short people who can't lose unless my net is below 1200.

JayEll · 12-03-2008, 05:42 PM

You know... I went back and looked at how my FitDay (downloaded) calculates this. And it's a little different.

My calorie burn (RMR--which is more than BMR) is under 1600.

If I want to lose a pound a week, that means I'd have to eat 1100 cals a day.

(1600 - 500 = 1100)

So, I have a choice: eat 1200 or more cals a day and lose more slowly, or add exercise to get my burn up to, say, 1800, and be able to eat 1300 cals a day and still have a 500 calorie deficit.

The problem with this is that calorie estimates for metabolic rate and for exercise are pretty inexact--so sometimes my chart looks like I should be losing... but I'm not.

Jay

ghost · 12-03-2008, 06:30 PM

Mine is under 1600 also, but, that is just laying there doing nothing, making your blood circulate and organs function level...not actually getting out of bed and living. Does your fit day allow you to adjust for activity level?

rodeogirl · 12-03-2008, 06:51 PM

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far this has been really helpful.

I should have been more clear about what I meant by net and gross - I'm just going off what TDP says. My calories in have been in the 1500 - 1850 range on most days. I wasn't feeling to well (just kinda bloated/gassy) the other day and only ate about 1400 but I had also walked a lot that day and so when I plugged the numbers in it put my net calories on TDP at about 1000 which made me concerned.

I'm happy with my weight loss so far so I don't feel the need to see the rate of loss increase at all. I'm not hungry and I have lots of energy so I also don't think I need to slow it down quite yet.

My main concern is making sure whatever I do is healthy and will help me get to and stay in maintenance mode.

PhotoChick · 12-03-2008, 07:12 PM

Oh the thing about the confusion with net and gross is no big deal - the thing is each of the tracking websites uses the figures somewhat differently and I think honestly that they all make it so confusing. I know on the Daily Plate boards, there are *always* questions about eating back your exercise calories ... and what is net and what is gross and ... bleah.

Here's how I look at it. 1000 calories a day = 7000 calories a week = 2 lbs a week. So figure out how to get rid of 8000-1000 calories a day and you'll be on the road to an average 2 lb a week loss.

Figure out how many calories you need to maintain your current weight. Subtract about 500 or 600 from that in food, and try to kick another 300-500 from that in exercise. Tweak those numbers as is appropriate to your current weight/exercise level.

That should get you a good healthy rate of loss, and not trash your nutrition. Then as you lose weight, you can gradually lower the number of calories you're eating.

I just think that's the most reasonable, sensible way to look at it.

.

JayEll · 12-03-2008, 07:39 PM

ghost, FitDay does let you adjust activity level, but because I have had seated jobs for years as well as being obese, I find FitDay gives me accurate results if I set my values at "Sedentary."

These days I might be able to move it up some because I exercise almost daily.

Jay

eilla05 · 12-03-2008, 08:53 PM

I personally wouldnt let my net calories get below 1200 calories. But I guess it really does depend on you and what your doing. Generally I eat about 1800 calories per day and burn off on average about 500 on workout days.

Photo chick gave you great info!