I feel amazingly stupid starting this thread but for some reason, I am not comprehending what is probably very simple. Let's say today I ate 1500 calories and I burned 2000 calories. Isn't my net calories negative 500?
I don't think I've heard the term "net calories" before, but I would refer to what you described as a 500 calorie deficit - the difference between the calories you consume in a day and what you burn through your base metabolic rate plus activity.
I'll preface this by saying I'm not a calorie counting expert, so perhaps someone can explain this better than I can. Yes, you have a 500 calorie deficit.
What my online calorie counter and weight loss literature will often describe as "net" is Total calories consumed in one day - calories burned from exercise. This does NOT include just the calories needed to survive. Your problem above, assuming 2000 calories burned, includes the basic calories expended throughout the day. Another way of looking at it is "I ate 1500 calories and I exercised off about 300 of those, so my net consumption today is 1200."
It's impossible to know how many calories you burn in exercise, so I consult several sources based on my height and weight and then round down. I then subtract this from the calories I've eaten for the day and I usually do then 'eat back' around that same number of calories if I'm hungry (which I usually am after vigorous exercise, but often am not just after a casual walk or other light activity). I make sure my net (calories consumed - burned from exercise) equals around 1200, which is the caloric intake at which I'm currently operating.
I'm basing this off of my own calorie counter and various sources I've consulted, but again, I'm by no means the most knowledgeable on this board about counting, so perhaps others can weigh in (pun intended ) on this as well.
I'll preface this by saying I'm not a calorie counting expert, so perhaps someone can explain this better than I can. Yes, you have a 500 calorie deficit.
What my online calorie counter and weight loss literature will often describe as "net" is Total calories consumed in one day - calories burned from exercise. This does NOT include just the calories needed to survive. Your problem above, assuming 2000 calories burned, includes the basic calories expended throughout the day. Another way of looking at it is "I ate 1500 calories and I exercised off about 300 of those, so my net consumption today is 1200."
It's impossible to know how many calories you burn in exercise, so I consult several sources based on my height and weight and then round down. I then subtract this from the calories I've eaten for the day and I usually do then 'eat back' around that same number of calories if I'm hungry (which I usually am after vigorous exercise, but often am not just after a casual walk or other light activity). I make sure my net (calories consumed - burned from exercise) equals around 1200, which is the caloric intake at which I'm currently operating.
I'm basing this off of my own calorie counter and various sources I've consulted, but again, I'm by no means the most knowledgeable on this board about counting, so perhaps others can weigh in (pun intended ) on this as well.
Actually, I think this might be a very good explanation. The current thread "Is 1,200 calories + exercise REALLY too low?" was so confusing to me because I always thought my net calories were what you refer to as deficit calories. I knew I couldn't be thinking of things right because that would be a HUGE amount to eat and still have 1200 calories on the plus side.
So if I understand correctly, today ate 1662 calories and my exercise was equal to 538 calories burned so my net calories is 1124 (knowing that all those numbers are actually approximates). Is it correct though that it's my deficit calories, currently at negative 438, that I'm looking to be at approximately 667 calories a day to lose 1-1/2 pounds a week? If that is the case, I honestly pay no attention to my net calories and only look at my deficit calories.
EDIT: Okay, brain is definitely clicking now. So last week, when I my calorie allotment was 1250, I was eating slightly less at 1150 - 1200 and burning about 350 - 400 in exercise, my net calories were only 800 calories! I totally understand why my weight loss may have stalled! I get why that would be too few calories! I was only looking at it from the deficit standpoint, trying to get that number as high as possible on any given day. I really, REALLY think my upping my calorie allotment was a good thing now!
I can't answer the question about your deficit since I'm the opposite of you and look specifically at my net calories (aiming to be around 1200) rather than a deficit. I don't know what your BMR is but yes I think if you have a deficit of around 667 a day you would expect a 1.5 lb loss over the week. I'm going off of 3500 calories deficit a week = 1 lb loss.
I'm more of a trial and error person- playing around with calories until I find a net where I lose weight comfortably and healthily. Hopefully what I've told you is correct... otherwise hopefully someone else comes on the board to provide a clearer answer
I can't answer the question about your deficit since I'm the opposite of you and look specifically at my net calories (aiming to be around 1200) rather than a deficit. I don't know what your BMR is but yes I think if you have a deficit of around 667 a day you would expect a 1.5 lb loss over the week. I'm going off of 3500 calories deficit a week = 1 lb loss.
I'm more of a trial and error person- playing around with calories until I find a net where I lose weight comfortably and healthily. Hopefully what I've told you is correct... otherwise hopefully someone else comes on the board to provide a clearer answer
Join my fitnesspal.com (all one word). It will explain everything. I am so thankful for the site. I have lost 22 lbs since Jan 3 using it. You want your net calories to be atleast 1200. If you eat 1200 calories and burn off 400 you would only be neting 800 which is to low. I would suggest everyone buy a Polar hrm so that way they know how many calories they are burning from exercise. My calories burned from everyday activity is 2,270. If I cut 1000 from that to make it 1200 then burned off 400 that would only be leaving my body 800 calories to live off off which is to low. If you do get a hrm make sure you subtract you living calories from the number, examble 2,270/24(hr is a day)/60(min in a hour) would give me 1.5 calories burned just by doing nothing. So if my hrm says 400 calories burned in 45 mins I know that I really only burned 332.5 from exercise. Multiply the your number by how long you exercise. I hope this helps.
I like using a Fitbit (currently) and used the GoWearFit armband in the past to track my caloric burn for a day. It doesn't matter if I specifically exercised or not. Some days I'll burn 2000 calories (total burn, includes everything) and the next I might burn 2500. I also eat a bit different each day, one day 1300 cals, the next might be 1800. It's fun to watch my deficit by the week and compare it to my actual loss.
You can do something similar with sites (like mentioned above) for guestimating your BMR, TEEE (total energy expenditure,) exercise, etc.
I love seeing the numbers of being in a deficit of 500-1000.
Today's chat is really interesting. From Jan 09 to Aug 09, I did my weight loss and now I'm working on losing a bit more and learning to maintain. I puttered around casually for a couple months to try to lose but now am back to my old weight loss plan. So, I'm basically eating around 1300 calories and walking between 3-7 miles each day and doing aerobics four times a week. I usually looked at a week to see how I was doing. Everything everyone's said makes sense. I've a wrench to throw in here though:
I am just thinking that on my aerobic days with 1300 calories of food, 500 off for aerobics, and another 200 off for walking; I sure have deficits. So, I'm wondering if we're on the right track. If you consume over 1200 cals, then I think the large calories burned for exercise and general living amounts are not making it too low.
I agree that it makes most sense to balance the amounts of burned versus consumed so that you will only have about 1.5 pounds burned per week (750 deficit per day) on average. I know there are lots of people burning much more, though. You'd think that it would get tougher when your on the slighter side but then the smaller frame needs less food.
I don't think I understand net calories
Let's say today I ate 1500 calories and I burned 2000 calories. Isn't my net calories negative 500?
) on this as well.
I totally understand why my weight loss may have stalled! I get why that would be too few calories! I was only looking at it from the deficit standpoint, trying to get that number as high as possible on any given day. I really, REALLY think my upping my calorie allotment was a good thing now! 
