I have just completed stage one. One question I have is whether the calories listed in the book are NET? I assume so, but was not sure. The formula has me at 1600 on non-workout days, and 1800+ on workout days.
Net of what? The term "net" usually implies there is some "gross" value that is "adjusted" to yeild a "net" value. My net takehome pay is my gross pay less all deductions. What do you mean by "net calories" in this context?
What do you mean by net? The calories suggested are how much you eat in a day. If it was net, in the way I understand net, you'd be subtracting your workout calories from your total? So... meaning if you think you burned 300 cals, you'd eat 1800 + 300 to total 2100? If that's what you mean, then no. That's not what they mean. They mean 1800 on a workout day. Period.
The calories are guidelines/suggestions. Many find they need to eat less, or more, depending on their own body's response.
Net, meaning the suggested calories are what you eat AFTER the workouts.
For example, if I eat the 1889 it suggests for workout days, and I burn 350 (per my HRM), then my net calories eaten for that day would be 1539, which is LESS than the suggested for non-workout days.
Therefore, I would consistently be eating fewer calories than suggested for days in which I workout. And that's MAINTENANCE level, not fat loss.
Net, meaning the suggested calories are what you eat AFTER the workouts.
For example, if I eat the 1889 it suggests for workout days, and I burn 350 (per my HRM), then my net calories eaten for that day would be 1539, which is LESS than the suggested for non-workout days.
Therefore, I would consistently be eating fewer calories than suggested for days in which I workout. And that's MAINTENANCE level, not fat loss.
Does that make sense?
Thanks!
Yup, makes sense, I think - but you're wrong - it's not net calories in the book. If it suggests 1889, then that's what you eat. Period. Don't pay attention to calories burned on your HRM or anything else - they're inaccurate, and the majority of your calorie burn isn't done in the gym (check out the FLTS section if you want to dissect this issue more).
The reason there are 2 levels is to account for the food needed to recover from a workout... it's already accounted for. If you want to maintain and find you're losing, add a few calories. If you are gaining and want to lose, subtract a few... it's an ESTIMATE. But you're making it WAY too complicated with "net" - just eat the suggested levels.
The formulas work in an activity monitor that averages what it expects your burn is for your activity level. So, if you count them again, you're basically counting twice. In addition to the whole, it's an estimate and fairly inaccurate anyway… also your heart rate monitor tells you your total you burn for the time working out. That's your baseline plus your workout for that time… so your actual amount you'd get "extra" for workout isn't that much, it's that much minus the amount you would burn if you were sitting on the couch watching tv… which is actually usually most of those calories, leaving you rather little left as your "workout burn"
I get what you are saying but when talking of calories in and calories out
more commonly one might say:
Eat 1800 and burn 2500 total (BMR + Activity) to yield a daily 700 calorie deficit (not -700 net)
Or, burn 2500 and eat 3000 to yield a daily 500 surplus (not +500 net)
So if your BMR is 1400 and with your activity multiplier it is 1900, then maintenance for you at that activity level is 1900. Eat less and you should lose, eat more and you should gain. If you didn't include "working out" in your activity multiplier, then you can figure perhaps an extra 200 calories for a workout. If you then take in PWO of 200 calories, you are back to even.
Net Calories?
Linear Mode
