calories a day?

Niamh211a · 20-11-2014 6:43pm #1

how many calories should i be eating a day to maintain/tone up. im 5ft 7 and 118 pound in weight and female

Chancer3001 · 20-11-2014 6:55pm

Did you google it?

Niamh211a · 20-11-2014 6:56pm

ya i did but it comes up different on every website

Alf Veedersane · 20-11-2014 7:12pm

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

It's one of the better calculators.

Niamh211a · 20-11-2014 7:16pm

aw thank you

Niamh211a · 20-11-2014 7:18pm

do you have any other good ones i could use that you could trust?

Alf Veedersane · 20-11-2014 7:27pm

Why do you need more than one?

Chancer3001 · 20-11-2014 7:56pm

Are they different by much?

I used two or three recently and they were all within 200 calories of each other

Niamh211a · 20-11-2014 8:34pm

just to see if they are the same is all

Mellor · 21-11-2014 4:21am

If they sue the same formula they will be exactly the same, if they use different ones they'll be close, +/- 100 cals.
The reason for the variation is that they usually have stepped activity factors.

So one calc gives you options of 1.2 or 1.4
And another might give 1.15 or 1.35, etc, etc.

A simple way to do it could be BW x 12 to lose weight. So for you that would be 1416.

But these are all estimates, you might run a little above or below. You can check 100 calculators, but it won't help you tone up.

Defender OF Faith · 21-11-2014 5:48pm

The numbers are different because different site will use different Research Models namely two of the most commonly used equations come from the research done by Harris-Benedict in 1919 or Mifflin-St Jeor done in 1990 these equations use weight and not lean body mass in their calculations. The energy required to maintain muscle is higher than the energy required to maintain fat so both these equations will be off for either very lean or very fat people.
Two more sets of equations based upon the research by Katch-McArdle and Cunningham which are based upon Lean Body Mass (LBM) instead of weight.
Whose equations should you use for best accuracy? If you are fairly muscular and lean (4-pack abs or better), I would recommend the Katch-McArdle formula. If you are just starting on your fitness journey and are not yet strong or lean then I recommend the Mifflin-St Jeor equation

Source: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/ (This calculator gives you the option to select the appropriate model)

Essien · 21-11-2014 5:59pm

I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about being over or under by 100 calories or so. At the end of the day, it's never going to be 100% accurate in any case due to the amount of variables involved.

If a few calculators are coming in around a particular number, go with that and do your best to stick to it.

If you're not seeing results, eat a bit less, train a bit harder etc...

ShadowHearth · 21-11-2014 11:59pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

It's one of the better calculators.

Emma how accurate is that thing? As I am getting some bonkers numbers.

I am 14.9 stone and 6 feet tall. I set it as moderate activity, but I could easily go higher then that as I work as chef so I am on my feet all day and I do walking/running minimum of 6hours per week.

I got figures of 3500 calories just to maintain my weight and 2890 calories to lose weight! Surely that ain't right!

Alf Veedersane · 22-11-2014 12:09am

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Emma how accurate is that thing? As I am getting some bonkers numbers.

I am 14.9 stone and 6 feet tall. I set it as moderate activity, but I could easily go higher then that as I work as chef so I am on my feet all day and I do walking/running minimum of 6hours per week.

I got figures of 3500 calories just to maintain my weight and 2890 calories to lose weight! Surely that ain't right!

I'm only Emma at the weekend

It's an estimate. There's no calculator that will be 100% accurate but how you assess how active you are might be different.

Not sure but it fit me and most people I've known to use it

ShadowHearth · 22-11-2014 12:24am

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm only Emma at the weekend

It's an estimate. There's no calculator that will be 100% accurate but how you assess how active you are might be different.

Not sure but it fit me and most people I've known to use it

Damn spell checker lol.

I know that +/- 200 calories is grand, but surely 3500 calories per day just to keep me going sounds like really a lot. I need to check how much calories I needed when I was 20stone!!!

Mellor · 22-11-2014 12:26am

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Emma how accurate is that thing? As I am getting some bonkers numbers.

I am 14.9 stone and 6 feet tall. I set it as moderate activity, but I could easily go higher then that as I work as chef so I am on my feet all day and I do walking/running minimum of 6hours per week.

I got figures of 3500 calories just to maintain my weight and 2890 calories to lose weight! Surely that ain't right!

If you are running 6 hours a week you should need about 3500 cals. If it's walking, it should be less.

ShadowHearth · 22-11-2014 12:55am

Mellor wrote: »

If you are running 6 hours a week you should need about 3500 cals. If it's walking, it should be less.

I do running and walking mix. Even if it's only walking it would still be over 3000, which is a lot.

Mellor · 22-11-2014 2:19am

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I do running and walking mix. Even if it's only walking it would still be over 3000, which is a lot.

"A lot" is quite subjective.
But either way, it's about the amount needed to maintain 15 stone with a little activity.

mufcboy1999 · 22-11-2014 2:31am

Why not just eat clean in general e.g. cut out all the processed rubbish, portion your food on the plate and eat when you're hungry and stop when your full ?

Those calorie calculators are all over the place. Honestly dont get obsessed by the scales , train and eat to decrease body fat while increasing lean lean tissue, trust me you'll look way better and be healtheir for it in the long run.

uberalex · 22-11-2014 5:07pm

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

Why not just eat clean in general e.g. cut out all the processed rubbish, portion your food on the plate and eat when you're hungry and stop when your full ?

I'm sorry but I think that such advice is a little dismissive. Stopping when full is hard for people, getting a sense of suitable portion sizes needs to be learned by some people. An overall calorie plan is a useful way to begin to understand how to get to a sustainable lifestyle and regimen. If someone knows to eat X calories a day, the it can encourage sensible choices because a spending a third of your calories on biscuits, or a while day's worth of calories on a pizza is put into perspective. Meanwhile the person can begin to let their sense of filling up and control of their hunger develop.

mufcboy1999 · 23-11-2014 1:18am

uberalex wrote: »

I'm sorry but I think that such advice is a little dismissive. Stopping when full is hard for people, getting a sense of suitable portion sizes needs to be learned by some people. An overall calorie plan is a useful way to begin to understand how to get to a sustainable lifestyle and regimen. If someone knows to eat X calories a day, the it can encourage sensible choices because a spending a third of your calories on biscuits, or a while day's worth of calories on a pizza is put into perspective. Meanwhile the person can begin to let their sense of filling up and control of their hunger develop.

I do agree to an extent, don't me wrong I didn't mean to knock calorie counting on its head completely. Personally though I'm more concerned about the chemicals and general nutrients in my food rather than this obsession with the over the top calorie counting.

This modern day notion that restricting you're calories to the extent that you just focus on the number on the scales is wrong !.Changing your body compostion is a far more sustainable and healthier way of going about it, the goal should be to decrease body fat and increase or maintain lean tissue not starve yourself to a certain weight to the point where you're gone from overweight to skinny fat because that's what happens, you strip the body of fat and muscle, far to often we see these crash like diets recommended.

Anyway usually the more nutrient dense a food is e.g. fibre etc the more of a chance you won't over indulge. Make smart sensible simple choices, 3 well balanced healthy meals per day with some sensible snacks. As said less obsession with counting calories and more focus on the quality of food on your plate will deliver much better results.

uberalex · 23-11-2014 11:23pm

I agree entirely, I think it's valuable to remember that calories are the important measure for weight control, but nutrition is a key factor in health. In principle you can lose weight eating a caloric deficit of McDonald's. However, it would be far better and more sustainable to adopt, for example, the Mediterranean Diet, which is heart-healthy. Some people go wrong by missing the hazards of healthy but dense eating: avocado, hummus and nuts all get strong health recommendation, but are a fast route to weight gain without awareness of proportion.

Alf Veedersane · 24-11-2014 3:25pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I do running and walking mix. Even if it's only walking it would still be over 3000, which is a lot.

You could burn 50 calories briskly walking a mile. You'll cover 3.5+ miles in an hour at a brisk pace so that's 175 calories in an hour. 6 hours is 1050 calories.

3500 doesn't sound wrong.

coffee_cake · 24-11-2014 4:10pm

It thinks I should have 2200-2500 a day
seems high as well

Gummy Panda · 24-11-2014 4:15pm

Try this one - http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/

ShadowHearth · 24-11-2014 7:25pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You could burn 50 calories briskly walking a mile. You'll cover 3.5+ miles in an hour at a brisk pace so that's 175 calories in an hour. 6 hours is 1050 calories.

3500 doesn't sound wrong.

Well, I do 5.2miles in around 1h now. So I guess I burn a few more calories then that.

Mellor · 24-11-2014 9:53pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well, I do 5.2miles in around 1h now. So I guess I burn a few more calories then that.

That's about 700 cals burned in that hour. Multiple times a week and it adds up.

kerry4sam · 25-11-2014 10:20pm

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Try this one - http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/

I tried that and received a BMR of 1495 , but then tried the bmi-calculator BMR (here) and received BMR of 1508.

So in general, not much of a difference between those two,
kerry4sam

calories a day?

Comments