Question about calorie counter on the stickies

Vampireskiss

I just have one query regarding the calorie calculator submitted by Gem a while back, the calculator calculates calories based on ones weight only , but it doesnt take into account bf%,if a women of 200lbs just starting out used this calulator she would be eating alot more calories then a women with the same stats as Gem, which is obviously not right because her lean mass is probably less and Gem would be a lot more active.

here is that calulator

1) So.. first off you need to figure out your resting metabolic rate (RMR) or the calories your body requires just to exist if you were lying down for 24 hours:

Age Men
10-18 (body weight (kg) * 17.5) + 651
19-30 (bw (kg) * 15.3) + 679
31-60 (bw (kg) * 11.6) + 879

Age Women
10-18 (bw (kg) * 12.2) + 746
19-30 (bw (kg) * 14.7) + 496
31-60 (bw (kg) * 8.7) + 829

e.g for me, a 72kg 26 yo female its (72*14.7) +496 = 1554

2) Then calculate your lifestyle daily energy needs:

Activity level
mostly seated or standing RMR * 1.4
regular walking or equivalent RMR * 1.7
generally physically active RMR * 2.0

again for me its 1554 * 1.4 = 2176

3) Then estimate your daily exercise expenditure by working out how much exercise you do a week and divide by seven for an average daily value:
Weekly I do 4 hours of weights = approx 1536 cals
2 hours low intensity cardio = 600 cals
2 hours high intensity cario = 1200 cals
Total = 3336 / 7 = 477 cals

So add that to my daily energy needs.. 2176 + 477 = 2653

My maintenance calorie needs every day are 2653 cals/ day.

For weight loss: I need to reduce my calories by about 15% a day:
2653 * 0.85 = 2255 cals/ day

For weight gain: Increase your calorie intake by 20%:
2653 * 1.2 = 3184

Of course most importantly, make sure you meet your calorie needs from nurittious healthy sources. If you need help with that.. well see here

Hope thats of help

corkcomp

calorie calculators will only ever be a rough guide at best. Gem is factoring in 3336 calories to compensate for exercise and TBH the average 200lb woman starting out wouldnt be at that level, so straight off she would need to take in 477 cals less every day, so overall it should balance out?

J-Fit

corkcomp wrote: »

calorie calculators will only ever be a rough guide at best. Gem is factoring in 3336 calories to compensate for exercise and TBH the average 200lb woman starting out wouldnt be at that level, so straight off she would need to take in 477 cals less every day, so overall it should balance out?

3336 calories for a woman? Christ, I weigh 95kg with 8.5% bf and I can maintain on that! That's some serious going.

corkcomp

J-Fit wrote: »

3336 calories for a woman? Christ, I weigh 95kg with 8.5% bf and I can maintain on that! That's some serious going.

man .. thats the weekly figure - per day = 477 !!

J-Fit

corkcomp wrote: »

man .. thats the weekly figure - per day = 477 !!

What do you mean the weekly figure?

corkcomp

J-Fit wrote: »

What do you mean the weekly figure?

hmmm, i mean the weekly figure :rolleyes:

maybe read the entire text of gems calorie calc and my reply ?

gem was using her calorie requirements as an example in the stickied thread and allowing 477 calories per day on top of maintenance for exercise. original point is that a 200lb (to take vampirekiss's example) woman starting out would not be including this 477 calories

ragg

I just use lean body weight * 12. Never bothered factoring exercise or going to detailed. might bump it up a bit more if i've been training very hard.
Its done me just fine, im never hungry as most of it comes from meat, nuts & veg - only have carbs to fuel resistance workouts and to help with recovery from same.

IMO the important thing is to find what works for you and stick to it

J-Fit

corkcomp wrote: »

hmmm, i mean the weekly figure :rolleyes:

maybe read the entire text of gems calorie calc and my reply ?

gem was using her calorie requirements as an example in the stickied thread and allowing 477 calories per day on top of maintenance for exercise. original point is that a 200lb (to take vampirekiss's example) woman starting out would not be including this 477 calories

Maybe don't give smarmy replies to a genuine question. I didn't read the original. All I saw was 3000 odd calories for a woman in one day. I thought it was a lot. That's all.

corkcomp

J-Fit wrote: »

Maybe don't give smarmy replies to a genuine question. I didn't read the original. All I saw was 3000 odd calories for a woman in one day. I thought it was a lot. That's all.

i wasnt intending to be smart at all mate, but it was obvious you hadnt read the entire post and I was trying to avoid going around in circles.

g'em

Vampireskiss wrote: »

I just have one query regarding the calorie calculator submitted by Gem a while back, the calculator calculates calories based on ones weight only , but it doesnt take into account bf%,if a women of 200lbs just starting out used this calulator she would be eating alot more calories then a women with the same stats as Gem, which is obviously not right because her lean mass is probably less and Gem would be a lot more active.

What's your query? A 200lb woman (presumably sedentary) would require 2600 cals per day according to the calculator, sounds pretty spot on to me tbh.

p.s. it's g'em not Gem

corkcomp

g'em wrote: »

p.s. it's g'em not Gem

woops! im blaming vampirekiss, i was copying and pasting :pac:

Vampireskiss

g'em wrote: »

What's your query? A 200lb woman (presumably sedentary) would require 2600 cals per day according to the calculator, sounds pretty spot on to me tbh.

p.s. it's g'em not Gem

Sorry g'em

That doesnt sound right to me so basically the fitter and lighter she gets, the less cals she should eat, so if she gained 10lbs of extra lean weight but lost 50lbs of fat she should eat less

g'em

Vampireskiss wrote: »

That doesnt sound right to me so basically the fitter and lighter she gets, the less cals she should eat, so if she gained 10lbs of extra lean weight but lost 50lbs of fat she should eat less

Yes! Bigger people need more calories, smaller ones need less.

You're grossly overcomplicating things here. 80% of all the calories we eat are used purely to generate heat. This does not change according to your lean/ fat mass ratio. And even with the remaining 20% of calories, the impact that having 15% bf compared to 30% will have is MINIMAL.

Your overall mass is the only thing you need to worry about, honestly.

The difference between lean and fat mass becomes extremely important in aesthetics (and that's when it's top priority), but for figuring out your calorie needs it's not a biggie. Just use the number on the scales.

Vampireskiss

g'em wrote: »

Yes! Bigger people need more calories, smaller ones need less.

You're grossly overcomplicating things here. 80% of all the calories we eat are used purely to generate heat. This does not change according to your lean/ fat mass ratio. And even with the remaining 20% of calories, the impact that having 15% bf compared to 30% will have is MINIMAL.

Your overall mass is the only thing you need to worry about, honestly.

The difference between lean and fat mass becomes extremely important in aesthetics (and that's when it's top priority), but for figuring out your calorie needs it's not a biggie. Just use the number on the scales.

I am not saying your wrong I am just surprised,however I must be undereating so I started at about 300lbs and now im down to 275lbs and I probably have been only eating 2000 to 2500 cals with the odd splurge day, from those calculations I should be eating around 4000 cals, seems like a lot, im worried I may have damaged my metabolism if thats the case