How much calories do you burn...

desaparecidos

How much calories do you burn by just being awake?

Hanley

desaparecidos wrote: »

How much calories do you burn by just being awake?

It's called your RMR. It varies depending on a myriad of factors.

Mellor

desaparecidos wrote: »

How much calories do you burn by just being awake?

Pretty much "how long is a piece of string". Could be anything from 800cals to 2800cals, or even outsie side of these for more extreme body sizes.

If you want to know your own, then post you stats, and somebody can estimate it. But its only a rough estimate based on averages.

Satanta

This is an interesting question, and one that I haven't really got a handle on. I know that there is a basic formula that applies based on bodyweight that approximately calculates your BMR/RMR. However, I have seen this work differently for different people. A practical example:

I am 86kg, and I have a mate who I train with who is 105Kg. We work in the same job and workout together so I know his activity levels are approximately the same as mine. There are two different goals though, in that now coming into winter I will be aiming to go up to 90Kg, and he is constantly trying to loose weight. There is a height difference also. Based on the general formula for calculating the maintenance level of calories his maintenance calories would be higher than mine, to the tune of approx 500. In reality, I can say with certainty I eat at least 1000 calories more than he does. Of the face of it he eats below his maintenance and I eat above mine. However I find it very difficult to increase weight (I can do it... I just eat WELL above my calculated maintenance level) and he finds it very difficult to shift weight. He has stagnated at 105 for a while now.

There are probably a ton of variables that I am not considering. But my basic point/question remains. I see allot of threads on here basing people's RMR solely on the said formula, but is it really accurate? On bodybuilding sites you often see the different body types mentioned, ectomoprph, mesomorph and endomorph. Are they even real (IMO they are, or at least there is something to it)? Should this be a consideration when calculating the RMR and basic maintenance calories? How much of an adjustment should be made here? Basically I dont buy the idea that my RMR can be accurately calculated by (weight X z) + (height X y) + (age X n), and can be way out in fact depending on the individual.

sharky86

If your not putting on weight, eat more, If he is not losing weight, eat less (or move more)


Simples

Zamboni

Satanta wrote: »

On bodybuilding sites you often see the different body types mentioned, ectomoprph, mesomorph and endomorph. Are they even real (IMO they are, or at least there is something to it)?

They are not scientific terms that can be quantified, just loose terms to vaguely describe body shape.
No more or less scientific than using apples and pears for women.

Satanta

sharky86 wrote: »

If your not putting on weight, eat more, If he is not losing weight, eat less (or move more)
Simples

Indeed it is that simple. I am not asking how either one can be achieved. My post is questioning the application of a standard formula for calculating BMR based on body size.

Zamboni wrote: »

They are not scientific terms that can be quantified, just loose terms to vaguely describe body shape.
No more or less scientific than using apples and pears for women.

Granted. If we want to be scientific, how can the standard BMR formula be modified? I am just suggesting body type could be an additional variable in the equation. I dont know the answer... that's why I am asking.

sharky86

by my limited recoking of this subject, I'm guessing that this bodytype things was tought up and marketed but some clever, very clever little guy in a supplement companies board room.

I quessing that it is only your LBM ratio to FAT that alters the sums...maybe. Plus the climate of where you live due to different external tempertures and your body consantly trying to hold a set temperature internally...

I'm also prob talking B*******s to tho cause I know nothing about this

Zamboni

Satanta wrote: »

Granted. If we want to be scientific, how can the standard BMR formula be modified? I am just suggesting body type could be an additional variable in the equation. I dont know the answer... that's why I am asking.

There are simply far far too many variables involved in human metabolism to come up with a really accurate mathematical formula that could be used in general practice.
Anything from a nervous twitch to sunburn is going to effect BMR.
It's like BMI, a simple enough tool that will work for the most part.
And sure where is the magnitude in that?

rubadub

sharky86 wrote: »

Plus the climate of where you live due to different external tempertures and your body consantly trying to hold a set temperature internally.

Yes, some anorexics will sit in ice baths to waste more energy. I saw a long distance seawater swimmer on discovery fatten himself up before a race, I think he lost either 6lb or 6kg during his single swim.

I posted before about calories...

rubadub wrote: »

They are all just estimates, if you think it is too much or too little than adjust it to what you think it should be, and see if you get results and just adjust accordingly.

People fuel their cars this way so why not your body. If your car ran out of petrol every friday going to work you would learn to put more in on the monday, you would not sit about saying "but my calculations say I should be getting this many miles from my car", it is unnecessary theoretical calculations when you can see the real results empirically.

Calories have nothing to do with humans, 1 calorie increases 1 gram of water by 1degree Celsius, that is an exact repeatable science and how it is defined. You will hear that people will lose/gain 1lb of fat with 3500kcal, but this is only an estimate, yet some treat it like exact science. If you ate 3500kcal of uncooked rice you would get less usable energy from it than 3500kcal of overcooked rice. Also 3500kcal of alcohol will probably have less of an effect on your fat levels than 3500kcal of sugar. In one study prisoners were overfed and came to a plateau of fat gain, some were eating over 10,000kcal per day and unable to gain more fat.

Using calories as a guide to energy for humans is just one method, and it is fairly OK. You could similarly use weight or volume as a guide, like say "the average man needs 1kilo/1litre of food per day" -this will usually be open to more variation than calories if you just eat 1kg of food which gives lots of energy usable by humans. -but just like calories you could empirically work out what weight/volume of food in your usual diet will result in your required 1lb per week weight loss.

Mellor

Satanta wrote: »

Basically I dont buy the idea that my RMR can be accurately calculated by (weight X z) + (height X y) + (age X n), and can be way out in fact depending on the individual.

Well that's the thing, that isn't the idea. As i said above its just an estimate. Based on averages, people will vary a lot.
Plus, not all body weight is equal. A guy who is 90kg @ 8% BF will burn more calories than a guy who's 90kg @ 25% BF. The formula is prob in the middle somewhere.

My friend got her RMR tested recently as part of some tests. He actual RMR was less than 90% of the estimated one. Not overweight, gors to the gym etc. Just runs lower. Your mate might be the same.