Calories

Can never get this calorie thing. Im 37, 85KG, 5'9
I consume around 2500 calories per day, sometimes up to 3000!
When loosing weight in conjunction with exercise (weights, squash, swim, running, hiking ), id be somewhere between 2300 - 2500 and I do loose weight

However, Im always seeing males are recommended around 2000 per day and should eat less for weight loss in conjunction with exercise..

Their is no way I could survive on that little.

My diet is not the best, but far from the worst aswell - sandwiches, stir fry, bananas, berries, cereal (wheetabix, cornflakes, granola), rice, crackers, cheese, maybe takeaway once or twice a week, few pints every second weekend, try and keep away from sweets but aint sucessful all the time.

Some people comment on the amount I eat, they eat alot less and would be very similar in build and weight?

So do I just need more calories than the average person, or is my diet crap??

doctorwhogirl

Are you gaining weight or losing weight?

As I said "When loosing weight in conjunction with exercise (weights, squash, swim, running, hiking ), id be somewhere between 2300 - 2500 and I do loose weight"

Stench Blossoms

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

My diet is not the best, but far from the worst aswell - sandwiches, stir fry, bananas, berries, cereal (wheetabix, cornflakes, granola), rice, crackers, cheese, maybe takeaway once or twice a week, few pints every second weekend, try and keep away from sweets but aint sucessful all the time.

That's a pretty bad diet TBH.

Read the stickies.

*losing.

doctorwhogirl

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

As I said "When loosing weight in conjunction with exercise (weights, squash, swim, running, hiking ), id be somewhere between 2300 - 2500 and I do loose weight"

I did read this.

But you've not clearly stated what your aims are in relation to your calorie goals.
I'll say it more clearly

Do you want to lose weight or gain weight?

If you want to lose weight eat the calories you mentioned above.

If you want to gain weight or bulk, eat more.

Ignore the average person. Everyone is different.

If you want to know if your diet is rubbish or not that's a different question. Quality of diet has nothing to do with the amount of calories taken in. It's to do with the quality of the food consumed.

It was just a general question, suppose a bit rethorical really..

Always hear males need to consume less than 2000 per day plus exercise to loose weight, no way I could survive on that... I must need more calories then ..

A right pain having to eat soo much

thegreatiam

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

It was just a general question, suppose a bit rethorical really..

Always hear males need to consume less than 2000 per day plus exercise to loose weight, no way I could survive on that... I must need more calories then ..

A right pain having to eat soo much

each person is different. its not a simple as males need 2000 and females need 1800

It has to do with your base resting metabolism (how much you burn doing nothing)
and how much extra you burn through activity.

the idea is to then set up a deficit to lose weight.

For me it might me that i need 2200 calories a day to get a deficit. but you need 1600.

concentrate on the deficit not the total.

IE 1lb of fat is roughly 3500 calories so to lose 1lb or so a week you need a deficit of 3500 cals a week, or 500 a day.

Say you need 2000 calories as your base rate then eating 1500 calories will be enough to create that 500 cal deficit.

if you then do 500 cals of exercise each day you have a deficit of 1000 cals so you need to eat more food.

If a man is eating 2000 calories he may be burning an extra 500 through exercise so will creat a decent deficit.

The 1lb a week deficit is a suggestion within what is normally manageable by most people. any more than that and you risk tiring your self any less and progress will be slow.

Work out your base metabolism from the thread in the stickies and figure your deficit. depending on your size and usual activity it will be close to mine (or any other male) but not the same. That is why some guys need 2000 calories to lose weight and others need 1500.

thegreatiam

thegreatiam wrote: »

each person is different. its not a simple as males need 2000 and females need 1800

It has to do with your base resting metabolism (how much you burn doing nothing)
and how much extra you burn through activity.

the idea is to then set up a deficit to lose weight.

For me it might me that i need 2200 calories a day to get a deficit. but you need 1600.

concentrate on the deficit not the total.

IE 1lb of fat is roughly 3500 calories so to lose 1lb or so a week you need a deficit of 3500 cals a week, or 500 a day.

Say you need 2000 calories as your base rate then eating 1500 calories will be enough to create that 500 cal deficit.

if you then do 500 cals of exercise each day you have a deficit of 1000 cals so you need to eat more food.

If a man is eating 2000 calories he may be burning an extra 500 through exercise so will creat a decent deficit.

The 1lb a week deficit is a suggestion within what is normally manageable by most people. any more than that and you risk tiring your self any less and progress will be slow.

Work out your base metabolism from the thread in the stickies and figure your deficit. depending on your size and usual activity it will be close to mine (or any other male) but not the same. That is why some guys need 2000 calories to lose weight and others need 1500.

Thanks, I know all of the above tho

Thats the point, to calculate my personal RMR !! As mentioned, alot of lads (similar height, build, age etc) would eat alot less than me as RMR.

So using the general calculators it will give me the average calcories for my height, build etc, but it seems that I have a well above average RMR!! By something like 500 calories...

I have used these calculators and they range from anything like 1800 to 2000, maybe 2100, but no way I could survive on this.. could probably do 2100 on a good day but would be a once off...

I seem to feel less hungry when I exercise

thegreatiam

would also depend on the exercise and the type of food you eat.

If you eat coke and twixes you'll get to 3000 calories pretty quick and still feel like you need more.

Eat 3000 calories of eggs and youll struggle.

If youre exercising hard youll burn more calories than someone who isnt.

All the things online like calorie calculators and the numbers you get from exercise are all approximate. with a large margin of error.

a heart rate monito and logging ecactly what you eat and weigh with body composition tests will be the only really accurate way

Just in general it seems I have a higher RMR..

but yes to get accurate number would need to log what I eat, weigh, exercise etc to find it...

Taking exercise, food out of the equation could a person of similar build, height etc have a higher RMR, by 500 calories?

Stench Blossoms

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

Just in general it seems I have a higher RMR..

but yes to get accurate number would need to log what I eat, weigh, exercise etc to find it...

Taking exercise, food out of the equation could a person of similar build, height etc have a higher RMR, by 500 calories?

NO TWO PEOPLE ARE THE SAME!!

I think that's been implied a lot throughout this thread. Why can't you grasp that?

thegreatiam

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

Just in general it seems I have a higher RMR..

but yes to get accurate number would need to log what I eat, weigh, exercise etc to find it...

Taking exercise, food out of the equation could a person of similar build, height etc have a higher RMR, by 500 calories?

To me, it sounds like you are estimating a lot of what you eat and burn through.

Unless you have accurate logs of this weight loss then I wouldn't trust your guesses too much.

You'll really be surprised at how inaccurate guesstimates can be.

If you really want to know if you have a higher RMR then do the tests as accurately as possible

I have done food / calorie logs, exercise logs in the past, so their pretty accurate... again not perfect but what is...

I never calculated my RMR tho.. I dont fully get how to do this.. it would take time to be accurate. As you would need to say consume 2300 calroies per day for 1 or 2 weeks and do no exercise to see if ya put on weight, if you do reduce calories to where you dont put on or loose weight?

Or am I completely off ther mark?

Stench Blossoms

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

NO TWO PEOPLE ARE THE SAME!!

I think that's been implied a lot throughout this thread. Why can't you grasp that?

Thanks, but I am grasping it... i know 2 people arent the same so what good are online calculators if they can be out by 500 calories or so, whats the point?

thegreatiam

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

Thanks, but I am grasping it... i know 2 people arent the same so what good are online calculators if they can be out by 500 calories or so, whats the point?

they arent 500 calories out, they are approximate tho.

the point is guideline.

same with almost 93% of everything online. its a good guideline but if you want 100% accurate then you need to do the maths yourself.

And I still don't see how you are 500 calories out.

how long were your tests? to say something like this you need prolonged food logs and exercise logs accurately measuring both people.

right now your maths is seriously flawed:

"I know a guy who eats 2000 calories, but i lost weight eating 2500 calories even tho the online calc told me i needed 2000 calories and I did some exercise, running and hiking and stuff."

Its not the most scientific of tests.

measure your rate, weigh all your food and you will know how much you really need.

and dont worry about what other people are eating it's not relevant information to your weight loss.

doctorwhogirl

Also, I don't see why you feel the need to establish this number mathematically when you have already said you know yourself that when you eat 2300-2500 you lose weight! That's all you need to know really! All you need to do then is keep an eye on those numbers, maintain your exercise and voila!

thegreatiam

rockdrummer4 wrote: »

I have done food / calorie logs, exercise logs in the past, so their pretty accurate... again not perfect but what is...

I never calculated my RMR tho.. I dont fully get how to do this.. it would take time to be accurate. As you would need to say consume 2300 calroies per day for 1 or 2 weeks and do no exercise to see if ya put on weight, if you do reduce calories to where you dont put on or loose weight?

Or am I completely off ther mark?

rmr is what you burn to stay alive. if you can do nothing for 2 weeks and log it all then fair play.
and by nothing i mean. you can breathe, pump blood and that's it. no other movement.

easier way would be to do it by weight loss.

you claim to lose weight on 2300 calories so that is clearly below RMR for you.
add on all your exercise. determine the total weight loss.
from the total weight loss you can determine the deficit. 500 cals a day is 1lb a week remember.

so once you know the deficit you can figure the RMR

If you're losing a pound a week eating 2300 calories and no exercise, your RMR is 2800

"right now your maths is seriously flawed:"

Same as the online calculators... based too much on averages - which I know is what they can only be based on.. but they can be out by alot of calories...

will stick to what I know works for me, 2300 - 2500 calories with about 60 mins of exercise (aerobic and weights).. 4 - 5 days a week

Thanks lads..

doctorwhogirl

doctorwhogirl wrote: »

Also, I don't see why you feel the need to establish this number mathematically when you have already said you know yourself that when you eat 2300-2500 you lose weight! That's all you need to know really! All you need to do then is keep an eye on those numbers, maintain your exercise and voila!

It was more because all forums I went to lads were saying their RMR was about 1800 - 2000 calories per day... mine was much higher, just wondering was their something I was missing, or they werent being very thruthful with their RMR, or was my diet total crap?

Thats all