How many calories do i really need?

Circles24

Alright so,

I recently started lifting weights (Finally!!) now i'm starting small just working on my form & that.

My goal is to reduce my body fat and gain some muscle.
So I guess I'm just looking to swap my fat for muscle while remaining more or less the same weight... if that makes sense?


I'm not overweight (9stone) so this is where i'm coming into difficulty.


I'm totally confused because when I look online "how to reduce body fat" it usually results in cutting calories but when I look up "how to gain muscle" it says to eat at calorie surplus.

When I put my details (Female, 24, 9 stone, sedentary, training 4 x 60mins a week - Moderate) & info into the IIFYM calculator

I get the following results:

Fat Loss:
Suggested (15% Reduction) - 1530 Calories
Aggressive (20% Reduction) - 1438 Calories
Reckless (25% Reduction) - 1348 Calories

Maintain:
Same as TDEE - 1797 Cals

Bulking
Cautious - 1887 Cals
Text book - 1977 Cals
Aggressive - 2067 Cals


Macros (I want 1g of protein/.4g/.45 of fat per pound of bodyweight & remainder carbs)

So how much do i eat?

I want to lose fat & this is telling me to cut calories
but I need calories to gain muscles?

Argh confused please help!!

Thanks guys!

Check out the likes of EatThisMuch, which will generate meal plans automatically based on calories. And sign up to myfitnesspal, which keeps log of how many you eat.

Alf Veedersane

Well, it's difficult to do both at the same time but possible for some people.,, especially people new to lifting.

In general though, you need the extra calories to build muscle and get stronger, i.e. bulking. Then you go into a deficit to cut the fat while trying to maintain the muscle and strength as best you can, i.e. cutting.

If you're new to lifting, then you'll be hyper sensitive to its impacts (the phenomenon that is newbie gains) and the reduction in protein synthesis by the calorie deficit isn't big enough so you can build some muscle. But it's slow.

Maybe try a moderate deficit like 10% and see how it goes for a few weeks. Change upwards as necessary.

The thing with calculators is that they're an approximation. The mechanisms for energy input and output are very complex and there are a huge amount of variables so it's trial and error.

Caveat: there are people who will probably be able to explain it better

Alkers

As you are not overweight I wouldn't go with a calorie deficit. Eat healthily and monitor your progress by taking a photo of yourself at the same time each week.

Mellor

Simona1986 wrote: »

As you are not overweight I wouldn't go with a calorie deficit. Eat healthily and monitor your progress by taking a photo of yourself at the same time each week.

Eating healthy without a deficit isn't really going to promote body fat metabolism

Zillah

I would suggest eating maintenance calorie wise, but being very strict to make sure you get lots of protein and very little sugar. Lift lots. I'd say you'll see some recomposition.

Otherwise: I would eat a small surplus, gain muscle for a few months, and then do a cut.

Transform

Circles24 wrote: »

Alright so,

I recently started lifting weights (Finally!!) now i'm starting small just working on my form & that.

My goal is to reduce my body fat and gain some muscle.
So I guess I'm just looking to swap my fat for muscle while remaining more or less the same weight... if that makes sense?


I'm not overweight (9stone) so this is where i'm coming into difficulty.


I'm totally confused because when I look online "how to reduce body fat" it usually results in cutting calories but when I look up "how to gain muscle" it says to eat at calorie surplus.

When I put my details (Female, 24, 9 stone, sedentary, training 4 x 60mins a week - Moderate) & info into the IIFYM calculator

I get the following results:

Fat Loss:
Suggested (15% Reduction) - 1530 Calories
Aggressive (20% Reduction) - 1438 Calories
Reckless (25% Reduction) - 1348 Calories

Maintain:
Same as TDEE - 1797 Cals

Bulking
Cautious - 1887 Cals
Text book - 1977 Cals
Aggressive - 2067 Cals


Macros (I want 1g of protein/.4g/.45 of fat per pound of bodyweight & remainder carbs)

So how much do i eat?

I want to lose fat & this is telling me to cut calories
but I need calories to gain muscles?

Argh confused please help!!

Thanks guys!

go maintenance for 4 weeks to establish good quality eating patterns.

run deficit for 4 weeks, maintenance for 1-2 weeks, repeat no more than once,

run maintenance for 4 weeks again, rinse, repeat when needed

GiftofGab

Transform wrote: »

go maintenance for 4 weeks to establish good quality eating patterns.

run deficit for 4 weeks, maintenance for 1-2 weeks, repeat no more than once,

run maintenance for 4 weeks again, rinse, repeat when needed

Why?? She said she is not overweight.

OP, your post it correct. A calorie deficit will lose fat and a calorie surplus will gain muscle. Only problem is that when you gain muscle you will gain fat too. And when you lose fat you will lose muscle. Most people who are in great shape concentrate in one thing at a time. So they will go a few months of calorie surplus to gain weight (and gain a little fat too) then afterwards then will go a few months on a calorie deficit and lose the fat they gained (but will also lose some of the muscle they gained too). This is referred to bulking and cutting.

It is possible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time but it is extremely difficult and you have to know exactly what you are doing and it takes a lot longer.

So OP you will need to decide what you want to do? Do you want to gain muscle? Or lose fat? But doing both at the same time can be slow and difficult.

Mellor

GiftofGab wrote: »

Why?? She said she is not overweight.

Because in a nutshell;

Circles24 wrote:

My goal is to reduce my body fat...

And most of time when somebody who isn't overweight gets a bit leaner, it gives the appearance of more muscle.

And when you lose fat you will lose muscle.

Not always. Especially if it's not a very harsh cut, or you haven't particularly excessive muscle.

Hanley

Purely on the "how many kcals do I need" Q, because I know there's onlookers, here's what I do;

Bodyweight in lb x10 = BMR (220*10 = 2,200)

BMR * 1.3 = Day to Day No exercise Maintenance (2,200 * 1.3 = 2,860)

Then based off how much you train you'd adjust.

Eg - If I lift 4x per week for 60 minutes, I'd use approx 6kcals per minute of exercise.

4*60*6 = 1,440 "exercise" kcals per week

Divide 1,440 by 7 to get "daily" - 205.

2860+205 = 3,065kcals per day is my maintenance number.

Drop 15% under for fat loss, and 15% over for muscle gain.

If you're going down 0.75% bodyfat per week, or up 0.5kg scale weight per week, it's about right.

If not, adjust numbers up or down and monintor to see what happens.

Dtp1979

Hanley wrote: »

Purely on the "how many kcals do I need" Q, because I know there's onlookers, here's what I do;

Bodyweight in lb x10 = BMR (220*10 = 2,200)

BMR * 1.3 = Day to Day No exercise Maintenance (2,200 * 1.3 = 2,860)

Then based off how much you train you'd adjust.

Eg - If I lift 4x per week for 60 minutes, I'd use approx 6kcals per minute of exercise.

4*60*6 = 1,440 "exercise" kcals per week

Divide 1,440 by 7 to get "daily" - 205.

2860+205 = 3,065kcals per day is my maintenance number.

Drop 15% under for fat loss, and 15% over for muscle gain.

If you're going down 0.75% bodyfat per week, or up 0.5kg scale weight per week, it's about right.

If not, adjust numbers up or down and monintor to see what happens.

That seems like a very handy equation to follow in fairness. But there are HUGE variencies in that and the Harris Benedict equation which is thought to be very accurate.
On the above equation I should have 2,400 to maintain
On the Harris benedict I should have 3,300
That's nearly 1,000 a day difference.

Hanley

Dtp1979 wrote: »

That seems like a very handy equation to follow in fairness. But there are HUGE variencies in that and the Harris Benedict equation which is thought to be very accurate.
On the above equation I should have 2,400 to maintain
On the Harris benedict I should have 3,300
That's nearly 1,000 a day difference.

How much do you weigh, how often do you train and how long does the average session last? I reckon you've just got the calcs wrong.

Keep in mind step 1, BMR is what you'd expend if you just lay in bed all day every day.

Step 2 (*1.3) is what you'd expend if you didn't do any training at all.

Step 3 is where you add activity on top.

And step 4 is where you adjust for weight loss or muscle gain.

Dtp1979

Hanley wrote: »

How much do you weigh, how often do you train and how long does the average session last? I reckon you've just got the calcs wrong.

Keep in mind step 1, BMR is what you'd expend if you just lay in bed all day every day.

Step 2 (*1.3) is what you'd expend if you didn't do any training at all.

Step 3 is where you add activity on top.

And step 4 is where you adjust for weight loss or muscle gain.

Ye I understand what your saying. I'm 185lbs. I'm a heating contractor so I'm always on my feet every day, up and down ladders, stairs etc. some days more physical than others. I'd work out 3 times a week for 1-1 1/2 hours. The days I lift I'd just add 300-500 calories. I wouldn't mind if calorie calculators were varying by 100-200 calories but 1,000 is a huge difference. I looked around a lot and thought the Harris benedict was the best, but then again, I'd have faith that you know your stuff aswell so I'm back to my usual confused state again!

Dtp1979

Hanley wrote: »

How much do you weigh, how often do you train and how long does the average session last? I reckon you've just got the calcs wrong.

Keep in mind step 1, BMR is what you'd expend if you just lay in bed all day every day.

Step 2 (*1.3) is what you'd expend if you didn't do any training at all.

Step 3 is where you add activity on top.

And step 4 is where you adjust for weight loss or muscle gain.

Ye I understand what your saying. I'm 185lbs. I'm a heating contractor so I'm always on my feet every day, up and down ladders, stairs etc. some days more physical than others. I'd work out 3 times a week for 1-1 1/2 hours. The days I lift I'd just add 300-500 calories. I wouldn't mind if calorie calculators were varying by 100-200 calories but 1,000 is a huge difference. I looked around a lot and thought the Harris benedict was the best, but then again, I'd have faith that you know your stuff aswell so I'm back to my usual confused state again!

Mellor

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Ye I understand what your saying. I'm 185lbs. I'm a heating contractor so I'm always on my feet every day, up and down ladders, stairs etc. some days more physical than others. I'd work out 3 times a week for 1-1 1/2 hours. The days I lift I'd just add 300-500 calories. I wouldn't mind if calorie calculators were varying by 100-200 calories but 1,000 is a huge difference. I looked around a lot and thought the Harris benedict was the best, but then again, I'd have faith that you know your stuff aswell so I'm back to my usual confused state again!

For 185lbs, I got 2450 maintenance (sedantry) with HB formula.
Hanleys calcs above put it at 2405 (185*10*1.3)

45 Cals difference. I reckon the error is in how you count your activity. FWIW, the HB formula isn't very accurate at all. For
BMR it might be, but depending on which "multiplier" you pick it could be 2800 or 3150. That's a big range and most people are unlikely to fall exactly on one or the other.

Transform

the activity per day is a bigger factor towards the total calories per day and most people overestimate this or simply have such a small output

Dtp1979

Transform wrote: »

the activity per day is a bigger factor towards the total calories per day and most people overestimate this or simply have such a small output

@transform, what calculation would you use?

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

For 185lbs, I got 2450 maintenance (sedantry) with HB formula.
Hanleys calcs above put it at 2405 (185*10*1.3)

45 Cals difference. I reckon the error is in how you count your activity. FWIW, the HB formula isn't very accurate at all. For
BMR it might be, but depending on which "multiplier" you pick it could be 2800 or 3150. That's a big range and most people are unlikely to fall exactly on one or the other.

Transform wrote: »

the activity per day is a bigger factor towards the total calories per day and most people overestimate this or simply have such a small output

Yup and yup.

Most people think "active" means walking to the bus and making a few ****ing trips from the fridge to the couch.

Dtp1979

Hanley wrote: »

Yup and yup.

Most people think "active" means walking to the bus and making a few ****ing trips from the fridge to the couch.

I'd consider my line of work fairly active. Do you reckon 2,400 would be my maintenance number?

Alf Veedersane

Dtp1979 wrote: »

I'd consider my line of work fairly active. Do you reckon 2,400 would be my maintenance number?

It's not an exact science. You have an approximation so work off that. Adjust based on how that works.

Dtp1979

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's not an exact science. You have an approximation so work off that. Adjust based on how that works.

I went back over my original maths. What a difference a decimal point makes. My apologies to Hanley. Mellor was spot on. Hanleys equation is much simpler to follow and the calorie totals are coming in almost the same.

Transform

Dtp1979 wrote: »

I went back over my original maths. What a difference a decimal point makes. My apologies to Hanley. Mellor was spot on. Hanleys equation is much simpler to follow and the calorie totals are coming in almost the same.

overall the calories thing is something i get people to track and record for a while then they need to back off a little when they have a good idea as to where they were going wrong and focus on performance in the gym e.g. can they back squat and deadlift over body weight, can they do pull ups ans chest to floor press ups with ease, can they run 5km with ease or at least get through a basic conditioning piece without looking a total mess and puking. Oh and have decent enough mobility to perform all the above.

The calorie recording is great but if it ends up sending people into a spiral of NEEDING to constantly track and record all the time then this is a miserable outcome.

This should be backed with a body fat test also