Minimum Calories Per Day?

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]Ramo wrote:
Belle Curvy wrote:

I will be moving to the free weights once I get more familiar with things.

Would you rather learn to accelerate and control an unstable mass in free space when your body is weak and your nervous system like a sponge, or after you’ve actually built enough strength to hurt yourself?

This is one of the absolute most deleterious notions in the fitness industry. The truth is, things should go the other way. Only once you’ve progressed past the beginning stages as a lifter, and developed some coordination with basic lifts, should machines become a consideration.

Learn to move your body dynamically in free space. Unless you have some kind of disability that prevents it, which I assume you would have mentioned.

Also, eating less than 1000 calories per day is not a good idea. As you begin to learn some basics about feeding yourself appropriately, that will become obvious.

Best of luck.[/quote]

I don’t know what you meant by the free space thing =(

Less than 1000 cals is beginning to sound like a bad idea.

22

[quote]ctschneider wrote:
Belle Curvy wrote:

this is what came up for me when I used the BMR link
You have a BMR of 1698.35

So would I subtract 500 from that?

Your BMR is how many calories you would burn each day if you did nothing but sat on your butt and watched TV. You need to account for daily exercise as well as walking around, cooking, vacuuming, yard work, etc. I would bet when you account for all that stuff you’re probably burning more like 2400 Calories per day.

Aim for about 2000 Calories per day and see if you can lose weight on that. If, after a week or two, you see no change in your weight, drop down to 1800 Calories per day and give it another couple of weeks. If your exercising vigorously 4 hours per week, I seriously doubt you’ll need to drop below 2000 Calories per day.[/quote]

Okay so it is better to have a few more calories than you think you need and subtract to lose weight, than my idea of adding calories if I am hungry. Yah, that does sound like it makes more sense.

23

[quote]Belle Curvy wrote:
VibeAlive wrote:
Hi! Welcome to the board… :slight_smile:

Which calculator did you use?? and how old are you??

Your BMR @ age 30 would be 1758 calories…

To calculate YOUR BMR… because we don’t know your age… go here:

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

Once you know your BMR, you can calculate your Daily Calorie Needs based on your activity level using the Harris Benedict Equation:

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

THIS will allow you too see where you’re at… based on how much activity you do… or are planning to do…

I am 41!

this is what came up for me when I used the BMR link
You have a BMR of 1698.35

So would I subtract 500 from that?
[/quote]

No… THAT is just your BMR…

Now…

You take THAT… and you plug it into this:

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

So:

Harris Benedict Formula

To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:

  1. If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
  2. If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
  3. If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
  4. If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
  5. If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9

Total Calorie Needs Example
If you are sedentary, multiply your BMR (1698.35) by 1.2 = 2038.02. This is the total number of calories you need in order to maintain your current weight.

So from THAT… you would subtract 500… which is about:

1538…

Now that would be the LEAST amount you’d wanna eat… and this is ONLY if you are SEDENTARY… and do NO exercise which I’m SURE you know isn’t a good idea…

So…

If you were to workout 3 x a week… it’d be:

(1698.35) by 1.5 = 2548 Minus 500 to lose: 2048…

So I would guess that you are somewhere in between 1500 and 2000 calories to lose weight… depending on your exercise level…

Remember though… these are just guidelines… or suggestions… everyone is different… but somewhere in there you should find the spot that’ll work…

24

I’m not so sure that everyone in this thread realizes that the OP is most definitely a female. You won’t lose weight at 2000 calories. I take that back, you might be able to. But women have much lower caloric requirements than men and 2000 is higher than most recommendations i’ve read for women.

25

It’ll also probably be easier psychologically to eat more, and then if/when progress stalls to drop calories bit by bit.

26

Somewhere between 1500 - 2000 should do the trick… IMO…

27

[quote]Belle Curvy wrote:

Okay so it is better to have a few more calories than you think you need and subtract to lose weight, than my idea of adding calories if I am hungry. Yah, that does sound like it makes more sense.
[/quote]

It’s way better to start high. You’ve got to remember that our bodies evolved to their current state during the paleolithic era, during which famine was a very real possibility. If you immediately drop your daily caloric intake to some incredibly low number, like say 1400 Calories, your body’s going to think that your starving - at which point it will do its level best to lower your metabolism and store as much fat as possible so you don’t die during the coming famine. A few hundred Calories below mantainance and the fat will (gradually) melt off.

28

I agree with that… I’d start @ 2000 or so, and subtract by 200 - 300 if a few weeks produces no results…

29

[quote]lighting_guy wrote:
Doesn’t Berardi say that women should eat 50% of what a man does? If a man is getting 3000 calories, then wouldn’t a woman eat 1500?

I do not understand why everyone thinks this is so low for her.[/quote]

An average woman might well need to eat only 50% of what Berardi eats, but not that percentage relative to men in general after correcting for weight. Berardi eats a lot.

As for the general question: It doesn’t work correctly to figure calories based on presumed “ideal weight” when there is a large difference in weights between present and that presumed ideal value. While the added bodyweight being carried doesn’t result in as many extra calories burned per pound as added muscle weight would, it still increases the body’s caloric consumption.

The method I use for recommending calories for women wishing to diet is to “split the difference” between current weight and presumed ideal weight, and then multiply by 11 to 12 to get calories per day.

If not having an idea for a presumed ideal weight, calculating one by finding what would correspond to a BMI of 21 or 22 is reasonable. Here, at 5’4", 130 is a reasonable figure. Whether this “really” is “ideal” or not is unimportant: it’s excellent for the calculation and that is all that matters for this purpose.

So, splitting the difference between 215 and 130 yields about 172.

Multiplying by 11 to 12 gives 1900 to 2070 calories per day.

This would be the value to start at. After substantial weight loss, it may be desired to recalculate according to the new weight. If the value does not give good weight loss even when allowed some time to work and good food choices and exercise, then the “splitting the difference” procedure can be done again.

Here, we’d now split the difference between the 172 (the first split of the difference) and the 130. The new figure to calculate from would then be 151, and the resulting calories would be about 1660 to 1810 calories per day.

This “split it again” calculation usually does not have to be done. Ordinarily the first calculation is indeed the correct one. It should NOT be assumed that it would be better to start with the more aggressive figure. That usually is a worse approach.

(Note to any that might want to complain about BMI: The above refers only to women.)

30

“Split the difference…” Interesting… I like that…

31

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
lighting_guy wrote:
Doesn’t Berardi say that women should eat 50% of what a man does? If a man is getting 3000 calories, then wouldn’t a woman eat 1500?

I do not understand why everyone thinks this is so low for her.

An average woman might well need to eat only 50% of what Berardi eats, but not that percentage relative to men in general after correcting for weight. Berardi eats a lot.

As for the general question: It doesn’t work correctly to figure calories based on presumed “ideal weight” when there is a large difference in weights between present and that presumed ideal value. While the added bodyweight being carried doesn’t result in as many extra calories burned per pound as added muscle weight would, it still increases the body’s caloric consumption.

The method I use for recommending calories for women wishing to diet is to “split the difference” between current weight and presumed ideal weight, and then multiply by 11 to 12 to get calories per day.

If not having an idea for a presumed ideal weight, calculating one by finding what would correspond to a BMI of 21 or 22 is reasonable. Here, at 5’4", 130 is a reasonable figure. Whether this “really” is “ideal” or not is unimportant: it’s excellent for the calculation and that is all that matters for this purpose.

So, splitting the difference between 215 and 130 yields about 172.

Multiplying by 11 to 12 gives 1900 to 2070 calories per day.

This would be the value to start at. After substantial weight loss, it may be desired to recalculate according to the new weight. If the value does not give good weight loss even when allowed some time to work and good food choices and exercise, then the “splitting the difference” procedure can be done again.

Here, we’d now split the difference between the 172 (the first split of the difference) and the 130. The new figure to calculate from would then be 151, and the resulting calories would be about 1660 to 1810 calories per day.

This “split it again” calculation usually does not have to be done. Ordinarily the first calculation is indeed the correct one. It should NOT be assumed that it would be better to start with the more aggressive figure. That usually is a worse approach.

(Note to any that might want to complain about BMI: The above refers only to women.)[/quote]

Thank you so much!

Would I subtract 500calories from that for what I should be eating to lose weight?

32

You’re really bent on this 500 calorie subtraction eh? :wink:

33

[quote]VibeAlive wrote:
You’re really bent on this 500 calorie subtraction eh? :wink:

[/quote]

I feel like a huge idiot to keep asking. But I read in one of the articles or a thread, somewhere that you subtract 500 calories from what you need to eat to lose weight. That way you have a total of 3500 calories at the end of the week and that is a pound of fat.

Please tell me if this is wrong. I really am clueless. I am not trying to be stubborn, I just don’t know.

34

No, 1900 is the low end of what you should be trying, I believe.

Subtracting 500 from a maintenance value is a good method, but the 1900-2070 figures are not maintenance but instead values that should give good fat loss but without wrecking your metabolism or being likely to cause rebound afterwards.

35

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, 1900 is the low end of what you should be trying, I believe.

Subtracting 500 from a maintenance value is a good method, but the 1900-2070 figures are not maintenance but instead values that should give good fat loss but without wrecking your metabolism or being likely to cause rebound afterwards.[/quote]

Thank you, I really appreciate everyone’s patience and help with this.

I really was lost as you can tell, so you’ve all been great.

Thank you again.

36

Glad to help! :slight_smile:

37

At MINIMUM to avoid any unwanted side effects of a low calorie diet, I’ve read that 8 calories per LB of bodyweight is the number not to go under.

38

I wanted to say thanks again. I had my day, or am having my 1900 calorie day and that is a lot of food! I am not hungry and my headache is gone. Lots of vegetables, an orange, lots of eggs (3!) and a whole can of tuna, now for dinner and pre-bed! Thanks again.

39

Glad to help… best of success!! :slight_smile:

40

Not to downplay what everyone has said, but at 215lbs and being 5’4", shouldn’t the OP just focus on good food and exercise, and worry about the numbers when weight loss stalls?

Seems like Berardi’s 7 Habits would just be simpler for her to follow and she can just worry about the numbers when/if she needs to.