1200 cal/day is bull part 2

1200 cal/day is bull part 2		lizshuler
		Jan 22 2008 15:11
Okay, so after my last post some people got it and some people are just more confused. Hopefully this will help, especially because I don't have enough time to answer a bunch of individual emails. The feature on CC for estimated burned cals/day depending on activity is a great tool, however the allowance tool should be shot. Here is why The expenditure tool uses the Harris Benedict Formula which calculates your BMR. Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 X wt in kg) + (5 X ht in cm) - (6.8 X age in years) Women: BMR = 655 + (9.6 X wt in kg) + (1.8 X ht in cm) - (4.7 X age in years) this is the number of calories your body would need if you slept all day long and did not move. You then mulitple this number by an activity factor to see how much you burn I prefer to choose a sedentary excercise level and add in my workouts, If you want you can choose an activity level that already includes your workouts Activity Multiplier Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job) Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk) Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) Extr. active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.) Your food intake should never go below your BMR. Now your BMR is an estimate. It can change with a number of factors that a calculation cannot account for. An extremely muscular person will actually have a higher BMR than calculated, and a person with a considerable amount of weight to lose will actually have a lower BmR than calculated. Also your BMR will change as you lose weight and need to be recalculated. now when saying you should not go below your BMR, do not not go below your healthy weight BMR. For example, if you have 100 lbs to lose, figure out what your bmr would be at your healthy weight (to have a healthy BMI) And fool around with that number. this is why doctors will tell some of their patients to eat less than their bmr. When you are overweight your BMR is taking in account the energy required to carry all that weight. At a healthy BMR there isn't much extra weight to carry. Me for example, I'm already in a healthy BMI range so eating below my BMR is not good, but someone is is overweight and has a BMR of 1800 and their healthy goal weight has a BMR of 1400, could probably get away with eating 1400 and be ok. If this is your case, talk to a dr! When you mark sedentary on CC the tool will automatically multiply your BMR by an activity factor to calculate what you burn in a normal day without any vigorous activity (a desk job). This is where the mistake comes in. For example my sedentary calories burned is 1700 so when i used the tool to see how much I should eat it gave me 1200 cal. My BMR is 1440. For four months I ate 1200 cals and did not workout, I had a deficit but I wasn't eating enough for my body to maintain its normal functions. To make up for the 240 cal my body was not getting it started to use my lean muscle tissue, which in effect lowered my metabolism and I gained 15lbs. How could I gain 15 pounds when i was eating less than I burned? My metabolism had slowed down so much and my body held everything I eat just incase I decided to stop eating. Your body is smart and will do everything to keep it alive. Once I figured this out I started eating about 1400-1500 cals per day and did not have any time to workout. So just working and going to class I had about a 200-300 deficit each day. 3 months later I had dropped 10 lbs by eating MORE! So how do you figure out how much to eat. BMR x activity level + exercise - desired deficit = how much you shoud eat. Me for example 22, 5'5, 134 lbs. BMR = 1440, sedentary (1.2 activity factor) 1440(BMR) x 1.2(activity factor) + 300 (exercise) -500(desired deficit) = 1528 cals/day According to this caculation if I workout 300 cals, I can eat 1528 cal/day and lose 1lb per week. Now with this same equation if I changed my deficit to 600 it would = 1428 to eat each day. this is below my BMR so if I want a 600 def. I need to increase my excercise because i cannot decrease my food any more. If I used a mod activity level (1.375) which already includes some working out 1440 x 1.375 - 500 = 1480. so you can see the numbers come out a little differently with different levels, I feel adding excercise to my sedentary level is more accurate, but that is just for me. BMR is an estimate, it just gives you a starting point to see how much you can eat. BMR fluctuates and is affected by many factors. The best thing to do is use this as a starting point and see how it works for you. Like I mentioned before about eating to little and lowering your metabolism. If you eat to little (below BMR) your body will start using its lean muscle tissue for energy and therefore decreasing your muscle and metabolism. This may appear as a weight loss on a scale initially. the weight lose will then stop when your body can no longer take any more lean tissue. AT this point your metab. is very slow and your body starts to store. How do you know if you are losing lean tissue and not fat. the best way is to have your fat % taken. If you are losing weight and your fat % has not changed then you are losing muscle and that's bad. I have a body caliper that is used on one fold. It is not as accurate as the one that measures several different folds, but it can be done by you and in the privacy of your own home and gives you a general idea. grab the fold about 1 inch above your right hip and use the caliper to gauge your body fat. Here is how I use the number to see if I'm losing fat or muscle. 134 lbs at 18% body fat = 24.12 lbs fat lets say i lose 4 lbs and am still at 18% fat 130 lbs at 18% = 23.4 lbs fat as you can see the body fat went down, but out of 4 lbs lost only .72 was body fat. The other 3.28 was a combination of things, but mainly lean muscle tissue. this is not good and your metabolism will suffer. Now just so folks do not get alarmed, If you are eating correctly, you will lose some lean mass when you lose fat. It is impossible to just lose fat, the ratio of how much fat to lean muscle is the important factor. Like the example, if only a quater of the weight loss is fat, then you need to change things around. This is why weight training is so important. You are going to lose some lean body mass when losing weight, the weight training helps to counter this. Here is a great website: http://www.shapefit.com/basal-metabolic-rate.html Also, there is an electronic book that you can buy on the internet that is called. Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. It is $35 and well worth it. It completely explains how the body burns and stores, how to calculate BMR, body fat %...everything. It even gives workout schedules and explains how much you should of carbs v protein v. fat... everything. Very easy to understand and will really help you out. http://www.burnthefat.com/ BUY IT!** If you have any questions for me specifically post it rather than email, because CC only lets me send 2 messages/day.

Page 1 [2] [3] of 3		Post Reply
#1	shauna_182	Jan 22 2008 16:16
Ive been going over this for an hour trying to fig cals and all- cause im 5'4 185 lbs and 23 yrs old- im a SAHM with a newborn and toddler- but still set my level at sed i fig i can add in whatever i do- now w/ figurin it put me at 1647.75 as my BMR w/ sed im at 1977- I am breastfeedin full time but never added that in. i have been eating 1550 and am still not losin ---- should i add in more cals to eating for nursing or is that just like an excersize and a burn so no need to add that in. if i eat 1650-1700 will i lose or do i still need to try to average in about 200 cals of exersize??? what is your opinion??
#2	cafegen	Jan 22 2008 16:25
shauna-- you should really check with your doctor about that. I breastfed my babies for about 2 years each. You do need more calories when you are breastfeeding, but at the same time, you burn more calories too. Major kudos to you for breastfeeding by the way. That's awesome. Also as an aside--When I was breastfeeding, I remember that I had to pump a little right after any exercise so the milk wouldn't taste sour to my baby.
#3	shauna_182	Jan 22 2008 17:15
good to know- thanks for the info- no matter what i think i should at least eat the 1650 then!
#4	alicandra	Jan 22 2008 17:33
Erm shauna I'm not 100% sure, but I seem to remember you are meant to eat 400 calories more than usual if you are breastfeeding, so like 2000 cals? I know that seems like a lot, but its needed to make sure the body has enough nutrients to feed you AND the baby - at the end of the day, the only calories the baby gets are coming through your body! And a baby needs 400-500 calories... I would ask your doctor though, just to be sure...
#5	tolife	Jan 22 2008 17:38
There is a calculator here that includes breastfeeding: http://www.calorieking.com/tools/weight_maintenance.php
#6	angelyna	Jan 22 2008 19:23
So happy that you posted this information. I have no idea how anyone lives off 1200 calories a day. I eat 1000 even before I get home from work and if I only had 200 for dinner I would be eating my arm off :)
#7	shauna_182	Jan 23 2008 01:33
Wow, everyone on this site has been so helpful- thank u so much- so far calorieking and nutritiondata say i burn around 2500 with breastfeedin- when i told my doc 1650 today he said to go w/ 2000! So now i have been reducin to much so im glad i saw this forum :) I wonder if my weight has been stalled by goin to low! good thing is i have learned so much about cals in certain foods- so i know what i can eat alot of!!! thanks again!
#8	stephh0701	Jan 23 2008 19:25
So if I'm 20 years old, weigh 160 pounds and am 6' BMR(1584)x1.2+350 calories burned=2250 calories? So even if I only need 500 calories deficit I can eat 1750 calories? That seems like a lot.
#9	phord	Jan 24 2008 14:42
Original Post by stephh0701: So if I'm 20 years old, weigh 160 pounds and am 6' BMR(1584)x1.2+350 calories burned=2250 calories? So even if I only need 500 calories deficit I can eat 1750 calories? That seems like a lot. 1750 looks right to me, Steph. And it's not a lot. If it seems like it is, maybe you've been starving yourself already.
#10	britishvixen21	Jan 24 2008 14:47
I have upped my calories to your theory (nearly 1800) and I will try it for a couple of weeks and see if your theory is right :) watch this space................
#11	danielle860	Jan 24 2008 16:20
Some people can live off of 1200 calories I suppose - I'm pretty little, so my BMR is 1286. If I were sedentary and trying to lose weight, I'd be getting about a 350 calorie daily defecit by eating 1200 calories per day. But yeah, I agree with what you are saying. 1200 isn't the bare minimum for most people. It's just a guideline. Sorta like how the very low end of the healthy BMI range could actually be underweight for you. But that's a whole nother post. :)
#12	tanyec	Jan 25 2008 20:33
That's a very helpful post, lizshuler. One note though: i don't think you're supposed to "add in" whatever additional exercise you do outright, since the BMR x 1.2 (or whatever your number is) is for the whole day--so if you exercise for an hour, you're supposed to subtract that hour from that number (not sure how you would calculate that :P) BEFORE adding in whatever number of calories you burned during exercise...
#13	lizshuler	Jan 28 2008 12:41
I add in, because using 1.2 does not include my excercise. If i used 1.375 i wouldn't add it. 1.2 accounts for me just going to work and does not include my 30-45min of cardio/weights each day, so i have to add it in. If you used the sedentary activity level you have to add in your excercise because it does not include it, hence being sedentary
#14	danielle860	Jan 28 2008 12:56
She means can't just add an hour of exercise into your daily calories, because that hour is already accounted for in the 1.2 sedentary multiplier. You need to divide your total calories by the time exercised and subtract that. SO: Daily caloric needs are 1800 calories Burn 500 through an hour of exercise, and add that in Then subtract 75 calories for the hour you would have been otherwise "sedentary". (this is the 1800 calories divided by 24 hours) Does that make sense? 1800 + 500 - 75 = 2225 I think in the long run it doesn't really matter very much, because it's only 75 calories. But technically, it's the way to account for everything correctly.
#15	lizshuler	Jan 28 2008 14:11
oh ok, I see what your saying now. thanks for clearing that up. You're right, I wouldn't even worry about those extra 75. especially in my case because i know i actually burn more at sedentary than the equation calculate for me. I calculated every thing i did for 24 hrs (sedentary, no excercise) and totaled up the cals burned and it came out to be 200 more cals burned than the equation. Again those are going to be just estimates. caloriesperhour.com has a great calories burned calculator, better than CC as I think CC overestimates. It also has a elliptical calculator specifically for the EFX precor (most gyms have this type) where you not only put time, weight, age, height, but also the resistance level (instead of just light, moderate and vigourous on CC)
#16	thhq	Jan 28 2008 14:48
"Your body is smart." That's a good way to describe how the body regulates metabolism to keep itself intact. I think of my body as an opportunist, which I have to trick in order to lose weight. Food deprivation (ie pure dieting) worked OK for me when I was obese, but less and less well as I got closer to ideal weight. What works the best now is the brute force of exercise, for which the body HAS to part with its closely held calories.....
#17	cellulitedelight	Jan 28 2008 15:05
Let's see... A sixty-six pound weight loss revealed my body fat percentage was cut quite severely and my muscle mass has increased. Cool beans to you for configuring all this stuff, but I'm going to have to stick with my 1200 calories. All 1200 delicious of 'em, that keep me so full at the end of the night I want to cry if I'm under 'cause I can't possibly eat anymore.
#18	illbeskinny	Jan 28 2008 18:19
lizshuler, awesome information! Thank you so much! It really makes since! Do you know the cal intake if your pregnant! Isn't like 300 more cal per day in the 2nd and 3rd trimester?
#19	jes516	Jan 28 2008 18:26
cellulitedelight - why do you have so much trouble eating 1200 calories? Especially when you say you eat fast food freely and haven't had to remove anything from your diet. How do you lose weight? On days you eat fast food, do you just not eat any other meals so you don't go over 1200? Just curious b/c I usually eat around 1300-1500 and I've read a bunch of posts where you say you have trouble eating so much but also I've read you eat fatty/high calorie foods whenever you want.
#20	cellulitedelight	Jan 28 2008 18:31
I don't gorge myself. If I go to McDonalds and I order a Big Mac, I barely have room after consuming the sandwich to eat my fries. If I do, I eat a small order and that's so much food it keeps me full for quite a while. The rest of my meals consist of low calorie foods that my genius fiance concocts, I drink a lot of water throughout the day (hydration issues), and I don't eat until I have to argue with my throat to choke down that last bite. It's not hard to still enjoy fast food, maintain your caloric limit, and be full. Maybe I've got a smaller stomach but I've also been known to eat an entire large pizza from Little Ceasar's with extra cheese, green olives, bacon, and onion when I'm determined enough.
Page 1 [2] [3] of 3		Post Reply