Weight Loss
Moderators: spoiled_candy, Mollybygolly, coach_k, devilish_patsy, nycgirl


the correct amount of calories your body needs in 1 day


Quote  |  Reply

i don't know where this system got their calorie counting guide from, but just fyi, you take your current weight, multiply it by 7 (days of the week) and that is the amount of calories your body should be eating in a day. their calorie intake guide for 1 day is too high. how in the world are you suppose to lose like that? the thing is ...eat less, workout more. then, your weigh in day should be once a week at the same time of day. as you lose your weight, adjust your calorie intake !!! i hope this is helpful. i did it and lost 55lbs in 1 year. i was 208 wearing 16, almost 18 (never had any kids, isn't that terrible?) and now i'm 153 in a size 6/8. my goal weight is 145. why in the world is the last few pounds so gd hard to lose???

 

Edited Dec 17 2007 16:11 by hkellick
Reason: Moved to Weight Loss forum
20 Replies (last)

there is no way this is remotely possible.  i would be eating well under 1200 calories a day, which is extremely unhealthy.  if a shorter person were trying to lose weight and weighed, say 130, trying to get to 115, they would only be eating 910 calories a day.  no one can survive on that.

no offense, but your theory is wrong.

ditto what taprilmiller said ^^

women need minimum of 1200 daily, men 1500

I agree with you that CC high balls the amount you need... but your estimation is far too low.  I am 5'8 and weigh 140.. I workout everyday.. according to your method I should eat under 1000 cals.  I'd be dead in a month, haha.  I eat around 1500 now as I am trying to lose weight but will level off at 1800 eventually.  
hahahaha, according to that formuka I need 665 calories a day.  I would be dead in 2 months following that.

the CC+ Library, Q&A has the best explanation

How are calorie requirements derived for an individual?

Calorie requirements are determined by several factors, most important of which are size and body composition. Larger people with more muscle need more calories. Age and gender also make a difference, with men and younger people needing more calories than women and older people. Other factors, such as excessive thyroid hormone, fever and illness, and extremes in temperature, can raise calorie requirements temporarily. An individual's activity level also impacts his or her calorie requirements, but that is not a fixed factor because activity can change from day-to-day.

How many calories should I be eating in a day?

Assuming you are in good health, the answer depends on your height, weight, age, gender, activity level, and the amount of muscle you have on board. For instance, at moderate activity levels, a 30-year old woman who is 5'5" and 125 pounds needs about 2200 calories a day, while a 30-year old man who is 6'0" and 172 pounds, needs about 2800 calories a day. Calorie requirements should be based on a person's adequate weight rather than on a weight that is over or under the adequate range. A person's muscle mass is the wild card in determining requirements because it is difficult to measure muscle mass without special training and equipment. More muscle requires more calories. In order to lose weight, you should create a deficit of 500 - 1000 fewer calories than you need. To create that deficit, you have the options of eating less, moving more, or doing a little of each.

WHAT?

This honestly makes no sense. And no offense, but where is your information from? It seems odd that you feel the need to make this assertion. 

Its obvious from the wide range of people who are here that there really IS no one guaranteed way to lose weight and keep it off. If there were, many of us would have been doing it.

People are individual. The calorie guidelines are actually low for many people, it really depends on the person.

And being fat doesn't limit your ability to have children, whatever you were saying. Being fat is a state of being, nothing more or less.

 

Original Post by lavalady:

And being fat doesn't limit your ability to have children, whatever you were saying. Being fat is a state of being, nothing more or less.

 

Yeah. I was wondering what this has to do with anything... in regards to daily calories needed? huh?!?!

"Never had any kids, isn't that terrible?" Um. No. Why is that terrible? What does that have to do with the amount of calories needed in one day?

Maybe I am just confused.

Original Post by amy_blue:

Original Post by lavalady:

And being fat doesn't limit your ability to have children, whatever you were saying. Being fat is a state of being, nothing more or less.

 

Yeah. I was wondering what this has to do with anything... in regards to daily calories needed? huh?!?!

"Never had any kids, isn't that terrible?" Um. No. Why is that terrible? What does that have to do with the amount of calories needed in one day?

Maybe I am just confused.

 Now I'm thinking maybe it means, "I didn't even get fat after I had kids.", which does happen to some of us (not me, as I was fat when I had one and then just stayed fat after). Either way, yes, I'm confused too.

.. I've been listening to Calorie Count for four and a half months.  I've lost a hell of a lot more weight than I did when I ate less than what it recommended.

I think I'll stick with Calorie Count.

So then explain to me how I maintain my weight by eating 1600 calories a day (what cc says) rather than eating 840 calories a day (your formula) ? My body would starve on that! What is your source?

 

For one... a person is not bound to become fat after having kids and I think the OP's statement about that is offensive, honestly.

Secondly, to whoever posted that no one could live off 900 calories a day... a person certainly can. Not healthily, but easily they can survive. One thing about this forum I don't get is how much people think that EVERY woman has to have AT LEAST 1200 calories a day! Or by God she is underdoing it and cannot sustain life! That's rediculous. If a metabolism is slow enough a body can sustain AND maintain on less than 1200.

Thirdly... I am sure CC's calorie count is accurate enough because it has to appease ALL people. It can't take MUCH into account about our personal metabolism or how we've previously screwed it up. So in my opinion it's accurate. If I think it's too high I can take what they say and cut off some. Which is what I do anyway.

*finished with rant

yeah I would only be allowed to eat 840 cals a day and there is no way in hell that would ever happen.
Original Post by erinlf:

Secondly, to whoever posted that no one could live off 900 calories a day... a person certainly can. Not healthily, but easily they can survive. One thing about this forum I don't get is how much people think that EVERY woman has to have AT LEAST 1200 calories a day! Or by God she is underdoing it and cannot sustain life! That's rediculous. If a metabolism is slow enough a body can sustain AND maintain on less than 1200.

CC provides a healthy and practical guide for a lifestyle, not just a "here and now" dieting approach.  eating under a physician's recommended amount can be harmful to the body in the long run.  with a lose of nutrients and vitamins that are in foods that would not be taken in to stay at a 900 cal/day intake, the body is more susceptible to colds, the flu, and other diseases because your immune system is not as strong.  yes, you can sustain for a period of time on this low amount of calories, but you can not maintain, even unhealthily, for a sustained period of time.

um okay so there is no way in hell i can be healthy by living on 540 calories per day. i'd probably be dead pretty soon if i even attempted...

im sticking to calorie count's recommendations.

The 7 * my weight says I should eat a little over 1200 calories a day. 

So...according to the poster's logic...it must be a divine miracle that I've lost over 40 pounds eating 2000 calories a day.   I'll stick to 2000 caloires a day and look forward to 2 lbs a week weight loss and healthy hair/skin/internal organs!!! 
That may be a general calculation... but it only works at HIGH body weights!  I could use the bodyweight times seven and actually eat MORE than I am - at 240 pounds it would give me 1600 calories a day and my calorie counter target for maximum weightloss is 1450. But if you get much below 200 pounds it doesn't work any more! It says that somebody 150 pounds would only 'need' 1000 calories a day? Sheesh!

What maintains your weight depends on how active you are,  plus age, height, general health etc.   I am sure that Calorie Count has at it's disposal the ability to analyse the thousands and thousands of beginning stats and results over time of all the logs.

If thousands of people are lying about what they take in and how much activety they do, then the results of the analysis would be wrong, but then, I would expect those lying would not get the benefits of the program and would likely not lose in any case.

IMHO If you want proven results, try using proven methods and this looks like a good system to me.  I'll try it for a while, and if I fail, I suspect it is me fooling me, and disappointing me, not the Calorie Count recommendations that are wrong.

So those of us who replied, we know that the x7 rule does not work, and in fact is down right dangerous, but along those lines, I have a similar method. I am an avid runner, and my Runner's World magazine suggested taking your weight x12, 13, or 14. The range providing for differences in activity levels. The more active people would use x14, less active x12. Even though I am fairly active, I use x12 and get around 1700 cal per day at my current weight. Keep in mind however, that this suggestion was put out for people who are exercising enough to need the extra calories, and I think CC has a good method as well. I'm just posting this to provide a (healthier) and easier method.
thhq
Dec 17 2007 22:15
Member posts
Send message
#19  
Quote  |  Reply
I use a rule of thumb 10x body weight for resting metabolic rate.  RMR means stagnant: eat/sleep/sit in front of computer all day. I add activity on top of that, and over the last 4 months I have maintained weight.

7x body weight seems way too low even for RMR.  It would put me down about 500 calories per day - about a pound a week weight loss - without any exercise. 
#20  
Quote  |  Reply
my Runner's World magazine suggested taking your weight x12, 13, or 14. The range providing for differences in activity levels. The more active people would use x14, less active x12.

smvinz - do those numbers represent someone who is trying to lose weight, or maintain?  Because if it's for maintenance, they seem low.  For me, at least.  And does that account for the amount of lean mass you have?

BTW - where's the OP?  Seems they just threw out this crazy statement, then ran away.
20 Replies
Advertisement
Advertisement