# Calorie Counters - 100 calories per day is all that stands between me & my goal weight

robinobx1
02-10-2010, 09:40 PM
I read that a non-muscular woman who weighs 155 pounds need 1550 cals per day to maintain her weight and a 145 pound woman needs 1450 cals per day to maintain weight a difference of 100 calories per day. If I consistently ate 100 calories less per day shouldn't I reach my goal weight?

babygrant
02-10-2010, 10:29 PM
Where did you get that figure from? I would calculate BMR and go from there.

lizard58
02-10-2010, 10:56 PM
Theoretically this would work. The math works out, but as everyone knows, it's not always about number crunching that loses the weight.

Meg
02-11-2010, 06:21 AM
Theoretically that would work, but our metabolisms speed up and slow down in order to keep us at set point weights. 100 calories a day probably wouldn't be enough to create a calorie deficit and lose stored fat. But no harm in trying!

PeanutsMom704
02-11-2010, 09:17 AM
It probably would work, but very, very slowly. Like about a year to lose 10 lbs. That's not necessarily a bad thing - a lot of people put on that same 10 lbs over the course of a year, just because they are having 100 calories a day they shouldn't.

If you are ok with that rate and aren't looking for the gratification of seeing the number going down on the scale, then why not give it a shot?

It would be sort of like practicing maintenance too - because you'd need to keep eating that same 1450 calories to maintain the 145 lbs (assuming that is the correct number of calories in the first place, it seems slightly low to me, but I guess in the ball park if you are not muscular and are sedentary)

mayness
02-11-2010, 10:54 AM
Since it takes a 3500 calorie deficit to lose a pound of fat, theoretically you could lose a pound every 35 days doing that. Except, once you're down to 150, you're only creating a 50 calorie deficit, so you're only losing a pound every 70 days. You can see how it gets slower and slower, but yes, it would eventually get you pretty darn close to 145.

The key word I wrote above: theoretically.

Almost none of us will perfectly fit the equations that they use to determine things like how many calories you burn each day. It's an average, but it often works for a starting point, and you can adjust from there. So, sure, try 1450... it sounds a little low for maintenance unless you really don't move around much at all... and if you're losing too fast or too slow, adjust up or down.

robinobx1
02-11-2010, 11:05 AM
I am lightly active. 5"8" 38 years old. This morning I weighed 154 pounds. I would like to lose down to 145-150 pounds. I don't exercise but I don't sit still for very long. I'm always doing something. I've lost down from 172 low carbing but to be honest I was getting burned out. I have enjoyed calorie counting and eating bread and oatmeal again.

Every website I go to gives me a different number of calories to lose to weight some vary by several hundred calories. That's one thing about the internet sometimes you get too much info.

I do well around 1400 cals. I don't feel hungry anything less I starve anything more I feel like I'm eating too much. I eat 3 meals and 2 snacks a day. I am down a pound since yesterday.

When I did low carb I ate 20 or less carbs per day and it was plain and simple. The calories aren't that easy to figure out. I don't want to lose weight fast. I would like to lose 5-10 pounds by June but to be honest I'm content if I could for stay between 150 and 155 pounds and not gain weight. Any recommendations?

evoo
02-11-2010, 04:49 PM
My recommendation would be to add some exercise -- even if it's 20 minutes of walking at lunchtime or after dinner -- and go from there. If I were in your position I'd keep a food/calorie and weight journal and see what patterns you can pick up from it. The most accurate way to know your calorie needs is to listen to your body. Over the course of a few weeks why not track your calorie intake and your weight -- the scale will tell you at least somewhat accurately what you're doing right (or wrong). :)

ncuneo
02-11-2010, 06:32 PM
Personally I like the concept of figuring out the BMR for your goal weight and eating that. If you want to lose faster, add a little exercise or a lot, depending on how fast you want to lose. If you're still not losing at the pace you want then start decreasing your cals by 100 cals/wk until you reach a pace your comfortable with.

Here's the BMR equation I use (it's specific to women)

655 + (4.35 x your weight in lbs) + (4.7 x your height in inches) - (4.7 x your age)

So for my goal weight my height and age my BMR is 1400. I allow myself 50 cals over that if I need it because I am a moderate exerciser (3-5xs a week). But as a previous poster pointed it the lower your weight is the slower the loss because the deficit is less. I'm losing about 1-3 lbs a week, but I've got a few lbs on you so that my deficit is higher. Hope this helps.

PeanutsMom704
02-11-2010, 06:40 PM
If you don't want to do the math, you can find a BMR equation calculator online

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

robinobx1
02-11-2010, 07:05 PM
I used the BMR calculator and my BMR is 1465.9(if I laid in bed all day). My office is on the 2nd floor and I am up and down stairs all day at work. Then when I get home I am doing laundry, cleaning house etc.

PeanutsMom704
02-11-2010, 07:09 PM
once you figure out your BMR, then you can look at your calorie needs. (from the same site)

If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2

If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375

If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55

If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725

If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9

You ar probably one of the first two, and then you can figure out a calorie deficit from there.

Amy Bass
02-11-2010, 10:02 PM
I would try to go for a bit larger deficit than 100 calories. It would take 35 days to lose 1 lb because it takes a 3500 calorie deficit to lose 1 pound.

dolphinea
02-12-2010, 12:07 PM
I am struggling back and forth with wanting to "get this over with" and lose more quickly, or keeping true to my commitment to make this last a lifetime -- and losing slowly so I can adjust my life around fewer and fewer calories, smaller portions, different habits, etc.

I'm torn. I'm currently eating 15% fewer than my BMR x 1.375, and losing a pound per week. It feels so slow, I'm getting frustrated, but that's my mind talking, wanting I think more excitement, perhaps to take the place of the exciting food in my life that's gone now?

I may go ahead and take it down to a 500 calorie defecit and see if that gives me more of a sense of accomplishment, without triggering binge / craving behavior.

I have noticed I am choosing to lose more slowly than the majority of people on these boards.

PeanutsMom704
02-12-2010, 01:24 PM
I'm not losing all that fast either, although according to pretty much all the calculators I've played around with, I am running a 1000+ deficit a day and should be losing 2 lbs per week, it's been averaging more like 1.25 (some weeks, not at all, with an occassion good 2+ week in there).

I'd love to get a BodyBugg or similar thing to see if I'm really burning what I think I'm burning - maybe if I'm feeling rich after I get my taxes done!

three herring
02-13-2010, 02:06 PM
In the book Calorie Queens, they use the logic that one should eat the number of calories that it takes to maintain a goal weight. It takes a bit longer, but it works. They have a formula, if I remember right, it is 14 calories per pound of the goal weight. It is a very good book, full of good ideas.

dolphinea
02-14-2010, 12:17 PM
Hmm, 14 calories per pound of goal weight for me (185) would equal the same # of calories I'm supposed to have for maintenance at my current weight of 246... that can't be right.

cassieroll
02-14-2010, 06:46 PM
14 cals/per pound worked out for when I do the math and I'm of the school that you should eat what your calories would be at that goal weight which conveniently works out to be just about the same as the 14 cals/lb. Huh.

PeanutsMom704
02-14-2010, 06:51 PM
I think it depends on your activity level - I've heard anything from 10 to 14 times each pound, which makes sense. 10 if you are sedentary, 12 if you are moderately active and 14 if you are active.

And of course, age and individual body metabolism is always a factor, so I consider any of these formulas and calculators to be a good starting point, and then you can tweak it to what works for you.