I don't recalculate, I don't see any reason for it. Where does this weight times 7 come from ? Using that theory I wouldn't have enough energy to get out of bed.
I don't plan on recalculating if at all possible. I'm eating 1500 cals per day now and really don't want to ever go lower than that. (And the x7 calculation is waaay too low in my opinion, for my weight anyway.)
I was tole X 10 to lose weight (with light activity) and so far, most calculators have been fairly near this for me.
I recalculate for every 10lbs lost and i find that works for me
I'm eating approximately 8.5 x my weight in order to lose at the rate of a pound a week. 7 would be much too low and 10 much too high. I'm small and inactive, for what that's worth, I'm sure it must vary a lot depending on those variables.
I've been at 1500 the whole time (38 pounds). I refuse to ever go below 1400 calories and I will up my exercise and only lower calories as a last, last resort. I would rather lose slow than go to 1200 a day. It's just really important to me.
I'm a little confused by some of the responses. Some folks are saying that they consistently lost about the same amount per month even at the same calorie range but a lower weight. It seems as if one would need fewer calories at a lower weight, though.
For those of you who lost/lose approx. the same amount of weight consistently w/ the same calorie range as when you started, did you up your activity to make up for the fewer calories that one normally needs at a lower weight?
I'm just trying to figure this out. Sometimes I believe whole-heartedly in the calories in / calories out equation for weight loss, but then I read posts like some on this thread, and I start to question whether that's all there is to it.
lin43 - I am a firm believer in the cals in cals out equation. My BodyMediaFit shows me the amount of cals that I burn everyday. I compare that to the amount of calories I eat. Over any given period, I can compare the numbers with the 3500 cals = 1lb and I have always been within 1/2 lb. It is amazing. Sure, there are days when I fluctuate or when I have been totally on planand the scale is not budgeing. I know that even if the scale owes me a few lbs, it will come off...and I celebrate when the woosh fairy comes and makes the scale pay off the lbs it owes me.
For those eating the same cals during the whole time and losing at the same rate for the entire time, they must have increased muscle and or burn more cals now then when they started through movement/exercise. Maybe with out even realizing it.
I know that I exercise more, and burn more cals now then when I started C25K about 1 year ago. If I had to rate the effort level, I would say that doing C25K took more effort than running a 10K now.
For those eating the same cals during the whole time and losing at the same rate for the entire time, they must have increased muscle and or burn more cals now then when they started through movement/exercise. Maybe with out even realizing it.
Given health concerns I am not exercising and my activity comes from household chores and my only answer to losing weight while not decreasing calorie and not increasing activity is that my metabolism is probably working more efficiently
I find that some calculators are so different fom others such as webmd gives me 1563 to maintain my weight while fitbie.msn tells me 1761. I know 200 calories extra a day can have an impact on my weight so I am sticking to the lower number, I trust webmd more and I was told to multiply my weight by 12 to maintain. So I figure that if I mesh all that info together anyways and did not pass 1600 calories, I should be fine. I would recommend calorie cycling as that allows you to play within your calorie range
Sheesh weight loss is definitely not an exact science!
I don't recalculate, I don't see any reason for it. Where does this weight times 7 come from ? Using that theory I wouldn't have enough energy to get out of bed.
It comes from a biggest loser cookbook. It lays out the plan they use. But I think most of them start out at 250 lbs or more so they would get like 1750 or so calories a day. I've given myself 1800 calories a day, but usually only get 15-1600. I've lost but I think I'm going to lower down to 1300-1500. Or like I said before, I'll probable use curves principle of rotating the calories I eat. I can't remember exactly the number of weeks, but its something like 1300 for one week, 1500 for 2-3 weeks after that then 1800 for the next month then start over. Then once the weight is gone I'll maintain with 1800 calories and any time I gain I'd eat the 1300 calories for a week to get back down.
It comes from a biggest loser cookbook. It lays out the plan they use. But I think most of them start out at 250 lbs or more so they would get like 1750 or so calories a day. I've given myself 1800 calories a day, but usually only get 15-1600. I've lost but I think I'm going to lower down to 1300-1500. Or like I said before, I'll probable use curves principle of rotating the calories I eat. I can't remember exactly the number of weeks, but its something like 1300 for one week, 1500 for 2-3 weeks after that then 1800 for the next month then start over. Then once the weight is gone I'll maintain with 1800 calories and any time I gain I'd eat the 1300 calories for a week to get back down.
This is also what I'm thinking about doing in September (going on vacation in August, so I don't want to start it then). I figure if I rotate calories that way then it won't be such a shock to my system when I start adding in calories during maintainance (but, in truth, I'm only eating a couple of hundred fewer calories from what I think will be my maintenance range now).
I have done very little exercise the whole time losing the same amount most weeks without adjusting calories. In fact if I do more than 30 minutes of exercise a day I have to up my calories over my normal 1500 or I don't lose weight.
