Hi. I've lost about 35 lbs. so far. I'd like to be 150 roughly someday but there is no rush. I'd rather do it gradually than get scale-crazy and give up. In the book Calorie Queens it say that to get to 150 lbs. you need to eat 1800 calories daily because that is what a 150 pound woman needs to maintain her weight daily. What do you all think of doing this?

Im not sure about that. What I do is google maintainance weight calculator and find out my maintainance weight at 163 pounds which is about 2200 calories. Then I reduce that by like 500 which is 1700 or so. I think that will afford you a pound a week weight loss I believe. I eat around my maintainance calories when I work out vigorously (like 500 cals or so) and a little less when I work out less. But on the weekends I tend to not care so much.

Thats what I have been doing and I have lost almost 50 pounds since January.

I'm pretty cautious about blanket statements like that ... 1800 cal = 150 lbs

hmmm ... let me see .... there are just too many variables involved. Activity levels, fitness level, muscle mass ... what's an average 150 lb woman anyway?

I do think it's worth the trouble to figure out what's best for you. There's certainly no harm in trying 1800 cals but I have to exercise at that.

This is tricky. I weigh 148 and do a low-carb program. I am also calculating my calories and don't go above 1400. I might be able to get up to 1500 when I reach maintenance but with 1800 I would gain. I also only do walking for exercise due to health reasons, but a person who does weights and also cardio could probably eat more and maintain.

It's all very individual. I am 5'7" around 130 lbs and I maintain at 1800 (2000 if I work out).

How many calories are you eating now? Are you still losing or did you plateau? Then I would shave 500 calories a day off of your current amount, and that would get you to 1 pound a week.

I agree, it is very individual, based on your metabolism, daily activities, work-outs, etc. Anything you read probably needs to be tweaked specifically to you.

First, I must clarify the Calories Queens ideals. The caloric intake for maintenance is indeed based on your goal weight and they do recommend you multiply that weight x12 to get you target calories HOWEVER both Diane and Jackie will be upfront (as they are in the book) and make sure you know this is an estimate...a place to start. The book suggests a few of the variables that can cause the number to be wrong - but that doesn't make the ideals wrong. It's not a diet. Since you're practicing maintenance you literally eat now the way you will have to eat for the rest of your life.

Second, calories queens is more about keeping off the weight than it is about taking it off. It's about learning to live with food, not deny yourself of it. Using the calorie queens ideals combined with exercise and weight training I've lost 35 pounds and 3 feet - gone from a size 18 to a size 10 so far.

It's not for everyone but it's the best way for some, like myself. If you're looking for a diet then calorie queens is not for you. If you're looking for a lifetime change with realistic expectations that YOU set up for yourself, then it's definately worth a deeper look.

1800 is not what EVERY 150 woman needs to get to 150, or to maintain a weight of 150. What generalized statements like that do not put into consideration-is that "Mary" may be a waitress who works on her feet for 8 hours a day running around like a chicken with her head cut off, and "Sally" may have a job at a computer-where she pretty much sits for that same 8 hours. If they were the same age, same metabolism, etc.-then Mary is still going to use more calories each day than Sally-because her lifestyle is more active. Therefore, she would be able to maintain 150 pounds eating more than Sally.

Let's say "Jill" is 22 years old, and has never had children. Now here comes "Jane" who is 50 years old, and has had 4 children. Most likely, Jill will have a much easier time losing weight than Jane will-due to her age and the fact that her body has never had the changes done to it from having children.

Now let's take "Carrie" who works out 45 minutes a day...and her twin sister "Connie". Connie doesn't exercise. Carrie is going to be able to lose weight eating more, and also maintain that loss eating more calories than her sister will, because she is burning more of them off each day-plus because of that, she also has more muscle mass and lower body fat.

I guess what I am saying-is that calorie levels are not one size fits all. The same numbers don't work for everyone as far as maintenance and losing weight. There are too many factors-metabolism, age, having had children or not, genetics, your lifestyle in general, your exercise and the intensity of that exercise, WHAT is in the calories that you are eating-was your last 100 calories a banana, or junky diet pudding?, and so on, and so forth.

Aphil, alot of great info. Thanks!

Honestly, I find it disappointing when people don't understand the ideas behind Calorie Queens and go as far as to depict it as generalized and blanket statements when nothing but the complete opposite is true.

Has anyone here actually read the book? If so, then you would know that the book says...(page 19, when discussing the x12 theory) "Using a mathematical formula produces an exact number, but it's important to remember that the calorie factor used in this formula is based on best-guess estimates of a variety of factors. A formula based on estimates produces a result that is an estimate." Jackie goes on to state that for the purpose of the book she will use the x12 factor for her goal weight of 135. Generalized and not realizing all the factors? I don't think so.

Has anyone here actually spent any time at the Calorie Queens website talking with the authors of this book and the community that began at the young site a few months ago, besides myself? If so, then you would know that Jackie and Diane both continually state that this formula is simply an estimate and starting point.

With that said, the x12 formula is no more a general or blanket statement than "calories in vs. calories out". Or should we discuss the definition of an estimate?

Calorie Queens is about so much more than this starting point formula. Those practicing Eucalorics (normal calories) have issues with food, exercise, etc. and I've seen many of them overcome those issues the Calories Queens way. As Jackie Scott states, "I didn't need a daily caloric intake carved in stone; I needed a place to start."

Hmmm, didn't we all......

If remickmom is anything like me, she probably read voraciously trying to find an answer that jumped off the page especially for her I've done that with dozens of plans. Read the whole book? But I just want a quick answer .... a place to start

In fact I did it with remickmom's question. I read this ... to get to 150 lbs. you need to eat 1800 calories daily because that is what a 150 pound woman needs to maintain her weight daily ... and answered.

And I'm pretty sure we've all been guilty of imaginative synopsizing more than once.

1dayatatime-

No one is knocking the Calorie Queens-an no one is saying that their formula is not a starting point estimate.

Rather, we are responding to the thread starter's question, where she asked what we thought about eating 1800 calories a day to eventually reach 150 pounds.

Jinx Aphil! Ya know that baby is due on my birthday?

Cool!

We will be having him in August though...I can't carry completely to term...unless I want to birth 11 pound kids.



I am not sure exactly how early this one will be born yet, though-I have to go in for frequent ultrasound measurings...so hopefully sometime in July they will have more of "an idea" of when he will be here.

My anniversary is Aug 19th