How Many Cal. Do You Eat?
 

I have been yo-yoing since I was 12 (back when I was tiny and didn't know it)... I can't believe I don't know more about this :o How much calorie cutting does a person need to do to lose weight? And safely! My friend's friend is a nutritionist. She told her that she would never recommend anyone go below 1800 calories a day... but I keep reading about people going on 1500 calorie diets and lower. :/ I don't think I could handle eating less than 1800. But is that necessary?

I lost 15 pounds slowly over the last few years by making changes - adding exercise, subtracting certain foods - sodas, starbucks, etc... I think I'm at a point where I think I need to start paying attention to what I'm eating!

Thanks!

Eesabella

I try to stay around 1600 calories a day. Some days are more some are less. I use http://fitday.com to help me count my calories. Good luck!

Rule of thumb is that you shouldn't go below 1200 calories.

I usually do around 1400, take or give a hundred.

Yeah, usually everyone says that you shouldn't go below 1200cal. On average I eat about 1900cal a day (sometimes less, sometimes more :o ).

So you 4 are all near or under 1800 :/ I guess I may need to reevaluate my thinking! I've made up meal plans for myself to no more than 2100... I'm going to bump it down to 2000 and see if I lose any weight. At 1600 and below, are you very hungry??! I think I'd be starved! But I guess your body adjusts to it??

Thanks!!

Ees

Ees -- Bring your calories down 100-200/day, if you don't lose try 100 more the next week... I TRY to stick to 1400-1700/day, I get really angry when I go over 1600 though... I find 1600 to be a high day... Granted some weekends I have done 2000/day :eek:, I hate that!! When I have a really high day I try to have a very low day the next...

I'm wondering if your friend's friend's advice got lost in translation. Perhaps don't go below 1800 for maintaining or don't go below 1800 if you are over a certain weight? I'm almost exactly in line with Ilene (including the some weekends over 2000 :o ) since I'm easing into maintenance mode. When I was actively losing I was at 1200-1400 except one "free day" per week which I still kept under 1800. I think I'm ready to rededicate myself to losing this last 5#'s and I'll probably do it on 1300-1500 and just not worry about how long it takes.

I try to stay around 1200 calories - but I'm special - I have a low thyroid problem.
My sister (who does seem to have a thyroid problem) also has to keep her calories around 1200 a day or she gains weight. We were not blessed with much of a metabolism I'm afraid - but mine is much better since I now take 4 grains of Armour Thyroid a day.

I'm use to eating like this so I'm not hungry - now if I eat sugar it makes me hungry and makes me crave more sugar. But I do try to eat a lot of veggies which are very low cal - so I get some volume without big calories.

On 1800 calories a day I would hate to think of how much weight I would gain in a week - yikes! I also couldn't lose any weight on Weight Watchers. I love WW's program but it was just too many calories for me. But I might do better on their program now that my thyroid is being treated.

I also try to walk about 30 miles (or more) a month - how much exercise are you getting? That would probably make a difference in the calories you require.

take care,
Cathy

I follow Weight Watchers,which counts points instead of calories (you measure the calories, fiber and fat grams for an item, i.e., a serving of Shredded Wheat is 3 points, the banana is 2 points). I've been on it since May 2004 and it did the trick for me.

I would guess I eat 1650-1900 calories and I aim for 3-5 workout sessions each week.

I eat 1200 or so a day, just seems the only way I lose. Could be low metabolism, lack of exercise, or something else entirely. As a rule of thumb, you can kind of multiiply your weight by 10 to get an idea of how many calories your body burns naturally with low to no activity. Usually they suggest you eat 200 calories or so less than that, and try to work out an average of 200 calories or so over that. Of course, your metabolism can be a factor and if you plan to be very active you shouldn't go too low. Definitely don't go lower than 1200. I think Ilene has some good advice though, just take it a couple weeks at a time and see how you lose.

Maybe I can eat less!
 

I just looked over my meal plan, and while I was trying to stay under 2100 - I planned (and stuck to) staying a little extra below that than I realized. Mon-1957, Yesterday-1981, Today-1783 (?! swapped a reg meal for a large salad).

I'm really curious about my friend's friend now!! I'm going to check again with my friend and make sure I didn't misunderstand her! I've been pretty full at almost 2000, so going at least 200 less doesn't sound too bad.

I don't work out a crazy amount - but I do pretty well. 3-5 hours a week of aerobics and yoga. I'm 5'8'' - height doesn't allow for extra calories, does it? :chin: I love these faces - this is my favorite :kickcan: hee hee!

SO! I guess I will take your advice Ilene!! I'm gonna bump it 1800 and see if I'm not too hungry/if I lose!

Do you workout a lot Shrinking?! Only wondering since you do 1900! Am I crazy for loving all of the planning? For some reason calculating calories and picking meals is really fun to me!

Thanks for of the advice Everyone - especially since this seems like a well-discussed topic (shoulda researched the old posts first!!). Thanks to for that fitday link Valeria!! That looks like fun!

Ees- I do work out (I try for 20min a day 7 days a week). But I think that I must have at least an average metabolism (or at least not slow). According to fitday I burn 1700cal bmr. So, (with bmr, activity level, and exercise) even at 1900 I am still a good bit under what I am burning in a day.

And you are right, the faces are fun! I have been wanting to post some for no good reason and this is my moment of opportunity---- :twirly: :wizard: :m: :judge: :faint: :genie: :cookie: :crazy: :snowball1 :turkey:

Heh heh
 

:dance: and :carrot: back to you! I know everyone uses that one * it's so cute though!

That's awesome that you can have 1900 and still lose weight!! More food is always better!! Fitday calculates that sort of thing for you? I'm going to go check it out now! That's pretty cool!

Here's a thought for you as well, Eesabella. Before actually trying to set up a plan for calories, you might want to track what you're eating normally (when you're not trying to diet) and see where your calorie count is. For me, I was between 221-227 lbs for about two years. When I decided to lose the weight, I just tracked what I ate for a couple weeks and realized that I was taking in an average of 2300 cal a day. Since I was maintaining at that, I needed to take in less than that in order to lose -- 500 cal less per day = 3500 cals less at the end of the week = 1lb loss, on the average. Add in some exercise, and I'm looking at 1-2 lbs per week, which is where I want to be. So I set a range of 1400-1800 (1800 being my "top" because it's 500 less than the 2300 I used to consume). Most of the time, I'm eating around 1700, although I've noticed I'm not as hungry lately and the past week I seem to be hitting around 1500+ on the average. When I hit a plateau (we all do at some point, don't we?), I'll track what I'm eating for a week or two and drop the range again to hit below what I'm taking in to maintain, and see if that works. And if it doesn't, I'll try something else (change in exercise, what I'm eating in addition to how much, etc. etc.) until I hit on what works again.

I feel like I'm rambling now, I hope that made sense.

Yes! That makes sense Chickie - that's a great idea too! I'm so motivated to lose right now, I don't want to push it by waiting another week to start!

So what is your diet and exercise plan? Congratulations on your 11 pound loss so far!!

Ees

Hello Everyone!

I talked to the friend of the nutritionist

Originally Posted by eesabella:
My friend's friend is a nutritionist. She told her that she would never recommend anyone go below 1800 calories a day... but I keep reading about people going on 1500 calorie diets and lower. :/ I don't think I could handle eating less than 1800. But is that necessary?

to make sure I understood her correctly. She said that her friend never puts anyone on a diet of less than 1800 calories - no exceptions for age, height, health concerns. She also ALWAYS includes exercise (which may be part of why it's high). She says that anything lower can still cause a long-term change in metabolism even though it's not below 1200... meaning that it would take a while to be able to get your metabolism fast again.

That said, this isn't coming from the horses mouth. This is the horses friend's mouth :p . I'm sure some of you see nutritionists yourselves and each professional must have different opinions! I just thought since some of you were wondering if I got that right - I would let you know! If I ever happen to meet the nutritionist, I will ask her more about it and write in!

As for me, I'm finding 1800 to be a bit of a struggle (I am staying just under 1800 - no less than 1750 or so). I believe that I am losing weight too, cool - hope I can keep eating only 1800! It's interesting how different everyone's bodies are - and how much they change. Like I know probably when I turn 30 and as I get older, I may have to dip down even lower to maintain or lose because my metabolism will change!

Anyway, that's all I have to say for now! Hope everyone is doing well with your diets and the Holidays!!

Ees

Hi
I am late adding in but for the height thing... YES i am sure it does change the cals you need!

I am 5 11 and fit day says i need.... 2300-2600 to maintain before excercise (that is with me being moderately active... ie.. home maker with kids)
and if you add in the excercise maintence for me is 2600-2900 a day!

but i am currently on on about 1200-1500 your body adapts over time to a set amount and you no longer get hungry! at first it was tough though.
Now i am slowly increasing weekly until i find a spot in which i maintain.
Yes lower cal intake and your body learns to cope with that, if you start going back up too quickly you can regain weight even though you are still eating less than you normally would (thus the reason i am increasing slowly!)

Maybe the nutritionist is correct in the thinking, as now i am stuck eating what i think is too little, and i am scared to go up for fear of weight gain! yes i lost the weight quickly but now i have to take my time, getting back to a normal diet. Maybe by staying in a reasonable diet(1800), i would not have this problem???? but would have taken longer to lose the weight??

Good grief, if I ate 1800 calories a day, I'd start putting back on all this weight I've lost.

Your calorie needs depend on several things - your current weight, your height, your sex, your age and your activity level. All of those factors make a difference. The calorie needs for one person may not be the right calorie needs for another.

I have a theory here too. For new dieters who are starting out, a higher calorie intake ( as long as you are exercising) is probably a good idea. For girls who have been going with low calories for some months, who's bodies are not use to this, its probably a bad idea for them. Simply cause eg. 1200 cals is what their bodies are used to.

For me, I'm going with higher cals cause I'm planning on working out pretty hard each day, and my metabolism is already low. So exercise and higher cals will hopefully bring it up.

Kathy

I'm nearly the last person to ask about nutrition - I know a bunch, but hardly enough... My thoughts on this are the same as yours Kathy! For someone who is new to dieting, by all means take your time lowering your calories. If you lose at 1900 - stick with that. It's probably healthier to go down slowly.

Also - the height thing. I wonder what the nutritionist has to say about that. I am 5'8'' - not super tall, but taller than average. If were to eat 1200 calories, maybe that would be WAY to low for me... I dunno. But someone who is 5'2'' - could they really lose at 1800?? All of the calorie calculators tell me that with my current amount of exercise (light), I should lose at 2000 - 2100. Maybe they are right? If I had slowed down and tried 2100 to begin with instead of jumping right down to 1800, maybe I would have lost!

Thank you for your input Ice! One thing I want to say about you being stuck at 1200... the friend of the horse :p went down to 1000 calories :eek: to get "in the best shape of my life" for her wedding. Of course, she lost about 10 pounds and ended up plateauing for a long time. Her friend told her about the 1800-cal thing and she raised her calorie intake. She said that she gained all 10 pounds back in the first month, but after a year of eating more, the 10 pounds came off without even lowering her calorie intake at all (she thinks her metabolism sped back up or something). She is 5'5'' or so, by the way and extremely active. She runs outside and uses a treadmill a lot - I don't know exactly how much. So based on that story... if you keep doing what you're doing and slowly going up on your calories - I think it may work out for you - that you won't gain and will be able to maintain at a higher intake.

ALL guesses - I am no expert - don't even have much experience under my belt. Just thought I'd mention that in case this message comes off like I'm a know-it-all :p

I just wanted to add my $0.02! I am getting back into calorie counting and I am at my highest weight right now, about 143 on a 5'2.5 frame. I can maintain this weight eating loads - way more than 1800. I am going to start at 1800 and take this slow. In the past when I was much younger I just wanted fast weight loss and I think put myself in a starvation mode where I ended up gaining all this weight from undereating too much. I have been about 140 lbs for years, not moving much from it. I believe I have normalized my metabolism over these years and hence the reason I can probably lose on 1800 calories. I don't want to jepordize this and eat 1200 because I know then it will be a tough time maintaining because the body adapts.
So for me, personally, I am going to start much higher than considered average and go slowly. It took a long time for me to come to this realization!

Another thing to think about regarding hunger is the quality of the calories we're eating. I weigh a lot more than most of you (I think), and I'm eating about 1900/day on average (started at around 2000). One thing I have found is that some foods fill you up better than others (a well known fact, but an amazing find for me!).

I never ever thought that fruit could help me feel full, but it does -- especially fruit with a lot of fiber! So, if I eat the foods that make me feel full (which are not necessarily high in calories), I need fewer calories to be full.

Okay, now I'm confused...on average, I eat 1500-1600 calories a day. I think that's normal for a 14-year-old girl. But then someone said to multiply your weight by 10 to see how much your body burns without help? 110 x 10 = 1100. So that means I have to exercise more, not counting walking all over school and exercising in gym.

I am lowering it to 1300 then, starting the day after tomorrow (tomorrow is my cousin's wedding...pfft I am not lowering calorie count tomorrow, too busy). Is that unhealthy?

BTW, I think I heard this somewhere, does thinking more burn calories? I know it sounds stupid, but I would like to know.

Originally Posted by Claire de Ravin:

BTW, I think I heard this somewhere, does thinking more burn calories? I know it sounds stupid, but I would like to know.

If that were the case, I'd be skinny as a rail.

lol

I've never heard that before.

By the way, how tall are you? 100 pounds isn't very much.

Originally Posted by LLV:
If that were the case, I'd be skinny as a rail.

lol

I've never heard that before.

By the way, how tall are you? 100 pounds isn't very much.

It sure does. Neurons use a tremendous amount of energy pumping sodium and potassium ions across their membaranes each time they are activated.

Originally Posted by RobertW:
It sure does. Neurons use a tremendous amount of energy pumping sodium and potassium ions across their membaranes each time they are activated.

Yeah, but to my knowledge it's done nothing for my weight loss, lol.

Or maybe it has, who knows. I've just never heard that one before.

Originally Posted by LLV:
Yeah, but to my knowledge it's done nothing for my weight loss, lol.

Or maybe it has, who knows. I've just never heard that one before.

3,500 Cal burned= 1# of Fat. Mental activity is a major reason your BMR is so much higher when you are awake and at rest.

Maybe you need to "think harder". I have heard that puzzling out chess problems takes alot of ATP, and that some grandmasters do a lot of cardio to help their stamina for chess matches.

I think hard enough as it is.

Originally Posted by :
Okay, now I'm confused...on average, I eat 1500-1600 calories a day. I think that's normal for a 14-year-old girl. But then someone said to multiply your weight by 10 to see how much your body burns without help? 110 x 10 = 1100. So that means I have to exercise more, not counting walking all over school and exercising in gym.

I am lowering it to 1300 then, starting the day after tomorrow (tomorrow is my cousin's wedding...pfft I am not lowering calorie count tomorrow, too busy). Is that unhealthy?

If you're maintaining at 1500-1600 calories, why would you want to drop down to 1300?

Originally Posted by RobertW:
Mental activity is a major reason your BMR is so much higher when you are awake and at rest.

Maybe you need to "think harder".

Robert, I've never heard that before. Got any articles or sources you could point me to? :)

Originally Posted by Claire de Ravin:
But then someone said to multiply your weight by 10 to see how much your body burns without help? 110 x 10 = 1100. So that means I have to exercise more, not counting walking all over school and exercising in gym.

The problem with 'someone' telling you something is that 'someone' is often wrong. You need to be careful with information you read on the Internet - some of it may be right, but some is dead wrong, and some is completely off the wall. :dizzy:

A general rule of thumb for maintenance calories is your body weight X 15 (not 10), which would be 1650, right about what you're eating now. So your calories are just fine for maintaining your current weight. :) Of course, the best way to figure out your maintenance calories is to see if you're gaining weight, losing, or staying the same at a certain calorie level. We all have unique bodies and no formula is ever going to beat personal experience. ;) .

how?
 

Originally Posted by RobertW:
Maybe you need to "think harder". I have heard that puzzling out chess problems takes alot of ATP, and that some grandmasters do a lot of cardio to help their stamina for chess matches.

adenosine triphosphate (atp) is the bodies short term energy system that can maintain exercise for approximately 10 seconds. i.e sprinting. chess is a sedentry activity (sat still) so the body is in no desperate need for high energy levels.

i'd be interested to read up on theory behind what you say do you have anything on it?

Originally Posted by slimmingsi:
adenosine triphosphate (atp) is the bodies short term energy system that can maintain exercise for approximately 10 seconds. i.e sprinting. chess is a sedentry activity (sat still) so the body is in no desperate need for high energy levels.

i'd be interested to read up on theory behind what you say do you have anything on it?

I personally think that's crazy, but then what do I know?

The problem here is that these people - whoever it is making this claim - can make others believe that they can actually lose weight by thinking harder.

I mean, come on. You have to admit the whole idea sounds completely crazy. I know people that use their brains for a living and are overweight.

My point is that if you're someone that "thinks" hard, fine. But it's not gonna help you drop any pounds, whether this theory is true or not.

Originally Posted by Meg:
Robert, I've never heard that before. Got any articles or sources you could point me to? :)

I see here that just being awake ("arousal") accounts for 5-10% of your BMR.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/112.html

I am sure their must be research measuring the effects of mental exertion on BMR, but my glucose deprived brain isn't coming up with the right keywords for my medline search.

We certainly spend alot of our energy on mental/neural activity, but I doubt it varies much day to day and so is just buried in our BMR.

Wow, I started a debate. :p But seriously, perhaps that's why I tend to lose when under a lot of stress from my homework and then gaining it back on by stress eating...arg.

Oh, and Meg, that weight x 10 things was said in this thread, I swear...

Originally Posted by blues4miles:
As a rule of thumb, you can kind of multiiply your weight by 10 to get an idea of how many calories your body burns naturally with low to no activity. Usually they suggest you eat 200 calories or so less than that, and try to work out an average of 200 calories or so over that. Of course, your metabolism can be a factor and if you plan to be very active you shouldn't go too low. Definitely don't go lower than 1200.

Oh, I forgot about planning to be active. Never mind, sorry. :p I will probably aim for 1400-1500 then (I plan to lose a few more pounds).

LLV - 100 is my around goal, I am not planning to exactly be 100 (heck, that'd be anorexic for my 5'4 height), but that's a goal until I see if I am satisfied at 105, or 107, or 103, etc. If I am satisfied, I will obviously not try for 100. Thanks for being concerned though :^:

I'll change my goal to 105 though...more logical and attainable.

Originally Posted by slimmingsi:
adenosine triphosphate (atp) is the bodies short term energy system that can maintain exercise for approximately 10 seconds. i.e sprinting. chess is a sedentry activity (sat still) so the body is in no desperate need for high energy levels.

i'd be interested to read up on theory behind what you say do you have anything on it?

All life ultimately uses ATP for energy, although energy is stored in various forms. The brain uses glucose and ketone bodies to generate ATP

Pumping potassium and sodium ions across a membrane, as activated neurons do, requires a vast amount of energy. The more neurons you are firing, the more energy the brain draws, and as everyone knows, your brain has a huge demand for blood to provide oxygen to fuel its expenditures. Of course the same can be said for your kidneys, given all the pumping and filtering they are constantly doing. There must be a review out there breaking down the contributions of various organs to the BMR.

I don't play chess at the grandmaster level, but one of my college professors who did claimed it was extremely taxing on his physical reserves. If I run into my friend Oliver (molecular biologist and son of a famous chess coach) I will ask him what he knows about the energy requirements. He would know what sort of research has been done. I definitely remember seeing studies on glucose utilization by different parts of the brain when various mental tasks were being performed by I can't remember the details.



LLV,
Didn't you used to snack when you studied? Studying always made me hungry, and dieting really creates a mental fog. I don't think my brain runs as well on ketone bodies.

thanks for the link that will come in much use when it comes to assessment times 3000 free pdf books is great :) its funny you should say you dont' study well when dieting, i generally study best after having been to the gym then had an hour in bed with no food till i get up

Originally Posted by RobertW:
All life ultimately uses ATP for energy, although energy is stored in various forms. The brain uses glucose and ketone bodies to generate ATP

Well, yes, of course. That's probably a given. But my point is that "thinking" isn't going to help me lose anymore weight.

Originally Posted by Claire de Ravin:
LLV - 100 is my around goal, I am not planning to exactly be 100 (heck, that'd be anorexic for my 5'4 height), but that's a goal until I see if I am satisfied at 105, or 107, or 103, etc. If I am satisfied, I will obviously not try for 100. Thanks for being concerned though :^:

5'4?

I expected you to tell me you were only like 5' or maybe 5'2, lol.

I'm only an inch taller than you and when I was 120, I had people telling me I was so thin that I looked ill.

However, we all have different body types and a weight that works for some may not work for others :)