Ok, so I’ve been going through some stuff trying to make my diet work for me over the last couple of months and I made a discovery today.
First I should probably explain what I’ve been trying to do. After some unsuccessful fiddling with low-carbing, I started trying to lower my calories and I probably cut it down too much too fast because I just kept on slipping and not being able to stick to it. Some weeks it seemed like I’m doing so well and I gain back what I’ve lost before instead of loosing. I should probably mention that I’m a bit over 300 (I think that’s actually the first time I stated my weight here on 3FC, maybe it’s a good thing). And I’ve been trying to have between 1200 and 1500 cal per day.
Now the discovery part, I started doing my fitday thing today and it’s telling me I need about 3685 calories just to maintain. Can that be right? Because if it is, than I should really be trying to take in around 2000 cal per day. That just doesn’t sound right.
Anyone out there has a good grip on the whole calorie need vs. calorie deficit number game? I’m just getting confused and frustrated.
This is a VERY common topic among the boards. Unfortunately, those calorie programs and calculators are so generic that they don't apply to most people. Everyone's metabolism and body is different, so how can a simple mathematical calculation work for everyone? I know for a fact that if I consistently ate over 3000 calories a day, I would GAIN weight, not maintain, even though Fitday says I would maintain. Also, among the many different calorie calculators out in Internetland, they almost all say something different, so clearly, there's no magic formula. Based on different calculators, I should be eating either 3000, 1200, 1800, 2500, or 1500 calories a day to lose 1-2 pounds per week You just have to fiddle with the numbers until you find what works for you personally. I tend to completely ignore those calulators now because I KNOW what does and does not work for me based on trial and error
Just by the sheer scope of all the variables involved, Fitday can't come up with what is perfect for you. It's good. I love it, however ...
You have been doing the absolutely right thing. Finding what works for you .... Unfortunately, this takes time. I'm impatient, how about you?
My old fashioned and rudimentary way of finding a starting point is to multiply my weight by 13. Crude but effective and a place to start ....
So 300x13 would be around about what fitday said.
If you can stick with the 2000 cals, feel good and satisfied ... try it for a few days. Some folks lower as they go ... try 1800 next week.
If you eat well and feel good and feel satisfied and fitday says you've only had 1650 for three days in a row. Don't worry. That apparently works for you.
Go ahead and try 2000 cals ... see what happens.
edited to say .... I doubted what the calculators said I had to be consuming in order to maintain my highest weight (I wasn't just maintaining, I was gaining) so I did a little remembering and a little figuring and was blown away. I was indeed eating at least that much.
So it’s not just me then that’s confused by this whole number game, ha? Well, that’s nice to know.
Jillybean, you’ve started out just where I am now, what was your calorie intake when you started?
SusanB, I am also impatient, this is why I get frustrated. I do wish there was a way to know all the numbers for sure, but as it is, I guess I’l just have to be patient and try different calorie levels and see what works for me.
I think I will try the 2000 cal, though it does seem high. Who knows maybe it’ll work. I’ll keep you guys posted. Thanks for the replies.
Star ... I'm generalising (as I sometimes do). In nurses training we were taught to use 13, 14 or 15 to estimate a calorie level for therapeutic diets. 13 for inactive, 14 for moderately active etc. I don't remember the specifics really. Close to maintaining, I would guess, since being more active would raise you to a 14, right?
We were then taught to cut from there. 500 cals per day would add up to 3500 in a week or a pound lost. Cutting 1000 cals per day would be 7000 cals in a week and therefore 2 lbs per week.
So, in light of what this thread started out to be about .... if Nina chose 3000 cals per day and maintained ... then by switching to 2500 cals per day she should realise a 1 lb per week lose.
I shiver just typing that because there are soooo many variables at work here too. But it is a place to start.
When I started, I just tried to stay below 1800 calories a day. Many days I would be way under (more like 1400-1600), but thanks to my darling boyfriend, I usually had more like 2500-3000 calories on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (can you tell I only see him on the weekends?), so my dail average for the week was still probably just around 1900 or so. I also began going to the gym 3-4 times a week and doing a minimum of 20 minutes (more often 30-40 minutes) on the elliptical machine. I also started hostessing/waitressing at a restaurant 3-4 nights a week, so I made a lot of drastic changes all at once.
More recently, I was doing a high-protein, lowish-carb (I say low"ish" because I still had lots of fruit, which has carbs) thing, but I have been straying from that for about a month now--Now I'm just trying to watch my calories again and, since I'm basically starting all over (haven't gained back the weight, but have certainly lost the good habits!), I'm just trying to get back staying below 2000 calories a day
I figure if 2000 calories a day is recommended for "normal" people to maintain their weight (as all of the percentages on nutrition labels are based on a 2000-calorie diet), and bigger people burn more calories simply because they weigh more (normal activities require more effort, etc.), then I should be able to lose on 2000. If I cut too much down to say 1200-1400 all the time, then I would probably lose weight, but if I were to hit a plateau, I wouldn't have anywhere to go! starting at the higher end of the range allows me an option to lower my intake as I lower my body weight. Way too many things to have to take into consideration, I know, but hey, that is dieting! (I know I will get jumped on for saying "diet" instead of "lifestyle change," but "diet" really just means what you eat--i.e., a weight loss diet, a maintainer's diet, a weight gain diet, my dog's dry food diet--so I still use that term all the time)
Good call, Susan--I mentioned it, but failed to point it out! No matter what calorie limit or range you set for yourself, I am a big advocate of calorie cycling--not to the extent of major body builders or anything, but within a reasonable range. This means that if you choose to have 2000 calories a day, then what you do is, say, have 2000 calories on Monday, 2500 on Tuesday, 1500 on Wednesday, 1200 on Thursday, 2800 on Friday, 1700 on Saturday, and 2300 on Sunday (I think I did my math right). That way, your body doesn't ever completely get used to just one calorie amount--keeps your metabolism on its toes, so to speak. That daily average is really the important number. I hope that makes sense
I'm on Jenny Craig, which uses your age, gender, height, current weight, activity, and weight/dieting history to come up with a calorie level. The calories step down by predetermined levels as you lose weight. They do the calculation based on the Harris-Benedict equation, which is the most commonly used formula. The will adjust if your particular situation is not average, but it provides a good starting point.
When I started I was well over 300 pounds and ate 2300 calories per day to start with. Within about a month I was stepped down to 2000. I stayed at that calorie level for a long time, then stepped down to 1700 for another long time, then 1500. It's only now that I'm below 170 pounds that I'm eating 1200 calories, and the truth is that I probably eat closer to 1300 a lot of days, and if it's a heavy activity day I get up to about 1500 many times.
I'm not saying those specific numbers should apply to you, but give them as an example. By eating what some people would consider a high number of calories but that is appropriate for your weight, etc., it's easier to stick to it and you greatly reduce the danger of bottoming out. I've seen so many very overweight people start at 1200 calories and then either give up because it's too hard, or they reach a plateau long before they get to goal and find it impossible to shake. It's true that you're not going to lose as quickly at 2000 (or whatever) as you would at 1200, but you have a greater chance for long-term success for many many reasons.
It's so easy to get into a "if I don't lose weight right away, and do so every week after, I'm failing" mindset. Nina, I hope you don't mind my bluntness in saying this, but at just over 300 pounds, you are going to be living with whatever weight loss regime you choose for quite a while. You can reasonably expect that it will take you a couple of years to hit goal. I've been dieting since Feb-05, and have lost 48 pounds. I still need to lose about 70 more. I hate, hate, HATE being fat, and would love it if I could get thinner quicker than I am, but I just know that there is no feasable way to make that happen.
Given that, the prospect of "experimenting to see what works" makes sense. Yeah, you might pick a way of eating one week that leads to no weight loss. Don't think of this as a failure, think of it as a successful lesson. And I firmly believe that knowing what your body really needs in order to lose weight is one of the most important things you can do while losing weight.
I would recommend that you try 2000 calories for a week or two. See how you do. If you go to 1500 or 1200 and get overwhelming feelings of starvation that lead you to binging, you won't be doing yourself any favors. I myself probably average about 1700 calories a day at 210 pounds, and have had a slow, steady weight loss as a result. Going to 1200 calories a day would make this quicker, save that I would probably be snaking all the time and never really lose an ounce!
Ok, long post. I can boil it down to: You're going to be doing this for a long time, so take the time to find out what really will work for you in the long run.
Ok, long post. I can boil it down to: You're going to be doing this for a long time, so take the time to find out what really will work for you in the long run.
Ok, so that quote up there is almost an epiphany moment. Not that I didn't know I will have to do it for a long time, it's just that the way you said it, it makes soo much sence.
Maybe the key to a long term success for me is to do all my homework ahead of time instead of jumping head down and getting bumped and bruised in the process . You'd think I'd have figured it out by now, ha?
Gosh, this turned out to be a great thread for me. Thanks, everybody.
You're welcome. I'm glad that I was able to phrase something in such a way that you found it useful. I believe that this sort of this is one of the reasons why support forums like this can be so useful!
Great posts...Nina, I'd advocate going with the 2000 calorie approach, too. That's going to be a pretty drastic change for your body as it is. As both funniegrrl and tealeaf pointed out, you don't want to crash and burn, and you need somewhere to drop as you lose. If you eat 1200-1500 now, that doesn't leave much room for tweaks when the going gets rough.
Don't forget to add some exercise. Even starting with a 5 minute walk and building on that is a beginning!
Is it right…?
(I think that’s actually the first time I stated my weight here on 3FC, maybe it’s a good thing). And I’ve been trying to have between 1200 and 1500 cal per day. 
You just have to fiddle with the numbers until you find what works for you personally. I tend to completely ignore those calulators now because I KNOW what does and does not work for me based on trial and error 
Not that I didn't know I will have to do it for a long time, it's just that the way you said it, it makes soo much sence. 
. You'd think I'd have figured it out by now, ha? 
