I left Weight Watchers recently, while I can afford to pay for it monthly I just don't want to.
I decided to just calorie count. I have received different answers from different online calculators using the same exact information. I did get two same results which was a little over 1800. Does that seem right? It said to lose 1-1 1/2 lbs a week I would need to eat 1800. Seems like a lot to me but maybe I didn't really see how much I was eating before.
I am 5'4 and 302.
TIA
Last edited by livelaughlovesunshin; 09-21-2012 at 12:25 PM.
Various calculators will indeed be different. I just put your numbers into a calculator (don't know your age though so I just put my age -- 30) and I came up with a tad over 2100 a day. If you exercise you will, of course, burn more. For a deficit, 1800 would seem about right, maybe eat a little more on days you workout. I work well with ranges, like 1400 - 1700 on non-workout days, 1700-1900 on workout days. Sometimes I go over, sometimes I go under.
But I definitely think you have a good starting point. There's wiggle room though, it takes some experimenting.
For me, calorie counting has been the best way to go. I'm involved in an 8-week challenge that has mostly a low carb philosophy. Having tried both methods, I am wholeheartedly on the calorie counting bandwagon.
Here is the "math formula" I was given to determine the number of calories needed to reduce my weight. Start with a factor of "10." That means take your current weight, 302 and multiply it by 10. This calculation gives you the number of calories needed per day to maintain a 302 pound body weight (3020). If you eat, for example, 1800 calories per day, you are left with a "deficit" of 1220 (3020-1800 - 1220). 1 pound equals 3500 calories. So just as you will gain a pound for every 3500 calories you are over, you will lose a pound for every 3500 calories you are under. Try that for a week, and see if your math is correct. If not, try a factor of "9", etc., until you find your body's true Calorie Factor. Things such as medical conditions, age, etc. play a part in determining this number as well. In my case, this method also makes it easier to be less emotional about my food, turning it into a math problem vs. a feelings problem.
Start with a factor of "10." That means take your current weight, 302 and multiply it by 10. This calculation gives you the number of calories needed per day to maintain a 302 pound body weight (3020).
I'm glad the formula doesn't apply to me. If I had to eat only 1,400 cals to maintain my weight of 140 lbs I would be one miserable camper.
I'm glad the formula doesn't apply to me. If I had to eat only 1,400 cals to maintain my weight of 140 lbs I would be one miserable camper.
F.
How many calories do you net per day to maintain 140? Just curious...my number has changed over the years with age, sadly. But it's pretty close to 10 still, once I figure out calories in vs. exercised calories out, etc.
That factor of 10 formula isn't right. I can eat a lot more than 1300 calories a day to maintain at 130. The calculators you find online use a few different methods, but all include height and age.
That being said, 1800 sounds like a good place to start.
That factor of 10 formula isn't right. I can eat a lot more than 1300 calories a day to maintain at 130. The calculators you find online use a few different methods, but all include height and age.
That being said, 1800 sounds like a good place to start.
There is no "factor" that works for every person. You can't just multiply your weight by ANY number and determine what you burn.
If you take two people of 130 lbs, even if they're of the same gender, height, age, and lifestyle/activity level - one might need 1300 calories to maintain their weight and and another might burn 2600 calories.
The calculators are just based on averages.
And not only is there differences between people, there's also differences at different weights. So if you burn 2000 calories at 130 lbs (about 15 calories per pound), you might burn only 10 to 12 calories per pound in several years, or if you were to gain weight (as people tend to burn fewer calories per pound of body weight the heavier they are - and not only because of lack of exercise).
I'm right now dealing with a metabolism MUCH different than the metabolism I had 20 years ago (or even 10). The calorie intake it now takes to just maintain my weight is a calorie level I once (at weights even lower than I am now) would lose 5 to 7 lbs regularly (not just week 1 of a diet).
When I was in college (around 250 lbs but fairly active - usually swimming at least a couple times a week, and walking everywhere), I would easily burn 4000 calories or more (unfortunately I was also eating that much), and when I dieted I would usually lose a consistent 5 to 8 lbs a week on a 1500 - 1800 calorie diet.
Twenty years ago at around 360 lbs, and a very sedentary job I would still lose 5 to 8 lbs on a 1500 calorie diet.
Now I can maintain on as little as 2500 calories a day (I've become a little like my fat cat, if I cut calories too low, I end up being so fatigued that I almost end up in hibernation mode - barely conscious with barely enough energy to move at all.
It doesn't seem real, even to me as I'm living it, so I encourage everyone to be skeptical, and test your own metabolism by keeping a detailed food journal and write every single bite (even and ESPECIALLY when you eat off plan). No matter what you eat, calculate those calories and compare your calorie intake to your weight loss. Over time, you'll be able to calculate your metabolism based on your calorie level per day average and your weekly weight loss average (you have to take the averages over several months of data, because your metabolism will vary according to your monthly cycle and other variables).
I also found that I burn more calories on low-carb eating (about 300 calories so I lose about the same on 1500 calories of high-carb as on 1800 calories of low-carb).
What I find interesting is that when I noticed the 300 calorie difference I mentioned it here on 3FC and a bunch of folks told me they thought that was unusual (that a calorie was a calorie, in other words), but then not long ago a research article found the same 300 calorie benefit to low-carb (study participants on the low-carb diet burned about 300 calories more than those on a standard diet - and those on a moderate-carb diet burned about 150 calories more than those on a standard diet).
So, it looks like I'm not so abnormal after all - and that many if not most people really can lose a bit more on a reduced-carb diet (or another way to look at it is that you can eat a bit more calories to lose the same amount of weight if you cut carbs).
Just my two cents from staring calorie counting a few months ago...
While it is a great idea to be informed and armed with as much information as possible, you'll drive yourself nuts if you try and fit your calorie intake/diet/fitness routine with anyone else's, despite the reputation of the article/source. Keep all of the information you've read above, as well as any you get online or anywhere else, in the back of your mind and then start your first few weeks with whatever calorie goal you settle on. If, after 3 or so weeks, it isnt working how you'd like (not losing enough, too hungry, too weak, etc) then tweak it til you get it where you like.
There will probably still but an article or a suggestion from someone who will tell you that your daily intake is too high, or too low, but as long as it is healthy (the general consensus on that is no less than 1200 calories) then it's right for you.
I know I sound like a broken record, but may I recommend the book fat2fit. It is awesome. It gives detailed information on how to figure your BMR (basal metabolic rate) and then factor in calories for movement. It also has a lot of other great information I've never found anywhere, like talk about "negative calories" (fruits and vegetables) which you don't have to count (like Weight Watchers recommends), etc.
It's the most awesome book I've ever read on weight loss. I wish I knew about the concept of eucalorics (eating your maintenance calories while you lose; that is eating to your goal weight) years ago.
Another great book is Calorie Queens (same premise), but if I had to recommend one, it would be fat2fit. Or get both! They really are great books for calorie counters.
How many calories do you net per day to maintain 140? Just curious...my number has changed over the years with age, sadly. But it's pretty close to 10 still, once I figure out calories in vs. exercised calories out, etc.
As long as I exercise moderately 4 times per week, I'm able to maintain my weight on about 2,000 cals per day, which is not bad for age 55. I've never had great physical stamina, so my theory is that I use up more calories exercising than most people do.
Just calorie counting now
