Thread: The answer to "How Many Calories Should I Eat?"

I've had 1200 as a target since I started but thought I'd try this out - to lose 1lb a week I should be having 1079 if i'm classed as sedentary and 1309.50 if I'm classed as slightly active. So I think my 1200 target is probably fine as I lead a sedentary lifestyle mainly but try to get to the gym once or twice a week.

Wish I was taller so I used up more calories though!!!

I used another diet site, im 244lbs currently and it said i should consume 1922 per day. when i spoke to someone else they calculated i should be 1850, so me being me went in the middle well maybe a middle for me and i consume 1750 per day

Thank you my lovely - this makes a lot of sense and also helps me not to feel bad when I think 2 pounds a week is not enough to loose when it infact it really is for my weight. I love my fitness pal it really helps me work out my calories and exercise I should do a day to maintain the 1 to 2 pounds loss a week

It must of taken a lot of work to write that up. You are going to help many many people with that.

Nats xxx

You're welcome everybody. I've been on holiday for over 10 days and have just logged in to find a few messages from some of you - I'll get back to you all over the next day or so - sorry for the wait! xoxo

Thanks for this . Having read it and considering my height and weight it means there is no way I can lose over 1lb a week unless I go under 1200 as my normal calorie intake supposedly should be around 1650. If this right?

I'm just thinking (sorry if this has been discussed) the figure MFP gives you is 'Net' as we know, so you eat back your exercised calories, but becuase it is 'NET' it also doesn't take into consideration, just normal calorie burning from existing, breathing, walking etc. Presumably those calories need to be eaten back as well. although how would you caluclate how many?

This theory would makse sense, because the Harris-Benedict equation gives a different result to MFP, which I guess is this basic calorie usage I mention? Or am I talking poo?

Themango - some of us can't lose more than 1lb a week. If your daily maintenance weight is more than 1700, then you can't safely lose more than 1lb a week (by math). This doesn't take in metabolic consideration, and the fact that we can't effectively account for every single calorie (especially if you exercise - and even more so if you do strength training). I technically should lose 0.9lbs a week max, on 1200 net, but I lose more almost every week.

Big H - You should try to eat as many of your exercise calories back as possible, in order to stop your body going into "starvation mode" and your metabolism slowing in the long run. Harris Benedict gives a different result because it accounts for your exercise in the equation (as can MFP if you choose to set it as such in your lifestyle option, and then not input your exercise separately).

Thanks, very informative x

Originally Posted by Fattack

Themango - some of us can't lose more than 1lb a week. If your daily maintenance weight is more than 1700, then you can't safely lose more than 1lb a week (by math). This doesn't take in metabolic consideration, and the fact that we can't effectively account for every single calorie (especially if you exercise - and even more so if you do strength training). I technically should lose 0.9lbs a week max, on 1200 net, but I lose more almost every week.

Big H - You should try to eat as many of your exercise calories back as possible, in order to stop your body going into "starvation mode" and your metabolism slowing in the long run. Harris Benedict gives a different result because it accounts for your exercise in the equation (as can MFP if you choose to set it as such in your lifestyle option, and then not input your exercise separately).

Thatnks Fattack - I know all of that though
What I am saying is MFP gives a Net figure and you need to eat exercise calories back, but that's just exercise calories, not just living breathing etc calories which also need to be eating back, but are not taking into consideration. E.G Mfp gives me 1470 Net, so if I do 500 calories of exercise, I can in theory eat 1970 calories. But I will also burn calories just by existing and I need to eat those back as well as the exercise calories.

Thanks fattack. I also see you have in your sig your fat%, my scales weigh this (they have those electro thing things on the bottom - if you get my drift?) and I've checked mine out and I really don't see how I'm going to improve it! Ah, sorry this weight loss thing is probably one of the most stressfull things in my life (more than my upcoming exams) and I know it shouldn't be but it is at the moment, I'm scared of doing it wrong and putting more weight on.

Briliantly useful post... I knew about the BMR rule, but got confused about what to do on exercise days, or otherwise... should I eat more - the same - less etc... yada yada. So THANK YOU.

One question however... is there a reason why you would say only create a 500 calorie deficit if your BMI is between 28-30? Mine is 28.5, but I am aiming at 2lbs a week so really I want to aim to eat 1000 less than my calculation said (2519, therefore 1519)... there is no reason why that should be detrimental is there?

I have tried eating 1200 a day and 2000 a day - and was putting on weight both ways... so maybe one was too much and one was too little... I don't know, eating so little it seems crazy to me that the weight isn't going down, particularly with my exercising... grrrr. We'll see... I might try limiting to 1500 every day, regardless of exercise and see what happens.

Thanks xx

Big H - Your "existing" calories are accounted by both MFP and Harris Benedict (hence why even sedentary people get 110% of their exercise calories, using the equation), so no, you do not have any extra invisible calories, sorry! If you genuinely want extra calories and to also lose weight, then "Oh but I had an extra vigorous shower!" isn't really going to help - at least on a regular basis and could do your losses harm long term. Although I acknowledge that there are different *levels* of sedentary

themango - I'm also having issues with body fat, I see people dropping massive amounts of body fat for their weight and wonder what their secret is! I guess if you're losing weight slowly, then body fat drops in correlation with it, and we can't expect to see quick results. Also with it being a percentage, bear in mind that even if it stays the same after a 1lb loss, you are still carrying less body fat (if you understand me) than you were the week before because 30% of 140lbs is more than 30% of 139!

spottydoris - the reason those defecits are advised is to maintain a fast metabolism and to stop you losing muscle mass. I see your 2519 includes yourself as active on HB - is this from work, or exercise, or both? What's your job like (seated, standing, walking around constantly?) ? Do try to stick to your 500 deficit, but another way of checking that it's not too much is by doing the following, which is a bit more accurate. Unless you have an active job, I'd maybe try doing your equation with yourself set as sedentary, and see what the 500 defecit gives you then, and then eat your exercise cals ontop of that number. PM me if you need help

Hmmm

MFP method:

Normal day = Sedentary
Exercise = 5 x 45 mins per week
Net Calories Consumed* / Day1,520 calories/day
Net calories per day 1520
Calories burned per week = 1910
Divide by 7 days = 282 cals
1520 cals + 282 cals = 1793 cals

Harris Benedict method:

Moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
Therefore -Cals to maintain = 3390 per day
Cals to lose 2 pounds per week = 2390 per day.

That means there is a difference of 597 cals per day between the 2 methods for me.

The best way to solve this is to use HB setting yourself for your job (sedentary), and then adding exercise cals on top of it - like you would with MFP.

This is because everybody has different interpretations of activity. For example, if you had a pair of identical twins, weighing the same, same height etc. Twin number one exercises 4 times a week, and he burns 300 calories each time on the Wii in an hour for example. Twin number two also exercises 4 times a week, but goes to spinning classes where he burns over 600 calories in the same amount of time. They could both consider themselves in the "active" bracket as they're both exercising 4 times a week, but the second twin would be earning upwards of 1200 extra because of the type of activity he does. This is why I personally advocate not using HB to account for your exercise, but for your job, and then add your exercise cals on.

I'll use myself as an example I exercise pretty much 6-7 times a week, burning on average 700ish calories each time - but I have a sedentary job.

According to MFP, on 1200 cals I lose 0.9lbs a week. To lose 1lb, you need to reduce by 3500 calories a week (500 a day), so to lose my 0.9lbs a week, I'm reducing by roughly 3150 weekly / 450 a day.

My BMR is 1423.8
If I were to set my HB equation using my activity, I'd be in the very active bracket, and consuming 2456 calories to maintain. This means, to lose 0.9 a week, I'd be eating around 2006 calories a day. So I'd be eating an extra 100 calories a day. than my 700 exercise calories on MFP.
If I were to set my HB equation using my job, I'd be on around 1708 to maintain. So to lose, I'd eat around 1258 a day, and then my exercise cals on top would be 1958 - so there is a slight discrepancy of around 50 calories, and the 1958 figure is generally closer to what I would eat on MFP, but still slightly over by 50 calories. If I burnt a little more in my session (sometimes I burn over 700) then the active bracket in HB would apply to me almost perfectly - the only real flaw with HB is that it doesn't account for how many calories you are burning with those sessions. Hope this makes sense

Originally Posted by Fattack

The best way to solve this is to use HB setting yourself for your job (sedentary), and then adding exercise cals on top of it - like you would with MFP.

This is because everybody has different interpretations of activity. For example, if you had a pair of identical twins, weighing the same, same height etc. Twin number one exercises 4 times a week, and he burns 300 calories each time on the Wii in an hour for example. Twin number two also exercises 4 times a week, but goes to spinning classes where he burns over 600 calories in the same amount of time. They could both consider themselves in the "active" bracket as they're both exercising 4 times a week, but the second twin would be earning upwards of 1200 extra because of the type of activity he does. This is why I personally advocate not using HB to account for your exercise, but for your job, and then add your exercise cals on.

I'll use myself as an example I exercise pretty much 6-7 times a week, burning on average 700ish calories each time - but I have a sedentary job.

According to MFP, on 1200 cals I lose 0.9lbs a week. To lose 1lb, you need to reduce by 3500 calories a week (500 a day), so to lose my 0.9lbs a week, I'm reducing by roughly 3150 weekly / 450 a day.

My BMR is 1423.8
If I were to set my HB equation using my activity, I'd be in the very active bracket, and consuming 2456 calories to maintain. This means, to lose 0.9 a week, I'd be eating around 2006 calories a day. So I'd be eating an extra 100 calories a day. than my 700 exercise calories on MFP.
If I were to set my HB equation using my job, I'd be on around 1708 to maintain. So to lose, I'd eat around 1258 a day, and then my exercise cals on top would be 1958 - so there is a slight discrepancy of around 50 calories, and the 1958 figure is generally closer to what I would eat on MFP, but still slightly over by 50 calories. If I burnt a little more in my session (sometimes I burn over 700) then the active bracket in HB would apply to me almost perfectly - the only real flaw with HB is that it doesn't account for how many calories you are burning with those sessions. Hope this makes sense

Sounds like a plan. Thanks for that