Calorie intake

[RabidGinFairy]

Hey all, question regarding calories. I'm 26, 5'10 weighing 65kg. female. My goals are to lose some of the body fat and gain muscle (more body SCULPT than build). I've got my hands on a copy of the Body Sculpting Bible for women by Hugo Rivera. He says to have an intake of 1200- 1500 calories per day and "cycle" these (eg 1300 one week, 1500 the next). This seems kinda low to me! What do you guys think?? Thanks

[laurasaur]

Hey chick yup that is too low for your height!! But definitely take note of the cycling of calories that is worth it.

Calculating your daily calories does require a bit of guesswork but this a calculator like this: http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2005/ ... _needs.php will definitely help you get started. Put your stuff in there and it will tell you your "maintenance" calories.

For example, I'm a bit shorter than you and mine comes out at 1962 calories for maintenance. The "safe" weight loss that most people agree on is to reduce your daily maintenance level by 500 calories. So for me to lose 500g-1kg a week every day I would need to eat 1462 calories.

Now, keep in mind of course everyone is different. So at the end of your first week, if you find you are dropping weight too fast, add in a few more calories daily, or not enough, cut back some.

Hope this helps you

[curtb]

Being 6'0, and 84 kg, my maintenance level is apparently 2984 cal, which seems fair enough.

But ouch, my fat burning level is 1765-2384. It would hurt to drop well over a thousand a day. Should I consider this absolutely correct?

[laurasaur]

Being 6'0, and 84 kg, my maintenance level is apparently 2984 cal, which seems fair enough.

But ouch, my fat burning level is 1765-2384. It would hurt to drop well over a thousand a day. Should I consider this absolutely correct?

That depends, did you read my first post where I said it was estimation? Joke. But no, drop 500 off a day and see how you go. These are just "guidelines" and you don't wanna just crank off 1000 calories a day ease into it my friend

[teamfatboy]

I think those figures should be used as a baseline, from which you confirm exactly what you need the old-fashioned way: change one thing, observe what happens, and learn...

A variable not considered in all calculations is age... I'm 179cm, 100kg, but mid-40s, and work out 4-6 times/week (weights and cardio), but have a desk job. If I were on some of the 'maintenance calorie' loads, I know that I specifically would gain weight.

I've learned thru trial-and-error that my ACTUAL maintenance figure is lower, and fat-loss figure lower by 500-600 cals again, any lower and it chews into my lean muscle mass, such as it is :grin: .

[laurasaur]

I think those figures should be used as a baseline, from which you confirm exactly what you need the old-fashioned way: change one thing, observe what happens, and learn...

A variable not considered in all calculations is age... I'm 179cm, 100kg, but mid-40s, and work out 4-6 times/week (weights and cardio), but have a desk job. If I were on some of the 'maintenance calorie' loads, I know that I specifically would gain weight.

I've learned thru trial-and-error that my ACTUAL maintenance figure is lower, and fat-loss figure lower by 500-600 cals again, any lower and it chews into my lean muscle mass, such as it is :grin: .

That's a more refined version of what I was trying to say in my head actually that calculator I posted above does take into account your age and activity level.

[ExpensiveUrine]

cliffs: write down things you eat for 5-7 days, calculate calories, go from there and note changes in weight, modify calorie intake.

[laurasaur]

cliffs: write down things you eat for 5-7 days, calculate calories, go from there and note changes in weight, modify calorie intake.

would rep if i could... lol

[Bazza]

Being 6'0, and 84 kg, my maintenance level is apparently 2984 cal, which seems fair enough.

But ouch, my fat burning level is 1765-2384. It would hurt to drop well over a thousand a day. Should I consider this absolutely correct?

No...these things are a guide. For example, how hard are you training, are there aerobics in there, your age etc. Some lucky people are blessed with a fast metabolism....others so much as walk past a bar and smell a beer and they add a kilo...

[teamfatboy]

Just out of curiosity, why do folks say 'fast metabolism' for someone who can eat what they want... and it's a good thing?

I'd argue that, if I can do the same amount of physical work on less calories, my metabolism's the more effective, not slower.....

Surely if someone can clean up all the junkfood in sight and not gain a gramme, isn't that the less effective metabolism, 'cos clearly it isn't using all the caloric intake.

[TFB walks past Maccas, gains 7kg from the smell alone! :madman:]

[RabidGinFairy]

Thanks everyone Speaking of metabolism, is there any way to measure this? ie some sort of calculator which can tell you if yours is low or high etc?

[Optimass]

Thanks everyone Speaking of metabolism, is there any way to measure this? ie some sort of calculator which can tell you if yours is low or high etc?

metabolism is guided by lean body mass - use the calculator on the link to work out your BMR is the best way and cut back on calories if you want to drop vs increase to grow ...

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

[ExpensiveUrine]

vital organ functions

thermic effect of food

lean body mass

physical activity*

ect

*is the biggest factor that will influence your metabolism

'hard gainers' will say they've got a high metabolism (a relative term, which may be relevant when comparing different populations of different ages) which is why they can't get big but at the end of the day it just comes down to undereating, physical activity (re: burning most of the calories through some sort of cardiovascular activity) and not training as they should be training.

[arcon]

vital organ functions

physical activity*

ect

*is the biggest factor that will influence your metabolism

'hard gainers' will say they've got a high metabolism (a relative term, which may be relevant when comparing different populations of different ages) which is why they can't get big but at the end of the day it just comes down to undereating, physical activity (re: burning most of the calories through some sort of cardiovascular activity) and not training as they should be training.

.. that's mostly garbage. its quite common for skinny people to have a much higher resting metabolic rate than heavy people, and it has nothing to due with exercise routine etc, but genetics. ectomorphs don't utilize nutrients as efficiently as other people, hence its more difficult to make gains. for me to *maintain* a meager 60Kg bodyweight takes 3000 cals / day (when i started training i was 53Kg, and if my diet slips to just over 2K cals i'll lose weight fast, even if doing no cardio). i know people who weigh 80Kg who can maintain on 3K cals/day.

[ExpensiveUrine]

vital organ functions

physical activity*

ect

*is the biggest factor that will influence your metabolism

'hard gainers' will say they've got a high metabolism (a relative term, which may be relevant when comparing different populations of different ages) which is why they can't get big but at the end of the day it just comes down to undereating, physical activity (re: burning most of the calories through some sort of cardiovascular activity) and not training as they should be training.

.. that's mostly garbage. its quite common for skinny people to have a much higher resting metabolic rate than heavy people, and it has nothing to due with exercise routine etc, but genetics. ectomorphs don't utilize nutrients as efficiently as other people, hence its more difficult to make gains. for me to *maintain* a meager 60Kg bodyweight takes 3000 cals / day (when i started training i was 53Kg, and if my diet slips to just over 2K cals i'll lose weight fast, even if doing no cardio). i know people who weigh 80Kg who can maintain on 3K cals/day.

You're using a subjective example to prove your "findings". It's not valid.

When I said metabolism, I was referring to the total energy expenditure (TEE) (RMR/TEF/Cost of activity) and not to RER alone, and that physical activity (cost of) will be the biggest factor that will influence TEE's change (since it varies the most). Change in RER is contributed to lean body mass (LBM, ie body stripped of fat), skeletal muscle tissue is only one part of LBM. Viceral organs are also a part of LBM and they contribute the highest % to the RER. The more LBM you have the bigger RER will be. Gender: ladies tend to have lower RER than males due to change in LBM. Age: with increased age there's a decrease in RER due to a decrease in LBM. Genetics play a role, but not as much as you say they do. Genetical component is relatively insignificant when compared to LBM and it's effect on RER.

A comment like "skinny people have higher RER than heavy people" doesn't really say much in terms of cost of activity and LBM/body composition and I don't really know how you came to that conclusion.

As far as nutrient utilization, everyone's different in how they digest food, not just ectomorphs and there's different efficiency with how nutrients are digested.