[wyrillco]

In my women's health mag it gave some formulas for losing weight...<br><br>
lazy day - no exercise:<br>
weight x 15<br>
subract 500<br><br>
Exercise day:<br>
weight x 18<br>
subtract 500<br><br>
That's to lose 1 lb a week.<br><br>
For me that comes out to 2320 & 2884.<br><br>
How can that be right? It's just a rule of thumb, but there is no way that I could lose at 2320 calories per day, let alone 2884.

 

[lkschiller]

No advice as to what is the correct amount but I doubt it. I'm finding a lot of things from that mag that just seem plain wrong.<br><br>
If you subscribe, did they send you a copy of their "Total Fitness Guide 2008"? It is basically a bound copy of all of their fitness and diet articles from 2007--lots of stuff I've seen but some was new b/c I haven't been reading the magazine for very long. I had started to subscribe, thus the book but I haven't paid them yet and I don't think I'm going to (but they haven't sent any issues yet either, just the book).<br><br>
Anyway, on one page it tells me I should weigh about 125--another 25 pounds to lose after already losing 40. There would literally be nothing left of me if I lost that much more weight, I would look sick. Two pages later there is a calorie calculator slightly more complicated than the one you saw that tells me I need about 3000 calories a day to maintain and can eat about 2500 to lose a pound a week. Interesting, since I've done this now for a couple of years, have never lost that much weight in a week's time and eat about 2000/day. On the next page, there is a "body fat" calculator that you can calculate your body fat based on your BMI <img alt="confused.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/confused.gif">. What the heck--your BMI says nothing about what is fat and what is lean. And then it tells me that my "ideal" body fat % should be around 22% and gives a chart for how many pounds that equates to--between 5-7 pounds, FAR less than the previous 25 pounds it told me I need to lose. Lots of conflicting advice, which doesn't do much for credibility. This was a "free preview" and I had already decided to send it back--and then got the invoice--they want $50 for the thing! Wow!<br><br>
Sorry for the rant--don't get me started on their "how perfect is your ass" calculator--did you see that one? It was from an issue this past summer but is also in the book. I just wouldn't use them as a reliable source of information.

 

[Christie Runs]

I haven't got a clue. But I do know that 1lb = 3500 calories. So if you cut 500 calories/day you should lose a pound a week.

 

[Gingerbread]

When I was actively trying to lose weight, I got my information from an article in Reader's Digest, which was using a similar formula but I believe multiplied your current weight by 12 for sedentary lifestyle (work sitting at a desk all day type of activity) and multiply by 15 for an active lifestyle. That worked well until I had to add activity since I didn't want to eat less than 1200 calories a day. Actually, I didn't want to eat less than 1500 calories a day. I get too hungry otherwise.<br><br>
Try those numbers instead. So, for sedentary lifestyle try eating 1756 calories per day or for an active lifestyle try 2320 per day. The formula worked for me. Also, check <a href="http://www.sparkpeople.com" target="_blank">www.sparkpeople.com</a> or maybe <a href="http://www.fitday.com" target="_blank">www.fitday.com</a> or one of the other helpful and free websites for information. The information from that magazine doesn't sound correct to me.

 

[wyrillco]

Those numbers seem better to me... Right now I'm following WW, so we'll see how that goes. <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif">

 

[Gingerbread]

Good luck! It's gratifying to see results whatever method you use <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif">

 

[nadra24]

One problem with formulas like that is that they don't take into account the fact that fat tissue is less metabolically active than lean body mass. If you're more than 20% above your ideal body weight, you should use adjusted body weight to get a better idea of how many calories you burn. (Of course, it's all just an estimation anyway)<br><br>
To figure out ideal weight: (IBW) girls: 100# for the first 5 feet tall, then 5# per inch above that. Guys: 106# for the first 5 feet, then 6# per inch above that.<br><br>
To get adjusted (ABW), subtract IBW from actual wt. Multiply that number by .25, then add the number you get to IBW.<br><br>
So let's say you are a 5'4" tall female, and you weight 160#. IBW is 120#.<br>
160 - 120 = 40<br>
40 x .25 = 10<br>
10 + 120 = 130# is your ABW.<br><br>
That's the standard practice among dietitians, anyway. There are definitely some flaws to the system (what is "ideal" body weight anyway? What if someone has higher than average muscle mass? etc. etc.), but it works for the majority of the population, and calculating calorie needs has always been an estimation at best. In any case, it gives a little more accuracy to the estimation, and it's a good starting point.

 

[QuixoticNotions]

Ideal weight for me 120 lb... Scary! That's EXACTLY how much lean body mass I have. <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif">

 

[Gingerbread]

Nadra,<br><br>
That seems pretty accurate. I'm ~5'9" and 140-145 is my usual healthy weight. But I think in your formula you mean that you subtract your IBW from your actual weight (if your actual weight is higher than IBW) and the Adjusted BW is 130#, not IBW. Or am I misunderstanding?<br><br>
So, once you determine your Adjusted Body Weight, how do you determine how many calories you burn? What is the formula to find that out?<br><br>
Thanks!

 

[triciaflower]

If you are using something like fitday or dailyplate to figure out how many calories you burn in any given activity, does this mean you should type in your "adjusted body weight" (based on the above calculations) in the "weight" field instead of your actual weight?

 

[Billy]

6' tall, then is 106 + 6*12 = 178.<br><br>
That sounds like a good number. It only serves to irritate me because I believe that is only 6 lbs away from being overweight by BMI. *sigh*

 

[nadra24]

Sorry, it was late when I was posting! You are correct. I edited my post to fix my typos, and credited you for catching them. <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif"><br><br>
The most accurate formula to determine calorie needs is the Harris Benedict equation, because it takes height, weight, age, and gender into account. Here's a link to a site that will calculate it for you:<br><a href="http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~spon/picu/calc/beecalc.htm" target="_blank">http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~sp...lc/beecalc.htm</a><br>
(pick "ambulating" for your activity factor, and "none" for your stress factor, and use your adjusted weight)<br><br>
To be honest though, multiplying your adjusted weight by 12-15 as was suggested in Readers Digest gives you pretty much the same number, and it's all an estimation anyway.

 

[nadra24]

You know, I don't know the answer to that. I'm inclined to say no, because it doesn't matter if you've got 150 pounds of fat or 150 pounds of <i>twisted railroad steel</i>, it's going to take the same amount of energy to move it from point A to point B. Laws of physics and whatnot. My background is nutrition, so an exercise scientist could probably answer your question better than I could. Sorry.<br><br>
(on the other hand, I keep hearing that fitday overestimates that kind of thing, so maybe give it a shot and see what number you come up with?)

 

[wyrillco]

I'm so confused.<br><br>
I've heard the 5' thing, where you add 5# for every inch you are taller than 5'. However there is absolutely no way I'll ever weigh 120-130... I think 150 is probably a good goal for me, but it's been so long since I weighed anywhere near that that I have no idea.<br><br>
The calculation above comes out to 137 for me. What does that mean? Is this a goal weight?<br><br>
Should I then do 137x12 (1644) and 137x 15 (2055) for my caloric needs?<br><br>
Based on my WW plan, I have come up with the following calorie estimations... I get 24 points a day, plus 35 points to use across the whole week. So, if I calculate a point as 50-70 calories (it depends on fat/fiber), that gives me a range of 10,150 - 14,210 calories per week. If I average that per day it's 1450-2030 calories per day.<br><br>
Then you add activity points on if you wish. Like let's say I earn 5 activity points running... that's about 500 calories. So I can eat those as well.<br><br>
I never lose weight well when I'm training.

 

[triciaflower]

Wow! That's my number too!<br><br>
And as far as losing weight while training.. I am in the same boat. <img alt="sad2.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/sad2.gif"><br><br>
I am trying to figure out how much I need to eat in order to not feel like I'm going to pass out or get lightheaded WHILE trying to lose weight AND train for a Half. Is that even possible?

 

[wyrillco]

It's like we are the same person.<br><br><img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif"><br><br>
I lost about 12 pounds last year, so I can't complain, really. But during my half training I only lost about 5.

 

[lkschiller]

Wyrillco,<br>
How long have you been doing the weight training you mentioned in another thread? Were you doing any strength training during your training for the half? Maybe you gained some muscle?<br><br>
The calories you list (1600-2000) are about what I use, but I do have cheat days, usually once a week, so that probably contributes to my slow weight loss but it keeps me sane. It took me about 2 years to lose my weight. I eat a lot of the same things during the week that I know the nutritional value of so I can control my calories for probably 80% of the time. I don't use WW but I have a lot of friends that do and are successful, however none of them are runners or very active at all, it has been mostly diet for them. Maybe instead of simply counting the running as activity points that allow for more calories overall it would be better to experiment with what amounts of proteins/carbs/fats your body needs to fuel your exercise and then recover and rebuild those muscles? Maybe take a look at when you are eating versus when you are exercising and see what kinds of changes you can make that give you the results you want? If you are not doing those things already.<br><br>
As far as ideal weight, according the the stuff on this thread I should be 130 IBW and 135 ABW (I'm 5'6"<img alt="wink.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/wink.gif">, and I'm at 150. But I'm a size 8 now in my jeans and just switched out a bunch of work uniform shirts to a size small, which is a first for me, so don't let your "ideal" numbers scare you. Shoot for being healthy and for changes you can make that will be lifestyle changes, not for an ideal that may not be ideal for you. If you get to 150 and find that you feel great and look great and can maintain it without killing yourself in the gym 7 days a week (unless you enjoy that and have time for it for the rest of your life) then don't worry about what the experts say.