Explanation of Why 10 X Body Weight is a Good Measure for Weight Loss

[Alleine]

Original Article: http://health.ivillage.com/eating/enutritional/0,,49h,00.html?nlcid=ht|05-11-2006|

Most of us view calories with dread and seem to forget that we can't live without them. Different bodies need different amounts of them to function efficiently. Determining that number is fairly simple, and doing it may help you stay within the amount that's right for you.

The three areas that figure into your calorie needs are:


your basal metabolic rate,
your activity level, and
digestion and absorption.

Follow the four simple steps below to calculate how many of those life-giving calories you can enjoy each day.


Your basal metabolic rate (BMR):
This is the energy it takes to keep your involuntary body processes going. About 60 percent of the calories you consume are used for such things as breathing, maintaining body temperature, manufacturing hormones and keeping your heart beating. It takes roughly 10 calories per pound of body weight to meet those needs. A 120-pound woman, for example, will need 10 x 120, or 1,200, calories each day just to function. Keep in mind that many factors can affect your BMR. For every decade beyond the growth years (about age 20), for instance, your caloric needs drop about two percent. A 30-year-old may need 1,200 minus (2 percent x 1,200) = 1,176. Your body build, which is largely inherited, is another factor -- tall, thin types burn more calories because they have a larger surface area , and more calories are burned to maintain normal body temperature. Men, on average, have more muscle than women, so they too need more calories.
Read full Article... (http://health.ivillage.com/eating/enutritional/0,,49h,00.html?nlcid=ht|05-11-2006|)

[kwikdriver]

This was pretty good. Thanks for posting it!

[paleowoman]

Hi Alleine -- do you do 10 calories per pound of CURRENT weight, or is it 10 per pound of GOAL weight?

[kyrasdad]

I ran this, and I don't know if I'm just dramatically underestimating calories, or if I don't fit the mold, but I'd be losing weight much faster if it were accurate. It totals out to approx 3,100 a day to run my 42 year old, mostly sedentary, 245 pound body. By fitday, I usually do not get 2,000 calories in on a day. Even figuring that I'm underestimating by 20%, I get 2,400, which would still be a 500/day deficit. I am not losing weight at the rate of someone who gets a deficit of that number.

I suspect my basal number is lower than the formula gives. I am probably in the league of 2,500 to 2,700 total rather than 3,100.

[kwikdriver]

I ran this, and I don't know if I'm just dramatically underestimating calories, or if I don't fit the mold, but I'd be losing weight much faster if it were accurate. It totals out to approx 3,100 a day to run my 42 year old, mostly sedentary, 245 pound body. By fitday, I usually do not get 2,000 calories in on a day. Even figuring that I'm underestimating by 20%, I get 2,400, which would still be a 500/day deficit. I am not losing weight at the rate of someone who gets a deficit of that number.

I suspect my basal number is lower than the formula gives. I am probably in the league of 2,500 to 2,700 total rather than 3,100.


The activity calories are too generous, because the figure is based on a formula, Harris Benedict, that was developed from a more active population, that of about 1915. Most people should use 30%, and some of us should use only 20%; I suspect those of us who are, or were, very overweight or lifelong overweight in particular should be conservative with the activity calories, because we tend to be less active even doing everyday tasks. It's why I recommend just using 10X of body weight and letting it go -- nothing more to fool with, and the vast majority of people will lose slowly but steadily at that level.

[coolwater]

Here's an easy way to calculate. http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

[Nancy LC]

I would maintain nicely on 10x, maybe lose .5 a pound a year.

[Alleine]

I've done 10x my body weight and have lost ok so far. I think this is a base to begin figuring out what is best for you.

[Alleine]

Here's an easy way to calculate. http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

That tool almost reflects what the article says. My results were with exercise 5x a week:

Maintenance: 2830 Calories/day
Fat Loss (http://www.freedieting.com/weight_loss_guide.htm): 2264 Calories/day
Extreme Fat Loss (http://www.freedieting.com/weight_loss_fast.htm): 2128 Calories/day

[ItsTheWooo]

First thing to be aware of is that metabolism does not scale exactly with weight gain; the smaller you are, the more metabolically active you are per pound. This is because "extra flesh" in muscles and fat is not nearly as metabolically active as "basic stuff" to keep us alive - heart, brain, so on.
Second thing is there is no science to the "ten times rule"; the formula works only because most people are around a size where if you multiply present weight by ten you achieve a random number that is almost always a few hundred cals less than maintenance.

Because of the gross incongruency between larger weights and increases in metabolic rates (it does not scale proportionately), and smaller weights/decreases in metabolic rates...the formula works best with moderate obesity. Metabolism does not decrease and increase as much as weight (fat/muscle) will.
The smaller you get, the more unreasonable the restrictions will be. The less "extra flesh" you have, the more your metabolism is just sustaining "essential" things and not muscles/fat, therefore, you will arrive at a calorie number which is wholly insufficient. Someone who weighs 100 pounds with a very low body fat percentage cannot reasonably consume 1000 cals.
The larger you get, the less the ten times rule will even produce a deficit at all. Again, this is because as we get bigger our metabolism does not increase proportionately since supporting fat and muscle is not as energy-utilizing as basic life support functions... a woman who weighs 300 pounds will not see a good weight loss rate eating 3000 cals.

[featherz]

I'd eat my left foot on 10x body weight, so we are all different. I lose at around 300 cals above that and maintain at 1000 above! :P

[kwikdriver]

...

If you muck it up with overanalysis and nitpicking, people who could be helped by using this very simple tool will be confused instead, and fall into the trap you see so many people here fall into, of "Calories don't matter, my metabolism is ruined, I'm afraid of starvation mode, why can't I lose" etc. Sometimes you have to let things be, shortcomings and all. This will work the vast majority of time for most people who use it honestly. And it will certainly work better than nothing at all. Alliene has the right idea: use it to establish a baseline, and then fine tune it as you go along. But you need to start somewhere.

And BTW, I'd like to see the woman who can eat 3000 calories a day doing clean low carb. I can't do it and I'm a man who exercises and weighs around 300.

[ThomasCGT]

Why are lo carbo forum types talking bout calories?. Anyway, surely they forgot to include bone structure-dependant thermic effect, and the hemostatis component, both of which are the main reasons calorie counting doesnt work. Oh well, back to unlimited calores and near zero carbs, and let amateur beginners play with useless out of date numbers.

[kwikdriver]

Why are lo carbo forum types talking bout calories?.

Why, the answer is perfectly clear: we aren't smart like you are. But we'll work on it, I promise.

[VALEWIS]

Why are lo carbo forum types talking bout calories?. .

Because some of us are old females. Unlimited calories and VLC kept me stalled for 2 years. Once I counted calories and dropped them, the weight came off. YMMV.

[ItsTheWooo]

If you muck it up with overanalysis and nitpicking, people who could be helped by using this very simple tool will be confused instead, and fall into the trap you see so many people here fall into, of "Calories don't matter, my metabolism is ruined, I'm afraid of starvation mode, why can't I lose" etc. Sometimes you have to let things be, shortcomings and all. This will work the vast majority of time for most people who use it honestly. And it will certainly work better than nothing at all. Alliene has the right idea: use it to establish a baseline, and then fine tune it as you go along. But you need to start somewhere.

And BTW, I'd like to see the woman who can eat 3000 calories a day doing clean low carb. I can't do it and I'm a man who exercises and weighs around 300.

You have a good point. I do that a lot... focus on points that aren't relevant and actually only confuse. Most people who have weight problems WILL be helped by the ten times rule, if even for no other reason than it helps them to see that eating less = losing weight. Early on I was just as guilty of trying to keep "fat up", feeling I wouldn't loose if I didn't drown things in oil, etc. It takes awhile to get into a groove and feel comfortable enough to experiment and observe.

Then again, I do notice a lot of very obese people who refer to the 10 times rule as evidence that they aren't eating enough (liike you said, FEW obese people eat 3k cals on LC) and that's why they aren't losing. This creates the false notion that weight loss happens by eating (it does not), as well as the illusion that they are stalled because they aren't eating enough (not possible).

Oh and another thing to remember is that not all people losing weight are doing meat and veggie very low carb diets. Some of us are eating nuts, cheese, berries, more than ketogenic carbs... and you would be quite amazed how easy it becomes to eat 3k cals once yous tart liberalizing your diet even a little bit. I weigh, this morning, 112 and I could very easily consume over 2k cals if I packed it in. I have no doubt someone who weighed nearly 3 times my size could eat more than 3k of the foods I eat. I ate 40 carbs today, no one would consider my diet high carb... but when you are eating things like cereal, blueberries, LC milk, LC muffins... over eating and ignoring satiety, if one tends to do that, is something that you are risking.

[foxgluvs]

Why, the answer is perfectly clear: we aren't smart like you are. But we'll work on it, I promise.

:lol::lol: Nice one!

[Bat Spit]

And BTW, I'd like to see the woman who can eat 3000 calories a day doing clean low carb.

It isn't easy, and requires the assitance of large amounts of coconut oil, but I'm currently experimenting with it.

[Nancy LC]

Actually, fat isn't that much less active metabolically than muscle (despite the rampant number of body building web sites that claim otherwise). I think fat burns something like 2 calories and muscle is 4. The REAL furnaces are the kidneys and brain which burn something like 200 calories (per day) and other organs. But the one that surprised me was what a lot of energy the kidneys use.

[ItsTheWooo]

Actually, fat isn't that much less active metabolically than muscle (despite the rampant number of body building web sites that claim otherwise). I think fat burns something like 2 calories and muscle is 4. The REAL furnaces are the kidneys and brain which burn something like 200 calories (per day) and other organs. But the one that surprised me was what a lot of energy the kidneys use.
I understand fat and muscle have similar metabolic requirements; My point was extra flesh, be it fat or muscle, is not as metabolically taxing as "the core body" therefore increases and decreases in weight (which are made up of extra flesh as muscle/fat mainly) do not so neatly cause a proportional affect metabolism. The 10 times rule only works because most people with who want to lose will get a random number less than maintenance if they multiply their weight times 10. In other words, a 100 lb woman should not try to consume 1000 cals as that is inadequate, and a 300 lb woman will not see that good of a rate of loss, if any, eating 3000 cal...

[Nancy LC]

Why are lo carbo forum types talking bout calories?. Anyway, surely they forgot to include bone structure-dependant thermic effect, and the hemostatis component, both of which are the main reasons calorie counting doesnt work. Oh well, back to unlimited calores and near zero carbs, and let amateur beginners play with useless out of date numbers.
Anthony from theOmnivore.com would have a field day with you.

[bigpeach]

So it is settled. The 1,200 pound guy in Mexico should eat 12,000 calories of low-carb food each day.

[Turtle2003]

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm


Organ or tissue Daily metabolic rate

Adipose (fat) 2 calories per pound
Muscle 6 calories per pound
Liver 91 calories per pound
Brain 109 calories per pound
Heart 200 calories per pound
Kidneys 200 calories per pound

[potatofree]

...so if my kidneys were the size of my rump, I'd be much better off, metabolically. ;)

[Dodger]

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm


Organ or tissue Daily metabolic rate

Adipose (fat) 2 calories per pound
Muscle 6 calories per pound
Liver 91 calories per pound
Brain 109 calories per pound
Heart 200 calories per pound
Kidneys 200 calories per poundSo how do I grow bigger kidneys? I've given up on getting more brains!

[VALEWIS]

The REAL furnaces are the kidneys and brain which burn something like 200 calories (per day) and other organs. But the one that surprised me was what a lot of energy the kidneys use.

So the purported weightloss assistance from drinking gallons of water is not from the water, but from all the calories burned by the kidneys in dealing with it!

[dreamnfae]

Ok...you got me...I am confused. Very. Right now at this very moment I weigh 306lbs. I am a medium boned 37yr old female. I am 5ft 5in. I have a desk job that I work 10hrs a day seated at a desk. I went to the site listed, and this is what it said:

RESULTS - GUIDELINE ONLY
Maintenance: 2691 Calories/day
Fat Loss: 2448 Calories/day
Extreme Fat Loss: 2448 Calories/day

Right now, well, this week, and for the last 2, I have been consuming waay below that, by like a thousand or more. I rarely eat til i'm satisfied, and I often get hungry between meals, but I am afraid to up my cals that much. Am I following what y'all are saying? Should I really be eating that much? So much confusion! Oh...I guess I should mention that the 1st week, I lost 7.5lbs, the 2nd I gained back 4, now im just sitting still, going nowhere. Ah screw it...I guess I could maybe up what I am taking in by oh...I dont know...a coupla hundred, and see if it makes a difference...

[Bat Spit]

Dreamnfae- try this.

For a minimum of 2 weeks, eat as clean low carb as possible, and eat until you're comfortably full. Record calories, but ignore them.

After the 2 weeks, see how you feel, what your measurements are, and what the scale says.

There is no reason to start out hungry if your body doesn't require it. You can always scale back calories once you've given your body an honest chance to self-regulate.

No one is saying you have to eat that much, but we're generally agreeing that your body probably needs somewhere in the neighborhood, with variations for lifestyle, excersize, age, and genetics.

If your body won't lose when self-regulating, then compare your calories to this, and see where they lie.

Don't go hungry all the time, you can't live like that, and it's very stressful.

[Frederick]

So it is settled. The 1,200 pound guy in Mexico should eat 12,000 calories of low-carb food each day.

He had better, otherwise even at 10,000 calories he'll starvation mode himself up to 1,300 lbs!

[AJCole]

I think calorie counting works only in that it may control portion. I, too, am a not so young woman and do not lose (though I don't gain either) on very low carb alone. But I am uncomfortable counting calories and know that calorie counting is like guessing. I am very comfortable watching portions with low carb, that is successful for me. But counting calories and carbs would restrict portions so if it works, do it.

[AJCole]

Dreamnfae - I agree with bat spit. But try not to focus on the scale so much. Females especially can have weight fluctuations of about five pounds a day. If you must weigh in daily or even weekly, take into consideration which day of your cycle you are on. Personnally, I only lose in the week after I menstruate according to the scale, but the tape measure rarely ever lies! Good luck, we are with you!

[waywardsis]

The 10x thing always makes me feel like a hog. According to it, I should be perfectly happy eating less than 1200 cal per day at my goal weight, and around 1250 now. I would need wee little pieces of steak!

I'm only counting cals right now for sake of interest, but currently I'm scarfing down between 1800 - 2200 avg. The scale is goin' down steadily. When I get back to the gym this week, I shudder to think how much more I'll eat!

Dreamnfae - I weigh myself every day but only bc I have an Excel program that tracks my weight trend over time, so even when the scale jumps around I can see what the basic trend is. Don't worry too much about the number - it's going to go up and down.

[Alleine]

The 10x thing always makes me feel like a hog. According to it, I should be perfectly happy eating less than 1200 cal per day at my goal weight, and around 1250 now. I would need wee little pieces of steak!

I'm only counting cals right now for sake of interest, but currently I'm scarfing down between 1800 - 2200 avg. The scale is goin' down steadily. When I get back to the gym this week, I shudder to think how much more I'll eat!

Dreamnfae - I weigh myself every day but only bc I have an Excel program that tracks my weight trend over time, so even when the scale jumps around I can see what the basic trend is. Don't worry too much about the number - it's going to go up and down.


No....That is incorrect. According to the guideline you should be eating 1200 calories to support your basic body functions. That doesn't include what you need to support exercise and other daily living activity.

[dreamnfae]

Dreamnfae - I agree with bat spit. But try not to focus on the scale so much. Females especially can have weight fluctuations of about five pounds a day. If you must weigh in daily or even weekly, take into consideration which day of your cycle you are on. Personnally, I only lose in the week after I menstruate according to the scale, but the tape measure rarely ever lies! Good luck, we are with you!

I am trying what bats suggested, and so far am comming up with around 2200 cals, been doing it now for about 4 days, and now have lost the 4 that I gained back! I don't weigh but once a week, in the morning, after emptying, and better believe without a stitch...only have a monthly these days about every 3 months or so, so thats not a big problem, and I have measured myself, but no change there, yet. I will continue on, and see if there is any more improvement, thanks for the encouragement!

[deirdra]

I'm a 51 yr old woman who dieted on ~1200 cals/day for 35 years, but only became successful when I INCREASED my fat and calorie intake to 1600-1700 while consuming 40g ECC/day.