NEVER eat at your BMR or below it... ESPECIALLY if you exercise. what you're doing is tiring out your body. for instance, my BMR is 1376 cals. if i did a normal weight/cardio routine my body would be exhausted because i need to eat 1376 cals JUST for my body to keep my organs functioning. and actually, been there and done that. i was miserable and cranky.

and whoever said a calorie isn't a calorie is SOOO right... which is why low carb/high fat works at maintenance calories. i'm a strong proponent of eating low carb near maintenance cals - don't drop cals until you've exhausted every other avenue (cardio, etc).

According to that calc I am at 28% bodyfat, which sounds about right to me... making my ideal weight about 120, which again sounds about right to me. Right now I am in an 8/10 depending on cut but I think at 120 I could fit into a perfect 6.

According to the BMR calc my bmr is about 1380 and total burn 1800ish. I was recommended to eat between 1100-1510 calories daily to see some observable weight loss. This averages out to 1300 calories consumed. This is exactly what I have been eating, and I am losing.

IMO, I totally agree... those calculations seem accurate. At least infinately more accurate than fitday's ridiculously high estimations of caloric expendature.

I agree about Fitday! If I really burned as many calories as they say I do, I'd be at about NEGATIVE 180 by now


BTW, thanks 2muchpizza, for posting those links -- I've never actually checked my BMR and how many cals I should be taking in. I usually try to stick to below 13-1400 and that's what it said, actually closer to 1200 Ahem, bf percentage: 43%

this is why i don't believe in cals in vs cals out...

as my friend best said it:

I think its safe to say that on every single bodybuilding forum that has ever been created, someone has said that the key to dropping bodyfat is calories in v. calories out. I'm going to challenge that rule and throw a few things out there to discuss.

1. Does calories in v. calories out mean everyday, who says the human body has a caloric calculator that resets every 24 hours.

2. If you do a balls to the wall leg session with high rep leg press, ATF squats, drop sets of extensions, etc. do you think your metabolism, endocrine system and capacity for lipolysis is going to be increased, just say yes for my own edification, if yes, then odds are you can burn more calories than a light session or a day with no training, it can also be said you wouldn't have the slightest fricken idea of how many calories you burned in that day.

3. Calories in v. calories out is basically talking about thermodynamics, calories are units of energy, so we're talking more about overall weight being reduced, not just bodyfat, that includes muscle loss.

4. Final point...the calorie debate may be correct, but i think its safe to say that calories in v. calories out is more about deficit over a period of time, instead of just one day. Second, daily or weekly bodyfat reduction is probably as much dependant upon calorie deficit as it is stimulation of fat burning hormones, suppression of fat building hormones, thryoid stimulation and a bunch of other endocrine garbage that i would need a translator to explain or attempt to understand.

Overall point...i'm not saying that calories don't matter, because they do, what i am saying is that if someone is shooting for 2500 in a day and they hit 2700 it is not the end of the world and that training intensity plays into factors that we can't account for with calculators and macronutrient ratios.

I definitely cut calories for my weight loss and do think it is important. I did not pay attention to the starvation mode possibility. I simply cut 150-200 gm of carbs out of my diet and did not replace the calories with protein or fat calories. I kept my foot mashed down on the pedal of induction for 3.5 months and the weight rolled off. I do not count calories - just the simple subtraction of all those carbs definitely cut my calorie count.

It is just my opinion but I see that as a problem for anyone with a stall going on or unable to lose weight. I have a friend who converted to Atkins but eats too much "Atkins" and other food. I know he eats too much food period. Now he is doing excersize and that is great but I still think he has to cut calories period.

I don't put much credence into starvation mode in the long run.

I think run of the mill dieters are not the same as body builders metabolically. What might work fine for you all may not work so well for those of us not lifting weights or exercising to the intensity and frequency that you are.

Good points Nancy. I'm lifting at a beginner level at this point and if I ate 2000+ calories a day I would be gaining weight like crazy.

I belive on low carb there is an advantage to eating more calories, but since I've gotten closer to goal there is NO way I can eat 2000 calories a day and still lose like I did when I was 200 pounds. I now must eat between 10 and 12 x's my goal weight to see a loss.
IMO at the end of the day a calorie is still a calorie and while low carb may give you an advantage of an extra 200-300 calories a day, there is no way at 138 I could eat 2000 calories and an NOT GAIN weight low carb or not.

Calories count for me and I know the culprit: nuts and natural peanut butter. They are so easy to overeat and pack on a "hidden" extra 400 calories.

Meanwhile, I seem to be able to easily lose fat on 1,500 calories a day for months on end.

French is also the official language of Canada, along with English We are bilingual.

By that logic, you can eat 1000 calories at once or 500 calories meal. Which is false.

I also disagree with the 10x rule because it's too general. If a 150lb person sits on their ass all day long, getting up once or twice to go to the bathroom and that's it... maybe they broke a leg or something...whatever. There is no way they will use up 1500 calories as *energy* And 300lb fat people don't need 3,000 calories.

I think calories do matter...just not to the extent that many people think they do. If you eat 3500 extra calories you won't gain exactly one pound. You might gain nothing; you might gain 5 lbs. in water weight; anything could happen. Calories matter in a *general* sense (you can't eat 6000 calories a day with no carbs and expect your body not to be forced to store any of that) but I don't think your body will respond exactly the same way each time to the same amount of calories.

I've been gaining weight recently eating less than 2000 calories a day (all low-carb). So I'd be willing to bet my thigh fat, and raise it a couple of pounds of butt fat, that calories matter. If I ate 3500 calories, with my luck, I'd gain 3 pounds. Sometimes I wonder if that "1 pound of fat = 3500 extra calories" is right, for me it seems like 300 extra calories = 1 pound of fat.

I'm kind of late coming into this discussion, but I did read the whole thread. Very interesting. As for the above comment, don't you think that's kind of rude?

As far as the rest of the thread is concerned, I believe that calories do matter to an extent. It's just a matter of finding your own individual amount, as opposed to going by a very generic formula like 10X or 12X. I like the Harris-Benedict formula, it is very accurate!

Since this is a very long thread, this may have already been covered, but here is my 2 cents worth. I wouldn't say that calories don't matter, but all calories are not created equal. I believe low carb allows many people to consume more calories and still lose or maintain weight. Carbohydrates have one function: to provide energy for the body. Nothing more. However, although our bodies do get energy from fat and protien, fat and protien have other functions in our bodies as well, such as building and repairing muscle tissure, cell membranes, etc. So, some of the potential energy gets diverted away for other purposes.