Calorie Maintenance Confusion

lostinwebspace

For my maintenance calories...

Ok, I've worked out a few formulae that all put me around 2,000 calories for maintenance. Two thousand calories is what I hear is average (from conventional wisdom, which we all know could be faulty), and I'm so spot on average in maintenance calories it's almost textbook. But every time I read a fitness book, it recommends eating enough calories to total my body weight x 24. I'm at 148 pounds and some change, so that puts me at 3552 calories just for maintenance. What the...? Those numbers are a huge discrepancy. And it's not just one source. I've referred to several sources and the number is split almost 50-50.

All this time, I've been considering 2,000 calories as maintenance, and have lost some weight by going into a calorie deficit just like everyone, and everything has worked out fine. But I did lose some muscle--to be expected, but I'm afraid it was more than I should have, i.e. I could have probably saved some muscle while shedding the fat. But now I'm at 12% body fat, aiming for 9-10% within the next four weeks or so. So I'm almost ready to switch gears to muscle gain.

Here's my question: what calorie number is right? I'm worried that 3552 calories will put the fat back on. But when I switch from losing fat to gaining muscle, I'm also worried I won't be eating enough and will be wasting my time trying to gain muscle on not enough calories. I want to look more athletic and toned than muscular, so I don't want to pack on too much muscle once it comes to that. If it means anything, I've been hungry--sometimes voraciously--at 1750 calories (which is what I'm eating at right now to lose the last few pounds to get to my goal).

These numbers are too vastly different, so am I looking at two totally different regimens? Is 3552 for the type that wants to look like the Rock and around 2,000 (plus 15%, if I understand correctly) for those who want to reign in the muscle growth?

chimptron

I'm no expert on the formulas but it sounds to me like 24 x weight isn't the whole formula. Isn't there a height factor or some other number needed in that equation?

williams969

Here's a few online calculators that use better formulas than an arbitrary BW x some number:

http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/#results
http://exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html
http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

All of these take age, sex, weight, height, and activity level into account to give a more meaningful estimate. I'd start with these, pick a number (or an average of them). Eat at that level for 2-4 weeks, and see where you're at and reevaluate as needed.