1300 or 1600 calories?

Wow, I'm still confused but this thread is awesome! I'm a 230 lb man (was 248 6 weeks ago) and I had my RMR calculated at 1550. My doctor told me to take 20% off that number and stick to it. He said that my RMR would go down as I lost weight so for every 10lbs I lose, my RMR would go down by 7-8%.roughly, lowering the calories I should be eating as I lose weight. I'm exercising daily with a minimum of a 4-5 mile walk and a max of circuit training/weight lifting and cardio (3 days week) I'm still eating between 1250 and 1300 calories daily, but the folks at my gym tell me I should be eating at least 1400. I'm losing weight but I've screwed my metabolism so many times I don't want to do it again. From what I'm reading here, I might just be doing that by eating too little. I've lowered my RMR number to 1450 but still eating 1300 calories a day. Exercising at least 300 and sometimes 900 calories + per day.

Any thoughts. How high do you think I can go and still lose 1 to 1.5 lbs a week?

I talked to a nutritionist today. Rather than use the TDEE/BMR and have to recalculate all the time...use this formula. it will be slower going but easier to maintain in the long run.

Take your GOAL weight and convert to kg (divide by 2.2). Multply that number by 25-30...thats the amount of calories needed to maintain your GOAL weight. That way, once you get there, you have already developed the eating and exercise habits necessariy to maintain that weight.

This makes more sense numberwise I think. Did the nutitionist say to eat exercise calories back?

Eating them back is not necessary. The 25-30 range for multiplying is so you can figure out what works for your body, and i think the same probably applies to the exercise cals. For me, I use the 25 multiplier because I have issues keeping weight down bc of hormonal b.c. I think once I get to my maintenance level I will eat back at least some exercise calories.

(120/2.2)*25=1365 and holy mother is this ever wrong. Even at the highest number it's wrong, I was eating much more then that, weighing my food, and losing weight. Also, the other equations have some scientific standing....Nutritionalists, I hold little value to what they say, same goes for personal trainers. I've met only dense ones. If you want to talk to someone with qualifications, talk to a dietitian:

"In most US states, parts of Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, the term nutritionist is not legally protected, whereas the title of dietitian can be used only by those who have met specified professional requirements" - wikipedia

She is a licensed dietitian as well. its just easier to type one rather than both. Also...quoting wikipedia to doubt the validity of another source?? Pot, meet Kettle :P

Please don't listen to the ignorant and do a little research. I have known many people who jump on the high deficit bandwagon to regret it later for many different it-did-not-benefit-them-but-hurt-them reasons. Just know it's easy to get past stalls on a smaller deficit, you'll be able to get more nutrients from food on a calorie deficit, you'll be able to keep your energy expenditure higher then on a smaller deficit (which you can look up on google scholar if you don't believe me) so in turn your metabolism well be higher. It's absolutely true that your metabolism will get slower faster on a higher deficit...I just don't see the point why you should be eating less rabit food compared to someone who is half your size...when you could be eating the exact same thing and be headed to the exact same place...weight loss. The low calorie diets are known to drop initial water weight fast and then come to a halt, mainly because of depleting glycogen stores...the stuff that flows around your body repairing organs and muscles. It's just not worth it if you ask me.

With that said there are those who have reasons to go on extremely high calorie deficits under the supervision of a doctor...I would imagine you do not fall into this category even if you are overweight. I've seen many larger then you get oodles smaller without eating less then my dog.

My sedentary TDEE minus 20% is 1600, and that's what I've been advised to eat by Helloitsdan, the original poster of the road map.. But when world famous personal trainers such as Jillian Michaels advise to create a 1000 cal deficit and say that 1200-1400 calories is okay, it just gets really confusing.

Ultimately all I want is to lose body fat & inches. I've gone from having a 27inch waist only 14 months ago to now having a 40inch waist. I want to fit back into my size 8 clothes again and have very low body fat to being 80lbs overweight.. and I know it's not a face but I'd really like to be back in my size 8's by summer!

If your BMR is 2300 like you said...your TDEE is AT LEAST 2300*1.2=2760 if you are sedentary and you exercise never...and 20% of 2760 is much much much much much higher then 1600. If those numbers are correct, take it from the girl with the 25 inch waist, you can eat much more then 1600.

I talked to a nutritionist today. Rather than use the TDEE/BMR and have to recalculate all the time...use this formula. it will be slower going but easier to maintain in the long run.

Take your GOAL weight and convert to kg (divide by 2.2). Multply that number by 25-30...thats the amount of calories needed to maintain your GOAL weight. That way, once you get there, you have already developed the eating and exercise habits necessariy to maintain that weight.

This makes more sense numberwise I think. Did the nutitionist say to eat exercise calories back?

Eating them back is not necessary. The 25-30 range for multiplying is so you can figure out what works for your body, and i think the same probably applies to the exercise cals. For me, I use the 25 multiplier because I have issues keeping weight down bc of hormonal b.c. I think once I get to my maintenance level I will eat back at least some exercise calories.

(120/2.2)*25=1365 and holy mother is this ever wrong. Even at the highest number it's wrong, I was eating much more then that, weighing my food, and losing weight. Also, the other equations have some scientific standing....Nutritionalists, I hold little value to what they say, same goes for personal trainers. I've met only dense ones. If you want to talk to someone with qualifications, talk to a dietitian:

"In most US states, parts of Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, the term nutritionist is not legally protected, whereas the title of dietitian can be used only by those who have met specified professional requirements" - wikipedia

She is a licensed dietitian as well. its just easier to type one rather than both. Also...quoting wikipedia to doubt the validity of another source?? Pot, meet Kettle :P

I know right? But I'm not doing all kinds of research to please you, anyone with a google search engine even if they lacked a brain could look it up. And usually one would type the best qualification, not the worse.

Honestly I didnt KNOW one was worse than the other. But she rolled her eyes when i showed this to her and she pulled out the license, so from now on to please people like YOU i will type dietitian instead of nutritionist

I talked to a nutritionist today. Rather than use the TDEE/BMR and have to recalculate all the time...use this formula. it will be slower going but easier to maintain in the long run.

Take your GOAL weight and convert to kg (divide by 2.2). Multply that number by 25-30...thats the amount of calories needed to maintain your GOAL weight. That way, once you get there, you have already developed the eating and exercise habits necessariy to maintain that weight.

This makes more sense numberwise I think. Did the nutitionist say to eat exercise calories back?

Eating them back is not necessary. The 25-30 range for multiplying is so you can figure out what works for your body, and i think the same probably applies to the exercise cals. For me, I use the 25 multiplier because I have issues keeping weight down bc of hormonal b.c. I think once I get to my maintenance level I will eat back at least some exercise calories.

(120/2.2)*25=1365 and holy mother is this ever wrong. Even at the highest number it's wrong, I was eating much more then that, weighing my food, and losing weight. Also, the other equations have some scientific standing....Nutritionalists, I hold little value to what they say, same goes for personal trainers. I've met only dense ones. If you want to talk to someone with qualifications, talk to a dietitian:

"In most US states, parts of Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, the term nutritionist is not legally protected, whereas the title of dietitian can be used only by those who have met specified professional requirements" - wikipedia

She is a licensed dietitian as well. its just easier to type one rather than both. Also...quoting wikipedia to doubt the validity of another source?? Pot, meet Kettle :P

I know right? But I'm not doing all kinds of research to please you, anyone with a google search engine even if they lacked a brain could look it up. And usually one would type the best qualification, not the worse.

Honestly I didnt KNOW one was worse than the other. But she rolled her eyes when i showed this to her and she pulled out the license, so from now on to please people like YOU i will type dietitian instead of nutritionist

I apologize if I sounded rude, but when someone pulls math that is different from the math from every other scientific resource I've ever seen used, I doubt them. Since you and a nutritionalist+dietition are sitting around on a computer on mfp, could you point me in the right direction of where I can see that math that proves those are the maintenance calories, and for who (people/dogs/etc)? Because I can maintain on almost double the numbers you listed that I would maintain on, which doesn't make much sense now does it.

And I don't want you to please me, I just question when things are different from everything else.

EMWL says eat more to weigh less

I have been confused about this too. I just went out to the internet as suggested and calculated my TDEE and BMR. My BMR was 1794 and my TDEE was 1787, now I am very confused. 51 yr old female, 5'4", 179#, desk job.

Wow, I'm still confused but this thread is awesome! I'm a 230 lb man (was 248 6 weeks ago) and I had my RMR calculated at 1550. My doctor told me to take 20% off that number and stick to it. He said that my RMR would go down as I lost weight so for every 10lbs I lose, my RMR would go down by 7-8%.roughly, lowering the calories I should be eating as I lose weight. I'm exercising daily with a minimum of a 4-5 mile walk and a max of circuit training/weight lifting and cardio (3 days week) I'm still eating between 1250 and 1300 calories daily, but the folks at my gym tell me I should be eating at least 1400. I'm losing weight but I've screwed my metabolism so many times I don't want to do it again. From what I'm reading here, I might just be doing that by eating too little. I've lowered my RMR number to 1450 but still eating 1300 calories a day. Exercising at least 300 and sometimes 900 calories + per day.

Any thoughts. How high do you think I can go and still lose 1 to 1.5 lbs a week?

It's impossible to give one number where you'll lose exactly 1-1.5 lbs every week. Weight loss isn't linear. If you a healthy person, you well fluctuate in weight, and that's healthy. Normal temporary weight flux will happen (unrelated to gaining fat or muscle) if you keep a close eye on the scales. The more you lose, the harder it will be to lose that 1-1.5 lbs a week, but erickirb's recommendation is a good one. After your body gets use to it and you can predict your loses better, you can adjust it from there.

[
I apologize if I sounded rude, but when someone pulls math that is different from the math from every other scientific resource I've ever seen used, I doubt them. Since you and a nutritionalist+dietition are sitting around on a computer on mfp, could you point me in the right direction of where I can see that math that proves those are the maintenance calories, and for who (people/dogs/etc)?

And I don't want you to please me, I just question when things are different from everything else.
[/quote]

This is the last post I will reply to you, as I was trying to help the OP, not devolve into a MY MATH IS > YOUR MATH match. She can choose to follow your advice, or mine, or Joe Blow from down the street. IT doesnt matter and it doesnt change my method, or yours.

You dont want to be rude, but question if my calorie source is even for a human? wow. And for the record, we are online because our resource at work is down and are currently unable to work. NOT that its any of your business.

And you cant even BEGIN to tell me all your scientific sources are the same. Every source is different! Not every scientist ever subscribes to TDEE - 20%! I never even HEARD of it until i came to here.

For the record, she showed me the document containing this equation that the hospitals use. I took the liberty of copying the Citation list from it. obviously its for the ill and nurses, because its used in a hospital.

References
1. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Vol. 33. No. 3. May/June, 2009. pp. 277-316.
2. Nutrition in the Intensive Care Unit. Section XVII. Chapter 69. pp. 467-477.
3. Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines and Critical Care Nurses’ Knowledge of Enteral Feeding. Critical Care Nurse. Vol. 27. No. 4, August, 2007. pp. 17-29.
4. Nutritional Assessment in Critically Ill Patients. www.surgicalcriticalcare.net.

This is the last post I will reply to you, as I was trying to help the OP, not devolve into a MY MATH IS > YOUR MATH match. She can choose to follow your advice, or mine, or Joe Blow from down the street. IT doesnt matter and it doesnt change my method, or yours.

You dont want to be rude, but question if my calorie source is even for a human? wow. And for the record, we are online because our resource at work is down and are currently unable to work. NOT that its any of your business.

And you cant even BEGIN to tell me all your scientific sources are the same. Every source is different! Not every scientist ever subscribes to TDEE - 20%! I never even HEARD of it until i came to here.

For the record, she showed me the document containing this equation that the hospitals use. I took the liberty of copying the Citation list from it. obviously its for the ill and nurses, because its used in a hospital.

References
1. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Vol. 33. No. 3. May/June, 2009. pp. 277-316.
2. Nutrition in the Intensive Care Unit. Section XVII. Chapter 69. pp. 467-477.
3. Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines and Critical Care Nurses’ Knowledge of Enteral Feeding. Critical Care Nurse. Vol. 27. No. 4, August, 2007. pp. 17-29.
4. Nutritional Assessment in Critically Ill Patients. www.surgicalcriticalcare.net.

I'm not going to respond to half of that because I don't want to fight. And I didn't say I used TDEE-20%, I'm saying that your math is not a goal TDEE like you said it was. And yes, in general, most scientists refer to TDEE =BMR+EAT+NEAT+TEF. You're basically saying my TDEE=BMR-some number. That's why I'm confused. And those references don't exactly help me right now since I can't check any of them...surely something exists on the internet that shows that's a goal TDEE like you said....I'm not telling you to look for it for me, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I like this one:

http://thefitgirls.com/tdee-calculator.aspx

I talked to a nutritionist today. Rather than use the TDEE/BMR and have to recalculate all the time...use this formula. it will be slower going but easier to maintain in the long run.

Take your GOAL weight and convert to kg (divide by 2.2). Multply that number by 25-30...thats the amount of calories needed to maintain your GOAL weight. That way, once you get there, you have already developed the eating and exercise habits necessariy to maintain that weight.

But it doesn't take body fat percentage into consideration whatsoever, or height, or age, or sex or anything, I would think that is the least accurate calculation possible.

Just picking a goal weight doesn't tell you how many calories you should eat. That makes absolutely no sense.
Not everybody who weighs or wants to weight 150 lbs needs to eat the same number of calories to maintain that weight.

I like this one:

http://thefitgirls.com/tdee-calculator.aspx

This has my body fat percent too low I wish it was what it says so my BMR is too high off by almost 200 calories.
All of these are questimates and we need to use trial and error or pay mega dollars to get the accurate number.

I seem to be getting multiple friend requests from this thread, so if you want to join the boat, I have some free time on Friday. Just give me a message with your questions and I'll try to either direct you to information or mass explain it to everyone.

I like this one:

http://thefitgirls.com/tdee-calculator.aspx

This has my body fat percent too low I wish it was what it says so my BMR is too high off by almost 200 calories.
All of these are questimates and we need to use trial and error or pay mega dollars to get the accurate number.

I agree, they are all just guestimates. Thanks for the feedback on how your numbers figured after you tried it, I've always wondered how it worked for others.