Big favour: PLEASE work out my daily calorie allowance
Replies
-
Bypassing all the responses, has anyone told this dude to meet Scooby?
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
Yes, thanks, but Scooby gave me a totally different calorie intake of 2347! Even I know that's too high. So what is the point of any of these sites if we can't trust them? I guess I just need to pay to see a nutritionist professional then. Surely if my BMR is X and MFP is telling me to eat a lot less than X then that is dangerous and there should be safeguards in place to stop the computer giving such stooooopid advice?
Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond, but with most of you saying completely conflicting things, I'm still no clearer what my healthy daily calorie intake should be
Unfortunately, no web site can magically examine your body and tell you exactly the right answer. They are all estimates. Therefore, you have to take those estimates and experiment with what works for you. If you eat 1500 calories and are starving, then eat 1800. If you are not losing weight at 1800, then drop it to 1700. You have to experiment until you figure out what works. And you really should be shooting for 1-1.5 lbs per week unless you want to be hungry all the time. Set MFP to 1 lb per week loss (as already recommended to you). You should lose weight, especially with the exercise you do.
Thanks for advice. Trouble is I'm not a patient man, but I do have strong willpower, so ignoring hunger hasn't been a problem. My goal is to get down to my target weight as quickly (realistically) as possible, then start maintaining with higher exercise and more calories to build muscle back up. (Like Christian Bale in that film 'The Machinist' - except without his good looks, money or talent
I agree with you on trying and experimenting with what works. So I'm ignoring MFP's computer stat of 1530 and sticking with 1870, see how that goes for a few weeks.
I think that's a very realistic number to start with. I agree with you about being impatient, I'm the same way. However, I turn into a serious grump when I get hungry, so I can't agree with you on the willpower thing lol.
Don't get me wrong - it makes me a grump too being that hungry, but luckily I'm a natural moody *kitten* to start with, so no-one notices any difference 0 -
1400 is below the minimum recommended for men. That Min is at least 1800 calories a day.
recommended by whom, where. I was quoting a professional.
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/USDAFoodPatterns/EstimatedCalorieNeedsPerDayTable.pdf
If he was 4-6 years old 1400 would e great...and sorry a TV show doesn't not qualify as a "professional" in dietary needs.
I for one am definitely not going to argue with their credentials...
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ihs/people/profile/ashley.adamson
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/biomedicine/research/brc/profile/Roy.Taylor
Not sure how much more professional you could want :laugh:
I don't care what degree they have or where they went to school or where they work...if a "professional" is recommending a man eat under 1800 calories a day they are a quack...
Guess what you call a doctor who graduated last in their class....Doctor...letters behind names mean nothing if the knowledge isn't there...and if they don't stay current. All I am gonna say is...Dr. Oz...now that's a laugh...and so are these two if they recommend for a man...full grown man to eat under 1800 calories.
You didn't even look, did you?
Yah I did twice to make sure I saw what I saw...I stand by my post above.
Just as proof...the female got her RD in 1987 but how current is she?
He is in research for diabetes and does metabolic research...
both at new castle...doesn't mean squat when they are quacks who recommend under 1800 calories for a full grown man, that is deprivation of nutrion, vitamins, macros, micros and they should be ashamed of themselves.0 -
Just as proof...the female got her RD in 1987 but how current is she?
He is in research for diabetes and does metabolic research...
both at new castle...doesn't mean squat when they are quacks who recommend under 1800 calories for a full grown man, that is deprivation of nutrion, vitamins, macros, micros and they should be ashamed of themselves.
'Just as proof'? Proof of what? :huh: How current do you want her to be? She's published 10 peer-reviewed scientific articles in the last year alone.
Maybe you have misunderstood, the diet devised for that individual was never designed to be permanent - the guy was grossly overweight with 42% body fat. I think we have all agreed that the OP shouldn't try and copy it. There really is no need to resort to name calling.0 -
Just as proof...the female got her RD in 1987 but how current is she?
He is in research for diabetes and does metabolic research...
both at new castle...doesn't mean squat when they are quacks who recommend under 1800 calories for a full grown man, that is deprivation of nutrion, vitamins, macros, micros and they should be ashamed of themselves.
'Just as proof'? Proof of what? :huh: How current do you want her to be? She's published 10 peer-reviewed scientific articles in the last year alone.
Maybe you have misunderstood, the diet devised for that individual was never designed to be permanent - the guy was grossly overweight with 42% body fat. I think we have all agreed that the OP shouldn't try and copy it. There really is no need to resort to name calling.
I'm not taking sides, but as it's my thread I just wanted to say that whether it's weight-loss or astro-physics by the nature of science (to propose a theory then set about proving/disproving it) you can always find a hundred people who are qualified to say 1800 is minimum for a man, or 1400 is minimum, etc).
As I'm guessing none of us have PHDs in dieting/nutrition, then it all comes down to which theory your lifestyle makes you want to agree with. Truth doesn't come into it unfortunately, same goes for religion - but let's not get started on that! lol
0 -
Just as proof...the female got her RD in 1987 but how current is she?
He is in research for diabetes and does metabolic research...
both at new castle...doesn't mean squat when they are quacks who recommend under 1800 calories for a full grown man, that is deprivation of nutrion, vitamins, macros, micros and they should be ashamed of themselves.
'Just as proof'? Proof of what? :huh: How current do you want her to be? She's published 10 peer-reviewed scientific articles in the last year alone.
Maybe you have misunderstood, the diet devised for that individual was never designed to be permanent - the guy was grossly overweight with 42% body fat. I think we have all agreed that the OP shouldn't try and copy it. There really is no need to resort to name calling.
That I looked..you seem to be an invisible person beside me "assuming" I didn't check the links.
I don't care how the diet was advised...it was irresponsible of the doctors to do it...akin to biggest losers..esp since there are people who take it as the gospel and now think it's okay for a man to eat under 1800 calories to the point they are eating 1400 because that's what they saw on a TV show...
A responsible doctor will tell the patient that weight loss shouldn't be quick and if it is too quick they will not only lose fat but muscle as well and that it is too important to maintain your macros and nutrition even if it means the weight loss is slower.0 -
I'm not taking sides, but as it's my thread I just wanted to say that whether it's weight-loss or astro-physics by the nature of science (to propose a theory then set about proving/disproving it) you can always find a hundred people who are qualified to say 1800 is minimum for a man, or 1400 is minimum, etc).
As I'm guessing none of us have PHDs in dieting/nutrition, then it all comes down to which theory your lifestyle makes you want to agree with. Truth doesn't come into it unfortunately, same goes for religion - but let's not get started on that! lol
My apologies for hijacking...
I just hate to see bad advice given.0 -
I'm not taking sides, but as it's my thread I just wanted to say that whether it's weight-loss or astro-physics by the nature of science (to propose a theory then set about proving/disproving it) you can always find a hundred people who are qualified to say 1800 is minimum for a man, or 1400 is minimum, etc).
As I'm guessing none of us have PHDs in dieting/nutrition, then it all comes down to which theory your lifestyle makes you want to agree with. Truth doesn't come into it unfortunately, same goes for religion - but let's not get started on that! lol
My apologies for hijacking...
I just hate to see bad advice given.
No apologies needed, please. I enjoy good debate. I'm just saying you are no more right than he is, despite what you both believe. It depends which reports/scientists you choose to believe and cite. For every ten studies saying yay there'll be another ten saying nay, etc...
...And that was the point of my original question. Given my stats and measurements, what is the best calorie intake for me to lose weight fast and safe. Some have said it must be 1400 and backed it up with research, others have said as much as 2300 and backed it up with research.
I'm just a simple man looking for advice, but leave as confused as I started! (Well, maybe not AS confused, but you get my point) 0 -
'Just as proof'? Proof of what? :huh: How current do you want her to be? She's published 10 peer-reviewed scientific articles in the last year alone.
Maybe you have misunderstood, the diet devised for that individual was never designed to be permanent - the guy was grossly overweight with 42% body fat. I think we have all agreed that the OP shouldn't try and copy it. There really is no need to resort to name calling.
That I looked..you seem to be an invisible person beside me "assuming" I didn't check the links.
I don't care how the diet was advised...it was irresponsible of the doctors to do it...akin to biggest losers..esp since there are people who take it as the gospel and now think it's okay for a man to eat under 1800 calories to the point they are eating 1400 because that's what they saw on a TV show...
A responsible doctor will tell the patient that weight loss shouldn't be quick and if it is too quick they will not only lose fat but muscle as well and that it is too important to maintain your macros and nutrition even if it means the weight loss is slower.
I found it difficult to understand how you could have looked, but still called them 'quacks', hence I assumed you didn't. If she were a quack, she'd definitely be out making more money by using her credentials to sell 'magic supplements', rather than being a research academic :laugh:
That said, I do understand what you mean about other people seeing it and thinking it's ok for them to do it - and yes, it was bad advice for the person earlier in the thread to suggest it. Each case is unique and you can't use one person's plan as a blanket fits all. I would also go for something more along the lines of the scooby's calculations.
But I felt it was a bit much to take it out on the Professors themselves - they clearly have many more years experience and an immense amount of knowledge in the subject than, I would suspect, almost everybody on this site. I can't comment on whether it was irresponsible or not, because I am not a Professor of nutrition or metabolomics, nor did I examine the person involved and get to know all their stats, nor do I have the vast wealth of in depth knowledge on the human body that they do. The show could have just picked a 'celebrity nutritionist' or some such person with no real credentials (Gillian McKeith anyone?! :noway: ), but instead they went to a research institute and got the advice of actual current researchers, who have no financial motivations to try and plug a particular diet or "magic pill, which just so happens to be available from your local supermarket at £4.99" :laugh:
So, yes, I agree that it shouldn't have been suggested on this thread as a "but, but, but, THEY did it and it was ok", because it is not going to be ok for everyone, particularly when you aren't under consistent medical scrutiny. But I disagree with saying the academics are wrong - being at the forefront of researching this stuff is their life. They are the people who are developing the knowledge for the future, to be shared on internet forums like this :drinker:
And also, apologies from me for the hijack - I just thought the term 'quack' was a bit unfair when they are anything but0 -
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/, 20% deficit.0
-
Can I make a suggestion because if you want to really know what calories you need to lose a set amount of wt per week/month etc then I would do the following:
do a 1 month or 2 week base line test before you start.
Weight yourself on some accurate scales then
For 2 to 4 weeks log all your food exercises carefully with the tools on this site do not change what you eat or do any extra exercises.
Now Weight yourself again at the same time of day on the same scales wearing the same clothes.
If your weight is the same on the 2nd weighing then you have 3 choices:
1 more exercise - cardio eg running, walking etc
2 less food as for every 500 calories less per day is 3500 per week which is roughly enough to lose 1 pound fat/muscle
3 do 1 and together for a faster loss of weight until you reach your goal wt loss of 42 pounds then I would go back to your normal eating habits within reason of course but keep up the extra healthy exercise.
See how it goes and if you start putting wt on again once over then of course its common sense that you need to change something again either with your diet or exercise and there will be no excuses no because you will now be armed with what works for YOU (know thyself) 0 -
still easier to put your stats in MFP set your goal to 1lb a week, log your food accurately, log your exercise, eat back 50-75%of those calories..
no waiting, no guessing and it works.0 -
I agree with stef just keep it simple and stick to it as we all know the real key to this is consistency.
Just make a start and keep a good accurate log so if it does not work out as you wanted then you at least of a log to go back to and then you can question your choices as to why the didn't work and not keep questioning all the different ways to skin a cat.
live long and prosper mate and I do hope you start and stick to it as its in your own best interest 0 -
Can I make a suggestion because if you want to really know what calories you need to lose a set amount of wt per week/month etc then I would do the following:
do a 1 month or 2 week base line test before you start.
Weight yourself on some accurate scales then
For 2 to 4 weeks log all your food exercises carefully with the tools on this site do not change what you eat or do any extra exercises.
Now Weight yourself again at the same time of day on the same scales wearing the same clothes.
If your weight is the same on the 2nd weighing then you have 3 choices:
1 more exercise - cardio eg running, walking etc
2 less food as for every 500 calories less per day is 3500 per week which is roughly enough to lose 1 pound fat/muscle
3 do 1 and together for a faster loss of weight until you reach your goal wt loss of 42 pounds then I would go back to your normal eating habits within reason of course but keep up the extra healthy exercise.
See how it goes and if you start putting wt on again once over then of course its common sense that you need to change something again either with your diet or exercise and there will be no excuses no because you will now be armed with what works for YOU (know thyself)
Yes. That's what I was looking for. Great answer. Thanks. I will do.0 -
Oh and last thoughts you said you would like to look good in speedos are you serious mate or just kidding lol.0
-
Oh and last thoughts you said you would like to look good in speedos are you serious mate or just kidding lol.
50/50% to be honest. It's not my serious goal, but I'm 40 this year and would like to be 'buff' for once in my life before the inevitable slide down to middle-age. Either Speedos or a Mankini for comedy value - just for the classic 'Before / After' photo 0 -
Oh and last thoughts you said you would like to look good in speedos are you serious mate or just kidding lol.
50/50% to be honest. It's not my serious goal, but I'm 40 this year and would like to be 'buff' for once in my life before the inevitable slide down to middle-age. Either Speedos or a Mankini for comedy value - just for the classic 'Before / After' photo
You go...I too just recently turned 41...and I am wearing a string bikini on my island vacation in a week...first time ever in one...:drinker:
Being 40 (ish) fit and fab is the best ever..even more so than being 20(ish) cause it's expected... 0 -
I was my fittest and best looking in pair of shorts etc when I was 46 at 10% body fat 6' at 185 pounds.
I had a six pack a v shape pecs and all that goes with it then, to be honest I loved looking in the mirror, just a quick look mind but it was a great feeling and typing this its got me wondering if I can do it again at 53 lol.0 -
Oh and last thoughts you said you would like to look good in speedos are you serious mate or just kidding lol.
50/50% to be honest. It's not my serious goal, but I'm 40 this year and would like to be 'buff' for once in my life before the inevitable slide down to middle-age. Either Speedos or a Mankini for comedy value - just for the classic 'Before / After' photo
You go...I too just recently turned 41...and I am wearing a string bikini on my island vacation in a week...first time ever in one...:drinker:
Being 40 (ish) fit and fab is the best ever..even more so than being 20(ish) cause it's expected...
You go girl too. Congrats. Usually it's being 20 and no brain, or 40 and no body- you've now done it. Great mind and great body too. More power to you! Enjoy your vacation. mx0 -
I was my fittest and best looking in pair of shorts etc when I was 46 at 10% body fat 6' at 185 pounds.
I had a six pack a v shape pecs and all that goes with it then, to be honest I loved looking in the mirror, just a quick look mind but it was a great feeling and typing this its got me wondering if I can do it again at 53 lol.
If you've done it before then you can do it again. I reckon the body is like one of those 'memory foam' mattresses, same as riding a bike too. If you've done it before you never forget. Go for it!
I've never done it before though, so my body memory is set at that Stay Puft Marshmallow dude from Ghostbusters (If you over 40 you'll get the film reference) 0 -
I like the memory foam analogy lol I just thinks my mind slips back into shape and expects it to happen again some time soon but my body is like in a eating bacon butties and drinking beer memory foam heaven 0
-
Your so right about the memory foam effect on you body mate.
just do it for 6 months then you have it in the bank to use it again, the greek god body or the bacon butty dreamers boddy....lol0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions