Insanity says how many calories I should eat ?!?!?!!!!??!?
Options
UK1993
Posts: 4 Member
I really, really, REALLY need some help here. So I have decided to take the 60 Day Insanity challenge tomorrow. While going over the elite nutrition guide I used the calorie intake equation and it says in order to lose weight I would have to consume 3,332 calories per day minus a 500 caloric deficit. I'm also 230 pounds, male and 6 "2. Even with the deficit I'm looking at 2,832 calories per day with a minimum of 2,332 calories. Would I really lose weight consuming between 2.3k-2.8k calories per day? Would it be wise going lower than that? Let's say.....1500 to maybe 1900? or 2000 calories?
0
Replies
-
Are you sure that is your BMR and not your TDEE?
For a person of your size and age, It fits pretty well if it includes a lot of exercise (6-7 days a week).
In any case, you are looking at a BMR of around 2100-2200 calories. And whatever you do, you NEVER wan't to go below that. NEVER.0 -
I'm curious, what's so bad about eating below your BMR?0
-
Mycophilia wrote: »I'm curious, what's so bad about eating below your BMR?
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is what your body needs to survive WITHOUT any physical activity. It is pretty much the bare minimum if you were in a coma.
Eating below that is literally the same as killing yourself. It may be slower than a shotgun to the face, but just as effective.0 -
I'm also 230 pounds, male and 6 "2
Would I really lose weight consuming between 2.3k-2.8k calories per day? Would it be wise going lower than that? Let's say.....1500 to maybe 1900? or 2000 calories?
The short answer is yes you probably would. I'm an inch shorter than you, weigh ~70lbs less than you and my maintenance is 2,850 plus exercise burns. It makes sense for you to be able to lose weight on what my maintenance is, definitely. The best way you can do it, though, is to try something for 6 weeks consistently and monitor results. Adjust up or down as needed.
Why would you want to eat less than that? Surely it's best to lose weight and maximise the amount of food you get
0 -
squirrelone wrote: »Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is what your body needs to survive WITHOUT any physical activity. It is pretty much the bare minimum if you were in a coma.
Eating below that is literally the same as killing yourself. It may be slower than a shotgun to the face, but just as effective.
Okay, it's not quite that extreme. It's unadvisable for most people to eat below their BMR, yes. But someone at 230lbs will have fat reserves their body can use during times of reduced intake. It's not quite the same as someone at 130lbs eating below their BMR, which is dangerous to do for any length of time. Basically -- to the OP -- it won't kill you to go below your BMR, but there's no need to unless you're feeling unwell or anything. Like I said,
eat as much as you can while still losing. That's a win in my book!
0 -
GertrudeHorse wrote: »squirrelone wrote: »Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is what your body needs to survive WITHOUT any physical activity. It is pretty much the bare minimum if you were in a coma.
Eating below that is literally the same as killing yourself. It may be slower than a shotgun to the face, but just as effective.
Okay, it's not quite that extreme. It's unadvisable for most people to eat below their BMR, yes. But someone at 230lbs will have fat reserves their body can use during times of reduced intake. It's not quite the same as someone at 130lbs eating below their BMR, which is dangerous to do for any length of time. Basically -- to the OP -- it won't kill you to go below your BMR, but there's no need to unless you're feeling unwell or anything. Like I said,
eat as much as you can while still losing. That's a win in my book!
What they said! Eat all the foods!
0 -
GertrudeHorse wrote: »Okay, it's not quite that extreme. It's unadvisable for most people to eat below their BMR, yes. But someone at 230lbs will have fat reserves their body can use during times of reduced intake. It's not quite the same as someone at 130lbs eating below their BMR, which is dangerous to do for any length of time.
It is actually exactly the same, regardless of weight. The more you start out with, the longer it will take. But the end result is the same.
There should never be any of this vague "it won't kill you in the short run" nonsense. This is a black and white issue. It is never advisable to eat below ones BMR for any period of time. It has zero benefits and is actively harmful.
0 -
EAT THE FOOD!!!!!!!!!!
When I started I weighed 220 @ 5'6" and my TDEE minus 20% was 2100 calories.
I lost 1.5 lbs a week eating 2100 calories a day The lowest I ever got before hitting goal was 1650. Now I eat between 1800-2000 to maintain 0 -
I don't trust Beachbody's nutrition recommendations one bit, especially as you have no idea how challenging Insanity will be for you. I'd go to http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/, enter your info, use the moderately active setting, and a 20% deficit.
But yes, 2300+ seems about right.
0 -
squirrelone wrote: »Are you sure that is your BMR and not your TDEE?
For a person of your size and age, It fits pretty well if it includes a lot of exercise (6-7 days a week).
In any case, you are looking at a BMR of around 2100-2200 calories. And whatever you do, you NEVER wan't to go below that. NEVER.
I did the Benedict HARRIS formula that was inside of the Insanity nutritional guide. I put in the stats, did the calculations and came up with 3k cals minus 500 or 1000 to come up with a 2.3-2.8 daily caloric intake. I just don't want to gain weight eating all of this food. That's my biggest concern. Plus I completed 32 minutes of Insanity today without stopping :-) Oh and I've been drinking a lot of water today as well.
0 -
squirrelone wrote: »GertrudeHorse wrote: »Okay, it's not quite that extreme. It's unadvisable for most people to eat below their BMR, yes. But someone at 230lbs will have fat reserves their body can use during times of reduced intake. It's not quite the same as someone at 130lbs eating below their BMR, which is dangerous to do for any length of time.
It is actually exactly the same, regardless of weight. The more you start out with, the longer it will take. But the end result is the same.
There should never be any of this vague "it won't kill you in the short run" nonsense. This is a black and white issue. It is never advisable to eat below ones BMR for any period of time. It has zero benefits and is actively harmful.
You do know people fast, right? Its actually been proven to be healthy to eat less because your body repairs cell damage rather than replace it, which has helped longevity and the problem with chromosones getting shorter each time, which eventually equals into problems like cancer.-1 -
Mycophilia wrote: »I'm curious, what's so bad about eating below your BMR?
Eating below your BMR and talking about it on the forum will get a lot of people replying that it will kill you or something, though I doubt they'll present any evidence for that.-1 -
Eating below your BMR and talking about it on the forum will get a lot of people replying that it will kill you or something, though I doubt they'll present any evidence for that.
So your claim is that consistently eating less than the body needs to survive without any physical activity, is not going to eventually starve you to death?
What you are claiming is like saying that a car that has a 200 mile range on one tank of fuel, can do that trip on less fuel every day.
Short term fasting is not going to do any harm. But eating less than your body needs to maintain basic functions like breathing, is not sustainable.
Is it going to kill you tomorrow? nope. In a month? Probably not. But at some point it will and until then you are severely straining your body. To start with, we are talking muscle loss. Long term? Take a guess. The body WILL find it's energy somewhere.0 -
I really, really, REALLY need some help here. So I have decided to take the 60 Day Insanity challenge tomorrow. While going over the elite nutrition guide I used the calorie intake equation and it says in order to lose weight I would have to consume 3,332 calories per day minus a 500 caloric deficit. I'm also 230 pounds, male and 6 "2. Even with the deficit I'm looking at 2,832 calories per day with a minimum of 2,332 calories. Would I really lose weight consuming between 2.3k-2.8k calories per day? Would it be wise going lower than that? Let's say.....1500 to maybe 1900? or 2000 calories?
I bet you could lose on that amount.
My average intake generally lands between 1800 and 2000 to lose weight. I'm 5'4.5", about 169lbs currently and female. So no, I don't think that while doing insanity you should be eating the same calorie range as me. I'm not doing insanity, but I do workout approx 6hrs a week.
0 -
This is really confusing, lol. To eat below my range or not eat below my range haha0
-
I'll go ahead and run with the recommended 2300kcal requirement as set out. If there's any adjustments I need to make, I will do so as time goes on.0
-
squirrelone wrote: »Mycophilia wrote: »I'm curious, what's so bad about eating below your BMR?
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is what your body needs to survive WITHOUT any physical activity. It is pretty much the bare minimum if you were in a coma.
Eating below that is literally the same as killing yourself. It may be slower than a shotgun to the face, but just as effective.
Someone needs to settle down.
-1 -
squirrelone wrote: »GertrudeHorse wrote: »Okay, it's not quite that extreme. It's unadvisable for most people to eat below their BMR, yes. But someone at 230lbs will have fat reserves their body can use during times of reduced intake. It's not quite the same as someone at 130lbs eating below their BMR, which is dangerous to do for any length of time.
It is actually exactly the same, regardless of weight. The more you start out with, the longer it will take. But the end result is the same.
There should never be any of this vague "it won't kill you in the short run" nonsense. This is a black and white issue. It is never advisable to eat below ones BMR for any period of time. It has zero benefits and is actively harmful.
Yes, but we weren't talking about eating below BMR forever or even for any length of time. Your first comment was implying if you do it for even one day you will drop dead, which is blatantly OTT. You have now added in all these disclaimers like "for any period of time" which is all I was trying to add to your original comment - so we agree. As you will see I was also trying to encourage the OP to eat as much as possible while still losing weight. However, your first comment was unnecessarily alarmist so I was countering that with some facts. Anyway, thanks for this scintillating discussion.-1 -
-
[quote="selfepidemic1
You do know people fast, right? Its actually been proven to be healthy to eat less because your body repairs cell damage rather than replace it, which has helped longevity and the problem with chromosones getting shorter each time, which eventually equals into problems like cancer.[/quote]
What are you saying? Fasting prevents cancer? And stops your chromosomes getting shorter? I am confuse. Also "fasting" is a vague term; denying yourself food can cause significant damage to your body. It is dangerous to make comments like yours.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions