Have you ever heard of this formula?

Options
Shells918
Shells918 Posts: 1,070 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I just got the Les Mills Body Combat workout program. They have an eating program that I won't be following but what I found interesting was their concept of how to find your calorie goal.
It says:
lhhltac7qa3k.jpeg
That would put me at over 2000 calories for weight loss!!! Seems somewhat high when every other formula has me between 1200-1300
They aren't taking height into consideration, I guess they're assuming you're going to be working out a lot. Just seemed very strange to me.

Replies

  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    Options
    That formula gives me maintenance calories.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Options
    I've seen it before. I find it overly simplistic and personally wouldn't use it. It would get me into a deficit, but only by about 150 calories based on my observed maintenance.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    Options
    This formula puts me right at maintenance (we bit under).

    Ditch the formula.
  • Colt1835
    Colt1835 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    I would gain a pound each week with this.

    Just subtract 500 calories a day from your maintenance to lose a pound a week or burn 500 calories a day (same thing). 1 pound = 3500 calories.
  • lauraesh0384
    lauraesh0384 Posts: 463 Member
    Options
    That sounds about right for me, but I'm also active. It gave me 1932 and I can lose weight on 2000 calories (gross, not net). I'm 5'6 161 lbs, 31 years old.
  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    Options
    That puts me at maintenance AFTER factoring in 70+minutes of cardio per day. NOPE.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    Yes, I've seen it. From Lyle McDonald:
    14-16 cal/lb for maintenance and 10-12 cal/lb for fat loss work as simple and effective starting points. Since they have to be adjsuted based on real-world changes anyhow, I don’t find that using more complicated equations adds very much unless you’re just trying to impress your clients with your math abilities.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html/

    It would work fine for me.

    148 x 12 = 1776

    Based on my past experience, I would lose around a pound a week at that level.
  • abadvat
    abadvat Posts: 1,241 Member
    Options
    old school formula when tracking, calories and IIFYM originally came out.... only thing is the multiplier is the activity level - 12 being a low / moderate activity level.
  • asjt678
    asjt678 Posts: 60 Member
    Options
    Yes, but if you are eating 2000 calories while doing his workout, you will be at deficit. The program will have you burning several hundred calories each session and you will also be adding muscle. My mfp friends post calories burned from 5-600 calories from his workouts.
  • Annahbananas
    Annahbananas Posts: 284 Member
    Options
    Lol that puts be way above the weight loss calories. Don't rely on that method!
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    The formula gave me my maintenance calories at sedentary, which is what i have mfp set to currently, but i'm still losing weight as I am definitely not sedentary.
  • Seffell
    Seffell Posts: 2,222 Member
    Options
    I would gain 2.5lbs a month using this. Puts me at 300 calories above my maintenance.
  • jkal1979
    jkal1979 Posts: 1,896 Member
    Options
    This would put me at a little over 300 above maintenance.
  • RosieRose7673
    RosieRose7673 Posts: 438 Member
    Options
    The formula puts me at ~1000 calorie deficit (130x12=1560) going by my TDEE.

    But even the instructions say that it is just a starting off point. It's all a learning curve in my experience.

Categories