1,500 for maintenance? Really?

124»

Replies

  • MissNations
    MissNations Posts: 513 Member
    I am eating 1650 to lose 1 lb a week. One number cannot work for EVERYbody. There's no way.
  • poppadop89
    poppadop89 Posts: 31
    "The average person will have a maintenance caloric requirement somewhere between 14 and 16 calories per pound of current bodyweight or so. If you feel that you have a slow metabolism, pick the lower value. If you feel that you have a high metabolism, pick the higher value. If you think you're in the middle, use the middle value. Women are typically at the lower end of the range and you'll have to play with the calorie levels a little bit anyhow." - Lyle McDonald

    Bodyweight x (14, 15, or 16) = Maintenance
  • tequila09
    tequila09 Posts: 764 Member
    My bmr is 1500 and I've been eating around there and I'm losing, I think that lady doesn't know what she's talking about. I wouldn't worry about it.
  • raevynn
    raevynn Posts: 666 Member
    I've been eating around 2300 calories a day for the past month, have done very little cardio (but quite a bit of strength training), and dropped several pounds.
    Clearly, 2300 isn't even enough for me to maintain. I'd starve on 1500.

    One size does not fit all.
    You I believe. Someone on TV, not so much.
  • lauehorn
    lauehorn Posts: 183
    Michelle Bridges, one of the Australian Biggest Loser trainers suggests that for women 1,500 calories is a good number for maintenence, or 1,600 for women who want to put on weight.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V--HyBw07M&sns=em

    (hope that works)

    This freaks me out because I've just upped my calories to 1700, based on my BMR.

    I'm calling BS. My BMR alone is over 1500 cals and maintenance at my current and goal weight are above 1800. Is she even a qualified nutritionist? Doubtful.
  • lauehorn
    lauehorn Posts: 183
    it really depends on your weight what maintanance is. If you rbody is using more energy, maintaining more weight then it's going to be a higher number. Smaller people need less food to maintain a smaller weight, and if they're maintaining a larger weight they'll need more energy input because their body uses more calories just staying alive.

    Yes, but it's not as much more as you think. My delta is only 40 cals from CW to GW with a loss of 30lbs.
  • lauehorn
    lauehorn Posts: 183
    I was told... take your goal weight..... so mine is 128lbs..... and add a 0 to it..... so my intake should be 1280 cal a day. That's what I SHOULD be using to reach my GW. Problem is here has a different idea.... 1430??? but that could be smaller GW to take it down a little at a time.

    So if Michelle wants ppl to weigh 150lbs by station 1500 cal is maintain then that's not so good cause if you are short, that means you are overweight still :(

    That sounds totally off-base and unfounded. I would be starving if I followed that method. It doesn't take into account height, activity level, bone structure, % body fat, and so many other factors. Don't follow that.
  • nz_deevaa
    nz_deevaa Posts: 12,209 Member
    Absolutely false and she should be publicly flogged for such a generalized statement. A 35 year old woman who weighs 150# and is 5'6" and gets absolutely no exercise has a Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) of 1743.84 calories per day. A 45 year old active woman (works out 3-5 days a week) who has the same measurements would have a Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) of 2179.61 calories per day. There is no "blanket" solution, and it is irresponsible for such a public figure to say that.

    That's why I posted it here. For public flogging. :)

    I also agree it's irresponsible for a public figure (who many people will blindly follow) to make such a blanket sweeping statement.

    I ALSO think it's wrong that people blindly follow 'celebrities' but that's a completely different argument.

    I got some advice on the forums this week about BMR, and based on that advice I'm moving my weight loss calories up to my current BMR (1700), doing it for a month and then re-evaluating. If I need to adjust my numbers up or down I will. There isn't any point only doing it for a week or even two, you have to give your body time ... I think that's good advice.
  • littleredfairy
    littleredfairy Posts: 6
    but for the last two days you have eaten just 800 calories, isn't that dangerous?
  • lauehorn
    lauehorn Posts: 183
    My BMR is 1,550 apparently... I don't see how it's accurate, though, as it surely doesn't take into account activity levels etc? Or muscle... Cause if you have more muscle, it takes more calories to maintain etc, right? Hmm... Having said that, I don't agree with the BMI malarkey either.

    You are correct, all BMR calculators are based on formulas derived from studies on participants at HEALTHY weight, already.
    Extrapolated from there for other weights.

    The real healthy BMR for overweight or very muscular are actually HIGHER than the calc estimates.

    So yes, your healthy potential BMR is probably higher than 1550.

    BMR has nothing to do with activity level, as that is the energy your body uses dealing with all the cells, feeding them and dealing with fluid movement. It is energy required to be brought in, otherwise we would have a little perpetual motion machine in our systems, and that is not possible.

    But your metabolism, whether burning at full steam, or suppressed because of underfeeding, is also the basis for all other activity calories - daily end exercise.

    If you have suppressed your metabolism 25% (BMR could be 1600, you net at 1200), now your daily activity calories actually use 25% less (could be 320, now at 240), your exercise calories are less (could be 500, now 375).
    And not surprising, your deficit that on paper could be 720 (1920-1200) is now in reality 240 (1440-1200).

    No wonder weight loss slows when you slow your metabolism!

    Throw exercise in there, and don't feed your workouts, now how low is your true BMR?

    This response, all the way.
  • nz_deevaa
    nz_deevaa Posts: 12,209 Member
    but for the last two days you have eaten just 800 calories, isn't that dangerous?

    who are you talking too?
  • 70davis
    70davis Posts: 348 Member
    bump
  • Oishii
    Oishii Posts: 2,675 Member
    Bother! And I thought she'd have some magical reason why I should be able to survive on that little, but nope, just a celebrity spouting nonsense as per usual...

    I would rather like to be able to eat like a sparrow and maintain, but I lose on 2000 :sad: and need in the mid 2000s to maintain (5'4", 125 lb)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories