Body weight X 10 as a minimum
Sabine_Stroehm
Posts: 19,263 Member
I felt bad hijacking the nice lady's thread, so I'll start my own.
It keeps being said on here that you should eat a MINIMUM of your body weight times 10 to lose weight.
Do you believe this old adage applies to everyone? Is it a better method of dieting than using BMR or other formulas, or better than elimination diets etc?
Why or why not? ALL opinions welcome.
It keeps being said on here that you should eat a MINIMUM of your body weight times 10 to lose weight.
Do you believe this old adage applies to everyone? Is it a better method of dieting than using BMR or other formulas, or better than elimination diets etc?
Why or why not? ALL opinions welcome.
0
Replies
-
I felt bad hijacking the nice lady's thread, so I'll start my own.
It keeps being said on here that you should eat a MINIMUM of your body weight times 10 to lose weight.
Do you believe this old adage applies to everyone? Is it a better method of dieting than using BMR or other formulas, or better than elimination diets etc?
Why or why not? ALL opinions welcome.
I've encountered this guideline before and it works for me as a rough rule. But because I am relatively low weight it means that the 1,200 calorie minimum that so many people keep insisting on here is too high for me. Fitbit usually suggests something in the range of 1,000 for me (I am forced to be sedentary at the moment.) After a month of so-so results I finally lowered the MFP 1,200 max to 1,100.
Obviously, people on medically supervised diets sometimes eat very few calories; even less than 1,000. Those diets are custom-tailored to provide adequate nutrition and the patients are monitored.0 -
Right, medically monitored. That is the key consideration.I felt bad hijacking the nice lady's thread, so I'll start my own.
It keeps being said on here that you should eat a MINIMUM of your body weight times 10 to lose weight.
Do you believe this old adage applies to everyone? Is it a better method of dieting than using BMR or other formulas, or better than elimination diets etc?
Why or why not? ALL opinions welcome.
I've encountered this guideline before and it works for me as a rough rule. But because I am relatively low weight it means that the 1,200 calorie minimum that so many people keep insisting on here is too high for me. Fitbit usually suggests something in the range of 1,000 for me (I am forced to be sedentary at the moment.) After a month of so-so results I finally lowered the MFP 1,200 max to 1,100.
Obviously, people on medically supervised diets sometimes eat very few calories; even less than 1,000. Those diets are custom-tailored to provide adequate nutrition and the patients are monitored.0 -
FMP recommends that I eat 1880 a day which works out to about 8X my body weight. That is to lose 1.5 lbs per week working out once a week which is about all can average right now. Over the last few weeks I have been losing about 2 lbs per week without any problems and that is with a cheat day every Saturday where I am WAY over that limit. I generally end up between 200 and 400 under what my FMP recommendation is on normal days. I hope to be able to increase the exercise frequency starting tomorrow so that will increase it.0
-
Thanks. For me (5'6" 135) body weight times 10 almost matches my BMR at 47. But not at 21. And, because I'm quite active (cardio and weights 5 days a week, AND 5+ miles of walking a day) eating 1350 calories isn't terribly realistic over time.2
-
It also depends on your age too. I'm 63 and can no longer eat all the calories I used to even though I work out every day except Sun. I've always heard that you multiply your IDEAL weight by 10. So for me that would be 1100 (I'm only 5'1"). When I started eating that amount of calories I started to lose. I was trying to do the 1200 as recommended and the scale barely moved. Even at only 1100 cal./day I've calculated that I'll only lose .9 lbs./ week. It's tough but I'm hanging in there. The weight sure goes on a lot easier than it comes off, huh?1
-
I agree, it totally depends on your age!It also depends on your age too. I'm 63 and can no longer eat all the calories I used to even though I work out every day except Sun. I've always heard that you multiply your IDEAL weight by 10. So for me that would be 1100 (I'm only 5'1"). When I started eating that amount of calories I started to lose. I was trying to do the 1200 as recommended and the scale barely moved. Even at only 1100 cal./day I've calculated that I'll only lose .9 lbs./ week. It's tough but I'm hanging in there. The weight sure goes on a lot easier than it comes off, huh?0 -
I don't think ANY estimation method applies to everyone. I've heard of people doing 7 or 8 x BW and doing just fine with no supervision, but it depends on the individual.
I think that in ANY case, TDEE estimation tools are exactly that, estimation tools. You should choose a method and roll with it and adjust based on results. That goes for any method.3 -
Thanks. For me (5'6" 135) body weight times 10 almost matches my BMR at 47. But not at 21. And, because I'm quite active (cardio and weights 5 days a week, AND 5+ miles of walking a day) eating 1350 calories isn't terribly realistic over time.
When they refer to minimum, they're referring to BMR. Try not to take it out of context. Body weight x 10 is an estimation, just like BMR is an estimation. If you don't go to extremes, they will tend to be close to the same amount. Extremes being age, body composition, and activity.
For TDEE, body weight x 14-16 is also an estimate for moderate activity. Once again, if you're not average and tend to be on the extreme side of things, using the regular equations would be a better estimate.
Most people are getting these numbers from here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/lean-mass-or-total-weight-to-set-calories.html
Just like someone else said before, these are ESTIMATES. Eat at whatever amount you choose for at least 3 weeks. After you get real-world results, adjust accordingly.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
X10 for loss would put me at ~2150. That's ~150 under my NEAT before exercise. I would gain on 14X.
MFP has me at 1800 to lose 1 lb per week.
So I vote no.0 -
*10 would have me on 2000 kcal. I’ve been eating less than 1500 for most of the last year...0
-
This content has been removed.
-
X10 for me would be about 1,950 calories. I have been losing on 1,550. I would still probably lose, but at a much slower rate.0
-
That would put me about 500cal above my TDEE and about 900-1000cal above what I’m currently eating to lose. I don’t see how that would work for me at all. I gained weight on that many calories.1
-
Eh, it's fine enough a place to start as any, if you're eliminating activity factors. All anything should ever be is just that. A place to start.
Everyone who comes on here, at least to my mind, should learn to pay attention, track what happens, and make adjustments based on real world results.4 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I felt bad hijacking the nice lady's thread, so I'll start my own.
It keeps being said on here that you should eat a MINIMUM of your body weight times 10 to lose weight.
Do you believe this old adage applies to everyone? Is it a better method of dieting than using BMR or other formulas, or better than elimination diets etc?
Why or why not? ALL opinions welcome.
I would starve to death on bodyweight x 10 as it would give me a deficit of more than 500 cals a day.1 -
Current body weight x 10 or goal weight x 10?
My current body weight x 10 for a calorie goal would not have me losing weight at all but my goal weight x 10 would.
I followed the calories MFP told me and lost weight just fine.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I felt bad hijacking the nice lady's thread, so I'll start my own.
It keeps being said on here that you should eat a MINIMUM of your body weight times 10 to lose weight.
Do you believe this old adage applies to everyone? Is it a better method of dieting than using BMR or other formulas, or better than elimination diets etc?
Why or why not? ALL opinions welcome.
I would starve to death on bodyweight x 10 as it would give me a deficit of more than 500 cals a day.
Same here I’d die, I’d be in roughly a 1600cal
Deficit and that’s with out any exercise0 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »X10 for loss would put me at ~2150. That's ~150 under my NEAT before exercise. I would gain on 14X.
MFP has me at 1800 to lose 1 lb per week.
So I vote no.
It’s a guideline. Not absolute. Works well for me. MFP’s estimate is crap, from my perspective. Puts me at 1400. F that.
Before you discount it, here’s some excellent reading on it. https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-to-estimate-maintenance-caloric-intake.html/
Same here except MFP put me at about 1600--way too low for me but 2200 (without exercise, otherwise I need more) has worked very well.
0 -
Remember that the question posed was that it should be the "minimum" someone should eat. Not necessarily the recommended amount. I think some posters are taking the answer and applying it beyond a hypothetical.
I know it wouldn't work for me either, but hypothetically, as a minimum? Sure, why not.2 -
Zombie thread2
-
-
2
-
Meh, since it's already happened...
The 10x thing at goal would put me about right if I was sedentary. At my starting weight though, no. I'd only be on maybe a 100 cal deficit.
Using 14x for maintenance puts me a bit high for sedentary, and waaaaay too low for my actual TDEE.
So, yeah, starting points...0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
LOL! I came home to a pile of notifications. For a zombie thread!4 -
I think maybe a little more. I lost weight eating like that but when I weighed 137 (at 5’5) and I was eating 1300ish or less calories I lost my period, was always cold, my skin and eyes didn’t look the same, I was constantly dizzy and light headed, moody, felt bad, I certainly wouldn’t reccomend that. I didn’t even work out back then but it took a huge toll on my health, I don’t understand why such low calorie diets are recommended for everyone. I feel like if you’re going to drop to a low calorie range you should consult your doctor or someone first based on your own needs. Everyone is different.0
-
That's about what I'm doing now: 1500 net cals at 159 (based on 7-day moving and 30 day simple averages) but I can't seem to lose a pound.
It's got me really confused because I lost 36# from 196 to 160 on 1500 to 1800 net cals before and was maintaining at 158 at 1900 to 2000 net cals for about 8 months before my weight started to creep up.
At least my weight is holding steady at 159 on 1500 cals and not increasing anymore.0 -
My goal weight is 170 for now. I'm eating 1690 calories, almost 10x my goal weight and lost 2 pounds per week so far.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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