New Rules of Lifting For Women (NROL4W)

Join

Nrolfw calories accurate or not?

JessLLoser
JessLLoser Posts: 235 Member
edited December 19 in Social Groups
Hi everyone in the group using the nrolfw book, did you get your calories from there?

I ask because it shocked me last night.

It says my RMR will be about the same as a 5'4" woman.

What I mean is in the calculation there is no differentialtion for height.
Then you go through the multipliers and height comes into play for your BMI.

Turns out, because I am older, 37 I should be eating less than a 5'4" woman.

I am 5'9".
Other online calculators set my RMR at about 1680. Fat2Fit or Scooby`s. and others.

Nrowlfw says my non workout days should be 1668 or less than my RMR for other sites. Am I missing something here? Is my book messed up?
Anyone try this themselves?

I know they are not perfectly accurate but this might be a big detractor for taller women. Maybe the calorie science in this book isn`t up to snuff?

I like the workouts but this really threw me for a loop!

Replies

  • Cait_Sidhe
    Cait_Sidhe Posts: 3,150 Member
    I dunno really. I take it with a grain of salt. It tells me my BMR/RMR and TDEE is lower than MFP and fat2fitradio.com calculate it as. So I feel a little shortchanged.
  • silvernswan
    silvernswan Posts: 28 Member
    I don't have the book to hand to check their formula. I am 5'10, and wasn't particularly impressed with the values as calculated from the book either. My main issue though, is that at 35, by the way the set up their calculations I suddenly need a whole lot less calories than last year when I was 34! I understand having an arbitrary cutoff point, I just don't like being on it.

    So simple answer, NO, I did not use the book to calculate my requirements. I think I used the BMR equation and harris benedict and compared also with MFP.
  • JessLLoser
    JessLLoser Posts: 235 Member
    So as always the experts don`t have everything figured out. The workouts seem great. They should really edit that part and tell us older ladies, ha ha, not really, to go calculate it online. The BMI chart is quite outdated too.

    Some women could seriously be undereating if they take this advice.
  • ruststar
    ruststar Posts: 489 Member
    I regarded the NROLFW numbers with the same skepticism as any formula. The book and MFP both put my RMR at 1430 - at 195 pounds and 5'5". Yeah, right. I just had my body fat tested in one of those hydrostatic tanks, and my RMR is actually 1791. Almost 400 calories off. When the formulas don't work off all the information they're going to be just ballpark guesses.
  • DrG3n3
    DrG3n3 Posts: 467 Member
    I think a big take home message from the book, or at least for me, was to try something for 4 weeks and see how I feel and how my body feels. I upped my cals from 1420 to 1600 (since my BMR seems to be around 1540) and so far, almost 4 weeks in, I feel pretty rad. Now, by no means does that mean to eat a really low number (though I'd hope you'd see it wasn't working soon enough so you don't hurt yourself) but for me, it was all a "try this and see if it works for ME" thing. At 1420 I was always hungry and always tired. So upping it worked out thus far. I'm not a pro, and still learning a lot, but I don't think ANYONE has it down to an exact science. It's all an estimation game.
  • JessLLoser
    JessLLoser Posts: 235 Member
    I regarded the NROLFW numbers with the same skepticism as any formula. The book and MFP both put my RMR at 1430 - at 195 pounds and 5'5". Yeah, right. I just had my body fat tested in one of those hydrostatic tanks, and my RMR is actually 1791. Almost 400 calories off. When the formulas don't work off all the information they're going to be just ballpark guesses.

    I honestly think that everyone on here is burning at least 500 cal more than MFP says they are. Who counts all that walking around you do in a day on your exercise?

    I think so many are undereating and platueauing because of this.
  • almc170
    almc170 Posts: 1,093 Member
    Hi everyone in the group using the nrolfw book, did you get your calories from there?

    I ask because it shocked me last night.

    It says my RMR will be about the same as a 5'4" woman.

    What I mean is in the calculation there is no differentialtion for height.
    Then you go through the multipliers and height comes into play for your BMI.

    Turns out, because I am older, 37 I should be eating less than a 5'4" woman.

    I am 5'9".
    Other online calculators set my RMR at about 1680. Fat2Fit or Scooby`s. and others.

    Nrowlfw says my non workout days should be 1668 or less than my RMR for other sites. Am I missing something here? Is my book messed up?
    Anyone try this themselves?

    I know they are not perfectly accurate but this might be a big detractor for taller women. Maybe the calorie science in this book isn`t up to snuff?

    I like the workouts but this really threw me for a loop!
    Yeah, I had pretty much the same experience. I'm 42, 5'9", 170 (BMI=25.1). Using NROL4W's formula, my RMR is 1350 and maintenance would only be 1900. However, I've been maintaining at 2300 for the last 2 months after losing 17lbs at 1800-1900. To get anything approaching my real numbers, I had to tweak the NROL4W formula by adjusting my age to 32 and my weight to 169 (BMI=24.9).

    Bottom line, for someone under 35, with a BMI lower than 25, and of average height, the formula might be reasonably accurate. Otherwise, I'd seriously question it.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories