Guest guest Posted February 7, 2004 Report Share Posted February 7, 2004 Hi folks: Here is a thought - and, possibly, a question. I was just reviewing Fitday's calculations, based on my personal data (gender, height, age and 'lifestyle') of my daily caloric expenditure. Fitday tells me that I am burning off 2656 calories a day plus whatever I expend in the way of 'extra-curricular' exercise activities. When I measured what I was actually consuming for a two week period recently, I found I was averaging about 1750 calories daily, and didn't experience much in the way of hunger. In most of the CR experiments that have been successfully concluded to date the degree of restriction averaged around 35%. If I calculate 35% restriction based on my recent consumption of 1750 calories, the number is 1138 calories a day, which pretty much everyone, including me, seems to agree would be dangerous. But if I calculate 35% restriction from Fitday's base number (with a couple of one mile jogs a week added) the number I get is 1745!!! That is remarkable, because that seems to be what I am ad libbing currently. One could make the argument, based on Fitday's base number, that I am already at 35% restriction. If so, then I have been for years. But my current BF% measured more than one way comes out around 21.5% - not exactly a CR number. Most people who look at me think I am neither slim nor over weight. So this raises the question as to whether the calorie expenditure models are accurate or reliable. It seems they are not. I think if I were to eat the calories the Fitday calculation suggests I am burning off I would quickly gain a lot of weight (probably six pounds a month, based on a quick back-of-the- envelope calculation). I remain confused about almost all the key questions: how to determine my ideal CR weight, my calorie expenditure, my ideal CR calorie consumption, etc.. There probably aren't satisfactory answers. But we must all be confronted by the same basic questions. (I am least confused about what constitutes 'healthy food') Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Rodney: is it possible that you're miscalculating? For an average man, 1750 cal a day is pretty low and I would be surprised if you weren't losing weight (unless you're a midget). If that caloric number is correct, give it a month or 6 weeks to see if you don't start losing. Walford does not recommend a new person to go directly to 35% reduction. What he does say is to eliminate calories slowly. Eliminate a small number, (say100 cal a day) to start and see how that goes. If losing moderately, stay with it. If not losing after giving it some time, deduct slowly (say another 100 a day etc). And of course, if losing too fast, your daily level is too low. See the bottom of page 80 in BT120YD for details. He suggest that to start a man would begin at about 2000 cal a day on avg and a woman at 1800 cal a day on avg. (That's why I wonder if your figures are correct for your intake). BTW I doubt the average woman in America is taking in as low as 1500-1600 cal a day as stated recently in the news. If this were so, we wouldn't be having an obesity epidemic. on 2/7/2004 5:38 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote: > Hi folks: > > Here is a thought - and, possibly, a question. I was just reviewing > Fitday's calculations, based on my personal data (gender, height, age > and 'lifestyle') of my daily caloric expenditure. Fitday tells me > that I am burning off 2656 calories a day plus whatever I expend in > the way of 'extra-curricular' exercise activities. > > When I measured what I was actually consuming for a two week period > recently, I found I was averaging about 1750 calories daily, and > didn't experience much in the way of hunger. > > In most of the CR experiments that have been successfully concluded > to date the degree of restriction averaged around 35%. > > If I calculate 35% restriction based on my recent consumption of 1750 > calories, the number is 1138 calories a day, which pretty much > everyone, including me, seems to agree would be dangerous. But if I > calculate 35% restriction from Fitday's base number (with a couple of > one mile jogs a week added) the number I get is 1745!!! That is > remarkable, because that seems to be what I am ad libbing currently. > One could make the argument, based on Fitday's base number, that I am > already at 35% restriction. If so, then I have been for years. > > But my current BF% measured more than one way comes out around 21.5% - > not exactly a CR number. Most people who look at me think I am > neither slim nor over weight. So this raises the question as to > whether the calorie expenditure models are accurate or reliable. It > seems they are not. I think if I were to eat the calories the Fitday > calculation suggests I am burning off I would quickly gain a lot of > weight (probably six pounds a month, based on a quick back-of-the- > envelope calculation). > > I remain confused about almost all the key questions: how to > determine my ideal CR weight, my calorie expenditure, my ideal CR > calorie consumption, etc.. There probably aren't satisfactory > answers. But we must all be confronted by the same basic questions. > > (I am least confused about what constitutes 'healthy food') > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hi Francesca: Well I don't believe I am miscalculating. I rigorously entered my data in Fitday.com. The following may be one explanation: About 30 years ago someone who noticed my interest in nutrition gave me a bathroom scale. I have stood on it pretty much every morning since. And pretty much every morning since I have said to myself " I need to lose a bit of weight " ! So I have been trying to 'restrict' myself (but not in a rigorous CR sense) for about thirty years. Perhaps my stomach has adjusted in size over the years, and my metabolism become more efficient? I am more and more coming to the conclusion that the best (safest) measure of excess weight is BF%. And I think I will measure it four different ways to make sure I get it right and use it for weight targetting purposes. Then eat 1800 calories a day for three months and see where my weight and BF% stabilize, and then drop to 1700 and see where my weight and BF% stabilize there ........... etc. If my BF% is really 21.5% I have a long way to go to get to a genuine CR weight. The above seems to me to be the safest approach. Any thoughts, anyone? Rodney. > > > Hi folks: > > > > Here is a thought - and, possibly, a question. I was just reviewing > > Fitday's calculations, based on my personal data (gender, height, age > > and 'lifestyle') of my daily caloric expenditure. Fitday tells me > > that I am burning off 2656 calories a day plus whatever I expend in > > the way of 'extra-curricular' exercise activities. > > > > When I measured what I was actually consuming for a two week period > > recently, I found I was averaging about 1750 calories daily, and > > didn't experience much in the way of hunger. > > > > In most of the CR experiments that have been successfully concluded > > to date the degree of restriction averaged around 35%. > > > > If I calculate 35% restriction based on my recent consumption of 1750 > > calories, the number is 1138 calories a day, which pretty much > > everyone, including me, seems to agree would be dangerous. But if I > > calculate 35% restriction from Fitday's base number (with a couple of > > one mile jogs a week added) the number I get is 1745!!! That is > > remarkable, because that seems to be what I am ad libbing currently. > > One could make the argument, based on Fitday's base number, that I am > > already at 35% restriction. If so, then I have been for years. > > > > But my current BF% measured more than one way comes out around 21.5% - > > not exactly a CR number. Most people who look at me think I am > > neither slim nor over weight. So this raises the question as to > > whether the calorie expenditure models are accurate or reliable. It > > seems they are not. I think if I were to eat the calories the Fitday > > calculation suggests I am burning off I would quickly gain a lot of > > weight (probably six pounds a month, based on a quick back-of-the- > > envelope calculation). > > > > I remain confused about almost all the key questions: how to > > determine my ideal CR weight, my calorie expenditure, my ideal CR > > calorie consumption, etc.. There probably aren't satisfactory > > answers. But we must all be confronted by the same basic questions. > > > > (I am least confused about what constitutes 'healthy food') > > > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Dunno if body fat percentage is the best method of evaluating CR, though. Probably lots of athletes, some of whom take in huge amounts of calories and some of whom have high BMIs due to having lots of muscle mass have very low body fat. Your metabolism probably is more " efficient " now that you are older. For one thing, unless you do resistance training, you lose muscle mass after about age 25 years, little by little. >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: CR Calorie Calculations >Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:44:13 -0000 > >Hi Francesca: > >Well I don't believe I am miscalculating. I rigorously entered my >data in Fitday.com. > >The following may be one explanation: About 30 years ago someone who >noticed my interest in nutrition gave me a bathroom scale. I have >stood on it pretty much every morning since. And pretty much every >morning since I have said to myself " I need to lose a bit of >weight " ! So I have been trying to 'restrict' myself (but not in a >rigorous CR sense) for about thirty years. Perhaps my stomach has >adjusted in size over the years, and my metabolism become more >efficient? > >I am more and more coming to the conclusion that the best (safest) >measure of excess weight is BF%. And I think I will measure it four >different ways to make sure I get it right and use it for weight >targetting purposes. Then eat 1800 calories a day for three months >and see where my weight and BF% stabilize, and then drop to 1700 and >see where my weight and BF% stabilize there ........... etc. If my >BF% is really 21.5% I have a long way to go to get to a genuine CR >weight. > >The above seems to me to be the safest approach. > >Any thoughts, anyone? > >Rodney. > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > Here is a thought - and, possibly, a question. I was just >reviewing > > > Fitday's calculations, based on my personal data (gender, height, >age > > > and 'lifestyle') of my daily caloric expenditure. Fitday tells me > > > that I am burning off 2656 calories a day plus whatever I expend >in > > > the way of 'extra-curricular' exercise activities. > > > > > > When I measured what I was actually consuming for a two week >period > > > recently, I found I was averaging about 1750 calories daily, and > > > didn't experience much in the way of hunger. > > > > > > In most of the CR experiments that have been successfully >concluded > > > to date the degree of restriction averaged around 35%. > > > > > > If I calculate 35% restriction based on my recent consumption of >1750 > > > calories, the number is 1138 calories a day, which pretty much > > > everyone, including me, seems to agree would be dangerous. But >if I > > > calculate 35% restriction from Fitday's base number (with a >couple of > > > one mile jogs a week added) the number I get is 1745!!! That is > > > remarkable, because that seems to be what I am ad libbing >currently. > > > One could make the argument, based on Fitday's base number, that >I am > > > already at 35% restriction. If so, then I have been for years. > > > > > > But my current BF% measured more than one way comes out around >21.5% - > > > not exactly a CR number. Most people who look at me think I am > > > neither slim nor over weight. So this raises the question as to > > > whether the calorie expenditure models are accurate or reliable. >It > > > seems they are not. I think if I were to eat the calories the >Fitday > > > calculation suggests I am burning off I would quickly gain a lot >of > > > weight (probably six pounds a month, based on a quick back-of-the- > > > envelope calculation). > > > > > > I remain confused about almost all the key questions: how to > > > determine my ideal CR weight, my calorie expenditure, my ideal CR > > > calorie consumption, etc.. There probably aren't satisfactory > > > answers. But we must all be confronted by the same basic >questions. > > > > > > (I am least confused about what constitutes 'healthy food') > > > > > > Rodney. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hi : Well could you perhaps go along with the proposition that BF% might be not a bad way to measure degree of CR in people living a 'normal daily life'? I.E. in those not in serious training for some kind of strength or endurance sporting activity, nor involved in heavy manual labor. ---------------- I must say that my numbers do not make any sense when I do some -Benedict equation calculations. At the following site, which I may have linked here before, you can enter your gender, height, weight, age and 'lifestyle' and it will tell you how many calories you are (supposedly) burning daily. http://www.wvda.org/ I used their software backwards to figure out what my weight should stabilize at for a given caloric input. It tells me that at 2000 calories, quite a lot more than I am eating, my weight should be 160 lbs, ten pounds less than I am, or have been for a very long time. It says that if I were to eat 1800 calories my weight would be 135 lbs - 35 lbs less than I am now! *** BUT *** my numbers do not conflict as much with the views expressed to me some years ago by a Weight Watchers franchisee who told me that in his experience (and that is something they have a lot of at Weight Watchers) " no one who lives a normal daily life needs more than 2000 calories, and some people can get by quite happily on 1200 " . Rodney. > Dunno if body fat percentage is the best method of evaluating CR, though. > Probably lots of athletes, some of whom take in huge amounts of calories and > some of whom have high BMIs due to having lots of muscle mass have very low > body fat. > > Your metabolism probably is more " efficient " now that you are older. For > one thing, unless you do resistance training, you lose muscle mass after > about age 25 years, little by little. > > > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> > >Reply- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Well, I suppose no one lives a " normal " life! I guess I'd have to agree with the total caloric intake theory, overall. Although, this too has to be adjusted for body size, at least. I think there's too much variability in metabolism and body shape type and metabolism to make many generally applicable statements, other than the observation that most people eat too much for the amount of exercise they do get. >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: CR Calorie Calculations >Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:47:04 -0000 > >Hi : > >Well could you perhaps go along with the proposition that BF% might >be not a bad way to measure degree of CR in people living a 'normal >daily life'? I.E. in those not in serious training for some kind of >strength or endurance sporting activity, nor involved in heavy manual >labor. > >---------------- > >I must say that my numbers do not make any sense when I do some >-Benedict equation calculations. At the following site, which >I may have linked here before, you can enter your gender, height, >weight, age and 'lifestyle' and it will tell you how many calories >you are (supposedly) burning daily. http://www.wvda.org/ > >I used their software backwards to figure out what my weight should >stabilize at for a given caloric input. It tells me that at 2000 >calories, quite a lot more than I am eating, my weight should be 160 >lbs, ten pounds less than I am, or have been for a very long time. >It says that if I were to eat 1800 calories my weight would be 135 >lbs - 35 lbs less than I am now! > >*** BUT *** my numbers do not conflict as much with the views >expressed to me some years ago by a Weight Watchers franchisee who >told me that in his experience (and that is something they have a lot >of at Weight Watchers) " no one who lives a normal daily life needs >more than 2000 calories, and some people can get by quite happily on >1200 " . > > > >Rodney. > > > > Dunno if body fat percentage is the best method of evaluating CR, >though. > > Probably lots of athletes, some of whom take in huge amounts of >calories and > > some of whom have high BMIs due to having lots of muscle mass have >very low > > body fat. > > > > Your metabolism probably is more " efficient " now that you are >older. For > > one thing, unless you do resistance training, you lose muscle mass >after > > about age 25 years, little by little. > > > > > > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> > > >Reply- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.