Help with BMR and daily calorie allowance

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’m currently using calorieking.com.au to try to lose 4-5kg, figuring that the discipline of noting down what I eat will help keep me honest! But I am confused by the numbers and advice provided by the site, which is leaving me unsure about how many calories I should be eating daily.

From the numerous BMR calculators I have found online, my BMR is around 1400 (deskbound work, 31yr old female, 163cm, 64kg. But when I type the same info into calorieking, it advises my BMR is closer to 1200, which is somewhat lower.

I exercise regularly - aiming for 4-5 times a week, of which my cardio is normally cycling to work, around 45 min each way at 23.5km/hr ( I do weights 2x a week too). Cycling works out at around 880 cal a day. However, the calorieking site dietician, in a forum thread about eating back exercise calories, suggests that if burning less than 1000 calories a day in exercise, only 25% of those calories be eaten back. This suggests I should be eating around 1440 calories a day.

But, if I look at the net calories eaten, this would mean I would have only eaten net 560 calories. Does this seem too low? I have been wondering if it is, and have upped the default BMR on the site to 1400. I have eaten today, for example, 1828 cal, exercised 880 (net 951 cal), made up of 27% fat, 20% protein and 53% carbs (I’m vegetarian so sometimes hard to get the protein up). Am I eating too much? Too little? Any advice useful.

2

Super low. Starvation low.

3

So should I be aiming to keep net calories at around 1400, which allows me to eat back all my exercise calories? I obviously don’t want to do anything to harm myself.

4

There is a Daily Calorie Requirement Calculator here: www.nicros.com. (Link goes directly to BMR calculator).

It’s good for figuring out your base metabolic rate (BRM) for your age, gender, and height. And then you can go on to calculate the number of calories a day according to your activity level and exercise. (Broken down by estimates of minutes.day of very light, light, moderate, heavy and very heavy )

The BMR Calculator was created by the University of Minnesota.

Oh, and yeah, 560 calories a day is way, way, way too low for an adult.

5

:rolleyes: Crud, I was fiddling around so much editing I deleted half my post! :smack:

Lemme re-write the dang thing!

6

:: grumbling :: Stupid computer

Okay, so… For your weight to stay exactly the same, you calories in = calories out.

Calories out include: Resting metabolic rate, physical activity, and the thermic effect of food (calories required to digest, absorb, transport, and store nutrients).

Restrictive diets slows down your resting metabolic rate – that’s your metabolism slowing down to adapt to lower calorie intake. It’s your body’s way of making the few calories you’re taking in last longer. Physical activity generally accounts for about 25-35% of your daily caloric intake. So don’t go eating only 560 calories a day.

You do need a calorie deficit, but a deficit of 250 would likley be enough for you to lose about a half pound in a week. Or you can limit the calorie intake to what your BMR would be at your target weight.

I’m not sure what you mean about “eating back exercise calories”.

Actually, now that I re-read the OP, I think I’m totally misunderstanding your question. And my posts are useless. :confused:

7

Yeah, basically. **Swallowed My Cellphone ** did a good job on summarising the calories in/calories out.

By all means, use a diet guide or website as a launch point, but don’t take anything as gospel - including anything I’m suggesting! People don’t come in a one-size-fits-all style. If they did, there’d be no work for Dieticians. :smiley:

However, this is how I’d look at it:
[ol]
[li]Assuming your Daily Allowance is supposed to be 1400 just to stay the same weight, and[/li][li]Daily Allowance = Calories In minus Exercise, then[/li][li]If you’re exercising off 800 calories, you’d be looking at around 2200 calories in food just to maintain yourself at the current level. [/li][/ol]
So in other words, anything less than that will result in weight loss.

You’re generally safer starting conservatively and revising calories downward if required - jumping in at the much lower level can convince your body that there’s a famine on. (I made that mistake, and it screwed with my metabolism and hunger levels for years. Medical science may disagree on how long it affects you for, but I know how it was for me.)

You seem to have a healthy outlook on this and are determined to lose weight sensibly - so I’d feel safe in saying ‘Trust your own judgment’.

Work out what you’re normally eating, and the daily calorie figure that amounts to (based off the basic calculations above, I’m guessing that’s 2200) - then chop say, 200 calories off it. It mightn’t sound like much but bear in mind the effect is cumulative - you’re effecitvely taking in 1400 calories less per week! That’s the accumulated equivalent, calorie-wise, of having fasted for one complete day if your minimum required intake is 1400. Taken on a weekly level, you can clearly see why cutting back calories dramatically is such a poor idea - the cumulative losses mount up quickly and rapidly become unhealthy. (The Calorie King net figure of 560 calories is absolutely horrific.)

If you find yourself feeling lethargic or notice trouble with your attention span, then you know there’s something wrong and need to look at why. Maybe you need to cut back on the exercise, maybe you need to up the calories. Maybe you need more protein, maybe you’re suffering a vitamin imbalance. If you end up feeling generally sub-par, hie thee to a Dietician and get some proper advice. It seems like total overkill for the sake of 4-5 kilos, I know, but you’d be surprised what a good investment it can be from an Ongoing Lifestyle perspective. Plus, they generally have recipes to help you correct whatever’s wonky. :smiley:

Good luck with it, Girl From Mars! I’m currently making major overhauls on my own diet, so I know how much ‘fun’ (of the extremely Inverted Commas variety) it can be. I firmly believe the trick is to take it slowly and consistently though, and not make any changes in one hit that you cannot reasonably live with long-term.

8

Also, I’m sorry I can’t help you with the protein/carbs thing; as a confirmed omnivore (albeit one with a preference to veggies) it seems to sort itself out. Also, I don’t do much exercise, so a *daily *balanced intake of proteins and carbs is less critically important and I don’t keep tabs on it - it seems to average out okay, and if I get a craving on for meat, cheese or eggs I tend to assume there’s a good reason for that and go with it.

Strangely, mostly I crave Vegemite. I don’t mind - I’m always happy to keep the Vegemite levels high - but since I take a multivitamin, I’m not sure if it’s a real dietary requirement, or an imperative in Aussie DNA! :smiley:

9

My fiancee and I are both vegetarians. “Veg-acquarians” accodring to the picky-eaters thread. (I love that term!) We eat seafood too.

I think what confused me was the “eating back” exercise calories which then sequed into the part about how much fat protein and carbs was consumed. If your aim is to lose weight, you don’t necessarily need to eat back all those calories. There’s a good overview of nutrition for women’s weight training here.

Anyway, since we’re so active, we really, really need a lot of protein to help with our sore aching musles. In addition to seafood, we eat a lot of nuts, and in the morning I have orange juice with two tables spoons of a soya protein powder (makes the juice a little chalky but I taste nothing). There is a hemp protein powder which is supposed to be great too. If you eats eggs, they are good sources of protein, but if you have cholesterol issues, you may wish to use only the egg whites.

You listed your % of carbs, protein etc,. but the type of carboydrate also makes a big difference (see the carb articles linked above). Carbs don’t all metabolize at the same rate. The glycemic index rates the speed at which different carbohydrates are metabolized and their ability to raise blood sugar. You need carbs to provide the energy for your muscles to work out, but refined carbs tend to do wonky things to blood sugar levels and appetite management. If your aim is weight loss, you may wish to cut back on those carbs. (It’s better to substitute whole grains and fruit for refined carbohydrates, for example.)

You might want to structure your meals to be rich in protein (a drag when you’re a vegetarian, I know) and fiber (good fats usually accompany these) and lower the starches. That way your body has to call up on the reserve troops (stored body fat) for workout energy.

10

BMR is Basal Metabolic Rate. That’s the amount of energy you use just being you. That’s the number of calories you would burn if you lay on the floor and stared at the ceiling all day and tried not to think about anything (your brain uses tons of energy when it really gets going). If you only ate enough calories to meet your BMR requirements and by some miracle maintained your current level of activity you’d look like a work camp inmate in no time. Like Bites When Provoked said, you need 2,200 or so calories just to maintain your weight given your exercise schedule. Keep in mind that those are averages too. Your actual needs might differ, and will definitely change with time and other circumstances.

When I started working out again a couple of years ago I lost over 9 kg (about 20 pounds) without appreciably changing my diet. Actually, after about a year I’d gained enough muscle that I probably was eating more than before I’d lost weight. I didn’t closely track my diet though, because I don’t really like doing that. If I really wanted to eat something, I would. Most of the time, I ate healthy foods, and I think simply being conscious of what I ate was enough to provide some very modest cuts in my calorie intake. In my experience, the exercise part of the “eat less and exercise” diet was more important.