| Author | Post |
|---|
andrea9873
New Member
| Joined: | 7 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
|
Posted: 7 February 2006 09:01 pm |
|
I'm a female doing cardio 4-5 times a week and strength training 2-3 times a week. I currently weigh 168lbs but want to lose about 2.5 -3.5 lbs per week until i reach my goal of 110lbs. I want to know how many calories i should be eating each day.
Is 1500-1600 too much? Should I lower down to 1200-1400...I feel like I'm starving when I go that low.
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4178 |
|
Posted: 7 February 2006 09:13 pm |
|
You lose weight by eating fewer calories than you burn, and to make any estimates you need both numbers.
I suggest starting with the RMR calculator, and read all the notes on it. Once you know how many calories you burn in a typical day, you can estimate how many you need to eat to lose weight.
Peter
|
Mountain Mike
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 7 February 2006 09:24 pm |
|
In my humble opinion, 2 lbs. is about the maximum anyone should realistically hope to lose in a week. This is a 7000 calorie deficit.
Yes, you can lose 2 lb. in a day through loss of water weight, but that is not what I'm talking about.
|
Analyst
New Member
| Joined: | 5 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
|
Posted: 8 February 2006 01:45 pm |
|
I agree with the above. Two pounds per week is about it.
In order to do this, you need to be burning 1000 or so calories more per day on average than you take in. Practically speaking, you'll need to be very active in addition to watching how much you eat.
|
andrea9873
New Member
| Joined: | 7 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
|
Posted: 8 February 2006 11:49 pm |
|
okay so if I'm eating about 1500-1600 cals per day and then burning about 300-400 cals on the elleptical for :45 minutes, I should lower my calorie intake to 800?
this is very confusing....burning 1000 calories per day...I'd have to be at the gym for 2.5 hours per day or limit myself to 700 calories per day? This sounds very unhealthy.
|
Javan
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 01:45 am |
|
Andrea, you need to look at how many calories you burn a day without exercise, but using the activity calculator on this site. For example, I burn about 3000 calories each day without exercise. Add exercise and it's another 500 or so. Then I eat 2000-to 2400 calories a day. So, on days I do not exercise, I have a deficit (deficit equals weight loss) of -600 to -1000, on days I exercise, I lose -1100 to -1500 calories.
The key is to know how many calories you burn normally.
|
Analyst
New Member
| Joined: | 5 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 04:54 am |
|
andrea9873 wrote:
okay so if I'm eating about 1500-1600 cals per day and then burning about 300-400 cals on the elleptical for :45 minutes, I should lower my calorie intake to 800?
this is very confusing....burning 1000 calories per day...I'd have to be at the gym for 2.5 hours per day or limit myself to 700 calories per day? This sounds very unhealthy.
That few calories would probably be unhealthy, at least for an adult not under a doctor's supervision.
As Javan said, you need to find out how many calories you need for maintenance.
That depends upon several things, including age, sex, height and weight. For a typical female 25 years old, 5'5" and 168 pounds, and assuming roughly 30% bodyfat, your body would burn about 1600 calories just to stay alive. In other words, if all you did was breathe, that's how many calories you'd burn (assuming the other stats are right). This is called "Resting Metabolic Rate". If you have more muscle (e.g. lower body fat), you'll burn more.
Now, very few of us just lay there and breathe. Most of us move around, talk, eat, etc. So you'll burn more calories than that -- perhaps a lot more. For instance, if you are moderately active, your metabolic rate (daily caloric expenditure) would be closer to 2200 calories per day.
If you become highly active -- say, working out at fairly high intensity for an hour four or five days per week -- you could be burning closer to 2400 calories per day.
So you'd need to take the 1000-calorie deficit from 2400 calories burned per day: about 1400 per day in food.
As you can see, it's not terribly easy to lose 2 pounds per week. One pound per week, though, is a lot easier, and you'll still notice certain progress. That's what I did, and over eight months or so I lost 30-35 pounds.
To reach your goals, at one pound per week you'd get there in a little less than a year. Somewhere between one and two pounds per week, obviously, would be faster; I would imagine this is a calculation you've already made :)
It all depends upon what your goals are and what you think you can sustain for a while. If you want to lose two pounds per week, you'll need to make sure you get adequate nutrition, and try not to skip meals (doing so can lower your metabolic rate so it's closer to your RMR than you'd probably like; plus, it leaves you hungrier and more tired).
Finally, take a close look at the type of exercise you do. If you do high intensity workouts, your metabolism will be elevated for a longer period after the workout (burning more calories). Also, strength training will build muscle, which will increase the number of calories you burn each day by default. It's kind of unfortunate how many women miss out on the benefits of strength training.
I hope this helps. I think the most critical thing to look at is what you can keep doing until you reach your goals. There's no point if what you do is so uncomfortable and such a radical change that you can't sustain it.
-- Edited to comply with Terms of Use
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 10:48 am |
|
| That's quite a thorough reply!
|
Analyst
New Member
| Joined: | 5 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 03:39 pm |
|
My apologies on the terms of use violation -- I forgot and posted an external link.
You can find the calculators you need to determine your resting metabolic rate here -- go to the front page of this site, and click on the links :)
|
Javan
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 04:05 pm |
|
I find it interesting how there is so much information on this site (FAQ's, Tutorials, Calculators, etc.), that one can get so caught up in it all.
When I first found this site I spent so much time reading, and reading and reading. Then when somebody asks for help, you want to. But I find, like Analyst, that you can write a book for every request for help. Now I know why Peter, simply sends people to a link.
But, it's all good! We are all here for the same reason!
|
suenos
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 04:36 pm |
|
andrea:
Just a little suggestion on your workout. Proper weight resistance training will have a greater impact on how your body looks than the amount of weight you lose every week. Long term because when the overlying layers of fat are gone, you'll reveal a nice, toned frame. Short term because even though it weighs more, lean muscle occupies less space than fat. So if you're building lean muscle tissue you'll start to look visably slimmer no matter what you scale says in a particular week.
Also, if you are on a reduced calorie diet, weight training will help prevent a decrease in loss of lean muscle tissue and a decrease in metabolism - as has been pointed out it will increase your metabolism. To get the maximum benefits from weight training it's important to use proper technique. If you can afford it, it's seriously worth paying a trainer for a couple of sessions. If not, there are some really good magazines worth checking out (but avoid the ones targeted at a male audience because this is one of those areas where our bodies respond differently.)
Good luck!
|
Analyst
New Member
| Joined: | 5 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 08:02 pm |
|
Javan wrote:
When I first found this site I spent so much time reading, and reading and reading. Then when somebody asks for help, you want to. But I find, like Analyst, that you can write a book for every request for help. Now I know why Peter, simply sends people to a link.
:D
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 09:47 pm |
|
Look at it this way, Andrea:
For you (just you, right now) there will be a maintenance figure in calories that would keep you right where you are. If you ate more, you'd gain weight. If you ate less, you'd lose weight.
Now to how fast you can lose...
As others have written here, there's an optimum rate at which to lose weight. That's because, after a certain point in your calories deficit, you just can't burn more body fat, so you burn muscle instead. That's bad because it slows down your body's fat-burning capability even further - (and weakens you).
You need to feed your statistics into the calculator here and find out your average daily calorie burn for the exercise you intend to do. Then you set your calorie intake a little (I'd recommend 15%) below that figure and aim to average that amount over the course of a week. (Some days might be a little higher, some a bit lower).
As others have mentioned, some resistance (weight) training goes a long way to toning muscles, so you won't finish your slimming feeling weak and tired.
Most importantly, do it at the pace that ensures you lose only fat!
Good luck,
NevD 
|
Analyst
New Member
| Joined: | 5 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
|
Posted: 9 February 2006 10:02 pm |
|
One more thing I thought I'd mention: you might want to look up HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) cardio. Supposedly, it's more efficient at burning fat than regular low-intensity (long-session) cardio like the 45 minutes on the elliptical you mentioned. It also requires quite a bit less time in the gym.
HIIT involves really getting your heart rate up, so you'd want to make sure you know what you're doing and work up to it.
|
Current time is 01:53 am | |
|
