| Author | Post |
|---|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 12:13 am |
|
Hello Everyone,
I need help. 
I like to know how much would be my proper daily caloric intake.
I have just lost 15 pounds in the last 9 weeks or so and it stopped for now.
I understand the zig-zag diet and all that although i,m not sure how much should I eat daily, or weekly as for total weekly calorie.
Lemmie tell you a bit about myself if I may.
36 male.
5.8 inches
Was 205 pounds 9 weeks ago
Now 190 pounds.
During the 9 weeks I ate about 1500-1800 calories per day.
Workout regime: just about everyday.
Day 1: 2 forms of biceps, 2forms of triceps, 3 forms of upper leg, 1 calf, 4x20 crunches plus some, followed by about 500 calorie on the treadmill in fat-burning zone @ 124 heart rate
day2: 2 forms of Pects; 2 forms of back; 2 forms of shoulder; some sit-ups; followed by 500 calorie on treadmill @ 124 heart rate ,fat-burning zone.
day3: about 700 calorie on treadmill the same way.
day4: same as day 1 and so on.
So basically with the treadmill I burn 500 calories everyday if not more, plus the weight lifting exercise...
Could you please help me how much should I eat to keep losing body-fat? I think I,m a very regular built, maybe a slightly muscular.
During the day I do nothing but sitting if that helps determining calories.
Thanx for you all!
Ps. I have used the calculators too but I,m not sure which numbers I need to go with. BMR? RMR? Do I multiply it with what? And then that is the number I need to eat at least? Hmm. confusing...
Last edited on 5 August 2009 02:34 pm by palacsinta
|
sabre
New Member
| Joined: | 13 July 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 05:18 pm |
|
You've probably stopped losing weight because you aren't eating enough.
No, that wasn't a typo. Read what I wrote again ...
Given your level of exercise, you need about 2,900 calories a day to maintain. (BMR * 1.55 to adjust for exercise) So cutting about 500 calories a day from that should put you in a good situation for solid fat loss of about 1 lb/week. You should be eating at least 2,400 calories a day, preferably split into 5-6 meals. Make sure you're getting enough protein intake too. 1g per pound of body weight per day, split evenly across all meals. Ths is going to help you maintain, and even increase your lean muscle mass slightly, given your weight lifting routine. You are restricting your calories too severely at 1500-1800 calories per day. You are sabotaging your metabolism and telling your body to protect it's fat stores. Eat more calories and eat more frequently throughout the day.
Get out of the fat burning zone and into the cardio zone. Work at 75-85% of your max heart rate for at least 20 minutes during your cardio sessions. The whole "fat burning zone" concept sucks. Yes, you're burning a higher percentage of calories from fat per hour worked. However, you're burning far fewer total calories from fat per hour worked by working out at 50-65% of your max heartrate, rather than working at 75-85%. You can spend less time doing cardio, and get better results by increasing your target heart rate.
Your workout routine seems solid, but I'd give yourself a full day off each week, giving you a full 2 consecutive days without weight training each week, to allow more recovery time for your muscles. (lifting 4 times per week instead of 4.5 times ... doing cardio 6 days instead of 7)
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 05:36 pm |
|
sabre wrote: You've probably stopped losing weight because you aren't eating enough.
No, that wasn't a typo. Read what I wrote again ...
Given your level of exercise, you need about 2,900 calories a day to maintain. (BMR * 1.55 to adjust for exercise) So cutting about 500 calories a day from that should put you in a good situation for solid fat loss of about 1 lb/week. You should be eating at least 2,400 calories a day, preferably split into 5-6 meals. Make sure you're getting enough protein intake too. 1g per pound of body weight per day, split evenly across all meals. Ths is going to help you maintain, and even increase your lean muscle mass slightly, given your weight lifting routine. You are restricting your calories too severely at 1500-1800 calories per day. You are sabotaging your metabolism and telling your body to protect it's fat stores. Eat more calories and eat more frequently throughout the day.
Get out of the fat burning zone and into the cardio zone. Work at 75-85% of your max heart rate for at least 20 minutes during your cardio sessions. The whole "fat burning zone" concept sucks. Yes, you're burning a higher percentage of calories from fat per hour worked. However, you're burning far fewer total calories from fat per hour worked by working out at 50-65% of your max heartrate, rather than working at 75-85%. You can spend less time doing cardio, and get better results by increasing your target heart rate.
Your workout routine seems solid, but I'd give yourself a full day off each week, giving you a full 2 consecutive days without weight training each week, to allow more recovery time for your muscles. (lifting 4 times per week instead of 4.5 times ... doing cardio 6 days instead of 7)
So does that mean that I should eat about 2400 calorie a day with this exercise?
Appreciate the comment btw.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 05:49 pm |
|
I'm going to disagree with sabre on a couple of points.
First of all, basing calculations on RMR rather than BMR gives lower calorie numbers at all levels (and that seems to be the general preference around here as we trust the RMR number more - even though in general BMR gets mentioned more on the internet)
Secondly I'd consider protein at 1g per day to be the absolute maximum. Remember that your RDI according to US government and WHO (the world health organisation) is 0.36g per pound and that is supposed to be enough or even too much for 97.5% of the population, I don't think there is statistically any reason to suppose you must be in the other 2.5% percent.
With the average loss you've had so far presumably you want to continue losing at 1.5lb/week or more, that requires a deficit of 750-1000 calories.
If we estimate your calorie burn at 1.5*RMR = 1.5*1766 = 2649 then you should be aiming for 1650-1900. Now yes, 1650 is lower than your unadjusted RNR (1766) but I don't think this should be much of a concern at your current BMI of 28.9. If you want to be on the safe side eat 1766 you should still do well.
If you are zig-zagging and want to have a 'high' day I certainly wouldn't advice going over your maintenance level (at 2649).
Regarding your cardio workouts I agree with sabre - I think it is a mistake that you've bought into the "fat burning zone" myth. Unless you are sweaty and breathing heavily at 124bpm this is too light for you. Look up the Karvonen formula. For example assuming 60bpm resting heart rate and aiming for 75% I would get 220-36=184, (184-60)x0.75 + 60 = 153bpm (147bpm for 70%) so if you can stay on the machine for a similar length of time whilst working out more intensely you should do that (and yes, I am a qualified fitness instructor)
EDIT - if you eat at 2400 you have no deficit and you will lose nothing!
Last edited on 5 August 2009 05:52 pm by Nir
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 06:14 pm |
|
Nir wrote: I'm going to disagree with sabre on a couple of points.
First of all, basing calculations on RMR rather than BMR gives lower calorie numbers at all levels (and that seems to be the general preference around here as we trust the RMR number more - even though in general BMR gets mentioned more on the internet)
Secondly I'd consider protein at 1g per day to be the absolute maximum. Remember that your RDI according to US government and WHO (the world health organisation) is 0.36g per pound and that is supposed to be enough or even too much for 97.5% of the population, I don't think there is statistically any reason to suppose you must be in the other 2.5% percent.
With the average loss you've had so far presumably you want to continue losing at 1.5lb/week or more, that requires a deficit of 750-1000 calories.
If we estimate your calorie burn at 1.5*RMR = 1.5*1766 = 2649 then you should be aiming for 1650-1900. Now yes, 1650 is lower than your unadjusted RNR (1766) but I don't think this should be much of a concern at your current BMI of 28.9. If you want to be on the safe side eat 1766 you should still do well.
If you are zig-zagging and want to have a 'high' day I certainly wouldn't advice going over your maintenance level (at 2649).
Regarding your cardio workouts I agree with sabre - I think it is a mistake that you've bought into the "fat burning zone" myth. Unless you are sweaty and breathing heavily at 124bpm this is too light for you. Look up the Karvonen formula. For example assuming 60bpm resting heart rate and aiming for 75% I would get 220-36=184, (184-60)x0.75 + 60 = 153bpm (147bpm for 70%) so if you can stay on the machine for a similar length of time whilst working out more intensely you should do that (and yes, I am a qualified fitness instructor)
EDIT - if you eat at 2400 you have no deficit and you will lose nothing!
Thanx so much guys!!
So If I increase heart rate, keep my exercise and with zig-zag 12362 calories per week (1762 x 7) I should be fine?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 10:44 pm |
|
| I'm going to say Yes, provided that your low days aren't too low. Depending on how cautious you want to be, your low days can either be 1766 or maybe 1650, as we both wrote I don't think you'd want to go lower to avoid metabolism problems. This therefore limits your scope for zig-zagging. I would have thought you could zig-zag around 1900 (this would give you a loss of 1.5lb/week and your could for instance zig-zag by alternating 1766 and 2034, or 1650 and 2150. Your thoughts?
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 11:27 pm |
|
Well, I guess a just stay between the given numbers and see what happens...
Although I,m confused a bit, because this is what I was doing all the while and I hit the wall. Now if I keep continue eat the same amount, about 1766 will make me lose body fat all of a sudden?
Hmm. Ohh, but yes, I increase my heart rate as you said I should do, to about 147.
Another thing does not make sense to me.
If it is all about calorie intake and burning it, then Y is it not good having heart rate at 124 for 60 minutes which burns about 600 calories while having heart rate at 147 which would burn 600 calories obviously sooner, maybe 30 in minutes, I donno.
But what difference does it make when it all comes down to a calorie deficit?
Maybe the intensity does make the difference?
Thanx again!!
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 5 August 2009 11:46 pm |
|
In the same way that the crude (linear) calculations that suggested you were in the fat burning (approx 65% of MHR) zone badly estimated what HR you needed to target, they likely also over-estimated how many calories you were burning. However that is not to say you couldn't have continued with the longer lower-intensity workout (as would be the case for instance if you were easily injured or less fit).
As to your question about why you stalled and why I believe you will restart weight loss when all I've asked you to do is to slightly increase calories - well it is possible that you were eating a bit less than you should and this interfered with your loss. Alternatively you might have just stalled because muscle gain is masking fat loss or you are just temporarily holding on to water. There is no fundamental reason why you would have stopped losing fat given that you were not doing anything too drastically wrong (unless you made calorie-counting mistakes that cancelled your deficit...)
Everyone has plateaus from time to time, weight loss isn't always 'linear', that's life. Just how long have you been stuck??
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 6 August 2009 12:19 am |
|
I stopped losing for about hmm, maybe 2 weeks ? som like that..
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 6 August 2009 12:24 am |
|
| Some people define a plateau as no loss in 4 weeks. Always worth questioning though whether something has changed - whether you are doing something different, for example whether you've introduced a new food into the equation.
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 6 August 2009 01:28 am |
|
No, not really.. My diet is pretty much the same.. But hey, if 2 weeks considers nothing, then there is nothing to worry about. I see how I do in the following week and then I come back to complain more if I need to.. Ha...
Thanx Nir!
|
Hellrazor
New Member
| Joined: | 6 July 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 872 |
|
Posted: 9 August 2009 01:27 am |
|
Also look in to switching up your routine regularly . Once your body gets adapted It will take more effort to burn the same you used to burn. Try switching the cardio to some other form it . Like 1 day do the treadmill and then next time do stationary bike and so on. It may not seem like you are burning a lot but your body will not adpat to things quicker this way they call it body confusion. I never did the same thing more 2 times in 6 day workout and in my journey I hit one small plateau , and this way helped me a lot
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 9 August 2009 02:29 am |
|
Wow,
Thanx a lot, I,ll do that. Gee, I,m freaking starving...
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 9 August 2009 06:32 am |
|
HEy, can you tell if I was doing this walking but with INCLINE 15 then what number would I get? Also, I noticed that that the calorie counter on the treadmill is bogus. I wonder how much does it lie? And how accurate this online calculator here anyway?
3.1 mph 189# incline-15 for 40 min @ 147/150HR= calorie?
Weight: lbkgst Time: hr minSpeed (2 to 5): mphkm/h Calculator Status:Calculator: Walking
Method: Enter Time and Speed to Calculate Distance
Next: Make another calculation or click on Methods or Calculators. Results:Totals: 194 calories in 40 min
Walking
194 calories in 40 min (2.1 miles at 3.1 mph)Use the Food Calculator to Calculate Calories Consumed
Calorie Balance: 130 consumed - 194 burned = 64 lost
Last edited on 9 August 2009 06:35 am by palacsinta
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 9 August 2009 04:51 pm |
|
As a generalisation, any estimate you see (on the machine or on the online calculators) could be as much as 30% out (be a pessimist and assume it is an overestimate) for any given person, because it tends to give a result based on weight alone (so it doesn't factor in your age, gender or height)
Sorry I can't be more specific than that
|
palacsinta
New Member
| Joined: | 4 August 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 9 August 2009 06:56 pm |
|
oki dog, thanx!
|
Current time is 04:44 am | |
|
