| Author | Post |
|---|
runner06
New Member
| Joined: | 20 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
|
Posted: 21 October 2006 02:06 am |
|
so here are the facts:
Male, 19 years old, 74kg/163 lb/run 4 times a week for about an hour at about 9km ph, burn about 750 kcal running, also walk for about an hour and a half approximately4 times a week. I have calculated that my BMR is about 1800 calories and therefore I require 75 cal per hour to satisfy this. However, apparently metabolic rate is increased for a time after exercise, but I don't know by how much, so please help me to work out exactly how many calories I am burning per hour/day. thanks!
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 22 October 2006 09:53 pm |
|
You've omitted your height. Anyhow, if your BMR is around 1800, your RMR is just over 1700. For the level of activity you're describing I would use activity multiplier 1.55 to receive an approximation of your maintenance calories (1700 x 1.55 = 2635, or 110 an hour).
I'm assuming you desire fat loss. Ideally cut 15% (i.e. consume 2240) in any case don't go lower than your RMR i.e. don't eat less than 1700 - but you should lose a lot better if you're closer to 2240!
|
runner06
New Member
| Joined: | 20 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
|
Posted: 23 October 2006 01:50 am |
|
I'm 1.82 metres, about 6 ft, I'm not aiming to lose weight drastically just to maintain current weight and maybe err on the side of losing weight.
I thought the activity multiplier was BMR times 1.55, not RMR...
Last edited on 23 October 2006 01:50 am by runner06
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 23 October 2006 01:55 am |
|
runner06 wrote: I thought the activity multiplier was BMR times 1.55, not RMR...
I'll admit I've seen both versions in use.
|
runner06
New Member
| Joined: | 20 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
|
Posted: 23 October 2006 03:05 am |
|
| Ok, cheers for your reply anyway. What I really want to establish is whether someone who burns 750 cals running for an hour and runs for 3-5 hours a week, and also walks 4 miles 3-5 times a week, doesn't qualify as higher than "moderately active". Could I be in between moderate and very active or am I overestimating my activity levels.
|
fruitloop
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 23 October 2006 04:24 am |
|
You could have a look at the activity calculator here to get a more accurate idea of expenditure.
http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.html
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 October 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 23 October 2006 03:03 pm |
|
I may be missing something, but I think you have all the required information at hand.
You know your BMR, you've calculated your exercise calorie burn. Add the two together for a week's worth, and check that against the calories you've eaten. If they're equal, you should maintain. If you have a deficit, you should lose a bit.
Just make sure, as you're relying exclusively on cardio (I think) that you don't burn off muscle that you can't replace from your diet.
And - sorry if I've misunderstood your intent.
Last edited on 23 October 2006 03:03 pm by NevD
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 23 October 2006 05:25 pm |
|
Also, note that different sources use different multipying factors for the apprixmate method:
The factors listed on the RMR calculator on this site are:
1.2 bed rest, 1.3 sedentary, 1.4 active, 1.5 very active
On the other hand, BFFM book has these factors:
1.2 Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job)
1.375 Lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
1.55 Mod. active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
1.725 Very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 24 October 2006 08:42 am |
|
I would consider hard exercise and playing sports 6 or 7 days a week more than very active.
On the other hand BFFM uses a higher number to represent their "very active."
Every site/calculator uses different numbers. That's why I DON'T state clearly what mine represent, and recommend that you don't even use this method.
Peter
|
runner06
New Member
| Joined: | 20 October 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
|
Posted: 25 October 2006 01:29 am |
|
nevd wrote: I may be missing something, but I think you have all the required information at hand.
You know your BMR, you've calculated your exercise calorie burn. Add the two together for a week's worth, and check that against the calories you've eaten. If they're equal, you should maintain. If you have a deficit, you should lose a bit.
Just make sure, as you're relying exclusively on cardio (I think) that you don't burn off muscle that you can't replace from your diet.
And - sorry if I've misunderstood your intent.
But if I just add calories burnt running - 750 - to BMR - 1800 - then I get 2350, which is a ridiculously low number. I was under the impression that regular exercise heightened your metabolic rate for up to 24 hours afterwards.
Take today - I ran 9 km, (750 cal) and lifted some wieghts. I calculate that I took in about 3000 calories. Strictly, this means I took in more than I burnt off, but I don't buy it because even after eating I didn't feel particularly full.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 25 October 2006 02:35 am |
|
runner06 wrote: if I just add calories burnt running - 750 - to BMR - 1800 - then I get 2350, which is a ridiculously low number. I was under the impression that regular exercise heightened your metabolic rate for up to 24 hours afterwards.
I took in about 3000 calories ... even after eating I didn't feel particularly full.
Firstly, 750+1800 = 2550
Secondly, about not being particulary full - generally has little to do with how many calories you've eaten, more to do with how much protein, fibre and other nutrients (vitamins, minerals, pytochemicals) you've eaten. You could eat 10,000 calories of the wrong stuff and still not be full. What did you eat for your 3000 calories?
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 25 October 2006 02:50 am |
|
runner06,
If you read the tutorial, you will see that this website recommends calculating all you do in a day, in the full 24 hours, with the activity calculator rather than using BMR or RMR.
It also recommends that if you do use one of the latter, RMR is more accurate. The only reason this website calculates BMR is because it's so popular.
Also, if you do use BMR or RMR, you should never add calories burned as calculated with the activity calculator. If you do you are calculating calories burned twice as BMR and RMR already include the full 24 hours. (I wish I had more than 24 hours in a day!)
The calculators are far too simplistic to account for the fact that after you exercise you will burn more calories in the following hours.
I have received e-mails from people that have used the calculators to calculate every calorie they ate and every calorie they burned for six months, and they say the predicted weight loss was right on. This amazes me!
We are all so different, they must have just fit the average model used to create the data. For most people, using the calculators gives you a place to start from. Then you make adjustments as you go.
Lastly, I wouldn't judge how your program is going any more often than once a week. On a daily basis, our bodies fluctuate just too much to make any measurements.
Peter
|
Chocoholic
Senior Member
| Joined: | 29 April 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 341 |
|
Posted: 25 October 2006 05:39 am |
|
Peter wrote: I have received e-mails from people that have used the calculators to calculate every calorie they ate and every calorie they burned for six months, and they say the predicted weight loss was right on. This amazes me!
It is always spot on for me... whether I'm gaining or losing, it always exactly what the calculators would predict. So for all their imperfections, they're quite accurate for me! Thanks for providing such a wonderful tool! 
|
danamichael
New Member
| Joined: | 11 June 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
|
Posted: 14 July 2008 02:07 pm |
|
here is my info... same question!!!
5'2'' 107-109 depending on day.....
|
danamichael
New Member
| Joined: | 11 June 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
|
Posted: 14 July 2008 02:08 pm |
|
| oh and only walk an hr a day at slow steady pace... otherwise i sit.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 14 July 2008 02:13 pm |
|
| (Female,27,5'2",108lb) => if you're sedentary it works out as 1414 calories. (To maintain with exercise you'll need to eat more.) Recalling that you used to eat much less, it is important to increase calories gradually if you're still in that situation.
|
danamichael
New Member
| Joined: | 11 June 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
|
Posted: 15 July 2008 02:23 am |
|
| i am currently struggling with it. get from 400-700 a day. i know thats wayyyy too low but im scared to gain in the stomach. thank you, youre so kind. i am seeing help if you are wondering. its better... was doing 2-400 before and occasional 7000 cal binge! havent binged or used diet pills or laxitives since july 4th... its baby steps.
|
Current time is 05:05 am | |
|
