Not sure how many calories you need/day? Try using this.

kenzo242

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
Harris-Benedict Method for Calculating Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)

MEN (if there are any ladies here I will post the equation for them)
66 + (6.3 x weight in pounds) + (12.9 x height in inches) - (6.8 x age in years) = BMR (un-adjusted for activity)

Then multiply BMR by activity level:

Activity Factor for Calculating Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE)
 
Every beginner that asks me about nutrition, adding muscle or losing fat gets one assignment: to protocol his nutrition intake for a week and also weigh himself regularly (due to water-retentions etc. not just on day 1 and day 7 but over a certain period of time [weeks, months]). This way we're not only able to see how much calories he usually consumes, but also work on his habits as well.

Counting calories (after your mathematical analysis that doesn't even include lean and overall body mass and individual metabolism rates, that is) implies weighing one's food anyway, so why not start with it from the very beginning?
 
You have to eat less to lose weight?!?!!? Ground breaking post!
 
speaking of calorie counters, i just downloaded an iphone app called "lose it" i believe for dieting that's free and supposed to be quite effective. you set a goal of weight loss or maintenance and then it gives you a target amount of calories and all kinds of help logging your caloric intake.

i've done a bit of cross checking whether their calories counts are consistent with the nutrition facts on the backs of my food, and it's pretty hit or miss, but it is easy to adjust accordingly.

overall, nothing too sophisticated, but i think we all know it's the keeping of some kind of quantitative log that's most important, so it's definitely a wonderful tool.
 
Every beginner that asks me about nutrition, adding muscle or losing fat gets one assignment: to protocol his nutrition intake for a week and also weigh himself regularly (due to water-retentions etc. not just on day 1 and day 7 but over a certain period of time [weeks, months]). This way we're not only able to see how much calories he usually consumes, but also work on his habits as well.

Counting calories (after your mathematical analysis that doesn't even include lean and overall body mass and individual metabolism rates, that is) implies weighing one's food anyway, so why not start with it from the very beginning?


Remember, this is a general value. Equations are by no means exact but it will give you at least an idea of where to start.
 
Harris-Benedict Method for Calculating Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)

MEN (if there are any ladies here I will post the equation for them)
66 + (6.3 x weight in pounds) + (12.9 x height in inches) - (6.8 x age in years) = BMR (un-adjusted for activity)

Then multiply BMR by activity level:

Activity Factor for Calculating Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE)
 
losing weight:
breakfast- bowl of oatmeal (no instant), banana, 4 egg whits
snack-apple (you can eat pretty much any fruit but an apple is filling)
lunch- can of tuna, bake potato (red or sweet potatoes only), as many greens as u can eat
snack-apple
dinner-6 oz of *****en breast, 1 cup brown rice, greens

Mucles mass:
simple, triple good fat intake (steaks, egg yokes, walnuts, almonds, protiens shakes)
And be sure to hit the gym like a mad man
 
losing weight:
breakfast- bowl of oatmeal (no instant), banana, 4 egg whits
snack-apple (you can eat pretty much any fruit but an apple is filling)
lunch- can of tuna, bake potato (red or sweet potatoes only), as many greens as u can eat
snack-apple
dinner-6 oz of *****en breast, 1 cup brown rice, greens

Mucles mass:
simple, triple good fat intake (steaks, egg yokes, walnuts, almonds, protiens shakes)
And be sure to hit the gym like a mad man

That would be poor advice as well. Where is the fat in the weight loss. If you can't give good advice, you are better off giving none.
 
Wow, I haven't seen someone touting a 60/20/20 for a long time. And the guy with his suggested diet? What is up with this place lately?

More and more people coming up with useless, blatantly misguided, unprompted information.
 
Wow, I haven't seen someone touting a 60/20/20 for a long time. And the guy with his suggested diet? What is up with this place lately?

More and more people coming up with useless, blatantly misguided, unprompted information.

I've been considering going with a 100/0/0 diet. All carbs all the time. I will be unstoppable.
 
Ground breaking my man as I said in red. Next time at least make it factual and not blabber from some government society.


High carbs make you fat? Not at all. I was expecting someone to critique it, which is great. The macronutrient breakdown as I stated is general. I think I even stated it could be modified based on users needs/beliefs. Plus when I suggest carbs, they are the complex kinds.

The point of this thread, as stated in the thread, was to give people who have no idea how many calories they need to consume a starting point. I think I stated that equations are not the end all, cure all.

Here's a fact: You don't put on more muscle by eating more protein, regardless of how hard you workout. You do not gain weight by eating carbs. Weight gain comes from eating too many calories, no matter the macronutrient, and expending less. Plain simple facts.

The low to no carb myth is just a gimic from the 90's weight loss fad diets like Atkins and Southbeach.. Not a good choice for athletes.
 
High carbs make you fat? Not at all. I was expecting someone to critique it, which is great. The macronutrient breakdown as I stated is general. I think I even stated it could be modified based on users needs/beliefs. Plus when I suggest carbs, they are the complex kinds.

The point of this thread, as stated in the thread, was to give people who have no idea how many calories they need to consume a starting point. I think I stated that equations are not the end all, cure all.

Here's a fact: You don't put on more muscle by eating more protein, regardless of how hard you workout. You do not gain weight by eating carbs. Weight gain comes from eating too many calories, no matter the macronutrient, and expending less. Plain simple facts.

The low to no carb myth is just a gimic from the 90's weight loss fad diets like Atkins and Southbeach.. Not a good choice for athletes.

Low carb diets are NOT a myth. One thing most people agree on is that insulin plays a significant role on body composition. Some people are more anti carb than others on this forum but almost of the people on here would agree that insulin is one of the key players in overall body composition.

For me, I take in about 100-150 gms of carbs per day, mainly through veggies and to a lesser extent fruit. That makes up about 20% of my daily calories. I've been this way for quite a while and my body composition is better now than ever. The rest of my calories are fat and proteins. On lifting days, it's probably 40/40 fat/protein on low intensity training days it's more like 55/25 fat/protein.

Touting 60% carbs is just silly and a surefire way to encourage type 2 diabetes and other things. Even the more carb tolerant people on this forum like Monger would agree that 60% is very excessive, I think that 45% as you also mentioned is excessive too, although not quite as unforgivable as the 60%.
 
High carbs make you fat? Not at all. I was expecting someone to critique it, which is great. The macronutrient breakdown as I stated is general. I think I even stated it could be modified based on users needs/beliefs. Plus when I suggest carbs, they are the complex kinds.


Yes, any surplus of food makes you fat, carbs especially. Insulin sensitivity etc considered. Either way, your recommendation is way off line.


The point of this thread, as stated in the thread, was to give people who have no idea how many calories they need to consume a starting point. I think I stated that equations are not the end all, cure all.

Then state that when you begin a thread:icon_lol:

Here's a fact: You don't put on more muscle by eating more protein, regardless of how hard you workout. You do not gain weight by eating carbs. Weight gain comes from eating too many calories, no matter the macronutrient, and expending less. Plain simple facts.


Really? Thanks man, where did you get such ensightful information. Protein needs to be eaten every day. Unlike fat and CHO it cannot be stored by the body for future useage.

The low to no carb myth is just a gimic from the 90's weight loss fad diets like Atkins and Southbeach.. Not a good choice for athletes.



Oh really? Do you know who Dr. Cordain is? Robb Wolf? Tipton, Ivy? Hell I even write about it. It's no myth. Let me ask what knowledge base do you even have on this subject? In fact athletes perform better on lower carb. otherwise myself and those I mentioned would be out of business:icon_lol:
 
Vedic makes a good point when he refers to performance. My last post was more aesthetics based which is looking at things from the wrong angle. Performance wise I've felt much better since being low carb. I'm at a more natural weight, have more energy, don't suffer crashes etc...
 
High carbs make you fat? Not at all. I was expecting

Here are some links for you buddy.

http://user210805.websitewizard.com/files/unprotected/AARR-Jan-2008.pdf

http://***.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/1612

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v2.../0802058a.html
Prolonged adaptation to fat-rich diet and training; effects on body fat stores and insulin resistance in man.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of prolonged adaptation to training and fat- or carbohydrate-rich diet on body composition and insulin resistance.

DESIGN: Longitudinal study. Of three groups two consumed a fat-rich diet, of which one performed regular training (FAT-Train, n=17) and the other maintained normal habitual activity (Fat-Control, n=8). The third group trained and consumed a carbohydrate-rich diet (CHO-Train, n=16).

SUBJECTS: Forty-one untrained, healthy male subjects.

MEASUREMENTS: Before and after 7 weeks body composition was estimated from skinfold measurements. At rest the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) was determined by the Douglas bag technique. Glycogen was determined in m vastus lateralis and concentrations of insulin and triacylglycerol in serum and glucose, fatty acid and beta-hydroxy-butyrate in plasma was measured. The insulin resistance index was calculated from fasting plasma insulin and glucose values.

RESULTS: Across the 7 weeks body weight was reduced (1.3
 
I want to talk next about metabolic typing and then wrap things up with some observations related to gene variations and nutrient quality as an indicator of a preferred diet.

Metabolic Typing (MT) is a process where-by an individual’s optimum ratio of protein, carbohydrate and fat intake is determined. The macronutrients can get apportioned as such:

General Macronutrient Proportions for Each Metabolic Type

Carb Type: 25% Protein / 15% Fat / 60% Carbohydrate

Mixed Type: 30% Protein / 20% Fat / 50% Carbohydrate

Protein Type: 40% Protein / 30% Fat / 30% Carbohydrate

One point to make is that MT is similar to the Zone in that it is concerned first with nutrient portions and second with nutrient quality. My friend, Ido Portal recommends MT and so does Charles Poliquin. They tend however to recommend “Paleo” foods within the context of MT as this ensures higher nutrient density and removes the most allergenic foods. This process is nothing unique. Barry Sears in Mastering the Zone has a flow chart for “Optimizing Your Hormonal Carburetor”. Mauro Di Pasquale has a flow chart for optimizing performance and recovery: http://www.metabolicdiet.com/images/md_tshoot.pdf. John Berardi offers a similar system for determining one’s best air fuel ratio. One Commonality of all these recommendations is that the ratios will fluctuate from time to time in accordance with activity level and other factors. Robert Lee notes in his book !Kung San: Men Women and Work in a Foraging Society that the !Kung diet varies form as much as 90% of calories coming form animal products at certain times of the year to as little as 10% at other times. TS Wiley and Bent Formby, authors of Lights Out: Sleep Sugar and Survival recommend cycling periods of higher and lower carbohydrate consumption based on the time of the year. The take home message from all this?

1-There is no one “Paleo” diet with regards to macronutrient ratios. There are some trends and there are certainly some foods that are NOT representative of what our ancestors evolved to eat.

2-ALL of the Hunter-gatherers experienced variability from season to season and obviously form location to location.

3- Metabolic Typing and all of the other sophisticated nutrition approaches mentioned above recognize that there is variability from individual to individual, even variability for that individual from time to time. Nothing about this is at odds with what we know about our ancestors (people are different) or their nutritional situation (things change).

This segues nicely into the question of genetic variability. A powerful point is made by the information in the book African Exodus by Christopher stringer. Now no one would spend a moment debating what a Chimpanzee diet should consist of, right? The interesting thing is that there is GREATER genetic variation among a family group of 60 chimps than the TOTALITY of humanity. The chimp family line is remarkably old and highly varied. Genetic variation implies a potential to adapt yet it is quite clear what the eating and dietary practices of chimps include (it is clear for humans as well, but less broadly known…hence this Q & A). Human beings despite loads of outward differences are stunningly similar compared to most other organisms. Our ancestors were pinched down to only a few thousand individuals about 100,000 years ago and we have accrued little genetic variety in that time. Now humans ARE opportunistic omnivores and some adaptation has occurred (some populations can tolerate lactose better than others) but the interesting point to make is that the location of greatest change is the area where the germ line is oldest, Africa. Specifically the !Kung People. Wherever agriculture has been established the longest, people show some adaptations towards that end. As was made clear previously however, agriculturalists are NOT healthy in comparison to HG’s or even pastoralists. If you happen to be of northern European or Native American origin you are faced with a few decades to perhaps a few thousand years to adapt to a completely new lifeway. We see this reflected in the earlier and more ubiquitous disease of affluence in these populations.
Key Points:

1-Humans have very little genetic variation in comparison to other organisms.

2-Little genetic variation indicates adaptation to a specific lifeway.

My final point involves food quality and really could have been the first and only point to be made. Grains, legumes and dairy are completely inferior to meats, vegetables, fruits nuts and seeds. Loren Cordain illustrates this point in this paper:
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/JANA final.pdf

In simple terms if one consumes large amounts of grains, legumes and dairy not only are they subjecting themselves to high glycemic, insulin and toxic lectin load one is by default displacing the MOST nutritious food possible.

As to peak athletic performance a Paleo diet is advocated by: Charles Poliquin (US Olympic Track team strength coach) and Joe Friel (Us Olympic Triathlon team coach). Put as much or as little stock in those facts as you like but I think the nutrient density issue is an open and shut case for any endeavor. Regardless of the amounts or ratios of foods consumed, if one chooses lean meats, veggies, fruit nuts and seeds one will be optimizing intake of vitamins, minerals and a slew of phyto-nutrients. A paleo diet need not be low or high carb. As mentioned previously there are some guidelines but what a paleo diet is mainly about is QUALITY of food."

http://www.biggerfasterstronger.com/uploads2/EasyGuideGoodNutrition.pdf


This from the Journal of nutrition and Metabolism:
Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Ketogenic diets and physical performance



Also from Robb


"Now this from the Journal of Applied Physiology:
http://***.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/7

The author makes the point that although fat is the primary fuel source for long slow events, the realities of racing dictate a need for glycogen for final kicks and things like that.

I have a few thoughts on this:
1-The more your sports or activities hang in the glycolytic pathway the more carbs you will need. One may be able to force a bit of fat adaptation in someone like a wrestler...more of their recovery after training may be fed from fat breakdown vs carbs, however if this person runs out of glycogen they are dead on the mat.

2-We can manufacture glucose from 3 sources. Gluconeogenesis from amino acids, lactate in the Cori cycle and glycerol in TAG/fat metabolism. Although the body can and does run quite well on ketones it would certainly be of survival benefit to have glycogen for brief, intense activities. Another way of putting it: if nature could have figured out another way to bridge the gap between ATP/CP and aerobic metabolism, it would have. Fro activities that are both intense and moderate in duration, carbs are essential if performance is the primary concern.

3-Ketosis, whether a consequence of strictly a low carb, higher fat diet or as a consequence of intermittent fasting, appears to confer a wide range of benefits.

4-This the interplay of performance, health and longevity IMO. What one do you want to emphasize? A nice way to balance this is intermittent fasting, likely with a CLC plan something like post WO carb feedings."



Now those are enough for a while. Educate yourself then come with something. Otherwise you are another newbie, wasting our time.
 
High carbs make you fat? Not at all. I was expecting someone to critique it, which is great. The macronutrient breakdown as I stated is general. I think I even stated it could be modified based on users needs/beliefs. Plus when I suggest carbs, they are the complex kinds.

The point of this thread, as stated in the thread, was to give people who have no idea how many calories they need to consume a starting point. I think I stated that equations are not the end all, cure all.

Here's a fact: You don't put on more muscle by eating more protein, regardless of how hard you workout. You do not gain weight by eating carbs. Weight gain comes from eating too many calories, no matter the macronutrient, and expending less. Plain simple facts.

The low to no carb myth is just a gimic from the 90's weight loss fad diets like Atkins and Southbeach.. Not a good choice for athletes.

Better get your ducks in a row.:icon_lol:

Also if we want to bring endurance athletes into the equation, then there is this.

Gym Jones - Knowledge - FAT
 
Back
Top