I've been looking around for a formula that I can calculate how many calories I need per day. I've found lots of different calculators, and a few different formulas. I am a male, 5 foot 7inches and weigh 336lbs and I've found numbers varying from over 5000 calories down to 1900 calories. The thing that makes the most sense to me is a formula that gave me 2800 calories.

However, what I am trying to do is find the amount of calories I need per day, then subtract 500 from that and eat that amount of calories a day. In addition to this I'll be exercising and burning 500 calories. This results in 7000 calories burnt per week, or 2lbs lost per week. I think I need to use my BMR to figure this. The problem is, I can't figure my BMR out! And, since im using exercise to specifically burn extra calories, should I not count activity level in the calorie calculation? If it is adding calories based on how active I am, that completely invalidates my exercise.

For now, I am using the formula that gives me 2800, and I've actually lost 10lbs since I started doing this a few weeks ago. However I am worried I might be doing something wrong. If there is anyone who can help me I would greatly appreciate it.

http://weight-loss.fitness.com/topic...aptations.html

Read that.

__________________
My Blog -- My Journal -- My Photos

And there is no right or wrong really. If it is working for you, you are doing something right.

Stop fretting.

Those calculations are merely estimated anyhow, based on averages.

__________________
My Blog -- My Journal -- My Photos

I understand where you are coming from in that link. Would it not be true that you could recalculate your BMR every week or month to compensate for that initial plateuing? Not saying eat less though, I'd rather burn the calories in exercising - does that make much of a difference?

I'm always too obsessed with the numbers myself and I like to have a formula that I can use to predict results, and then see the results happen (in everything not just weight loss). The main reason I'm bringing this up is the vast difference in the calorie estimations... It seems to me if the 1800 calorie estimation was right, then if I followed the 5000 one I'd actually gain weight. It's just confusing. Also I feel like yeah, I'll lose weight for now cause I'm more active and I'm consuming less, but that might not have anything to do with the accuracy of those numbers anyway.

Just quick point on BMR.

Steve's link is talking about " maintenance calories " - which is what I think you are trying to nail down. BMR represents the calories just to keep you alive - think coma. So, you may be confusing BMR with " maintenance calories ". Maintenance calories " is made up of calories to support your BMR, plus a bump for RMR, plus calories for your digestion, plus calories for your daily actvities, plus calories for exercise and any post exercise bumps in metablolism. And as far as BMR goes, noticeable differences in BMR are usually associated with changes in your lean body mass ( i.e muscle ). Assuming your calorie defcit isn't prompting any starvation reponses on the one hand and you aren't exercising very intensely mon the other it's unlikley you'd see substantial changes in BMR on a week by week basis due to ' sensible ' dieting alone.

.

My sense is, some of these calculators may not be as well suited to situations where body fat is a substantially large component of body weight. I would suspect that these ( BMR ) calorie calculators must have been developed with some assumption of what a person's lean body mass / body fat % range is. Normal healthy body fat % for men is about 15%, and I'd read that the average for most men is about 23% body fat. Remember, in some cases the BMR's are calculated only using height, weight and age. And the other thing to remember is that BMR caloires can account for almost 70% of all the calories you need in the day ( depending of course on how active you are ) and is greatly influenced by the amount of muscle mass you have. So the more ( or less ) muscle mass you have, the more of an impact you'd expect that change in mass to have on BMR estimates

For example, someone who is 25, 6' tall, 180 lbs and 15% bf ( this % is healthy normal ) would get the same calculated BMR than someone who is 25, 6' tall, 180 lbs and 34 % bf ( this % is overfat ) . Thing is, the first guy has about 150 lbs. of lean mass, the second guy about 120 lbs of lean mass. Does the difference in 30 lbs of mass makes much of a difference as to whether the calculation is spot on or not ( as to how many calories you need for BMR ) ? Hard to say. There's an old gym chestnut maxim was that a pound of muscle burns 30 - 50 calories per day. Some say it's more like a pound of muscle only burns about 6 calories a day. Add to the fact that some say 1 pound of fat burns about 2 calories a day. So, anyway you look at it, you could argue that higher bodyfat % may overstate BMR calories requirement calculations...by how much is open to debate.

I think the calculators mayalso be misleading when not only the body fat % changes, but so does the weight - for a given height. Assume for example someone is the same height as you at 5'7'' and is 190 lbs...and assume this is close to an average bodyfat % of 23% ( this is just a guess on my part ) . His lean body mass is about 147 lbs. and might yield a BMR of 1,900 calories Now, if your stats of 5'7'" and 336 lbs was also assuming 23% bodyfat, your lean mass would be almost 260 lbs and might yield a BMR of 2,900 calories. And clearly, 260 lbs of lean mass requires more calories to sustain itself than 150 lbs...so based on the extra pounds of muscle and fat at 336 lbs., an extra 1,000 calories makes some intutive sense.

But, if for example, at 336 lbs. assume you have different body fat %. In my example, the 190 lb guy is at 24% body fat, assume yours is now higher at say 40% body fat. Now your lean body mass isn't 260 lbs anymore, but 200 lbs. If you need 1,000 calories to sustain 260 lbs, why would you also need 1,000 calories to sustain only 200 lbs. ? This is where some of the calcualtions may be misleading.

Obviously, these are very simplistic examples I've given and many other factors come in to play when determining reasonable BMR or maintnenace calories " estimates " ( and that's all they are - " estimates " ). But the point I'm trying to make is that trying to be aware of what your body fat % / lean body mass wil go a long way to getting a better handle on what a reasonable BMR might be - again, for the simple fact that BMR accounts for so much of your daily caloric needs and is closely associated with how much lean body mass you have. So, if there is some way you can find out what your body fat % is, that would be some very valuable information you could use IMO.

I see, thank you very much Wrangell for that info. I didn't even take lean mass vs fat into consideration. I think I know what to do now, thank you!

No problem. Lean body mass is where it's at IMO.

As I said in my post, i think if you can nail down a reasonable estimate of what your current body fat % might be, it'll provide you with the most meaningfull basis by which to come up with a reasonable estimate for your maintenance calories. That, and you can do an easier job of setting appropriate goals and managing your expectations.

Is there anyplace near where you live, where you could get a body fat % calc done ?

As far as a professional body fat % measurement, I don't know. What kind of places would offer that type of service? There are calipers, but they don't do too much good when you're past a certain point of being overweight (at least I wouldn't think they would).

I don't live in a very big city or anything, so usually its hard to find things like that.

Some places that might be able to help you out.......

- the local " Y "
- some gyms ( depending on how ' big ' they are )
- a community rec centre / gym that has a fitness facility
- any athletic dept of a nearby college or university
- some sports injury / rehab clinics
- you might get a lead from a local doctor who specializes in sports medicine


Every body fat % calculation method has it's plusses and minuses and some are just plain better than others. The method most other methods benchmark themselves against is the one where they float you in a water tank. Trouble is, access to that water method is few and far between and it is usually only universities / colleges that may provide it. You mentioned calipers. Calipers for example, can be inaccurate to the degree of 4% +/- when compared to a water test as a benchmark.

I hear you. And it usually costs money to have someone else do it too ! Nonetheless, a few calls from the Yellow Pages won't cost you anything and at least you'l know what is actually available.

Another option is to try and do a body fat % calc yourself - with the proviso going in that you know it may not be the most accurate ( or even close to accurate ) . If you have no other options due to availability or cost - it's better than nothing.

For example, there is such a thing as a ' circumference method ' for estimating body fat % - it uses body measurements. The U.S. navy uses one ( see link ) that was found to be as accurate as some of the most common caliper ( i.e skin-fold measuring ) tools used. But it doesn't mean it is as good as a water test...it just means that if you don't have access to calipers, it is another option you might consider.

BBLex - Calculator: Bodyfat calculation by US Navy formula

Now keep in mind, if this method says you have " X " % body fat - it could be off by 4+ % either way - or more. But the idea is not so much to get an absolute score but to get a relative score. For example, by relative, I mean you take a measure Jan1, April 1, July 1, Oct 1 using the same method and see how it changes over time.

But, if nothing else, it may also give you a ballpark of estimate of what your dealing with in terms of much of the weight on your scale you see each morning is due to fat and how much of it is due to lean muscle. And, as we discussed before, this can have a big impact on how to calculate or " interpret " your maintenenace calorie calculations and structure a fat loss program. If the calc suggests your bf % is 15 % - that's one thing. If it suggests your bf% is 40% or more, that is another thing. The point being, even if 40% is innacurate and out by 4 % or even 10%, and it is actually closer to 36% or 30% body fat...you know you have a sighificant body fat issue that needs to be addressed. And addressing it may take the form of trying to take the next step - and get as accurate a body fat % readings(s) as you can to get the best handle on exactly what you're dealing with body fat wise.