File :-(, x, )
Counting Calories 101 Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
So you want to correct your diet, but you don't know where to start. Well, you can start here. This brief guide will show you how to calculate the total amount of calories you

need to gain, maintain, or lose weight. It'll also tell you other useful stuff that you might not even be thinking of at this point, such as how many carbs/fats/proteins you should

be taking in.

First, let's begin with your BMR, or basal metabolic rate. This is the amount of calories your body currently consumes at rest. There are two formulae you can use. The first one,

the Harris-Benedict Formula, is for those of you who don't know their lean body mass. It goes as follows:

Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 X wt in kg) + (5 X ht in cm) - (6.8 X age in years)
Women: BMR = 655 + (9.6 X wt in kg) + (1.8 X ht in cm) - (4.7 X age in years)

To convert pounds to kilograms, multiply pounds by 0.45359237. .5 works, too. To convert inches to centimeters, multiply your inches by 2.54.

Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
Congratulations! You now know how many calories you need to maintain your weight AND sit completely still in a chair all day! If you work, though, you'll have to multiply your BMR

by an activity factor. Here's the list of different activity levels and how much to multiply your BMR by:

Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
Extr. Active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2 X day training, marathon, football camp, contest, etc.)

Here's an example using myself (I already translated imperial to metric, for simplicity's sake):

Harris-Benedict (male): 66 + (13.7 * 119.5) + (5 * 180.3) - (6.8 * 22) = BMR of 2455 calories per day.
Katch-McArdle: 370 + (21.6 * 93.5) = BMR of 2390 calories per day.

The second one is more accurate, so that's the one I'll go with from here. Multiply 2390 by my activity level (I fall in moderately active) to get my TDEE, or total daily energy

expenditure:

2390 * 1.55 = 3704 calories per day
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
It takes 3704 calories per day to maintain my weight with a moderate activity level. Great, but I want to lose weight. This is done through calorie deficits. They say that the

absolute maximum (for extreme cases of 20lbs or more) is 30%. 15% is the norm, and 20% is the most you should aim for unless you can grab and kiss fistfuls of fat from your gut.

It is a simple calculation. Take me, at a calorie deficit of 25%:

Daily calorie target: 3704 * (1 - .25) = 2778 calories.

And there you have it. To further subdivide this into meals, we here on /fit/ usually agree on 5 meals per day. That amounts to 556 calories per meal, which is an allowance that

you'll probably have trouble meeting, if you're anything like me. I am never wanting for food if I stick to these quotas, and you're not likely to, either. Also, many people say

that meal tapering -- eating more in the morning and less at night -- has merit. If you want to, just hack off a hundred or two calories from your last meal and put 'em onto your

first meal.

Sit tight, there's still a bit more to the story. A very important part, even. You MUST strive to achieve a certain macro-nutrient balance if you want to truly optimize your

weight loss. Macro-nutrients are fats, carbs, and proteins, and they are where the calories from food come from. Sadly, most nutrient labels are listed in grams, so that means a

little more converting. Here are their conversion rates:

1g fat = 9 calories
1g protein = 4 calories
1g carbohydrates = 4 calories
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
With that out of the way, we can start crafting our macro-nutrient ratios. Everybody will differ, but a good starting point is 55% carbs, 25% protein, and 20% fat. You may find

that you're carb-sensitive, meaning that you still tend to hold onto weight at 55% carbs. In that case, you can slowly lower carbs to as low as 40%, raising proteins and fats

accordingly (i.e. half a percent gain to each for every percent your carbs go down). You can also increase protein to up to 30% if you want to do some major body building,

sacrificing carbs -- not fat. But this is a generic guide, so I'll calculate the 55:25:20 (carbs:protein:fat) ratio, and I'll only do it for my meal calculation of 556 calories,

since that's the one I'll need the specific ratios for:

Carbs = 556 * .55 = 306 calories from carbs
306 / 4 = 76g of carbs per meal. Remember the above conversion factors between grams and macro-nutrients!

Protein = 556 * .25 = 139 calories from protein
139 / 4 = 35g of protein per meal.

Fats = 556 * .2 = 111 calories from fats
111 / 9 = 12g of fat per meal.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
So you'll want to aim for 76g carbs, 35g protein, and 12g fat per meal. But that STILL isn't all she wrote. You can be hitting those quotas and still eating nothing but garbage.

So the next step is to make sure we only eat good carbs, proteins, and fats. We'll start with carbs.

Good carbs can be measured with a simple process, which actually goes for all of the macro-nutrients but is doubly important for carbs: how far from its original form is this food?

Oatmeal is a wonderful source of good carbs. Whole wheat products (whole wheat bread, shredded wheat, anything with 100% whole grains near the top of the ingredients list) are also

good. Vegetables and potatos are also at the top of the good carb list.

Proteins are pretty simple. You've got animal proteins (meat and dairy products) and vegetable proteins. The only rule here is that you want to have some animal protein in each

meal. Pure veggie proteins aren't quite as useful to the body unless supplemented with animal protein. If you're vegetarian, feel free to avoid meat. You'll probably not build

muscle quite as fast, but it won't hurt you. Food choices are fairly limited. In the meat section, our optimum protein comes from skinless boneless chicken/turkey breasts, egg

whites (eat the yolks if you want to, but be sure to count all the carbs/fat they contain as well!). Anything other than that is likely to have a sizeable helping of fat as well,

which isn't the end of the world, but it just makes calculating precise meals all the more difficult. Fat free milks and cheeses are also fine sources of protein. Vegetarian

proteins come primarily from peanuts and to a lesser extent whole wheat products. You've also got your soy and tofu products.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
Finally, we've got fats. You're looking for 0% saturated and trans fat. You want all of your fat to be monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat. You'll notice that you have a hard

time finding these fats without some saturated fat to go along with 'em in natural foods, so you are allowed to fudge if you don't want to take supplements. Your best bet for your

fat quota is to purchase a supplemental oil created expressly for this purpose. The gold standard is fish oil. A fine fellow by the name of Udo Erasmus also sells grossly

overpriced fat supplements. If you look hard enough, though, you should be able to get your fats in a natural form.

One last little tidbit is when to eat these meals. You want to eat your meals at least 2.5 hours apart, and at most 4 hours apart. I always aim for a 3 hour break between meals.

You also need to get your last meal into your belly about 3 hours before hitting the sack. The end!
>> Anonymous
tl;dr
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36157

You never know how simple that brilliant little phrase is until it is used on your own work.

In short, I lol'd.
>> Anonymous
Nice post.

Thank you OP.
>> Anonymous
very cool. thanks oP
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
Ah hell, there's always something. Forgot to talk about zig-zagging. Better now than never:

You will also want to zig-zag your calorie intake on a weekly basis. Zig-zagging basically means eating your normal intake for up to 3 days and then eating a little more on the next day. This helps prevent entrance into starvation mode and helps in breaking weight loss plateaus. Here's an example, given my daily calorie target of 2778:

Monday: 2778 cals
Tuesday: 2778 cals
Wednesday: 3000 cals
Thursday: 2778 cals
Friday: 2778 cals
Saturday: 3000 cals
Sunday: 2778 cals

I'm pretty sure that's everything...
>> Anonymous
entirely wrong information copypastaed from the tubes and based on the conventional wisdom from fifteen years ago, which was little more than a collection of poorly drawn conclusions based on estimation and not causality
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36202

Do explain what is right, then. No need to go into detail. Just the school of thought.
>> Anonymous
>>36204
not ur personal medical school
lurk more
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36207

I've read little, if anything, outside of what I recommend here, even lurking this board nearly constantly, reading diet wikis, etc.

In short, unsage.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
Bump. I post parts of this knowledge in many threads a day. If nothing else it can be copypasta for them.
>> Anonymous
ITT: The Hard Way

Any one of several hundred sites will do all the math for you.
>> Anonymous
>>36237
Bumping your own thread is just sad
You started this and have done nothing for an hour other than sit in front for your computer wishing for positive replies, lol kill yourself
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36248

I KNOW! Hitting f5 and typing out replies requires a great deal of effort. No way I could be doing homework in the interim.
>> Weed and Exercise
66 + (71.6 x 13.7) + (5 x 180.34) - (6.8 x 19)
1046.92 + 901.7 - 129.2 =

1819.42

x 1.55 =

2820.101 Calories Per Day

Interesting...
>> Anonymous
>>36248
why is this random guy so butthurt? This info goes roughly in a similar way to what i've heard from my personal trainer...
>> Anonymous
>>36255my personal trainer
tits or grfo
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36255

I have no clue m'self. Just trolling I guess.

>>36247
This is true, but I see tons of questions regarding the info I put here. I just made a copypasta to quickly answer those questions and figured I'd post it whole to see what people liked/disliked. 100 minds work better'n one and all that.
>> Anonymous
>>36262
it only counts as copy pasta if someone other than you ends up posting it again. I see that as unlikely.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36290

Constructive criticism or gtfo
>> Anonymous
>>36337
Here is my constructive criticism. Delete your file. Just use the internet to plug and chug your weight and height and get the calories.

Subtract 500. That is what you eat per day, within 100.

Or, conversely, just dont drop below 2200 calories per day for anyone over 220lbs or 1800 for anyone under.

Now gtfo.
>> play !3rZQiXcf5A
http://www.tlbc.ca/blog/index.php/bmr-calculator/
>> Anonymous
Thanks. I didn't know I ate so little. LOL at 30% I needed 1800 Calories. There was a day I only ate 900. HAHAHA. :D

And I'm not even fat. Lost 7 pounds within 2 weeks, lol.
>> Nerofag !!Ep0YyNVJr9Y
ITT we eat too little and go into starvation mode.

3300 seems liek a lot, but broken down into 5 meals seem tolerable.

I still only eat about 2000 a day. In approx 40:25:25
>> Anonymous
So, huge fat fuck here. I believe I saw on a site I googled for similar information that said that that first formula (I don't have the lean body mass info for the second one) can be grossly inaccurate for people much overweight. And I went through the calculations and everything and it sorta wants me to eat like 3,000 calories a day to lose as much weight as possible, which really seems like a whole fucking lot of food.

Can I trust this, or what?
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36482

It does get inaccurate the more overweight you are. It is, however, still useful as a baseline. You can regulate your diet based on whatever figures you get from the formulas, and if you don't lose weight then you can tweak your plan, though most health experts I've seen have advocated doing more cardio if a diet doesn't exactly work.

For the very overweight, I doubt the figures you get from these formulas will steer you wrong, though. For me, all I had to do was regulate myself in order to start dropping precipitous amounts of weight. The specifics only really come into play once you near the lower body fat %'s.
>> Blarg !X7hwxcdD2Y
This makes much sense to me, and since I'm hating my 1100-Calorie diet with no results, I'ma totally try this.

Do you have any suggestions on figuring out which of the macronutrients your body is sensitive to?
>> Anonymous
>>36526

Sadly, trial and error is about the only option. Start off on the 55:25:20 approach and if you don't start to drop weight within 2 weeks you can start (slowly) lowering your carbs.
>> Anonymous
>>36514

Well, I've broken 300 pounds, so very overweight's a pretty good descriptor. But, man, it's just hard to think "cutting calories" and "1,000 calories more than it says on the back of every box of cereal I've ever read" both at once.
>> Anonymous
>>36539"1,000 calories more than it says on the back of every box of cereal I've ever read"
Because that's where I get *my* nutritional cues from.
>> Anonymous
>>36539

Those are averages between healthy men and women. The Harris-Benedict method gets inaccurate because heavier people can either be heavy due to muscle or due to fat; I'm imagining that they just average the two extremes out and hit a middle ground. In your case, that'll mean the figures are probably a little high -- not so much that you won't lose weight under 'em, but you will more than likely be able to further restrict your diet without hurting yourself.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36549
This is me.
Argh. De- and re-tripcoding is arduous.
>> Anonymous
Apparently my caloric requirements are slightly above 1400...

I've been eating 5-6 smaller meals everyday for the last two weeks and doing weight training and HIIT on and off for the past year. How will I know if I'm getting anywheres?!
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36555

You sure you converted to metric?

The best way to measure progress is to check your lean body mass, but a combination of body weight and a mirror should suffice.
>> Anonymous
>>36526
sensitive to.. what? you need all of them. protein, fat, carbs. water. all.

however check out the Zone diet, it's a proportion all those should go in, approx but wrong: 33%, 33%, 33%.
>> Anonymous
Counting calories seems to work alright for me.

I usually try to stay under 2000 calories a day and never felt better. Though I suppose I probably should try to aim a bit lower so as to lose some more weight.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>36805

2,000 calories is almost universally low. If it is working for you, go for it, but you can probably eat up to 500 calories more per day nothing but benefits tied to doing so.

>>36792

I should have mentioned this when I responded to that guy's question, but one can only be "carb sensitive," and only in the sense that you retain weight that you obtain through carbs. Some people do have to lower their carb intake (but no lower than 40%, and that is in extreme circumstances) in order to achieve maximum weight loss.
>> Anonymous
>>37045

I once ate just 1000 Cal in one day. I felt really hungry, etc. Now I'm raising it to 1500. I still feel hungry, but it's lost me 7 pounds in two weeks.

Building up muscles are a different thing, though. I'm going to try and start Ab Ripper X tomorrow. I must get me some toned abs, even if they're just 4-packs.
>> Anonymous
>>37054

Oh, and not fat. Was once 149 at 5'8", now down to 142. I want to be leaner, so go figure.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>37057

The problem with such a low calorie intake is that virtually every pound of weight lost will be muscle, since it is easier to convert into energy than fat. Your body only burns fat if it knows that it can safely sacrifice the energy necessary to do so.

This means that you'll be fighting a SEVERELY uphill battle if you want to achieve tone. You'll get skinny, but you'll still have the pudgy, flabby look.
>> Anonymous
>>37091

So, any suggestions? Yeah, I'm also hungry to eat more. If you can vouch for the truth in that I'd be very happy to follow you. :)
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
>>37109

Just go through all of the math I've laid out in the original posts and either immediately switch to it (which could put a few pounds on you if you have eaten so little for long enough), or slowly work your way up to the recommended amount.

You can also hunt down a calculator that does virtually all of this for you. I'll find one I saw a long time ago that can calculate everything down to your macro nutrient requirements in just a sec.
>> Calorie_counter !xf4elShL76
http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

This seems to underestimate the calories you need compared to my calculations in this guide, but it is close enough if you don't want to do reams of math yourself.

Just fill that in, hit calculate, and once you've done that you can click on a little link that'll take you to the macro nutrients calculator which you can tweak to your preferences (moderate II is the one I recommend starting with)
>> Anonymous
>>37116

Thanks. Oh, and I made a new thread>>37120. Pic is there as well as vital information. :)
>> Anonymous !KRuMRaNDOM
A deficite of 1000 Kilocalories a day is pretty...heavy. Have fun yoyoing do death after your diet. Unless you have a recharge day every week.

Oh yeah, and tldr after your third post.
>> Anonymous
>>37141

I did it once. I'll never do it again. Sorry, it was stupid of me. In fact, I'll go eat more now.