Calculating Exact Calorie Requirements
armstrong_jack
Posts: 82
in General Chat
No mate you dont add it on again.
3500 is the cookie.
However in my humble opinion if what you say is correct and you do have a body fat percentsge of 6.3 %, i recon your heading for a whole heap of trouble.
This aint weight lifting mate or Gymnastics, its an endurance event sport, and i would say your either wrong about your bf % or your in the wrong sport.
Be interested to know what your daily diet is like
3500 is the cookie.
However in my humble opinion if what you say is correct and you do have a body fat percentsge of 6.3 %, i recon your heading for a whole heap of trouble.
This aint weight lifting mate or Gymnastics, its an endurance event sport, and i would say your either wrong about your bf % or your in the wrong sport.
Be interested to know what your daily diet is like
0
Comments
This is a relatively simple yet surprisingly annoying question. I am well aware of the basic way you calculate your daily metabolic rate, then multiply it by a factor based on your exercise level.
For myself, I am 85kg, 6.3% Bodyfat and 188cm. This gives me a BMR of about 1950. I train twice a day but have a sedentary job (office based) so would multiply it by about 1.7 to get a daily calorie requirement of about 3,500 calories.
Now this is the bit I don't understand. If my two training sessions are for example a 70 minute swim (approx 850 calories) and a 80" Brick sessoin (approx 1150 calories) that means I have burnt off 2000 calories in active exercise during the day.
I have however already used the fact that i'm exercising in my base calorie requirement (ie 3,500) so should I count it again as how much i've actually burnt? So basically should the figure for my day be 3500 or 5500?
N.B - i've tried to use round numbers for ease of use, I appreciate the exact numbers may vary. I am just after the theory so that I can work out the exacts.
Thanks for the help!
Jack
Basically I have a set of scales which measure bf %. They are very unlikely to be as accurate as calipers but I think they are approximately right, also it has been going down so its all right. Unfortunately I didn't get into sport (Any sport except drinking that is) since I was 20 which was only about 6 years ago so still got excess fat from that despite new training regime.
I'm always interested in food though and trying to lose the last bit around my waist, I am down from 18st to less than 13 though so definitely gone in the right direction!!
Diet, for example the last two days:
Monday
9am - Porridge made with water and semi skimmed milk - honey and raisins
11am - 3k swim with interval work
1pm - Veg lasagne (home made), bread with butter, salad with balsamic vinegar
2.30 - protein shake with carbs in (200 cals)
3pm - 3.5 hour bike ride + 30 min run (about 60 miles at Z2) - consumed 2 power bars and 1 powergel
7:30pm - protein shake (pure protein so 100 cals only), more veg lasagne, bread and salad
9pm - hot chocolate (50 cals)
(drank 2 cups of coffee and shed loads of water)
Tuesday
6:30 - protein shake with carbs (200 cals)
7:00 - 60" Gym weights - protein shake (100 cals)
8:00 - 45" cycle to work (stop and start through london traffic)
9:00 - Porridge with honey and raisins
12:00 - Large bowl of carriot and coriander soup with 2 large chunks of brown bread, diet coke and 2 chunks of turkish delight
4pm - Half a malt loaf (250 cals worth) and a glass of semi skimmed milk
5pm - 45" cycle home (Stop/start)
6pm - 45" bike/ 30" run Z2 Brick - 1 banana and 1 powergel
7.30pm - 2 chicken breasts and a pack of stir fry vegtables - stir fried with some chili dipping sauce
8pm - missing the carbs from the meal so had 2 slices of bread with butter and strawberry jam
9pm - hot chocolate and 2 oranges
So whats the verdict then, anyone have any ideas how i'm doing?!
And if you think your eating 3500 calories your miles out.
However if your doing as much training as you say you are, then it must be working.
And two days without a swim,
if your cycling and running on a monday, you shouldnt really be doing the same on a tuesday.
But again your body, your diet looks like that of a Weight lifter, i.e lots of protein, little or no fats or carbs.
good luck to you, will be interesing seeing how you get on in iron man.
Once you get down to 10% or less, you abs should be visible - i.e. you shouldn't have any noticable belly fat, especially as you are in your 20s.
If you do have a bit of a flab - i.e. easy to pinch a bit round your tummy etc. then you may not be at 6.5%.
But JL is right - you do seem to have a bit of protein, and less carbs than you might otherwise be eating.
An "average" body fat percentage - i.e. "normal" rather than overweight etc. is about 15%.
Also just been for another one, but thats beside the point!
Interesting what you say, as I always thought I had too much carbohydrates so was trying to decrease it in favour of protein. I did cut out all protein shakes and such from January when I started this training program (I used to use them alot during rowing when you need more muscle as a heavyweight rower). I just have found that the weight has fallen off me though, so an instructor at the gym I use suggested I start using them again - albiet he is probably thinking more along the building muscle line rather than ultra endurance.
Still, going back to my original question - if you just take the multiplication of your BMR x activity factor then how does that take into account how long you train for? Ie if I do 2 sessions a day and thus am very active, its very different if my 2 sessions are 1 hour each or if they include a 5 hour bike ride (for example) - thus wouldn't my calorie needs be different each day? If so then do you just change the multiplication factor for your BMR dependent on how long your sessions are?
Sorry if it sounds like i'm being pedantic, i'm just really curious
It's one of those formulae that work only in a given set of circumstances (like BMI), you need to look at what length of sessions they considered when they worked out the formula, then if your sessions average to the activity bracket of a given multiplication factor use that.
Personally I would only use the BMR with a little or no exercise multiplication factor (1.2?) then add the calories burnt from my heart rate monitor to work out my personal daily energy needs. Even then it would be worth averaging it out over a month or two. A far easier way though is to eat more if your losing weight, eat less if your gaining weight and eventually you'll find the correct balance for yourself.
I think the 3500 is an average based on what they have arbitrarily deemed a very active lifestyle. You'll probably be better off taking the normal calorie consumption for a sedentary or modestly active person and adding your calories used each day. Or you can just go by your weight gain/loss and figure out a balance that works for your metabolism.
Edit: Or just listen to jibby26's post...
I'll try and find it now
http://www.stevenscreek.com/goodies/calories.shtml
Not sure how accurate (as it is average) but it might give you an idea as to what you may need. Although tbh I agree with jibby, just see what works based on if you loose or gain weight over a given time