Caloric question (heads up Emilycat!)

[m4star]

I'm curious about those of you out there who are in "maintenance" phase. How many calories do you consume each day and how active are you (I guess this also depends on your age as well). My friend, who is in her early 40's, is active and eats 1800 calories to maintain her great figure. I am in my late 20's, semi-active (work 8 hours at a desk but put in at least an hour of exercise a day) and usually eat around 1600-1750 calories a day to maintain my weight and level of fitness.

I realize this is a huge variation, especially with the age difference. So I wanted to here from y'all. What is your maintenance routine?

Thanks!
(always trying to push those nasty posts down the line http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/wink.gif )

[emilycat]

I don't know that I would call this my "maintenence phase," since I've never been in "losing mode" (or at least, I never needed to be in losing mode http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif ), but I run about 50 miles a week (around 55 during marathon training), and I eat around 2,000 calories a day, maybe more, but I don't count as closely as I used to (wahoo! http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/smile.gif ) And I weigh 100 pounds, so someone bigger than me will definitely need a lot more food at the same activity level. And I'm in my early twenties, and I should mention that my parents and three siblings all have fast metabolisms. Does that help any?

Emily

[BethML]

Emilycat,

I was wondering if you would tell us how tall you are-- I think height is an important variable in the weight/calories/exercise equation.

And good luck to you in the marathon!

[emilycat]

Oops, that is kind of important, isn't it! I'm 5' 2 1/2" (the 1/2 is very important http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/wink.gif )

And thanks, Beth!

[This message has been edited by emilycat (edited 04-04-2001).]

[KValley]

Here's an interesting formula for determining the number of calories needed to maintain current weight or to achieve goal weight:

From the May '01 issue of SHAPE

*Multiply your healthy weight by 10 calories for your Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR)- the calroes required for basic bodily function (at rest)
Example: You weigh 150 but 140 is a healthier weight for you. Multiply 10 calories x 140 pounds = 1400 calories for your RMR

* To your RMR add half that number (assuming you are moderatly active throughout the day. Example 50% x 1400 calories for RMR = 700 calories for daily activity

*Add 200 calories per 30 minutes of aerobic exercise. Example: 30 minutes = 200 calories. Total calorie needs 1400 RMR + 700 (daily activity) + 200 exercise = 2300

*Subtract 20% x 2300 calories= about 500; 2300 calories - 500 = 1800 calories- the number you'd need to lose weight.

Make adjustments according to your actual energy output.

Using this calculation, SHAPE says you'll lose 1/2 to 1 lb per week, which is a healthy, realistic goal (IMO)

Now, if actually losing the weight were as easy as plugging in the numbers!!

[aggie94]

Actually, I'm not sure that's right. The calculation is based on what your ideal/healthy weight is. If you're already there, at 130, then I would think that the 1800 calories is maintenance. Think about it: if you weighed 150 now, you'd use the same exact numbers you already did to reach 1800 as the amount you would need to lose weight. Since you're already at your healthy weight, 1800 becomes a maintenance value. Does that seem right? I could be way off. That's the way I interpreted it.

In either event, any easier calculation (also based on information in an issue of Shape) is to multiply your current weight by 13 for weight loss, or by 16 for weight maintenance. Still doesn't support my explanation above, so maybe someone else has thoughts.

[This message has been edited by aggie94 (edited 04-05-2001).]

[KValley]

Don't shoot the messenger!! http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/biggrin.gif


I did think this formula came up with a greater number of calories, both at maintenance and at lower "ideal" weight levels, than other formulas (such as the one aggie 94 cites above) AND that I felt was realistic/reliable for me.

I reread the article and it does appear that the 1800 m4star calculates is the weight loss number, not maintenance.

1800 calories for a 130lb moderately active woman (you're right- what exactly is mod. active http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/smile.gif?), however, seems more likely a maintenance value if you apply some common sense to this.

What the heck do I know? Maybe SHAPE is giving us permission to eat more, maybe there was an editorial error.

The real truth lies with our individual bodies. THese formulas are guides, not gospel!

[BevP]

Well, using both those formulas, I should be eating about 1900 calories and losing! I don't think so!! I definately think someone needs to define moderately active. http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/smile.gif

[aggie94]

I have been using dietlog (Palm software) to keep track of my daily calories, and have been very diligent about sticking to 1950 a day (no more, no less), which is what I calculated as my weight loss caloric intake under the Self formula (multiply current weight by 13 for loss, by 16 for maintenance).

[footnote: My earlier post says this formula came from Shape. I stand corrected -- it's from Self.]

Anyway, 1950 sounded like a lot to me, and when I first started keeping track, I found that I generally do not eat that much a day unless I'm eating out. But I tried to stick with that number and I have been losing weight, not more than a couple of pounds a month. I consider myself at least moderately active -- even though I have a desk job, I take the stairs to my office, try to get out during lunch to walk around, and hit the gym or kickboxing at least 4-5 nights a week. So 1900 and losing may not sound as crazy as you think!

[lrr]

aggie94-
Where did you get your Palm Software and what version do you have? I have a Palm V and would love to get the dietlog. Monitoring my calories is my worst downfall (other than chocolate). I just can't seem to remember to write everything down.

[aggie94]

lrr,

Check out http://www.healthetech.com/ for information on the dietlog, weightlog, and exerlog Palm software. In fact, it was someone else on this board that recommended it. I don't get much from the weightlog and exerlog, but they came as a bundle for the same price as the dietlog alone. And you can even download a free 14-day trial for all three programs to see if you like it before you buy it. If you decide to buy it, you can just enter in a registration # they give you after you pay, so that all your information is still saved without having to reload the software. I've entered nutritional info for all the CL meals I cook frequently, so that I can just pull up a serving and pop it right into my log for the day. I really like it. It even breaks down your daily calories by category (fat, protein, carb, sugar, etc.) based on different nutritional schemes (one being the food pyramid). Lots of cool features that you can play around with if you decide to try it out.

By the way, I have a Handspring Visor (basic model), not a Palm. But the operating system is Palm.

[m4star]

Whoa KValley! If I follow the Shape magazine formula:

130 (my weight) x 10= 1300
+ 50% (and what is 'moderately active' anyway?)= 1950
+ 300 calories (45 minutes cardio)= 2250 to maintain my current weight

or

- 20% (to loose 1/2-1 lb./week)= 1800 calories!!

I eat WAY less than that and I consider myself in a maintenence phase right now! I am totally shocked by this!!!!!!

[clairea]

lrr,

Another option for a Palm or Visor is the Vivonic Fitness Planner. I have been using this for several weeks, and really like it. It keeps track of calories, fat, sat. fat., fiber, etc., as well as exercise and calories burned. I have been much more diligent about keeping track of things since I got this -- I hated having to figure everything out for myself. You can get more information at http://www.vivonic.com/.