Ok, I'm eating like I'm eating and I'm probably not going to change anything (seems to be working for me, no?), but I'm just trying to clean up some conflicting info about calorie needs...

The sources that are conflicting?
Jillian Michaels - my personal goddess
People on traineo (not to mention traineo itself, which is trying to make me eat like a pig)
Various info found on a lotta different sites

1. The people on the Biggest Loser are getting about 1600 (men) or 1200 (women) calories per day, and training 4-6 hours. No, I'm not suggesting this for us mortals, but these contestants obviously aren't plateauing because they're starving.

2. On Jillian's radio show she's regularly setting "normal" (not BL contestants) women at about 1400 calories per day, men at about 1800 depending on their goals.

3. The bmr calculates your needed calories for just living, but using the formula for how active you are, it gives you a higher number. Ergo, wanting to lose 1 lb per week would entail subtracting 500 from that number, no?

4. I've seen traineo members suggest incredible amounts of calories to people needing to lose weight, and I'm having trouble figuring out why. Yes, we need to be careful not to go into starvation mode, but - my body fat is constantly down and my muscle mass is constantly up, and I'm not eating what everyone says I should (I've been doing an average of 1600 calories per day since I started with calorie cycling and recently carb cycling (thanks Minu ), I have a great protein/carbs/fat ratio, so I'm not worried about starving or going to the dark side of an eating disorder...

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, just trying to - hmm, maybe I AM trying to start a fight lol

Well, you cannot argue with your stats. Assuming the measurements are all being taken accurately and consistantly, (and they are, by a pro no less, oui?), then that is all there is to say about that.

That stated, we must all go with what's true to our experience, and you just might be gifted with some damn efficient genes, Spyke.

For fun, lately I've been having a good time upping my calorie intake, eating a whopping 2500 clean cals per day, (including a good 50-60 grams of fiber), usually in these ratios: C:50, P:25 F:25 and I haven't gained an ounce. (I've likely traded some fat for muscle though, as my strength levels have increased and there are more prominent buldgings across the muscle-board.) I've also been workin' out as intensely as usual, (which is pretty grunty), 5-6 days a week for about 50 minutes at a time doing both resistane work and cardio.

This to me, proves the high-calorie advocates correct. And I have to say that it's a helluva lot more fun that eating say 12-1500 cals per day.

Granted, I'm not in hardcore losing-mode anymore, focused more on increasing muscle mass than melting fat, but these two things clearly walk and-in-hand when eating and working in the manner I've been and I have no doubt that if I continue, by this time next year I'm going to be stronger and leaner than I've been in years.

Holy rambling, I think it's time for a workout!

(And you're welcome for that carb-cycling tip, courtesy of Tom Venuto).

Yep, wouldn't have it any other way


That's good to hear - both about my genes, and oh, did I mention my JEANS? I fit into a 36 waist now, first time in about 10 years

Thanks for the reply though - I don't plan on being a 1600 cal per day dude forever (I HOPE NOT!), but for the moment it's working great... can't wait until my first 2500 cal day though - wonder if I'll have any idea what to eat?

NUTS! I have a real affinity for fresh nuts especially those damned peanuts.

Congrats on them jeans, too.

I'm off for a pooch-run, IN THE SUN!

I was too confused. Traineo has me eating a ton of calories (about 2600) a day. The Daily Plate website has me eating about 2,000 calories a day. I keep to the Daily Plate calorie totals. They let you eat more if you activity level is up as well.

I'm an almond man myself...

Love those too and eat 'em daily.

Pistachios? Don't get me stahhhted!

And I LOVE walnuts and pine nuts for accenting dishes too. Toasted for the win.

Then there's cashews, not a nut, but so incredibley irresistable for me.

The weight routine I'm on has me eating ~3,000 calories a day -- and I'm losing weight.

Ahh, the benefits of full-blown, unadulterated, and ass-kicking exertion.

You HAVE fat to lose?

Yeah, about a half cup.

And what will that lose take your % down to?

I have no idea. I never measure it. I simply rely on gratuitous flexing in front of my mirror to keep it in check.

I think it's high time for a no-shirt gratutious flex-a-tar, Mr. Kane.

If it makes you feel better I'll be guzzling a stupendous amount of calories on Saturday as once again I take to the mountains for a dose of phys!! Probably looking at around 5-6000 though by that stage I'm hardly counting. Have to fuel up Friday night also to get started and Sun to aid recovery. Bring on the feast!!! And don't worry there won't be a celery stick in sight, that comes Sunday night as I rebuild my nutrition stores afterward.

Well then, I'll keep that in mind....

I want to see what happens after I go through two full months of GVT.

Should be inspirational.

And Dean, have a super time kickin' it out there in the hills this weekend!

Sypke I think the key is the calorie/carb cycling.

While you can lose weight faster by lowering you calorie to 1200-1400 for women and 1600-1800 for men, the body can go into starvation mode after a long period at this calorie level. Calorie/carb cycling helps to trick the body and keep if from going into starvation mode.

Sure we can still lose weigh by eating more (as long as calories in are less than calories out) but the results would be smaller in increments.

I won't worry too much. It is obviously working for you so stick with it!

If I could just stay away from those cookies I could cut another 500 cal per day!

Thanks Minu!!

Kathy makes a fair point. Some diets have great results till around 3 months (varies from individual to individual) when all the gains dissappear.

Everyone is individual and over time you just learn to understand how your body works.

Keep up the Intensity!!

a quick google search yields these results:
grand valley transit
greenbrier valley theatre
genetic vaccines and therapy
green valley turf
german volume training
government income trust (income?? wtf.)

just in case anyone else was confused by jericho's statement.

GVT
Sounds like "Givin' It" to me.
If that's the case, I'm going to need to be GVT to start losing weight a little more.

"German Volume Training" for z vin.

Spyke, I agree with what you mention. This caused me great confusion and right now I am kind of going against what most people believe in Traineo and other places. I was working out all the time.. according to calculators my BMR for losing some weight is right around 2000, plus I work out a ton. I was eating about 1600 to 1800 and I was gaining. I gained 70 lbs in a year! and 15 lbs in 2 of those months. My MD told me to increase work out and cut down to 1000 calories. This was extremely disconcerning to me as it went against everything I thought I knew about weight loss.

I ended up becoming a vegetarian again and my calorie count is now between 1000 and 1300 each day and my work out has increased and I am finally starting to lose weight, fat and gain muscle. I think my metabolism just isn't set up to follow most "calculators". As stated by others I think everyone is different and has different needs to stay healthy. So although most might think I am in startvation mode, I don't feel that is the case. I am losing fat not muscle, my engery levels have increased and I am getting stronger.

Thanks for bringing this topic up, I think it can be an eye opener for people to consider all options and find out what works for them.

- M -

That, right there, is the key my friend. Don't put too my emphasis on what anyone else tells you about how many calories you need, everyone is different. My honest opinion is that we put too much emphasis on calorie counting as a society here when we're trying to lose weight because it's the easiest culprit to blame, but as long as you're exercising regularly, listening to your body and eating sensibly, more calories means more muscle. What you eat is far more important than how much you eat. Let me say that again because it's that important, what you eat is FAR more important than HOW MUCH you eat.

That being said, how much you eat is still important, just not as important as people make it out to be. Don't get me wrong, stuffing yourself at a buffet three times a day or dropping to a 600 calorie diet/cleanse is just bad, but if you're somewhere in that middle ground you're probably OK. That bottom slider on diet page here is only a relative comparison for me based on the previous day, which is based on the day before that. I could care less what the actual "calorie" number says, although I do try to make it as accurate as I can without really thinking too much about it (I'm probably +/- 200ish calories every day, but I base it more on "did I eat more or less than yesterday). You know whether your body is in a calorie deficit or not, and you know whether you're eating in excess and you don't need math to do it.

Oh, and as far as carb/calorie cycling; I'm not a advocate of it. My personal belief is that the last thing you want to do is shock your body in terms of fuel. Shock and awe is awesome in terms of exercise, after all the point of exercise is to get your body to change and adapt to become better at what you're doing, but when it comes to fuel sources... I really think that your body should know where it's getting it's energy from and that should be consistent. So far, I haven't had any trouble losing weight or gaining/maintaining muscle and I've been pretty consistent in terms of my eating.

If you feed your body intelligently and teach it that you're going to fuel it throughout the day, then it will learn that it doesn't need to store energy in the form of fat, because it's getting fresh juice all the time. The analogy I like to use is a coal engine; you have to feed it constantly throughout the day, if you don't put enough coal in it'll fizzle out and die, and if you put too much goal in at once it will explode.

I personally don't think you should ever eat so little that your body will even think about starvation, and certainly not as a routine but to each his own; keep doing whatever works for you as long as it keeps working.

For the record, when I blab about cycling it's with ~500 cals upped or downed in mind, (a la BFFM), not exaggerated differences like JUDDD's losing mode numbers for example. Sure I've messed with extremes like that, and sure it's worked but as I wrote above, if I were to do it all again it'd be using less pronounced cycling, and in doing so, much more zen in the tank.

so Minu you wouldn't recommend the JUDDD method then?
I've been looking into some of the forums and it seems largely successful and pretty easy to stick to.

would you suggest more moderate calorie cycling instead?

Well, like I wrote, it does work, and for some, (like it was for me at the time of discovering it), that was the bottom line as it made for a wonderful plateau-breaker.

That said, when I look back at the pics from me during that time I wasn't near as strong as I could have been, (to be fair, I wasn't doing resistance training, only cardio, so who knows how things might have looked if I was doing resistance work too), all I know is that with all I've gleaned during this never-ending journey, if faced with the weight loss challenge again, I'd likely not do the losing-mode level calories of JUDDD.

It has some apperant damn notable benefits in other depts besides weight loss, (improving auto-immune conditions for example), so I don't discard its merits entirely. I just think, (like you've mentioned), if those benefits can be reaped using higher levels of cals., then that to me, (and again, we do what works for US), is a preferable way to go.

I asked another weight loss forum about my calorie needs (I'm 15, 5'6'', and 167lbs) and they said I shouldn't be eating 1200 but more like 2000. I've gotten that number before in calculators, but I don't think I could lose weight with that many calories.

D: I'm very confused.

I know people here said to listen to your body, but I want to make sure I'm not messing up my metabolism by eating 1200.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. You're a great reference to all of those people that think if you go below (GASP!) 2000 calories a day you're killing yourself.

If you get adequate protein, carbs, and fats, you can sustain lower calories no problem! The problem arises when people cut calories without regards to proper nutritional intake. If, say, I cut out all protein, or all fat, or all carbs in my diet in order to drop my calorie intake to 1200 per day, you better believe my body would be complaining.

Cut calories the right way, and many would be truly surprised on how few calories you can eat in a day without being hungry whatsoever!

The problem with the above statement is most people are just too lazy to ration out their meals and assure proper macro nutrient balances. For them, I say DON'T try 1200 per day, because half-assing it won't bring you anything but disappointment.