Kat-

here is a formula that a lot of online calculators use; i posted it before, so i'm going to paste my previous comment:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Here is a formula for calculating daily caloric intake; personally, i like doing it myself as opposed to auto-calc websites. It will vary with level of activity, but is not super-specific when it comes to exercise. It's long...

------------------------------
step 1. 655 + (4.354 x weight lbs) + ( 4.569 x height in) x (4.7 x age yrs)

step 2. step1answer x activity level
____activity level =
____1.2 if no exercise
____1.4 if exercise 1-3 days/week
____1.6 if exercise 4-5 days/week
____1.8 if exercise 6-7 days/week
____1.9 if physically challenging job, ie UPS, or if work out multiple times per day

step 3. step2answer x 0.2, then subtract that number from step2answer

step 4. subtract 300 from this to lose weight, add 300 to gain weight, leave the same to stay same weight.
----------------------

SO, if you do these right, someone who is 6' (72 inches), 175 lbs, and 30 years would get 1798 cals/day if at a "1.4" activity level (staying the same weight)

If you don't remember math from oh-so-many years ago, just remember to multiply the parts in parenthesis first, then addition/subtraction last.

If you have any questions, let me know; i was a bit scared at first, but thanks to MS Excel's help, it's not bad.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

there are tons online, just google search for "calorie calculator" or something, and you'll find a bunch. I just look at the average between different calculators: traineo, my own, random websites. I'm sure you could reduce MORE to lose more, but don't get too dangerously low.

Does that help you?

The mistake I made -- and perhaps others might make, too -- is this:

Using me as an example, I'm 243 lbs., 6'0", 58 yrs. old, and exercise 6 days a week. So the first part of the formula gives me this number: 2315. Then I multiply that by 1.8, and get 4167. All well and good.

But then, when I log my exercise in every day (typically between 700 and 1000 calories), I think, "WOW, I'm really accumulating a big deficit." The problem is though, that I was double-counting the calories. The calories expended in exercise is already in the 4167 number.

My answer is basically to multiply the 2315 by 1.2 (no exercise), which gives me 2778 as a good approximation of my basal metabolic rate. I then add my actual calorie expenditure in exercise to that number to get a more true picture of calorie output. It actually makes a difference of only around 1,200 calories a week, but that's a pound a month.

That's the difference between staying on a plateau for weeks and breaking through it.

I remember seeing a similar formula in Jillian Michaels book, but step 2 was supposed to describe what type of day do you have on a daily basis besides exercising. For example, a person with an office/cubicle job would put 1.2, but a UPS driver, would put 1.9.

Brenna - I can't get that to work for me - I get really huuuuge numbers (wish I could eat that many calories and stay thin...lol)

I always did suck at math! I followed your instructions re the parentheses but I just can't get it to 'work'

<goes to corner with dunce cap on>

Personally, I think that the age-old formula of more calories burned than calories consumed will be just fine for weight loss and anything more extreme than that is silly. Does the "average joe/jane" need 2500 cal? prolly not - only marathon runners and fat people need or want that amount. But on the other hand, could I subsist on 1400 cal? probably not nor would I want to. Today I just got down to the 1600-1800 cal range (down from a "normal" caloric intake of "who-knows-what-and-I-didn't-care").

Frankly, I think that unless you're aiming to look like "Twiggy" then go right ahead w/ a CR diet (w/ a doctor's approval). If not, use what's worked for everyone else... the slow & steady method of NOT starving yourself.

-S

Remember on CR that making sure you get all the nutrients as best as we know them is as important as cutting the calories.

I think what happens to most people who adopt CR is that they more or less arbitrarily pick some calorie level when they start (use a formula, cut down from what they are currently eating by some %, etc). In a short time of tracking they figure out how much more or less they have to eat to:

1. Avoid losing more than 1 to 2 lbs a week and, eventually,

2. Avoid going below whatever weight or BMI they are comfortable with.

But a person is not on CR if not getting enough nutrients and I don't believe you can do that without carefully tracking what you eat.

It is the careful tracking that makes CR so hard. I found cutting calories is easy. Getting all the nutrients, particularly if you aim to get them from actual food, is harder, but also very educational and diet changing.

For instance, I never even heard of Kim Chee until recently and now eat it regularly - it is basically a spicy, Korean, Napa Cabbage dish that you can buy in jars. Napa Cabbage is valuable because it is one of very few foods that contains a lot of zinc for the calories. Track your nutrients for a week and you will almost certainly find you are woefully low in zinc.

This is a very good website for seeing the nutrient value of foods and for finding foods with certain nutrients:

http://www.nutritiondata.com/

Bob
http://www.nbrhd.net/CR/CR.htm

Try Johnson UpDay DownDay diet, it works...Not just for a few but for everyone!

If we can, let's keep the upday downday diet discussion to the thread currently devoted to it. That way, if you don't want to read about it... you can simply ignore that thread.

Personally, I think it is a fad and does not address long term healthy lifestyle habits. I am sure that it works... so did Atkins... just not long term.

That said, I don't want to demotivate anyone. I appreciate how positive this site is to everybody.

I don't want to offend anyone... just a request to keep things 'organized'

Really? Then you haven't learned enough about it! It is in fact based on the results of studies into caloric restriction and "IF".

Fad, it most certainly is NOT! The potential health benefits of living this way (if you care to learn before judging), are astounding. It is in fact', far more natural than the way we consider normal eating today. It's what we were 'programmed' to do by nature. We were never intended to have 24/7 access to high carb, processed food, or to have the regimented three square meals a day, and snacks inbetween. If that were the case, then why isn't it working??

(But as you say - let's keep it to the relevant thread)

Over and out!

I've recently started using fitday.com to keep track of what I'm eating, and it is great for tracking the nutrients you're getting from your foods. And it's free, too. I was shocked to see how woefully lacking I was in certain nutrients, including, as Bob alluded to, zinc.

Kamal & Bob-
Fitday.com has also showed me that I am lacking in Zinc. It's a worldwide zinc deficiency epidemic!
Unfortunately, it has also done the same for Calcium, making me twenty times more paranoid about osteoporosis...

I'm sorry but to me it's just a different version of calorie restriction that might be easier for some people, that's why I bothered to read this thread but I will not disorganize your thread anymore. Again, sorry!

I enjoyed looking over the website about The Johnson Up Day Down Day Diet that Angie mentioned. It is indeed a version of CR. In fact, I am on the Johnson Diet from time to time:

I average my calories, nutrients, and weight over the course of the week, starting anew every Saturday. If I pig out over the weekend, or on Valentine's Day, then I fast or limit my calories to whatever few hundred are necessary to get the weekly average down.

It actually seems easier to fast completely for a day (36 hours actually, from evening until breakfast a day later), than to eat just a little bit.

At 5'7", 134 lbs, I am consuming 1500 calories a day on average, which has been dropping my average weekly weight somewhat under a pound a week since New Years. From experience I know that once I get below 130 I will have to up that to over 1700 calories a day to keep from going lower, which I prefer not to do.

My only concern about the Johnson web page was its lack of emphasis on getting all your nutrition even though you cut way back on calories. But several on this forum are obviously tracking nutrients closely.

Bob

That's an interesting observation Bob - I found my last down day (only number four for me) to be extremely easy, and I kept to under 224 cals which was at supper - though I think I could just as easily have skipped that. I'm considering cutting my down day intake further as a result. Other's in the group here are thinking the same way after being on it for a short while, it just seems like a natural progression to me.

I do however; concede on the nutrient issue with the JUDDDD site - good point. I did ask Dr. Johnson about content of diet on up days, to which he replied that it was obviously wise not to ignore all we have learned about food and to maintain a healthy balanced intake on up days; but the research seems to point towards irrelevance of composition of the diet in relation to the optimal health brought about by the fasting. Very interesting and I will be watching with interest for further developments.