Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calculated my calories for the day

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calculated my calories for the day

    Hi,

    I used fitday to calculate my caloric intake for the day yesterday.

    I ate 1221 calories (I weigh about 113 lbs).
    Protein = 18% (55 grams)
    Carbs = 19% (64 grams)
    Fat = 63% (87 grams)

    Is that way too much fat? I ate about 1 Tbs of homemade mayo (made with eggs, vinegar and EVOO), some steak, five hard-boiled eggs throughout the day, a salad, some dark chocolate, a granny smith apple and kimchee (no sugar).

    My main goal is to to feel good mentally and physically. I'm pretty strict about my foods. My cheats are what some would consider simply primal (i.e. a little cheese, some dark chocolate, etc.). I do need to move more (physically).

    Are these %ages whacked or if I'm on a good path. Does anyone have any tips?

    Thanks for any input!
    sg

  • #2
    I'd say add more protein. Think 1 gram per pound of lean mass.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by cassel_man View Post
      i'd say add more protein. Think 1 gram per pound of lean mass.
      ditto

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks! Gosh, I'll never be hungry Will do some IFs when it feels right (I usually know).

        I do need to build some muscle and have always had trouble. Suspect I was deficient for a long time (was pretty veg-based for a long time).

        Comment


        • #5
          as far as i know your question really cant be answered until you tell us if your working out. if your working out you should eat more calories. my healthy fat intake is 25-30% of daily calories and it does not affect me at all. protein yes 1-2grams per pound of lean mass. carbs, follow the blueprint for sure!

          i went primal in feb 2010
          200lbs
          37% body fat
          38-40 waist

          1 year to the day
          140lbs
          7.8% body fat
          29 waist

          currently
          137lbs
          7% body fat
          29 waist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by spicegirl View Post
            Hi,

            I used fitday to calculate my caloric intake for the day yesterday.

            I ate 1221 calories (I weigh about 113 lbs).
            Protein = 18% (55 grams)
            Carbs = 19% (64 grams)
            Fat = 63% (87 grams)

            ...

            Are these %ages whacked or if I'm on a good path.
            No, they're not. Those percentages just about ideal.

            However, your total calorific intake—1221 Kcal per day—is ridiculously small. And since you only weigh around 8 stone weight loss can't be a pressing need for you (if it's necessary at all).

            The RDA for a woman is about 2000 kcal:

            RDA and RNI info | What Are The Recommended Daily Allowances | What Is The Reference Nutrient Intake

            If you eat less than that, it'll probably be difficult for you to get over the RDA for a number of important nutrients. What do your fitday "Nutrition" readout and "%RDA graph" — 2nd and 3rd tabs — look like? I'd say that's far more important than your percentages of macronutrinets (fat, protein, and carbohydrate)—which in your case are right on the money anyway. I'd try to eat a bit more and concentrate on foods that are rich in the specific nutrients fitday suggests you're low on.

            If you're low in nutrient X, you can google something like "X food sources" to find out what foods are rich in X.

            Comment


            • #7
              It always stuns me how little women need to eat. I'm 24yo, 5'7", 139 pounds. I'm not exactly a big guy by any stretch of the imagination. I eat around 2,800 calories a day - usually about 180g of fat, 200g of protein and 80g of carbs - and I'm still hungry half the time!

              I'd definitely up your protein. I like the 60/30/10 fat/protein/carbs approach for most days.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                It always stuns me how little women need to eat. I'm 24yo, 5'7", 139 pounds. I'm not exactly a big guy by any stretch of the imagination. I eat around 2,800 calories a day - usually about 180g of fat, 200g of protein and 80g of carbs - and I'm still hungry half the time!

                I'd definitely up your protein. I like the 60/30/10 fat/protein/carbs approach for most days.
                dont hate its not all girls i eat a shitload more than the OP....definitely match your 2800 a day...harder on high carb days
                Get on my Level
                http://malpaz.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lewis View Post

                  However, your total calorific intake—1221 Kcal per day—is ridiculously small. And since you only weigh around 8 stone weight loss can't be a pressing need for you (if it's necessary at all).
                  1221 calories is not ridiculously small for someone who weights 113 lbs and doesn't exercise (sounds like the OP doesn't). It's actually about the amount required for a 2lb per week fat loss without exercise. To put it in perspective, I'm female, 5'1 and weigh 125 lbs. My daily intake is usually 1300-1500 calories and the weight loss at that intake is excrutiatingly slow - and I exercise!

                  @spicegirl, your ratios are almost identical to mine. You are not taking in too much fat but you could up the protein a bit more if you want to get stronger and build some muscle.
                  My food blog, with many PB-friendly recipes

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ajax View Post
                    1221 calories is not ridiculously small for someone who weights 113 lbs and doesn't exercise (sounds like the OP doesn't). It's actually about the amount required for a 2lb per week fat loss without exercise. To put it in perspective, I'm female, 5'1 and weigh 125 lbs. My daily intake is usually 1300-1500 calories and the weight loss at that intake is excrutiatingly slow - and I exercise!
                    That would make sense if calories were very important to fat loss. She weighs 81% of what I do and eats 43% of the calories that I do. The male/female divide is not significant enough to make up that kind of difference. I eat around 800 more calories a day now than I did when I wasn't Primal, and I have lost considerable amounts of body fat while building muscle. The whole "cut out X amount of calories a day for Y amount of fat loss" is a total myth. Calories stored as fat on your waistline have a completely different value than calories you intake. Subtracting 3,500 calories from your diet over the course of a week will not equate to 1 pound of lost body fat.

                    I'm concerned that that low level of caloric intake will actually suppress fat loss. Going Primal means you are eating more nutrient-dense food as you're averaging much higher fat. That doesn't mean you should drop volume of food. If I eat 2 oz of cheese vs. 2 oz of bread, I'm eating a lot more calories per volume. She should be eating more calories on Primal than on a CW diet if she's eating the same volume of food.

                    I feel like these people that go Primal and take in less calories are the ones that never lose any fat. They'll bloat up, maybe gain fat or lose muscle. IMO, you should be eating more calories on the Primal plan on purpose or the ensuing drop in metabolism may really hurt you. I think the big reason why people stall is their calories fall too low for fat loss, coupled with the decreased thermogenic effects and decreased leptin production of prolonged low-carb. It stands to reason that if you're giving up foods like grains and legumes due to their lack of nutrition for more nutrient-dense foods, your calories SHOULD be going up. If you're taking in less nutrition, what's the point of going Primal?
                    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 05-18-2011, 11:01 AM.
                    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                      However, your total calorific intake—1221 Kcal per day—is ridiculously small.
                      I'm sorry, this made me giggle.

                      Hell, I'd baloon up if I ate 2000 calories on a regular basis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        That would make sense if calories were very important to fat loss. She weighs 81% of what I do and eats 43% of the calories that I do. The male/female divide is not significant enough to make up that kind of difference. I eat around 800 more calories a day now than I did when I wasn't Primal, and I have lost considerable amounts of body fat while building muscle. The whole "cut out X amount of calories a day for Y amount of fat loss" is a total myth. Calories stored as fat on your waistline have a completely different value than calories you intake. Subtracting 3,500 calories from your diet over the course of a week will not equate to 1 pound of lost body fat.

                        I'm concerned that that low level of caloric intake will actually suppress fat loss. Going Primal means you are eating more nutrient-dense food as you're averaging much higher fat. That doesn't mean you should drop volume of food. If I eat 2 oz of cheese vs. 2 oz of bread, I'm eating a lot more calories per volume. She should be eating more calories on Primal than on a CW diet if she's eating the same volume of food.

                        I feel like these people that go Primal and take in less calories are the ones that never lose any fat. They'll bloat up, maybe gain fat or lose muscle. IMO, you should be eating more calories on the Primal plan on purpose or the ensuing drop in metabolism may really hurt you. I think the big reason why people stall is their calories fall too low for fat loss, coupled with the decreased thermogenic effects and decreased leptin production of prolonged low-carb. It stands to reason that if you're giving up foods like grains and legumes due to their lack of nutrition for more nutrient-dense foods, your calories SHOULD be going up. If you're taking in less nutrition, what's the point of going Primal?
                        My experience (after 6 months Primal) is that calories do matter--as long as your metabolism is functioning properly.

                        And since everyone's metabolism, activity level and hormonal balance is different, you cannot compare bodyweights and make up a caloric requirement for that person.

                        I eat 1600-1700 to maintain (not far off what Mark's wife Carrie eats, BTW) and maintain my muscle mass with regular LHT. 5' 6", 48 years old, very fit woman (think dancer's body). Dropping my calories (via IF these days) to around 1300-1500 has resulted in slow, but steady fat loss.
                        Ancestral Nutrition Coaching
                        Pregnancy Nutrition Coaching
                        Primal Pregnancy Nutrition Article

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If you are intending to do primal to feel better but not lose weight, 1200 is probably a bit low. You may end up feeling low energy and cold if you drop your calories too much below your maintenance.
                          Karin

                          A joyful heart is good medicine

                          He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot

                          Mmmmm. Real food is good.

                          My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread29685.html

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Dragonfly View Post
                            My experience (after 6 months Primal) is that calories do matter--as long as your metabolism is functioning properly.

                            And since everyone's metabolism, activity level and hormonal balance is different, you cannot compare bodyweights and make up a caloric requirement for that person.

                            I eat 1600-1700 to maintain (not far off what Mark's wife Carrie eats, BTW) and maintain my muscle mass with regular LHT. 5' 6", 48 years old, very fit woman (think dancer's body). Dropping my calories (via IF these days) to around 1300-1500 has resulted in slow, but steady fat loss.
                            "Calories" don't matter because they don't mean anything. A sweet potato calorie is totally different from a spinach calorie is totally different from a chicken breast calorie is totally different than an apple calorie. If I were to eat 2,000 calories a day on an all-pasta diet, I'd blow up like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade balloon. If I eat 2,800 calories of salad greens, steak and eggs, I maintain body weight and slowly lose body fat. That's why I hate it when people say "calories matter". Well, yea, they matter, as long as you only compare the exact same type of food.

                            If the OP is eating Primally, even as a 113 pound female, I don't see 1,200 calories as a good number. Now, that isn't to say that her volume of food is too high. Maybe she's taking in a good amount of volume of food for her frame, which is why she doesn't feel hungry. When you eat Primally, you get a lot of slow digesting, fibrous vegetables that will keep you just as satiated as fatty meat, so she may not feel hungry, but she may be undernourished. The fact that her fat is that high and protein is that low means that she's probably getting a good amount of fat from added oils and fatty fruits and vegetables, like avocado and coconut. I would trade in some of those oil sources for fatty protein sources. This allows you to up your caloric intake while consuming a similar volume of food. That should help protect her metabolism while not shoving unnecessary volume down her throat just for the sake of eating more.

                            You have to find a balance. If you overeat, you will have trouble losing weight, but if you under eat, you'll have trouble losing fat and excel at burning up muscle mass. The trick is to be just a touch under homeostasis to encourage your body to burn through a little bit of our fat stores every day, while never thinking it's in starvation mode so it clutches onto that stored fat for dear life at the expense of your metabolism. I can't imagine a 113 lb woman to have a homeostasis of 1,300 calories. Hell, I doubt she should be trying to lose WEIGHT - she should just be trying to find a better body composition, which may actually involve her GAINING weight - fat for muscle displacement. I think she should be eating around 1,400-1,600 calories worth of nutrient-dense, primal food. I'd bet my money that she will NOT see results eating at a 1,200 calorie level with primal foods.
                            Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 05-18-2011, 12:26 PM.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So, here's the deal. My hubby and I built a (sustainable) home on an old farm. We did almost all of the work ourselves. Some days, OMG, we worked our butts off. I dug a 150' foot trench for our electrical lines (we're not off grid...more about that another time). Some of it was through rock (yeah, a sledge hammer...small one for me

                              Before building, we used to do a lot of biking, I ran a fair amount, but not obsessively (well, maybe a little obsessively).

                              I'm pretty sure I ate a lot more calories during the building phase, but I didn't track it. I know I ate more carbs...for sure!

                              Now, I'm back to a "desk job" and haven't gotten back into an "exercise" routine. (just bought some "primal" shoes...yeah).

                              I'm sure I've been protein deficient just b/c of my nature (you know...the animals and all the additives, etc.).

                              So, I just want to do this right. If I'm going to eat meat (and try to build muscle), might as well do it right.

                              Bottom line sound like I really need more protein.

                              I'm open to any and all input (will be searching and maybe posting more later about how to cook a good steak).

                              Thanks to one and all!!!
                              sg

                              p.s. I'm not one of those "two bites and I'm full" chicks. I like food. I just do not desire as much with all the protein and fat I'm getting. Some days I am hungrier...but not that much.
                              Last edited by spicegirl; 05-18-2011, 12:28 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X