01-15-2013, 09:27 PM
Calorie Calculator - Daily Caloric Needs = 1320
Originally Posted by JoanieL
Calculate Calories Needed for Goal Weight = 1500
Calorie Calculator at FitClick = 1550
That's really good advice! I plugged my data in the 3 above and got 1320, 1500, and 1550 respectively. I used the 'sedentary' category, even though I work out 3 days a week and walk every day. If I use the more aggressive categories, I get 1800-2400 cal per day which is way too much for me to lose weight.
01-15-2013, 09:39 PM
Hi John and Welcome.
Originally Posted by BigJohn
Yes, you are right the calorie charts tend to not be very accurate for people at either end of the bell curve in height. The same has been seen by some very petite women on this thread.
Otzi also makes a valid point that the official charts are also calculated with a sugar burning junk foodie in mind. My advice would be to track your calories (not restrict but just track) for a while. See what happens. You will find the right spot where you lose weight. All the charts say I should be eating at least 2000/day but I know my maintenance level is 1500. Trial and error and then trial and getting it right.
01-15-2013, 10:45 PM
I'm curious as to what you mean by too low on the carbs. I'm currently under 50 almost every day, unless some special occasion hits, but even then I never go above 100. By far most of my calories are protein, and I get approximately the same grams of fat a day as I get carbs.
Originally Posted by otzi
Is there some risk with being too low on those?
01-15-2013, 10:46 PM
Some people don't agree with very low carb John.
But for some of us, under 50 g of carbs a day is best. I am eating 70% fat, 20 % protein, and 10 % carbs, and its working for me and I feel great. You will need to experiment what is the right level of each.
01-15-2013, 10:49 PM
Thanks for the reply.
Originally Posted by Paleobird
So I guess my suspicions were right and the charts aren't accurate for my height. Good to know. Your advice of getting to maintenance and figuring out from there makes sense. I've been on this plateau for almost 2 months now, so I guess if it goes a while longer this is my maintenance mode.
Also, what do you mean by the charts being tuned for sugar-burning? I'm guessing that because it's easier to burn sugar than it is to burn fat, it means that the charts show a higher calorie-count assuming the person reading them would be burning mostly sugar?
01-15-2013, 11:42 PM
Yes that is right John Most people eat more sugars than fats. Fats are slower burning compared to sugars.
01-16-2013, 08:15 AM
Not saying Otzi does this but some people on this forum like to tell people who have found that low carb works for them that they are "doing it wrong". There is no wrong or right macronutrient ratio for everybody. There is on the right one for you. I would say, given your impressive success so far, low carb is working. Now you have just reached the point where the weightloss "low hanging fruit" has all been picked and it is a little more effort. That includes keeping a rein on your portion sizes.
Originally Posted by Ayla2010
Being the Big Guy that you have been may make this difficult as you adjust your portions downward for a smaller body but your eyes are still used to that huge pile of food. Our society and our restaurants in particular keep pushing the message of huge portions that nobody needs. At 285 now you are a substantially smaller beast than you were at 350. Adjust accordingly.
Yes, a sugar burning metabolism needs to be fed much more often. That's where all the diet advice about lots of small meals and snacking frequently comes from.
Originally Posted by Ayla2010
But as J. Stanton of the Gnolls site would say, "Eat like a predator, not like prey."
01-16-2013, 09:22 AM
You'll have to figure that one out as you go along. Many are saying low carb should be used as a therapeutic means for weight loss or other metabolic derangements, but not a long-term eating strategy for otherwise healthy, active people.
Originally Posted by BigJohn
I was in the 20-50g range for several years, lost a lot of weight, but it wasn't until I lost my fear of starchy carbs (potatoes/rice) that I started really thriving on Primal Blueprint. If you are working out and don't have any real medical issues to preclude carbs, you may find a couple servings of rice and potatoes a day will not lead to weight gain and may help you with workout gains and energy levels.
Some people do best keeping carbs really low, some do best keeping carbs a little higher. I think everyone agrees that we should limit added sugar, sugary fruits, and sugary drinks. The area of contention is the starchy foods. I, personally, think it's a mistake for active, healthy people to limit starch in the name of low carb, and including them in daily amounts up to about 30% of total calories can be helpful to achieving weight and fitness goals. A good ratio of Carb-Protein-Fat has been said to be about 30-20-50. If you are going to eat more starch, you would probably want to cut down on protein before fat.
Please take all this with a grain of salt, you will eventually find what works for you. You should also try to clearly define your goals: Weight loss, muscle building, better health, etc... and use that as a starting point.
01-16-2013, 09:41 AM
I highly recommend to John and anyone else trying to figure out all the conflicting advice about carbohydrates the following book:
Primal Body, Primal Mind: Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life by Nora Gedgaudas
01-16-2013, 11:49 AM
Otzi, I'm glad you found that useful, if for no other reason than I'm happy to share a tip with someone who brought spuds back into my life.
"Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine
Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.