Calorie Counting Revisited : Distillation and Update page 53

[otzi]

As far as calories, here's what works for me. Find two or three "calorie calculators" online. Input all the information truthfully except for activity. Use the most sedentary choice they have. Do that for your current weight (especially if you've been there for more than a month), and for your goal weight. Take an average of the numbers of all three calculators for both your current and goal weight. If the difference between number of calories to maintain your goal weight and number of calories to maintain your current weight is more than or equal to 500 calories, eat for your goal weight. If it's less than 500 calories, eat 1200 calories a day (for women) or 1500 calories a day (for men)..

Calorie Calculator - Daily Caloric Needs = 1320

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.

[Paleobird]

Hi all, first post here and I was hoping to get some advice.

Basically I hit a plateau which I'm trying to break. I'm at 285lbs now, started out at 350lbs, and been at 285 for a couple of months now. Going from 350 to around 300 or so was pretty damn easy once I found out about Primal. Just regular primal living. My diet was already half-primal anyway, and the other half was horrible SAD-stuff, so it was just a matter of cutting that stuff away and doing some exercise. Going from 300 to 285 was a bit harder, but still relatively effortless. I had to cut fruit too, and make some other changes. But now I'm stuck still.

I found this thread and it seems pretty spot on. The problem is that I can't seem to get a calorie calculation that makes sense. You see, I'm also 6'9", and any BMR seems off to me. I'm not sure if because of my height maybe the formulas don't work? But at any case, any calculation I run gives me something like 2,400 calories a day. Adjusted for even the slightest activity, and I am pretty physically active now, puts it at much over 3,000 calories, even as much as 3,500 calories considering "Lightly Active". So I went on sites like SparkPeople and put in what I eat in a day, and I made sure to pad it and be extra generous, and the most I get is 1,725 calories a day. Which makes sense, as I'm honestly not the kind of person to eat a lot. But according to that, 3,000-1,725 would still put me at a theoretical 1,275 calories a day deficit.

So obviously something here doesn't add up, but I can't figure out what it is. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Hi John and Welcome.
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.

[BigJohn]

You may also have to play around with carbs and protein, also. You don't want to go too low in either of those, but don't want to be too high either. A good figure is to eat about 100-150g of carbs a day and the same for protein. But you are a mountain of a man, so you may need a little more. Once you get into counting calories and macros, you really set yourself up for a lot of misery!

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.

Is there some risk with being too low on those?

[Ayla2010]

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.

[BigJohn]

Hi John and Welcome.
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.

Thanks for the reply.

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?

[Ayla2010]

Yes that is right John Most people eat more sugars than fats. Fats are slower burning compared to sugars.

[Paleobird]

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.

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.

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 that is right John Most people eat more sugars than fats. Fats are slower burning compared to sugars.

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.

But as J. Stanton of the Gnolls site would say, "Eat like a predator, not like prey."

[otzi]

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.

Is there some risk with being too low on those?

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.

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.

Good luck!

[Paleobird]

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

[JoanieL]

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.