| Author | Post |
|---|
Clinton167
New Member
| Joined: | 8 December 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 17 November 2009 09:47 pm |
|
At the gym they did that whole weigh you/get you to stand on something holding a metal bar and measure stuff thing.
My RMR is 1625. So to lose weight, how many calories should I be eating a day? The trainer said not to go under that.
I walk to work (30 mins) and from (60 mins) plus work out about 3 times a week. Mostly I'm just sitting in the office.
I'm currently 196 :(
Anyone?
:)
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 17 November 2009 10:54 pm |
|
| In your other topic you mention you were almost obese for BMI; to a normal/overweight person I'd normally say not to eat less than their unadjusted RMR, yet to an obese or heavier person I'd say they could go as low as 75% of their unadjusted RMR (this ties in with the RMR formula being more of an an over-estimate the heavier you are). So perhaps you should consider going against your trainer's simplistic guideline and cautiously cutting calories (but no lower than 1219)
|
Clinton167
New Member
| Joined: | 8 December 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 18 November 2009 05:57 pm |
|
Oh right, okay. Now with a BMI of about 30.2, I am obese.
So what I'm thinking is I'll do about 1600 until I'm 190, and then 1500 when I get to 180 and subtract 100 calories every time I lose 10 lbs (I heard thats what you're supposed to do?)
Thanks for your reply!
I've just reread the leaflet they gave me at L.A fitness about RMR. I'm now really confused about why the trainer said not to go below it - it says that RMR is a set base metabolic rate and that if you consume x amount, then burning the same amount will make you stay the same. Therefore, if he's encouraging me to eat MORE than by RMR, surely physics says I will gain weight, not lose it?
Last edited on 18 November 2009 07:15 pm by Clinton167
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 18 November 2009 11:38 pm |
|
there's undjusted RMR and there's adjusted RMR.
for example, RMR x 1.2 = your maintenance calories if you are sedentary.
so if your unadjusted RMR is 1625 and you are sedentary then you are burning 1625x1.2 = 1950. Now if you eat 1625 you will have a calorie deficit of 1950-1625=325, consistent with losing 0.6lb/week.
Your trainer said not to eat less than the unadjusted RMR, but did they actually say you should eat more than your unadjusted RMR?
Of course if you're not sedentary, if you are doing some exercise at said gym, then depending on how many calorie you burn you'd be losing faster than 0.6lb/week.
I don't think you've acknowledged what I wrote above so I'll repeat the gist of it: it is OK to eat fewer calories (up to 75% of RMR) if you are obese, so if you wanted to cut calories now to sub-RMR that would be ok now. (However when you get closer to the normal/overweight numbers then it wouldn't be recommended.)
|
Clinton167
New Member
| Joined: | 8 December 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 19 November 2009 09:12 am |
|
Okay, that makes a lot more sense.
When you're decididing if you're sedentary or not, do you include the number of times you workout, or is this just based on your daily routine and not anything extra you do to lose weight?
I think I'm going to stick with 1600 calories until I get to 190, and then go down to 1500. Anything more just doesn't seem to work for me.
And yes, the trainer did say to eat more - he recommended between 1650 and 1800, which I've been doing but just not seeing any progress.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 19 November 2009 08:50 pm |
|
Somebody who does not work out every day and does not have a particularly active lifestyle (such as a manual job) is sedentary on their non-exercise days, and they burn an extra X calories on the days where they do exercise that burns that many calories. So I and many others find it helpful to assume a sedentary lifestyle and then if you're burning more calories with exercise, that's a bonus.
Assuming one is more active than one is, is thinking you need to eat more and then making much slower progress on the fat loss front than desired, a problem shared by many people
|
Current time is 01:35 pm | |
|
