Calories

[Northerner]

I've always been pretty fortunate in never really having to watch my calorie intake, so apologies to those who do and who would love this to be their 'problem', but I decided today to add up a typical day's intake and was shocked to find it quite a bit lower than I expected 😱 My intake doesn't really vary much, although the constituents do rotate around a few 'regulars'. Going off a typical day it seems I consume around 1800-2000 cals a day. As a blurk, I think I'm supposed to be on around 2500. I'm pretty sure I eat less these days, I used to be a human dustbin! 🙂 I've lost quite a lot of weight over the past few months, since stopping drinking alcohol, but my weight has remained stable for the past couple of months, with my BMI settled at 20.

Just wondering what other people's calorie intake is?

 

[Ditto]

What is this word 'blurk?' Never heard of it. I like it. 🙂

On Atkins we don't count calories, but Dr A says they do count in a way. Can't you give a sample menu? I'm avid to know what everybody eats and nobody ever says. I just had 4 Richmond's sossies and my blood went up from 5.6 on waking to 6.9 over an hour after having them. Best not have them again whatever the calories!

 

[Amigo]

What is this word 'blurk?' Never heard of it. I like it. 🙂

On Atkins we don't count calories, but Dr A says they do count in a way. Can't you give a sample menu? I'm avid to know what everybody eats and nobody ever says. I just had 4 Richmond's sossies and my blood went up from 5.6 on waking to 6.9 over an hour after having them. Best not have them again whatever the calories!

I'm surprised you chose Richmond sausages to be honest Ditto with just 42% 'meat'. They can be hefty in carb content as a result dependent on which ones you have. The bigger ones are nearly 8 carbs each.

http://mobile.fatsecret.co.uk/calories-nutrition/search?q=Richmond+Sausages

 

[pottersusan]

about 3000 calories to maintain my weight - which is really hard work.

Before I knew I had cancer and had my op I had purposely lost weight so I wouldn't become T2 like my big brother. I used to stand in the supermarket looking for the low cal option. I now have to search high and low for the most calorific possible😱. Life is bizarre🙄

 

[Robin]

I always wonder what the 'recommended' daily calorie intake is based on. 50 years ago with manual labour, no central heating and no modern appliances, people needed a lot more in the way of fuel than they would now.
I presume if you're eating a given amount, and not gaining nor losing, then that's what right for you.

 

[graj0]

A lot of the diet organisations use something called the Harris Benedict formula to calculate calorie intake. There's several others in use, they all come to about the same number.

This is how to calculate Basic Metabolic Rate (what you need to just exist, in a bed)

English BMR Formula (Imperial)
Women: BMR = 655 + (4.35 x weight in pounds) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age in years)

Men: BMR = 66 + (6.23 x weight in pounds) + (12.7 x height in inches) - (6.8 x age in years)

Metric BMR Formula
Women: BMR = 655 + (9.6 x weight in kg) + (1.8 x height in cm) - (4.7 x age in years)

Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 x weight in kg) + (5 x height in cm) - (6.8 x age in years)

If you haven't got a calculator you can use this: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

Then, depending on how active you are, you apply a multiplier like so:

1. If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
2. If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
3. If you are moderately active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
4. If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
5. If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9

It's a start, but I can say that although that's good for most people, it's not for everyone. If I was to eat the 2300 calories (my BMR, not taking into account exercise) that they suggest, I'd be huge, more huge than I am now. It's OK so long as your metabolism is in good order, no chinks in your Krebs cycle, jobs a good'n.

1. 
   
   

 

[Stitch147]

Ive never worked out how many calories I eat. I'll have to do it one day out of curiousity.

 

[graj0]

On Atkins we don't count calories, but Dr A says they do count in a way. . . . . I just had 4 Richmond's sossies. Best not have them again whatever the calories!

That's 600 calories, half what I eat in a day normally and probably why Dr A is a bit off the mark in suggesting not to count calories. They're a good indication of how much energy we're consuming and I know the body doesn't have to abide by the first law of thermodynamics (it's not an enclosed system), it is still said that basically, if we don't burn the energy we consume, we store it.

 

[grovesy]

I don't count calories, I don't weigh myself daily, and don't keep a daily food diary, as it would become to obsessive for me.

 

[Northerner]

I always wonder what the 'recommended' daily calorie intake is based on. 50 years ago with manual labour, no central heating and no modern appliances, people needed a lot more in the way of fuel than they would now.
I presume if you're eating a given amount, and not gaining nor losing, then that's what right for you.

Yes, I'm not anywhere near as skinny as I was as a younger man. I feel full, but not bloated after meals and don't snack in between any more. I am pretty active though, and it did surprise me to add up the calories considering that I can burn off well over 1,000 cals on a 10-mile run 😱 I suppose it's just one of those things 🙄

 

[Deleted member 16779]

I always wonder what the 'recommended' daily calorie intake is based on. 50 years ago with manual labour, no central heating and no modern appliances, people needed a lot more in the way of fuel than they would now.
I presume if you're eating a given amount, and not gaining nor losing, then that's what right for you.

Yes, I read somewhere that the 'obesity epidemic' can be explained by people over-eating by just 50kCal per day, that's not much and makes you realise what a finely tuned system appetite has to be to maintain the same weight.

 

[Northerner]

Ive never worked out how many calories I eat. I'll have to do it one day out of curiousity.

I've been wondering for ages, so finally decided to do it! 🙂

 

[Greyhound Gal]

In my food diary I note calories, sat. fat, protein and fibre as well as carbs in what I eat or drink. This is showing, that I have on average about 1300 a day. This does fluctuate as some days it can be 1700 and others 900, but it evens itself out. My weight is stable at high end of normal (apparently) and do at least 1x 40 min dog walk every day and archery for between 1.5 and 2.5 hours 2-3 times a week.

 

[Deleted member 16779]

That's 600 calories, half what I eat in a day normally and probably why Dr A is a bit off the mark in suggesting not to count calories. They're a good indication of how much energy we're consuming and I know the body doesn't have to abide by the first law of thermodynamics (it's not an enclosed system), it is still said that basically, if we don't burn the energy we consume, we store it.

Well, if that were the case Dung beetles wouldn't ever get any energy out of their meals. Poo is full of calories.

 

[Northerner]

It's a start, but I can say that although that's good for most people, it's not for everyone. If I was to eat the 2300 calories (my BMR, not taking into account exercise) that they suggest, I'd be huge, more huge than I am now. It's OK so long as your metabolism is in good order, no chinks in your Krebs cycle, jobs a good'n.

Thanks for this 🙂 Mine comes out as somewhere between 2125 and 2400 cals, depending on whether I describe myself as moderately or very active.

 

[graj0]

Well, if that were the case Dung beetles wouldn't ever get any energy out of their meals. Poo is full of calories.

That's why I said the human body was not not an enclosed system. Dieting organisations never take take into account the calories that exit down south. The amount of calories lost will vary from person to person and depends on their state of health. Drugs like Orlistat will alter that amount as well. The figure I saw mentioned was about 10% so maybe as much as 200 calories, although as I say, not taken into account when calorie counting.

As for dung beetles, seems many dung beetles, known as rollers, roll dung into round balls, which are used as a food source or breeding chambers. Others, known as tunnelers, bury the dung wherever they find it. A third group, the dwellers, neither roll nor burrow: they simply live in manure. They are often attracted by the dung collected by the burrowing owl. Trivia over, for now. LOL

 

[trophywench]

Mine is 1600 cals. Well in the 1960s and 1970s for my height,weight, occupation and lifestyle I was told 1500 for a maintenance diet and 1250 to lose weight - so frankly it sounds perfectly correct to me.

I haven't magically metamorphosed into having a different metabolism to what I had before D and I don't have a different lifestyle, exercise level or that much of a different diet really - however we are absolutely surrounded by outlets wanting to cram our gobs with junk food and stodge every 3 steps if you go anywhere at all with more than one shop. Sweets and choc were a treat, not an everyday expectation, again you had one bag of crisps a week and one bottle of Vimto, chips happened only on Tuesdays etc etc. We still only have the latter once a week - how can you fit them in more than once in 7 days with all the other variations on a potato there are, plus the added excitement of pasta or rice to fit in?

Bread in ANY form is only eaten WITH food - but it can never serve AS food itself.

Cake was allowed every day, cos we all came home to a cooked lunch and had tea together at about 5.45 when my dad got in from work. All home made cake and jam/lemon curd tarts - one small one each or one slice of a large one. On Saturday when we would have TWO Swiss rolls - one jam and one chocolate and buttercream from M&S - we could have one slice of each.

Whilst of course - we are a tad more relaxed about food these days (the chips were difficult at first, since Pete's family didn't have fish and chips on Tuesday - they had them a different day apparently (imagine anyone doing that, how weird) and in any case, I never owned a fish kettle myself in the first place LOL) but at the same time neither of us pigs out.

And I do have trouble with Pete still since whilst nothing much about me has changed in 50 years, his stomach still thinks he needs to feed like when he was a County gymnast or later, walked 50k a week for work - and he DOESN'T !

 

[Matt Cycle]

I've no idea what mine is. I'm like you Alan and have never had to think about it. I've always been skinny right from being a child - my BMI is 19 so not underweight. I only really consider the carbs. Eat when I'm hungry, keep fairly active and job's a good un.

 

[Deleted member 16779]

So mine is about 3000kcal per day. that's quite a lot more than I expected.

 

[MikeTurin]

Yes, I read somewhere that the 'obesity epidemic' can be explained by people over-eating by just 50kCal per day, that's not much and makes you realise what a finely tuned system appetite has to be to maintain the same weight.

I think is not correct, sound nice by a thermodynamic point of view, but one can't correctly count the calorie intake and the calorie consumption. Heck it's difficult to do with a central heating system, made with standard components and known measures.
A living thing has a decent system of feedback control finely tuned in thousands of years. Metabolism could adapt on food intake if the food one is eating is the one which the body is adapted

The obesity epidemic is strangely correlated to the "war on fats" started on the late '70s and the progressive industrialization of the food production. I suppose that the avaliability of a lot of food made with refined sugars and flours, trans fats, preservatives, joined with a pervasive advertising of "unhealty" foods had done the damage.