Interesting calculation for calories to lose weight.
 

I found this formula in a magazine and I found it very interesting. When I calculated my own caloric needs to lose weight, it fell just about where I think it works for me!

______your weight in pounds multiplied by 4.38
+______your height in inches multiplied by 4.38
+______ 661
=______
-_______your age multiplied by 4.7
=_______
x_______1.4 if you work out at least 3 times a week
=_______
-_______ 500
=_______ the total calories you can eat while losing weight

Try this and see what you think. I like this number for me!

Carol

Interesting! Works out to about 100 calories more than I was aiming for, but still within the "10-12 time your weight" rule of thumb. :thup:

Hi ladies,

I don't think this formula is going to work for everyone.
I just did the calculations - 941 calories? I don't think so!!!

Maybe if you are younger, or slimmer, or????

Or am I really, really maths challenged? :p


Roz

Try it again, Rosebud. Maybe you missed something.

Mine came out to 1875 and if I eat more than 1900, I gain. I find that I lose best at 1600-1900, so it is right on for me.

Carol

I did it lots of times! (Sobbing, throws self on the ground in biggest tantrum seen in years! )
This time I pretended I work out 3 times a week, and that only increased it to 1518 cals.

I twying vewwy hard!

Roz

Mine came out to 1731 calories which is probably about right. It's less than 10-12x my current body weight, but more than 12x my lean body mass.

There you go, Roz. That sounds about right to me. You are close to goal and you won't be able to eat as much to lose. And if you work out more often, you could eat more. I don't think you can altogether skip the part about working out. There will still be a calculation even if you are sedentary, just not x1.4.

Mine came out to 1100 calories so I guess I'm doing something wrong too

. :wave:

Hiya,

Mine came out 870.36kcal :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

569.4(weight)+ 271.56(height)+ 661= 1501.96

1501.96- 131.6(age)= 1370.36

1370.36- 500(in order to lose weight)= 870.36kcal :eek:

Bebe :wave:

I think you guys are still forgetting to x1.4 for the work out. They really said that this 3x a week was "moderate" exercise. I don't think that they mean strenuous exercise. I factored this into mine, even though I don't really work out in the true sense of the word, but I'm not totally sedentary.

Carol

Mine came out to 1222 calories, 1710 if I multipled it by 1.4 (if I excercised, but I don't). For 10x-12x my body weight it would be 1985-2382 per day.

I think it is a neat gimmick, but not a hard and fast representation. :)

Mine came out to 1600. I do work out, and oddly enough, I gravitate to eating about 1500-1600 calories. But I don't lose weight! Haven't for months and months. I do, however, gain if I go over 2000 or so calories per day.

Since people's base metabolic rate can be anywhere from 1000 calories to 7000 calories per day, it's hard to generalize. Getting your BMR tested (and no, I don't know how--probably rare to find docs who know how to do it and have the equipment) would be the only way to really know.

And of course the whole calorie in = calorie out theory is VERY suspect. Obesity is far more complicated than that. (once again, I encourage everyone to read Adiposity 101 for more info).

I always enjoy math games, tho, Atrsy!

It's certainly interesting seeing the great differences in numbers that everyone is getting! I don't think that this is necessarily accurate for everyone, though. It doesn't take into account the differences in metabolism and activity between men and women, for example or what your lean body mass is, both factors that can greatly influence how many calories you can consume and still lose weight. It also doesn't take into account that you burn more calories when you are using fat for energy instead of carbs. Still...it was a fun exercise. :)

yah that is pretty interesting, mine came to 1708.5 which is a lot more than i eat now... i just can't force that many into my body... not sure why. however if i do the multiply 10 by my weight and all it comes to 2350 which i like the 1708 better, probably more atainable for me... and i did do the 1.4 cuz i work out all the time. anyway just wanted to say it was interesting

Lisa N., I find this interesting, because for me and evidently for others here it is within the range for us. If you take note, the ones who came out extremely low didn't use the x1.4 for the exercise which it stated was just moderate exercise.

You said it didn't take into account the differences in metabolism and activity, but neither does the 10-12x weight rule that is
suggested on this board. I tried that for several weeks and continued to gain on those amounts. I did, however, discover on my own that 1600-1900 is the range where I lose and I weigh 230 lbs.

Yes everybody is different and we should have options that we could try if something isn't working. There are many of us that the 10-12x wt rule just doesn't work for. So why is that the one that is so strongly suggested on this board?