PDA

View Full Version : Burning Cals



Ferdo
03-17-2004, 06:04 PM
Anyone know how many calories an individual would burn in a day with no excercise, just normal sedetary activities.

Also to calcualte how many calories for cutting is it your weight x 10 - 500

Example if i was to weight 200 pounds multiply that by 10 and then subtract 500 calories to burn 1 pound a week, which would be a defecit of 3500 cals in a week.

Jasonl
03-17-2004, 06:58 PM
There are too many variables to come up with an accurate number for cals burned. Bf%, diet, activity level(i.e. job) can all affect your metabolic rate. I suggest you have a test done by a doctor to get an exact number. As for cutting cals, bwx12 seems to be a good starting point, you will probably need to play with it for a few weeks to get it to where you are losing the right amount of weight. Another reason why getting your metabolism checked accurately would be a good thing.

Dedicated
03-17-2004, 07:02 PM
How many cals you burn in a day depends on how much muscle mass you have. The more muscle you have, the more calories you need to maintain that muscle.

To caculate how many calories for your weight a common formula is BW X 12. This is a very general formula and it puts your calories quite low IMO. For example if you weigh 180lbs that would be 180 X 12 = 2160 calories. Now that would be ok if you were 180lbs at 20% bodyfat or so, but if you are 180lbs at 8%, that would be too low. There are better formula's that take into consideration bodyfat percentage and these IMO are the better ones to use.


Edit - woops posted just as jason did, what he said yea:)

fornero
03-17-2004, 07:56 PM
Muscle does not burn nearly as many calories as people think it does. Recent research points to ~6kcal/lb (this should not be confused with metabolically taxing activities such as protein synthesis induced by resistance training). The extremely lean will actually probably have slower metabolisms than someone with average body fat due to a poor hormonal milieu.

For a given bodyweight, 14-16kcal/LB should cover the vast majority, in terms of maitenance calories for an active/regularly training individual. Sedentary individuals would have to subtract both the calories burnt via training, as well as EPOC (which is fairly signifigant).

The real question is, what in the world are you doing trying to lose weight without activity of some sort?

Holto
03-17-2004, 11:49 PM
Recent research points to ~6kcal

wow

have you got any links to where we can read up on that

- thanks

Strider2
03-18-2004, 04:49 AM
Well this works for me.

http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=19&pageid=2

Ferdo
03-18-2004, 06:44 AM
Just wondering, for days off from gym, or actually just curious how much calories we burn by just being alive.

fornero
03-18-2004, 10:10 AM
wow

have you got any links to where we can read up on that

- thanks
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=6+cal/lb&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=103mql9k1mcku89%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=6

note that when I wrote "6 kcal", it would best be read as "6 Calories"
Technically, a calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1g of water by 1deg C. A food listed as containing "200 Calories" contains 200 kcalories of energy.

GrumpyTX
03-18-2004, 11:36 AM
Most hospitals, some doctors, and some fitness centers have a machine that can tell you the amount of calories you burn doing nothing.

I know the 24 hr fitness by my work will do it for $35 for members and most hospitals in the area will do it for $99.

Holto
03-18-2004, 11:39 AM
Lyle Mcdonald wrote:

In one study, using a relatively moderate workload (4 sets of 10,
3-4 exercises, going from memory), an additional 700 calories were
burned above and beyond resting levels in the next 2 days. Do a workout
like that 3X/week and you're burning an additional 2100 calories/week
(in addition to what you burned during the workout itself). That's
significant.

it's amazing how many myths are getting shattered...

thanks fornero:

I like your posts on body recomp..."Scorecard ???"

lol

geoffgarcia
03-18-2004, 02:44 PM
http://members.nuvox.net/~on.jwclymer/calorie.html



Your basal metabolic rate, or BMR, is the minimum calorific requirement needed to sustain life in a resting individual. It can be looked at as being the amount of energy (measured in calories) expended by the body to remain in bed asleep all day!
BMR can be responsible for burning up to 70% of the total calories expended, but this figure varies due to different factors (see below). Calories are burned by bodily processes such as respiration, the pumping of blood around the body and maintenance of body temperature. Obviously the body will burn more calories on top of those burned due to BMR.

As we grow older, our BMR will steadily decrease. In youth, BMR is higher, and as we age we have less lean body mass - slowing the BMR. The more lean tissue on the body, the higher the BMR, the more fatty body tissue, the lower the BMR. A person's height is also a factor, a tall thin person will have a higher BMR than a shorter, fatter person.

http://www.weightlossforgood.co.uk/basal_metabolic_rate.htm




Lyle Mcdonald wrote:

In one study, using a relatively moderate workload (4 sets of 10,
3-4 exercises, going from memory), an additional 700 calories were
burned above and beyond resting levels in the next 2 days. Do a workout
like that 3X/week and you're burning an additional 2100 calories/week
(in addition to what you burned during the workout itself). That's
significant.

it's amazing how many myths are getting shattered...
thanks fornero

holto, you must have misread what Forneo posted above.
Your argument here doesn't address what he posted.
He spoke of muscle and your quoting on exercise...apples and oranges.
Everything I've read says his statement is in the right ballpark

Holto
03-19-2004, 11:01 AM
Geoff:

lol

I just posted it out of it being interesting

it also gives an alternative explanation as to why it is believed that having muscle burns so many cals

I guess most people are really expending cals as a result of the training and not simply having muscle

do you have a link to any clinicals re: caloric expenditure of muscle ?

- thanks

aka23
03-19-2004, 01:42 PM
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=6+cal/lb&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=103mql9k1mcku89%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=6

note that when I wrote "6 kcal", it would best be read as "6 Calories"
Technically, a calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise 1g of water by 1deg C. A food listed as containing "200 Calories" contains 200 kcalories of energy.

I believe that number comes from measuring organ weights and creating formulas that best fit organ weights to Resting Metabolic Rate. As described in the study at http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/5/331 , using such methods one can esitimate resting energy expenditure as:

REE = 200xliver + 240xbrain +440xheart + 440xkidneys + 13xskeletal muscle + 4.5 x fat + 12 x other.

These values are in kg. 13cal/kg = ~6cal/lb.

If you look at studies calculating RMR changes through LBM increases (weightlifting), they get much greater numbers, usually in the range of 20-50 calories per lb LBM. Here are some examples: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8175496 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11283427

There are large variations from one person to the next, so I think the whole issue is somewhat of a moot point. I would recommend eating however much is required to support your weight. I have had to increase my calorie intake by about 20 calories per lb LBM gained this year (my fat level has remained about the same), comparing periods with similar activity levels.

Holto
03-19-2004, 02:30 PM
thanks AKA

I wonder what would have been the result of measuring RMR several weeks after the strength training had ceased

how do we attribute the increase in RMR to increased Lean Mass and not the actual effects of training (as Lyle described) ?

aka23
03-19-2004, 04:18 PM
thanks AKA

I wonder what would have been the result of measuring RMR several weeks after the strength training had ceased

how do we attribute the increase in RMR to increased Lean Mass and not the actual effects of training (as Lyle described) ?

The abstracts I listed do not say how long after the training the final RMR measurements were done. Based on their conclusions, I would expect that they waited long enough that the effects of the exercise would be minimal. Post-exercise RMR increases usually return to near baseline levels within 2 days, like post-exercise protein synthesis measures.