PDA

View Full Version : Massive Eating Part I - Calorie Calculations By John Berardi - November

Joe Black
11-10-2004, 05:41 PM
Discuss away!

http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=177

ryuage
11-11-2004, 03:23 AM
I think jb's calorie estimates are way off for the normal trainee... haha

11-11-2004, 11:47 AM
I got like 5200... =/

geoffgarcia
11-11-2004, 11:55 AM
Critique of the writing:
Why bother throwing in the conversion to kg.
If 95% of the people on this board measure in pounds then I think that should be the standard.

I know how to measure RMR and I found the explanation here fairly confusing.
He explains what to do for calculations, but not why.
How accurate can any RMR/BMR calculation be without age and height?

The activity level multipliers are a bit higher than most I've normally seen, especially considering they dont factor in exercise.

Why couldn't a web calculator have been included here so we could avoid pencil and papering it ourselves?

What about distinctions between men and women in activity levels and in RMR?

What about a snippet on the difference between RMR and the more common- BMR?

No mention of differences in Harris-Benedict, Calloway, Owen, Miffin, etc, for BMR calculations? distinctions for obese individuals
(BTW here is an AWESOME link explaing the differences in most of those and includes a calculator:
http://www.korr.com/products/predictive_eqns.htm)
Obviously I point out many minor things. However if your going to go into the detail of calculating the thermogenic effect of your food, then I think it would behoove a person to start with a proper RMR/BMR

According to Harris-Benedit my RMR is 2078 (based on weight, height, age)
Accoring to the Owen calculation its 2031 (based on weight)
According to Miffin its 1931 (based on weight, height, age)
According to Bernardi its 2305 (based on weight, bodyfat)

Anthony
11-11-2004, 11:56 AM
I used his method awhile ago and it came out pretty close to what I bulk on. Maybe it doesn't apply to everyone, but I thought it was pretty accurate.

11-11-2004, 01:36 PM
I didn't get a chance to use his calculations for bulking, but i used the one for cutting. Its like the bulking one minus 500-1000 or something.
I used to take in ~2900cals a day, using his calculations it told me too take in 3000 a day cutting. I was skeptical but followed his advice. The first week i lost no BF or weight. After week one i lost almost a % of bodyfat a week for over 12 weeks.
Its all about where your cals come from that make the biggest difference in fat gain/loss.

Thunderwulf
11-12-2004, 11:14 AM
Damn I got 5692.

Simply an amazing article though. Made my day! Thanks!

Vido
11-12-2004, 01:05 PM
He states who the article is intended for at the beginning so I don't have a problem with it, but you can clearly tell these calculations are for people who struggle to put on weight. Some people could turn into a blimp on 2 weeks of eating like that.

Maki Riddington
11-12-2004, 01:31 PM
Yup, I know I would be a walking good year blimp if I followed those calculations.

Sinep
12-01-2004, 01:14 PM
With 5000 calories you can say goodbye to your normal life, any non-seated jobs, and your abs. Besides I think taking steroids is probably healthier than overfeeding in the long run. Instead of using fancy formulas which no one know if they really work, I would recommend starting at 4000 calories and increase gradually according to the results achieved. And then I'd wish for plenty of safe sex for everyone.

Vido
12-01-2004, 08:34 PM
With 5000 calories you can say goodbye to your normal life, any non-seated jobs, and your abs. Besides I think taking steroids is probably healthier than overfeeding in the long run. Instead of using fancy formulas which no one know if they really work, I would recommend starting at 4000 calories and increase gradually according to the results achieved. And then I'd wish for plenty of safe sex for everyone.

So, 4000 calories is recommended, but 5000 means you'll have no life? :scratch:

Sinep
12-02-2004, 09:32 AM
So, 4000 calories is recommended, but 5000 means you'll have no life? :scratch:
Don't get me wrong, I have no life with 3000 calories. 5000 just makes it worst.

galileo
12-02-2004, 09:40 AM
It's difficult enough to eat a clean 3000-3500 calories. I couldn't imagine 5k.

ryuage
12-02-2004, 11:08 AM
weak!

smalls
12-02-2004, 07:48 PM
Agreed, the article is not 100% applicable to everyone but the idea remains the same. And 5000+ becomes a lot easier and less time consuming with 1.5gallons of milk and lots of cytogainer. Cytogainer is the greatest invention since electricity.

Vido
12-02-2004, 07:57 PM
Don't get me wrong, I have no life with 3000 calories. 5000 just makes it worst.

You could pretty easily get 3K clean cals in 3 meals.

It's difficult enough to eat a clean 3000-3500 calories. I couldn't imagine 5k.

I could :drooling:...

and in a few weeks I will be right there.

Cytogainer is the greatest invention since electricity.

lol

El Kelio
01-02-2005, 09:28 AM
I got around 5200 cals. I should reconsider my diet.
Great article.

eatmore
01-02-2005, 04:10 PM
what is cytogainer, and what does it taste like?

smalls
01-03-2005, 12:43 AM
It's a whey based weighgainer that has 56g protien, 80g carbs (4fiber) and 5g of fat. Chocolate mint tastes exactly like it sounds and mixed with milk is gods gift to me. Some of the other flavors I can't recomend.