The Importance (or lack of) of Pin-Pointing an Exact Caloric Intake

Steve

Member
Staff member
I originally wrote this article for my newsletter and it has since been posted on my site. It seems very fitting for here given the questions we seem time and time again. If you have any questions about the content of the article, feel free to ask here in this thread.

In the last edition of Nutrition Corner we discussed the importance of defining and understanding the difference between calories and macronutrients. If you haven’t read that article yet, I highly suggest you take the time to do so before delving into this installment.

After reading the above-referenced article, some messaged us asking, “The article is great, but how do I go about determining how many calories I personally need?”

Before answering, I’d like to remind you that counting calories isn’t for everyone. That’s not to say some aren’t bound by the laws of energy. It’s just that some find it tedious and obsessive to a degree that detracts from real progress. The only way to find out if you’re a member of this camp is to give it a try. As mentioned in the last article, even if you determine counting calories isn’t for you, it will still provide an invaluable insight as to how quickly calories can add up as well as what serving sizes really look like.

With that said, let’s delve into how one goes about calculating caloric needs.

To summarize from the last edition, caloric expenditure is determined by BMR, TEF, TEA and NEAT which are basal metabolic rate, thermic effect of feeding, thermic effect of activity and non-exercise activity thermogenesis respectively. As these factors rise and fall, so does your caloric expenditure.
Once we determine what we’re approximately expending, we’re able to tailor our intake to match our goal of either gaining, losing or maintaining weight—eat more than we expend to gain, less than we expend to lose and the same as we expend to maintain.

So how do we determine total expenditure?

We could find a lab with a metabolic chamber where they use calorimetry to measure the heat our bodies produce or the levels of gas exchange (oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, etc). You’ll have to live in a small room for a day or two to get an accurate reading. If you’re normal, this method is about as practical as climbing Everest as your form of weekly cardio.

I’m sure some of you have watched the Biggest Loser television show. On there you may have noticed contestants wearing what’s called a Bodybugg. This nifty device estimates caloric expenditure using various factors including movement, heat, electrical conductivity, etc. So you could purchase a similar device to measure energy expenditure.

You could plug some of your statistics into an equation such as the Harris Benedict formula which will spit out an estimation of your basal metabolic rate. These vary based on sex and look like:

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 year )

Once you complete the math, you then multiply your answer by an “activity factor” to get your estimated total energy expenditure per day. These factors look like this.

Formulas like the aforementioned are the basis for a lot of the calorie calculators that you see on the Internet. These are very simple to use typically asking you to plug in your age, sex, height and weight and with the click of a button you’ll have an estimated caloric expenditure.

This isn’t a complete list of methods of calculating caloric expenditure but it does contain the most popular techniques. Frankly, I don’t use any of them—well I should say I almost never use any of them.

Here’s why.

Caloric needs are very individual and variable.

By individual, I mean two given people with similar body compositions and lifestyles may have varying degrees of variability in energy expenditure due to genetic factors affecting metabolism. It should be noted that this variability isn’t as great as many make it out to be—if you’re of the type that believes you have a “slow metabolism” thus making fat loss impossible without starving yourself, you better think again (outside the realms of clinical issues). But variability does exist and this is something that the above methods are not going to pick up (shy of the metabolic chamber).

By variable I mean caloric expenditure will change from day to day and month to month. For instance, our lifestyles will dictate how much energy we expend. Think about how some are more active during the week than the weekends or think of an off-season compared to in-season schedule for an athlete. Caloric expenditure will change based on your energetic state (or diet if you will)—meaning if you’re continuously eating less energy than your body needs, your body is going to adapt by slowing down your metabolism over time.

The simple act of losing weight will reduce your caloric expenditure. You’ll have less tissue to support, less mass to move around, etc.

Beyond the fact that caloric needs are individual and variable, the accuracy of these rudimentary tools (sans calorimetry) tends to diminish as you approach the ends of the spectrum of leanness or obesity.

Hopefully you’re starting to see a) caloric expenditure is not a rigid, consistent thing and b) that unless you’re spending some time in a metabolic chamber the tools you use to estimate caloric expenditure are rudimentary in nature and at best give you an approximation.

Knowing this, it is beyond me why so many get hung up on calculating their total energy expenditure. Invariably I’ll see people at wits end ready to pull their hair out fretting over the option to eat 1850 calories or 1950 calories because they used two online calculators and each spit out a different determination.

They’re missing the forest for the trees.

I put an enormous premium on simplicity. I don’t see much a point in muddying the waters until I reach a point that requires some mud-stirring. Until that point arises, I like to use the K.I.S.S principle.

In doing so, I’ll typically calculate someone’s total energy expenditure by multiplying their bodyweight by 14-16 calories per pound. This calculation pans out for most people and it’s not something to view as a rigid formula.

If you’re more active than most or if you have a hard time gaining weight, lean towards the high end of the spectrum or change it all together. Something like 16-18 calories per pound may be what the doctor ordered in your case.

On the flipside, if you’re more sedentary than most of have a very hard time losing weight, lean towards the low end of the spectrum. Something like 12-14 might be ideal for your situation.

Either way, what you select as your starting point matters little. The entire point is to base your caloric intake on how your body and weight is responding to your initial calculation.

Metabolism (energy expenditure) is not a static measure and therefore neither should your caloric intake be. It’s a process and that’s what most people miss. This process is consistent regardless of what method you use to determine your initial energy expenditure.

The process would look something like:

1. Estimate total energy expenditure.

2. Set your caloric intake at a level above or below the above estimation depending on whether you want to gain or lose weight, respectively.

3. Track your measurements, weight, body fat, etc every 2-4 weeks.

4. Based on the trend you’re seeing with your tracking, adjust your intake accordingly.

5. Rinse and repeat steps 2-4 until you a) reach your goal or b) your goals change.

Because I enjoy beating dead horses, let’s look at an example. Jane weighs 130 lbs. She is spends about an hour each day exercising and doesn’t feel her metabolism is off-the-charts slow. She calculates her total energy expenditure by multiplying 130 by 14 to give her 1,820 calories. She understands that we’re working with estimates so she drops that number to 1,800.

Her goal is to drop 5 lbs of fat while preserving muscle. She’s not looking to do anything extreme in terms of dieting but she knows she needs to eat less energy than she expends. She reasons that a deficit of 25% would be suitable.

Multiplying 1,800 by 25% gives us 450. To start her “plan” she'll aim for between 1,300 and 1,400 calories per day.

She’ll also figure out her baseline data by weighing herself first thing in the morning after relieving herself. She’ll use a soft tape measure to measure the circumference of her arms, chest, navel, waist, hips and thighs. If she has the available tools, she might measure her body fat percentage. She’ll also take some pictures of herself.

After a handful of weeks eating between 1,300 and 1,400 calories she’ll re-measure the above variables. If they’re heading in the desired direction she’ll stay the course. If she finds that she’s losing weight too quickly, she’ll adjust her intake upward by 10% or so. If she finds that she’s not losing enough, she’ll adjust her intake downward by 10% or so.

And that’s the process. Next time you or someone you care about is frantically searching for the perfect calculation for energy expenditure, stop them and explain the process. If you use the wrong calculation, the process will uncover that fact and you’ll make the necessary adjustments over time to get on track.

Although this article is primarily about how to calculate caloric needs, it’s important to mention that the types of foods that comprise your calories are vitally important as well. That’s beyond the scope of this article however.
 
This is so great and so true. I basically gave up measuring my 'calories out' and my 'BMR' etc because I knew they wouldn't be accurate. I measure calories in, and my weight and inches. This has worked great. Weight loss slowing = up my activity. Never ever cut my food cos I like it too much. LOL.
 
So If I did the math like the gal in the article, I should be trying to eat around 1600 calories a day to lose weight? THat seems like SO much!

I'm aftaid I'll gain weight if I eat around that much! Yikes!
 
I like this because it somewhat falls in line with my outlook, which has been working for me.

I figure out calories by the week, then portion it out roughly to days for the most part. I'll cook a lot on the weekend, and be the king of leftovers for the week. Not leftovers as in whole dishes, but have the basic meats cooked. I start out with a known amount, so I know, ok, I've made 8 portions (for example), so whack off an appropriate sized chunk as needed. if its a little over, so what? If it was a known start weight, there's going to be one piece short. weekly average.. still the same.

Overall effect, less stress, less worrying about it, and more training in eating well as a life skill.

How does this come into play with the weightloss? Same thing, you're eyeballing it, and if the weight isn't coming off as planned, it becomes as simple as either eat less, burn more or change your plan. or some combination.

As far as reducing calories, its much easier to cut calories down on the macro level (apportioning weekly) then on the (to me) micro scale (per meal). want to drop another 1000 calories off your week? its easier to trim it out when it's all in front of you and keep track of it in 21 separate portions (3 meals a day for 7 days).

that's me, others may vary or have a plan that works better for them, but, i'm the king of lazy, and lord god of "i don't need any more things to worry daily about", just like the rest of us, i'm sure. ;)
 
Compared to what?

Same question.

There isn't a blanket amount that's considered "so much" for anyone and everyone. And more importantly, 1600 is actually low for most average Americans.

I'd be willing to bet you need to adjust your frame of reference.

Big D, that's similar to my own, personal outlook.
 
I meant that it seems like a lot then what I've been used to eating. I don't eat a lot. How much weight gain should I see if I add all these calories back into my diet. If I see too much weight gain, when do I know to change something? How much is too much when you are trying to add calories?

Hope that makes sense.
 
I originally wrote this article for my newsletter and it has since been posted on my site. It seems very fitting for here given the questions we seem time and time again. If you have any questions about the content of the article, feel free to ask here in this thread.

OH Wow!!!!!

I guess the original post was from Steve but for some reason it got lost with so many postings..

Good examples and well detailed but there is no explaining on rmr either.. oh well.. would have been good to have thoughts on that too..
 
Good examples and well detailed but there is no explaining on rmr either.. oh well.. would have been good to have thoughts on that too..
What's the obsession with RMR? For the purposes of weight loss BMR/RMR are practically identical.

If you enter your information into the calculator here:



You'll see that the variation between the numbers is less than 200 cals in almost every scenario.

For example my results were:

BMR & RMR Results:
The results of your calculations are: BMR 1,514 RMR 1,434 (calories)

As BMR and RMR only represent resting energy expenditure or calories burned during a day of rest, an adjustment must be made to reflect activity level. This can be done by multiplying by an activity factor:

1.2 Sedentary Little or no exercise and desk BMR 1,817 RMR 1,721
job

1.375 Lightly Active Light exercise or sports 1-3 BMR 2,082 RMR 1,972
days a week

1.55 Moderately Active Moderate exercise or sports BMR 2,347 RMR 2,223
3-5 days a week

1.725 Very Active Hard exercise or sports 6-7 BMR 2,612 RMR 2,474
days a week

1.9 Extremely Active Hard daily exercise or sports BMR 2,877 RMR 2,725
and physical job

By adding RMR to the mix, you're just unnecessarily confusing things - muddying the waters. Most people have a natural variation of BMR and daily activity that is equal to or greater than 200 cals normally anyway. So why add yet another calculation for people to have to worry about?
 
Last edited:
What's the obsession with RMR? For the purposes of weight loss BMR/RMR are practically identical.

If you enter your information into the calculator here:



You'll see that the variation between the numbers is less than 200 cals in almost every scenario.

For example my results were:



By adding RMR to the mix, you're just unnecessarily confusing things - muddying the waters. Most people have a natural variation of BMR and daily activity that is equal to or greater than 200 cals normally anyway. So why add yet another calculation for people to have to worry about?

because i wanted info on it .. it was many years ago when i hurt my back and i gained so much weight from being flat on my back with no movement for 9 months.. then over a year of physio it didn't do anything to make me lose weight..

but this personal trainner that doesn't have phone numbers working overseas can't be reached. When he explained it it worked and now, that i need to lose weight again i was trying to use the same tools.. so, maybe just sharing what i had on my notes someone else that knows nutrition and the body could share some light to what i had writen down.

It wasn't to confuse people it was to put it out there for those who want to learn and for those who know to share their knowlefge .. because i need help.

i though that was the reason for forums.. so it can reach a lot of people with a purpose of a reply. hopefully a positive and useful one.

All i remember is the BMR and RMR should be very similar but they can be very off and thats why we can try to lose weight doing alot of the right things and we won't lose it..

That's it... but yes, your right it can be very confussing for the average joe..but nothing wrong with helping each other out.
 
Ok, I apologize if my posts came across as overly harsh ... you haven't posted much on here and it sort of appeared as if you were just posting disagreeing with all the stickies and making them out as being "wrong".

If you wanted info on it, ASKING would have gotten you some pretty easy answers with people happy to explain. For future reference "Has anyone discussed RMR vs. BMR?" is a much better way of saying it than "I guess no one wants to talk about RMR. Oh well. Would have been nice." See the difference in tone? :)

As I said, BMR and RMR are close enough that the difference in a couple hundred calories isn't something you should sweat out unless you're really already very slim and looking to reduce body fat to single digit numbers. And even then, there are more effective methods for dropping body fat at that level.

Basically, as I said above, there's enough variation in everyone's day to day calorie expenditure, that picking over 100 cals BMR vs RMR is sort of a waste of time.
 
What's the obsession with RMR? For the purposes of weight loss BMR/RMR are practically identical.

If you enter your information into the calculator here:



You'll see that the variation between the numbers is less than 200 cals in almost every scenario.

For example my results were:



By adding RMR to the mix, you're just unnecessarily confusing things - muddying the waters. Most people have a natural variation of BMR and daily activity that is equal to or greater than 200 cals normally anyway. So why add yet another calculation for people to have to worry about?


Kara... i went to the site you mentioned about the RMR .. unfortunately that is not enough info.. there is much more to it ..it's okay.. I'm goint to hit personal trainners that know not just ones that hold a certificate.. Even if i have to pay...

but that site is good enough for someone that just wants a candy to cut the craving off.. not for actually getting knowledge and doing something with it..

I had the info before i know i can come to it again..

Let's just let this die.. because its not getting you or me anywhere...
 
I'm really not sure what you're getting at. The calculations between RMR and BMR are not that different.

The difference in measurement is that BMR should properly be measured when the subject first wakes up, and has an empty stomach (i.e. in a fasted state). RMR may be measured any time the subject is "at rest".

Either way, again, there's not that much difference between them, functionally speaking, in a real-world situation.

Basal metabolic rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(I don't generally rely on Wikipedia, but the article links to reliable sources)

I'm goint to hit personal trainners that know not just ones that hold a certificate.. Even if i have to pay...
All I can get from that is that you're going to go find someone who will tell you what you want to hear, even if you have to pay them for bad information.

Why not just do the research yourself and find the reputable sources instead of looking for a random trainer who will parrot back what you want them to say. Just because someone is a personal trainer, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
 
I wouldn't have gotten into this in the article I wrote because it would have defeated the purpose of the article. The purpose or point is worrying so much about the specific numbers doesn't matter. The process I outlined in the article will uncover and fix most any issues or miscalculation you're going to encounter.
 
I'm really not sure what you're getting at. The calculations between RMR and BMR are not that different.

Why not just do the research yourself and find the reputable sources instead of looking for a random trainer who will parrot back what you want them to say. Just because someone is a personal trainer, doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

Hi Kara,

I know what you mean and agree with you. I had a ex coworker who used to do all the profiles for this personal trainner with meals and exercise for his clients which i laughed because he never took classes just read books.But the trainner put his name on it and got paid really well.. Yes, my ex co worker made money too.

I was rereading the notes i had, so many pages he wrote and the handwriting is an issue, then i was trying to figure things out. i felt like was studying greek or physics.

Seems he wrote i had to concentrate on exercises that help not only burn more calories, but i think he said also calories will keep burning longer?
it has an example underneath. if you exercise with cardio and watch your diet. is better than just diet with no exercise where you would be losing weight but also losing muscle in the process and your metabolism becoming more sluggish.. then i have ??? beside it and RMR. and it's very important to raise your metabolism..
I was more tired after reading all this than putting a full day of work in the office, you can imagine my frustration..

All i know is i lost the weight with him and i kept it off for years.. and now i screw it up.

I'm going to leave it alone for a bit to breath.. Now i have to research on how to cut sugar cravings and a new ipod and what's new on the market since mine is dead.
 
I'm commenting here mostly so that people will read (or re-read) Steve's article. I've seen many requests for info on daily calorie intake lately and was just about to write something about it until I found this!

I completely agree with the 'process' of finding what your daily caloric intake should be. No matter what number a person figures out based on any of the calculations, progress needs to be monitored and each person needs to adjust their intake according to what's happening... If they're not losing weight, decrease the caloric intake slightly for a few weeks and measure what happens, and so on.

Steve, you're exactly right... unless you hang out in a giant calorimeter for a day or so, you'll never know what your RMR, BMR, or total energy expenditure are.... and calculations that we use are just ESTIMATES... they are not the final word on how much someone should or should not eat in a day.

The only part that I'm not convinced about is the 'rule of thumb' that you should multiply your weight in pounds by 14-16 to get an estimate of your daily calorie intake... I think I'm just not convinced because I don't know where this rule of thumb came from... Has this been discussed elsewhere or does anyone have any info on it?

Cheers,

P.
 
I'm commenting here mostly so that people will read (or re-read) Steve's article. I've seen many requests for info on daily calorie intake lately and was just about to write something about it until I found this!

I completely agree with the 'process' of finding what your daily caloric intake should be. No matter what number a person figures out based on any of the calculations, progress needs to be monitored and each person needs to adjust their intake according to what's happening... If they're not losing weight, decrease the caloric intake slightly for a few weeks and measure what happens, and so on.

Steve, you're exactly right... unless you hang out in a giant calorimeter for a day or so, you'll never know what your RMR, BMR, or total energy expenditure are.... and calculations that we use are just ESTIMATES... they are not the final word on how much someone should or should not eat in a day.

The only part that I'm not convinced about is the 'rule of thumb' that you should multiply your weight in pounds by 14-16 to get an estimate of your daily calorie intake... I think I'm just not convinced because I don't know where this rule of thumb came from... Has this been discussed elsewhere or does anyone have any info on it?

Cheers,

P.

Hey there, glad you enjoyed the article

The 14-16 has been around forever in the strength and conditioning circles. When compared to the HB formula or something similar, assuming relatively active people who aren't obese, it works out to be close enough.

But fretting over that simple formula defeats the purpose of the article. That being that if the 14-16 rule of thumb (which is nothing more than an estimate, like any of the other formulas) puts you at too high or too low of an intake, the "process" will uncover that fact soon enough and you adjust accordingly.
 
When I'm seriously dieting: I count calories ....to every sip of drink or every bite of cake I might have. if i do not know I do not touch. period. some great iphone apps and online resources available for calorie counting.

after doing it for a while you get every good at estimating how much you've eaten... lol my friends call me a calorie calculator. when they order something ..they ask me how much calories in this...and i guess...they check and it is usually correct lol! I call it my 6th sense!!

Calories are a good indicator / guideline but over all I think it is irrelevant when it comes to maintain... it is very hard 2 eat above ur recommended calories if you are eating healthy. It really is. So i dont really bother with calorie counting during holidays (too much math lol).... but i will get back 2 doing it since i'm back onm y mission2 loose 10 kilos (the lastttttttttt push!)
 
it is very hard 2 eat above ur recommended calories if you are eating healthy. It really is.

I am sure you are right about that but haven't you noticed that a lot of people find it very easy to slip from eating healthy to have more and more high calorie food. Watching your calories helps you be vigilant. But its great that you have been able to move on from that and i would hope that everyone could eventually move on from counting calories.

I don't count them any more either. But i think when people are starting out its a really good way to get to grips with controlling food intake for weight loss.
 
Back
Top