2500 calories for a man

[GrahamPlatt]

Does the Fitbit add on your body’s basic needs? - you’d use ~600Kcal doing absolutely nothing.

[Gerry557]

It's a general average. Individually circumstances will differ considerably. I've lost weight whilst consuming 6k a day and gained weight eating much less.

If you have more muscle generally for your body size you will burn more.

Fitbits are not that accurate. I don't believe my heart rate was 210 for the last 10 min of my run this morning even though it included a steep uphill section. More likely 180 region in real world.

[bungeejumper]

Does the Fitbit add on your body’s basic needs? - you’d use ~600Kcal doing absolutely nothing.

yes. I have spend days doing absolutely nothing (in the interests of science btw and the lowest I've got it down to is about 1700 calories - which ties in with my Basal Metabolic Rate

They reckon 350 to 500 calories a day goes on your brain, and another 600 to 700 on your liver. Donald Trump is championing a new scientific truth whereby you can load up your guts as much as you like, providing that you restrict your brain load accordingly. He's planning to live forever.

BJ

[bungeejumper]

Fitbits are not that accurate. I don't believe my heart rate was 210 for the last 10 min of my run this morning even though it included a steep uphill section. More likely 180 region in real world.

You think that's unrealistic? My rowing machine tells me I'm getting through 650 calories in half an hour, although admittedly that's on strenuous days. Consensus seems to be that it's about half that. Dammit.

BJ

[Gerry557]

Fitbits are not that accurate. I don't believe my heart rate was 210 for the last 10 min of my run this morning even though it included a steep uphill section. More likely 180 region in real world.

You think that's unrealistic? My rowing machine tells me I'm getting through 650 calories in half an hour, although admittedly that's on strenuous days. Consensus seems to be that it's about half that. Dammit.

BJ

I suppose it depends on your base rate. You might be 7 feet tall and have 10% body fat and weigh 18 stone.

[bungeejumper]

My rower, which is not connected to me in any way, seems to tie in with the fitbit - I.e about 300 cals for a half hour row. The fitbit has my height/weight age etc and also measures my pulse.

I'm not sure if the 'bit is all that inaccurate. I've measured my pulse manually and it seems to tie in with the data.

I've never had a Fitbit, but I should imagine that your pulse is one thing that it certainly ought to be getting right? And then, by applying all the usual Harris Benedict calcs on your age, height and weight, it ought to be in the right ballpark for calories?

That said, I refuse to accept the Harris Benedict calc that says my BMR is 1755 and I ought to be consuming 2720 cals a day to maintain my weight. I reckon it's closer to 2,200 personally.

But then, I don't fit the medical norms very well, and I've long since learned to ignore the whole BMI thing. I'm 69 and 90 kg , but built like an all-in wrestler, because my ancestors were blacksmiths for about 300 years. My best friend won't speak to me sometimes because I've inherited a muscle structure that I've done very little to deserve. Life isn't always fair.

BJ

[yorkshirelad1]

I'm a man in his 50's, 5'10 & 11 stone. These days, I consider myself to be reasonably fit (Not 'ultra marathon' fit though). So across the board, I think I'm pretty average.

I'm told by the smart people that I should be consuming 2500 calories a day. I think this is too much.

For the 1st time in ages I put on my fitbit yesterday to see where I was at. Yesterday was busy enough. A bit of this, a bit of that. Up and down stairs, a few jobs around the house......and a 12 mile cycle in the afternoon.

The thing is, according to the 'bit, the cycle burned through 534 calories. My total for the day (again, according to the FitBit) was 2538. If I hadn't gone out for the cycle I'd have over consumed by around 500 calories. (I don't actually know how many calories I consumed yesterday btw).

My point is that I think the Government calorie consumption guidelines for an average bloke during pretty average things on a pretty average day are too high by a fair amount.

I have a set of Tanita scales which I stand on periodically and log the results. I reckon I'm fairly fit, certainly no couch potato. It tells me my BMR is (averaged over the last 9 months) 2226 kcal. Rest of me is 1.9m, 92kgs, aged 55 (the way it flatters me is to tell me my metabolic age is 40: yippee!)

[GrahamPlatt]

From your azcentral link there Snorvey;
“Running
You will generally burn more calories when you run faster because running faster requires more effort and requires your heart to work harder. The average 155-pound person running for one hour burns 1,228 calories running at a pace of 6 minutes per mile, 1,078 calories running a 7-minute mile, 930 calories running an 8-minute mile, 818 calories running a 9-minute mile, 744 calories running a 10-minute mile and 596 calories running a 12-minute mile, according to the Harvard study.”

Yep, it does seem likely that running farther will burn more calories! But how many calories are burned if you run the same distance at those different speeds?

1 hour @ 6mins/mile = 10 miles : 1228 Cals
1 hour @ 7mins/ mile = 8.571 miles : 1078 Cals

10 miles run @ 7mins/mile then is (10/8.571)x1078 : 1257 Cals.
10 miles @ 8 mins/mile = (10/7.5)x930. :1240 Cals

So you’d burn a little more running the same distance slower? How odd.

[redsturgeon]

It seems to work well for me.

My BMR as a 6'3" 64 year old weighing 88kg comes out at 1800.

I walk about 6 miles most days at a good pace over hilly terrain so use about 600 calories on that.

At the weekend I will do a 30k cycle.

I probably need my 2500 calories a day.

Probably explains why for the past couple of years since going vegan, I have been pretty stable weight wise.

John

[Gerry557]

To return to my original point. I think the government guidance of 2500 calories is too high - particularly in these days of largely sedentary lifestyles and jobs sitting on your butt all day. Most people are probably over consuming by about 300 calories a day (this is not hot off the press news though)

The NHS has a BMI calculator on it's website, so why not a BMR calculator like the one above? At least then you'll know how much you should be consuming compared to your activity.

But it is just that, Guidance!

If your eating less than this and continually putting on the pounds then you need to change your life style.

Remember not all calories are equal cos you wont survive long term on 2500 cal of chocolate even if you die happy.

Eating healthy and being active is generally good advice and adjust either or both to maintain ideal for your body

Even BMI has to be used as guidance and not taken as law. If you are more muscley you might be over on BMI but have really low body fat

[didds]

Even BMI has to be used as guidance and not taken as law. If you are more muscley you might be over on BMI but have really low body fat

As are most if not all elite power athletes wrt BMI

didds

[didds]

I'm a man in his 50's, 5'10 & 11 stone. These days, I consider myself to be reasonably fit (Not 'ultra marathon' fit though). So across the board, I think I'm pretty average.

I'm told by the smart people that I should be consuming 2500 calories a day.

who are these "smart peoiple" ?

im shorter and weigh more than snorvey.

Having lost a lot of weight on the eight week blood sugar diet, i moved to the 5:2 diet. Part of this si working out your "Total Daily Energy Expenditure", which is the amount of calories one should eat five days a week, and on the two other days you shoud "fast" and eat circa a quarter of that.

I coldnt eat my TDEE - to have done so would have meant actually eating for the sake of eating.

TBH snorvey at 5'10 and 11 stones you must be doing something fairly right. Do what you want to do

didds