How much do I vary my cals?

dsl · 05-28-2005, 07:27 PM

On my workout days I am going to take in about 2700 cals and on non-workout day I'm going to take in about 2100 cals. Am I varying my cals too much, not enough, or is it just right. This averages out to about 2360 cals/day.

I weigh 186 w/ about 20% bodyfat (149 lbm) and my goal is to cut for the rest of summer.

So please tell me what you guys think.

dsl · 05-30-2005, 05:57 AM

bump...does anyone have any input? how about just the average cals, do ya'll think it's enough?

**Kruger** · 05-30-2005, 06:54 AM

Nope.

Lean One · 05-30-2005, 08:09 AM

Personally, I try to keep cals consistant from day to day except for a small bump in carbs for a post WO meal. IMO, increasing or decreasing cals that much from day to day will send mixed signals to your body. Generally, If you have accurate maintenance calories, you should be able to manage bodycomposition by fluctuating + or - 500 cals and being selective with nutrient ratios.

**Kruger** · 05-30-2005, 08:11 AM

Not if your energy requirements fluctuate from day to day. I always vary the calories depending on waht bodyparts I am training. Legs will always require more calories than arms or shoulders or chest so I could consume upwards of 500 calroeis more on that day. I also consume different amounts of calories on off days depending on what my goal is at the time.

dsl your starting calories are too low. I would consume maintenance or just above maintenance then let the exercise and cardio create the deficit at first then slowly taper down as you lose weight.

**Nabeshin** · 05-30-2005, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

dsl your starting calories are too low. I would consume maintenance or just above maintenance then let the exercise and cardio create the deficit at first then slowly taper down as you lose weight.

I'm guessing that by maintence you don't mean BMR, since that would be impractically low. So if you were using the Katch-McArdle formula to calculate calorie needs, would you take maintence level to be BMR x 1.2 (sedentary multiplier)? I've always done it backwards, using an activity multiplier that represents how much I actually exercise a week, and then creating a 20% deficit for cutting (or an equivalent surplus for bulking).

I'm carrying 160 pounds of lean mass at 7.5% bodyfat. The first method would have me eating 2,300 cals ED. The second method, assuming I was on a cut, would put me at 2,400. Not much of a difference in my case, but perhaps there are instances where the discrepancy is significant?

houseman · 05-30-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

I'm guessing that by maintence you don't mean BMR, since that would be impractically low. So if you were using the Katch-McArdle formula to calculate calorie needs, would you take maintence level to be BMR x 1.2 (sedentary multiplier)? I've always done it backwards, using an activity multiplier that represents how much I actually exercise a week, and then creating a 20% deficit for cutting (or an equivalent surplus for bulking).

I'm carrying 160 pounds of lean mass at 7.5% bodyfat. The first method would have me eating 2,300 cals ED. The second method, assuming I was on a cut, would put me at 2,400. Not much of a difference in my case, but perhaps there are instances where the discrepancy is significant?

Nice question!

**Kruger** · 05-30-2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

I'm guessing that by maintence you don't mean BMR, since that would be impractically low. So if you were using the Katch-McArdle formula to calculate calorie needs, would you take maintence level to be BMR x 1.2 (sedentary multiplier)? I've always done it backwards, using an activity multiplier that represents how much I actually exercise a week, and then creating a 20% deficit for cutting (or an equivalent surplus for bulking).

I'm carrying 160 pounds of lean mass at 7.5% bodyfat. The first method would have me eating 2,300 cals ED. The second method, assuming I was on a cut, would put me at 2,400. Not much of a difference in my case, but perhaps there are instances where the discrepancy is significant?

No, not BMR.

There always is a discrepancy. You will come to find that these formulas only work so far. I've had people off by 800-1000 calories simply because their individual metabolism. This is why its important that if you start dieting you establish this number based off what YOUR maintenance level is. Another reason why my clietns never use stims in the beginning. I would say 80% of the time I am right but that other 20% can be off by a LOT.

**Nabeshin** · 05-30-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

No, not BMR.

There always is a discrepancy. You will come to find that these formulas only work so far. I've had people off by 800-1000 calories simply because their individual metabolism. This is why its important that if you start dieting you establish this number based off what YOUR maintenance level is. Another reason why my clietns never use stims in the beginning. I would say 80% of the time I am right but that other 20% can be off by a LOT.

This still leaves the question of how best to figure out what, exactly, your maintence level is. Reading between the lines, I guess you're saying that you just take your best stab at it, then see how it pans out and adjust accordingly. That said, is there any particular methodology you recommend? If that's a paying-customers only thing, no need to respond.

**Kruger** · 05-30-2005, 09:49 PM

You always take a stab at it unless you completely believe one is right and the rest are wrong.

As for how I do it, my clients don't even know that

**Kruger** · 05-30-2005, 09:50 PM

You want an answer to a questions that cna't be answered. THere is no perfect way or right way. THat is why there are severla different forumals you can use. YOu have to figure it out for yourself and what YOU respond too. There is no other way aorund it.

dsl · 05-31-2005, 05:25 AM

This is why I have always been confused about my total cals. So basically I should go with my what my BMR probably is and just add my activity. Obviously, Bobo, you do not believe in formulas but that is all I have to start with, so, with that said would you, or any member for that matter, feel that about 2800 cals (BMR plus activity) would do it. I guess I could start here and see if I loose weight or stay the same.

I just find it so hard to believe that I can actually loose weight on that amount of cals. And I realize that this is the type of mentality that generally leads to failure; nevertheless, I cannot get over it.

At ant rate, thanks for everyone's input.

dsl · 05-31-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

You want an answer to a questions that cna't be answered. THere is no perfect way or right way. THat is why there are severla different forumals you can use. YOu have to figure it out for yourself and what YOU respond too. There is no other way aorund it.

And, Bobo, I believe that you need to get some sleep because your typing is starting to severly suffer.

Lean One · 05-31-2005, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabeshin

This still leaves the question of how best to figure out what, exactly, your maintence level is. Reading between the lines, I guess you're saying that you just take your best stab at it, then see how it pans out and adjust accordingly. That said, is there any particular methodology you recommend? If that's a paying-customers only thing, no need to respond.

The method I use involves an accurate bodyfat anallysis to determine LBM and figureing maintenance cals based off that (and activity level) not total body weight.

dsl · 05-31-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lean One

The method I use involves an accurate bodyfat anallysis to determine LBM and figureing maintenance cals based off that (and activity level) not total body weight.

Is this method the Katch-McArdle formula? This is what I used to begin with, but I guess it was wrong.