Eat Healthier by Doing a Little Math
The best way to get lost is to not know where you're going in the first place. This is especially true when it's applied to nutrition. If you're concerned about your weight, you probably want to know how many calories your body burns each day so you can figure out how many calories to eat. To find out, you first need to calculate your BMR -- your basal metabolic rate -- which is how many calories your body burns at rest. Don't worry, healthier eating doesn't require vast physiological knowledge, just the ability to perform remedial math.
1. Men should multiply their weight in pounds by 6.23. Women should multiply their weight by 4.35.
2. Men should multiply their height in inches by 12.7, and women should multiply by 12.3.
3. Men and women should add the two results together.
4. Men should add 66 to the sum of Steps 1 and 2. Women should add 65.5.
5. Men should multiply their age by 6.8. Women should multiply by 4.7.
6. Subtract the total in Step 5 from the total in Step 4. This is your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate).
7. This number (the BMR) represents how many calories your body likely burns each day AT REST--if you never moved from your chair, for example.
8. To lose weight, begin eating your BMR in calories per day. Because you are not always at rest, your activity will put you in a caloric deficit, and you will lose weight. If you lose more than 2 lbs. a week, however, add 250 calories to your daily intake until you settle at a healthy weight loss rate.
9. Remember, 3500 calories equals about a pound of body weight, so take it easy. Slow and steady wins this race.
Member Comments
by mmcspadden on May 28, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I thought this was really helpful to figure out how many calories I "really" should be consuming. It's important to have this number as a baseline and to keep a food journal when you're trying to improve your health. When you see how many calories are actually consumed in a day compared to what your body needs, it's eye-opening!
by eduvauchelle on May 28, 2008 at 2:56 PM
4. Men should add 66 to the sum of Steps 1 and 2. Women should add 655.
---------------
is that a typo? men only remove 66 from the sum and women 655?
why?
by fizzie on December 4, 2008 at 7:35 AM
The line currently reads 4. Men should add 66 to the sum of Steps 1 and 2. Women should add 65.5.
by raash on December 21, 2008 at 8:21 AM
yah u made a typo. women should add 65.5 its sixty five point five not six hundred fifty five.
by runchbox on June 18, 2008 at 3:11 AM
OK, even with the correction to step 4, this is still setting off my BS detectors. The totals here are well into the thousands and they are giving a .5 total difference between men and women. I don't know what your research would be, but that would definitely be inside the margin of error.
The other factors are precise to 2 decimal places. Why? Do you really need your total calorie intake to be that specific? Did your 'research' really test to the tenth of a calorie? And if we lose too much we correct it by adding 250 calories until we get it right? Why not 249.29? Seriously.
The only part of this I would believe is that the author is a male model.
by wroughtirony on December 5, 2008 at 9:04 AM
The decimal places don't represent tenths of calories- you're multiplying these "precise" numbers by fairly large numbers. For instance- if I multiply my weight (162) by 4.3 I get 692.3 If I change that number to 4.35 I get 704.4
The number I got from this equation is very close to what I've gotten from other sources, and is also consistent with the recommendations from the daily plate.
by runchbox on June 18, 2008 at 3:26 AM
Duke, can you provide any source for this? There seem to be a lot of copies of this online. Is this just conventional wisdom in the male model community or is there an actual study that backs this up?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=wXF&q=%22basal+metabolic+rate%22+12.7&start=10&sa=N
by specialkkluthe on December 5, 2008 at 9:43 AM
this fails to account for all of the calories a person burns doing daily activities--walking from your car, cleaning the house, not to mention exercise on top of that. I would not be able to eat only enough calories for my BMR, nor do I think that is healthy.
by CompuTech007 on January 4, 2009 at 6:48 PM
BMR is not intended to account for those walks to the car, cleaning the house etc. BMR is the least amount of calories required to sustain your health while at rest doing nothing at all. Therefore when you exercise and burn up 800 calories you need to eat more that day on top of your BMR level.
by tanimytani on December 9, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Bah--he didn't say that you should only eat those calories! Sometimes you have to read more closely before jumping to all kinds of negative conclusions... my BMR places me at 1264.5 calories a day and since I'm trying to eat around 1300-1400 calories a day and I'm losing about a pound a week I'd say he did a good job since my results fit with his suggestion.
Regardless though, women should never eat below 1200 calories as this can put your body into starvation mode.
by sonofsancho on January 13, 2009 at 7:52 AM
When using this formula, I noticed how there is no concern for body composition. I've read that each pound of fat burns ~7 kcal/day and each pound of muscle burns ~50 kcal/day. Wouldn't this make a huge impact on the formula? I think it would.
-Neal Sanchez
CPT per NASM
Gold's - Hester's X-ing
by mandimac on January 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM
BMR is just a tool. It's what the body needs to use to keep your vital organs going if you just lie in bed all day and do nothing.
Yes, you need to add more calories for everything you do to get a more exact count of every calorie that your body uses. And muscle mass probably does affect the math of the problem to some extent but not much because it is if you are not using you muscles.
But as the article said, it's the amount of calories you body burns if you do absolutely nothing. The more you know about your body and how it works, the better understanding you will have on how much you need to do to loose weight and gain muscle. I've looked this up on several sites and the more I learned about it, the better idea I have of why it would be a good idea to know it.
by kstacyc on January 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Do you really think you should post ads in regards to "fast weight" loss or "cabbage soup diet? These are just set-ups for disaster. Real weight loss and being healthy takes TIME and lots of work! There is no quick fix, so why would you allow these ads? I have lost 96 pounds, and it took time, blood, sweat, and tears. Let's be real. These ads are misleading and can cause serious health concerns. I did try the cabbage soup diet, the baby food diet, and numerous other "quick fixes" and diet pills. Real results came when i started counting my calories, making healthier choices, and working out. So let's get real....
by anabolic on February 2, 2009 at 6:27 AM
I don't think BMR is entirely accurate, but it was interesting
by siu4coders on February 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Hello,
Please, can you also provide the values in metric system? I think it will benefit a lot of people.
Thanks!
by tricia_reeves on February 4, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I just calculated my BMR based on the article and it would have me eating less thatn 1200 calories a day. Isn't that a big no-no?
by hephzibah75 on February 7, 2009 at 5:40 AM
I find this tool very help because I have to take perscription meds that effect my weight. This has help me realize just how much they were effecting my metabolism, which used to be crankin'. I have a target caloric intake now that can be adjusted if needed. It also explains why my weight loss has been slow. Thanks for the help!
by saabguy328 on February 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I lost 40 pounds in about 3 months thanks to this site. I agree with Kstacyc. The best thing I did was learn about good nutrition. Eating healthy natural foods and walking my butt off is basically how I lost the pounds. Don't just focus on the amount of calories you are consuming, focus on what you are putting into your body.
by herculeslre on February 27, 2009 at 8:14 PM
It would be VERY helpful if either the author of the article or a qualified nutritionist/dietician connected to LIVESTRONG.com would answer Tricia"s question.
by writerprolific on March 12, 2009 at 12:10 AM
this forumla worked out to close to what my dietician advised for my goals (- the 250).
@tricia. There is no silver bullet formula for everyone. Everbody is different and no one would recommend following this without a medical professional's opinion first.
by mobbprincess on March 30, 2009 at 8:23 AM
I just calculated mine and it has my BMR at 1543 calories which is more than I eat anyway. And the Daily plate has me at 1426. I don't really know what to do. Any suggestions? I can't imagine that my body burns that much at rest.
by mfbs on April 5, 2009 at 11:54 AM
multiply the initial 4.35 by your ideal body weight, not current, to lose.
by mobbprincess on March 30, 2009 at 8:27 AM
O.K. please forget my previous comment. I went back and recalculated and I was wrong. I made a mistake. Simple math is not my thing! My BMR is actually a little less than TDP calculation.
so I am going to try the BMR calculation to see if I can loose weight because using the TDP calculation, I am gaining.
by KeliChoma on March 30, 2009 at 8:20 PM
if you have a little more muscle mass than usual is your bmr going to be a little higher?
by mbv123 on March 31, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Okay, I'm confused. Step l = 184 x 4.35 = 865.9
2 = 63" x 12.3 + 774.9
3= Total = 1639.9
4= 1639.9 + 65.5 + 1705.4
5 = 66 x 4.7 = -310.2
Step 5 - Step 4 = 1392.2
Total BMR= 1392.2
Now the way I understand this is to eat less than Total BMR. Is this correct?? thanx!
by mojojovie on April 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM
This is saying that to lose weight you should eat your BMR, which is the minimum number of calories your body burns per day. Assuming you do more than sit in a chair all day (take a walk, dishes, clean, dance, etc) you will be burning more than the minimum, so eating your BMR will cause you to lose weight.
by Zebu on April 7, 2009 at 10:05 AM
That would mean I could only eat 495.6 calories.... !?
by bodywit on September 13, 2009 at 8:59 AM
There's definitely a problem there...
http://bodywit.com/resources/quick-nutrition/
by deonnafajardo4 on April 9, 2009 at 12:49 PM
i just did mine and it comes out to a negative 164, i am totally confused, what does this mean
by treyjudy on May 1, 2009 at 7:52 AM
I don't think that's possible. If you're a 100 lb. female who is 5 feet even and 60 years old, here's how it comes out.
Step l = 100 x 4.35 = 435
2 = 60" x 12.3 + 738
3= Total = 1173
4= 1173 + 65.5 + 1238.5
5 = 60 x 4.7 = -282
Step 5 - Step 4 = 956.5
Total BMR= 956.5
Now this theoretical person is not overweight, so they should probably eat around 1,200 calories per day, perhaps more if they are active.
by BrooklynRosie on April 16, 2009 at 7:35 PM
This is still a bit confusing, I redid mine with my ideal weight and it came out to 1335.9 which is more than the daily plate suggests. So I guess that's good?
by ssarruhh on April 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM
mine came out to 1636.... thats alot of calories for just sitting on my bum
by eve3113 on April 30, 2009 at 6:49 AM
My number came out to: 1236 and my daily plate is 1128. Which one do I go by ?
by bodywit on September 13, 2009 at 8:57 AM
There seem to be some inconsistencies there... But anyway. The idea is awesome!
If you do a little thinking you will have total control on your diet!
http://bodywit.com/resources/quick-nutrition/