I agree that formula is bogus. Still, you're pretty low calorie for someone who is working out regularly and has 80 lbs to lose. Easy enough to test, add 500 calories for a couple days, see if it kicks anything loose.
If you set up your account profile properly on here you should have a recommended range that considers your exercise calories burned.
Fitness Minutes: (2,788)
5/14/13 3:23 P
UNIDENT, I was doing it without really noticing. I would just lose track of time. This week I have really paid attention and have only been doing 45 minutes a day. I was just really trying to figure out if I was working out too much with me only taking in about 1300-1400 calories a day.
Fitness Minutes: (92,802)
5/14/13 9:09 A
I have found that the key to my weight loss success (20 lbs) has been tracking calories. I did it within 6 months. I use to just exercise a lot, which I love and still did not lose the weight. My kid on the other hand can not lose weight counting calories. I think it just depends on you and your self control. What works for one does not work for all.
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
5/14/13 8:39 A
Fitness Minutes: (85,382)
5/14/13 7:29 A
More proof Dr. Oz is a quack. Your body doesn't enter starvation mode when you eat below 1200 cals. There isn't some invisible one size fits all calorie bar. It would entirely depend on the individual. Generally speaking it's below -20 to -40% TDEE. 1200 cals is the minimum calorie intake a woman should eat to ensure she's still meeting her macro/micro nutrient requirements while on a calorie deficit.
With the multiply weight by 12 formula. That would put me at 1320 cals. So if I were to eat 1200 cals that would only give me a deficit of 120 cals/day without exercise. It would take me over 4 months to lose 1 lb.
Of course you can lose weight without exercise if you create a calorie deficit from your maintenance calorie needs (of which the formula includes activity/exercise). But exercise will allow you to create a larger calorie deficit and lose weight faster but there is a point of diminishing returns. The benefits of exercise while losing and beyond far outweigh the benefits of not exercising from a health perspective. For example, not including strength training while losing could mean that 20-30% of your weight loss is coming from lean muscle/tissue.
If you enjoy working out that long and can see yourself maintaining that workout regiment after you reach your goal weight, by all means... continue. But there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to weight loss and not keeping it up after you reach your goal could mean weight gain. Not to mention, cause you to loathe exercise and giving up on it completely. It's best to develop a routine that you can see yourself sticking with for the long term.
I personally workout between 1-2 hours a day but that includes both cardio and strength training. I also walk and hike a lot on top of that but I enjoy it and the results it gives me even though my goals are no longer weight loss.
As far as Dr Oz goes, he's a tv personality, I would take anything he has to say with a grain of salt.
Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 5/15/2013 (11:06)
Fitness Minutes: (469)
60 5/14/13 5:31 A
I notice that about Dr. Oz as well, he changes what he says almost daily, I think it's pretty ridiculous especially since a lot of people probably listen to him.
Fitness Minutes: (38,192)
23,501 5/14/13 3:25 A
I lost quite a bit of weight - not by exercising, (altho' I do, but just not as much or intense as is normally recommended due to skeletal issues), but merely by having reduced my calories. And it didn't even take much of a drop in calories to do it.
I had heard of that formula a long time ago, and for me, the calories came up as what I need to maintain my current weight, BUT I had already been maintaining for quite a while.
Perhaps it is just a rough guide, much like if your arms are outstretched, the measurement from finger-tip to finger-tip 'should' be the same has your height. Works for me, but not for a lot!
Any formula that "works for everyone" and is just "multiply your weight by ..." is not going to work. They'll work for maybe 50-60% of people, so they work for enough people that people keep passing these ideas around. But if your weight is a little lower or higher than 'average', these formulas rapidly become ... stupid numbers.
Definitely follow the link provided to the Spark formula. :)
But as to your question, yes if you're doing an hour and a half a day that's a LOT of exercise, so it's likely you do need more food - even to lose weight!
Why do you do so much? Is it because you enjoy it? Or is it in the hopes that this is what you need to do to lose weight?
Fitness Minutes: (2,093)
381 5/13/13 11:43 P
Multiplying my current weight by 12...LOL...would cause me to GAIN weight, not lose it after I saw that number. Sounds like a croc. But you are exercising quite a bit, which is great, but I want you to remember that you may not see a difference on the scale (or may even be gaining)...meaning you're probably gaining muscle and losing inches though...have you tried the inches trackers? Measuring your losses when the scale isn't going the way you want it to will also be eye-opening. Good luck to you!
Fitness Minutes: (2,788)
5/13/13 10:25 P
Thank you everyone for your comments! I appreciate it.
www.sparkpeople.com/resource/calorie_calcu lation101.asp this is the formula sparkpeople uses to calculate your ranges. the multiply by 12 thing does work for a few people, but most people need a better formula. based on your doctor oz formula, you weigh about 222lbs. which means that you can support a 2lb loss per week, which translates to eating 1000 cals less a day than you burn. so you need to figure out how many calories you really are burning [try using the formula in the link] and make sure that your exercise calories are accurately accounted for [in other words, you walking 30 minute miles for 90 minutes is going to be a very different number than if you were kickboxing or swimming for 90 minutes] and see what your total burn for the day is. then subtract 1000 to get about where you should be eating.
That is a WAY oversimplified formula, that doesn't take in to account an important little thing like how much you move. I'm sure there is a certain weight range where the numbers more or less line up, but my BMR (with no activity) is more like 1750 - that formula has me at 2200. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't burn 2200 calories just sitting around. If that were the case I never would have been 200 lbs in the first place.
Fitness Minutes: (4,362)
5/13/13 10:03 P
Dr. Oz sells air time to anyone willing to pay: Montel, Dr. Mercola, Weight Watchers, etc...
One day he is profasting and HCG and the next day he wants everyone popping pills.
That formula is wrong.
I weigh 100 x 12= 1200 (I can easily eat above 2000 calories without gaining)
Fitness Minutes: (2,788)
5/13/13 9:50 P
I was watching Dr. Oz Friday (after I worked out) and he had a personal trainer on there. He was talking about an easy way to find out how many calories you burn daily, without exercise. He said that you take your weight and multiply it by 12. The answer you get is how many calories you burn (give or take) daily. He said as long as your caloric intake is less than this you should lose weight, but that it's important that you do not go under 1200 calories because it will put your body into starvation mode. My # was 2664 and I know I eat FAR under that each day. My question is am I working out too much and it's actually causing me to not lose weight. Lately, I work out for about an hour and a half and usually eat around 1300 calories a day. I know I read on here somewhere that burning too many calories, while taking in too few can actually hurt your weight loss. Could this be my problem???
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.