My awesome nutrition expert of a cousin was kind enough to enlighten me on the ways of calculating one's basal metabolic rate which, if you've been reading, determines how many calories you burn in a typical day before exercise. Here's what she said:
1) Get your weight in kilograms or... (Your weight in lbs)/2.2 = your weight in kg
2) Get your height in centimeters or... (Your height in inches)/.3937 = your height in cm
3) Gauge your activity level:
4) Choose a formula based on gender:
-For men, 19 years or older:
[662-(9.53 x age)] + Activity Level x [(15.91 x weight in kgs) + (539.6 x height in cm)]
-For women, 19 years or older:
[354-(6.91 x age)] + Activity Level x [(15.91 x weight in kgs) + (539.6 x height in cm)]
5) Plug it in and do the math:
Por ejemplo (Latino outreach, le gusta?), we'll do mine:
Male, 28 years, 157 lbs (71.4kg), 68 inches (1.73m), very low active (1.08)... working... the magic number is 2630. Nice. I can eat 2630 worth of calories each day without weight gain or loss AND without additional exercise. Sounds too good to be true. Could it be???
Understanding Nutrition warns that the actual burn rate is somewhere AROUND this number, probably plus or minus 200 calories on any given day. There are several other considerations that we'll go over in future posts.
Plug in your info. Do the math. Crack open an old algebra textbook if you need to. Find out if you're eating near your daily balance. If you're over and want to lose weight, eat less or move more.
Keep training,
LSF
"Activity Level" slide backstory: I got started on making the table above, since crappy ole Blogger doesn't have an "insert table" option, I opted for some MS Office action. Excel was too dull for this action-packed blog so I went to Power Point. It turned into a 10 minute project similar to what every yuppie has done at work. I discovered the slide jockeying and ran with it. A relevant stock picture and Dilbert strip got thrown on top of a tasteful but fun background. The font could be better but so could our use of free time. I'm sure you are as impressed as the execs at corporate.
Bib: Whitney, Ellie and Sharon Rolfes. Understanding Nutrition, 11th Ed. Wadsworth Publishing, 2008.
1) Get your weight in kilograms or... (Your weight in lbs)/2.2 = your weight in kg
2) Get your height in centimeters or... (Your height in inches)/.3937 = your height in cm
3) Gauge your activity level:
-For men, 19 years or older:
[662-(9.53 x age)] + Activity Level x [(15.91 x weight in kgs) + (539.6 x height in cm)]
-For women, 19 years or older:
[354-(6.91 x age)] + Activity Level x [(15.91 x weight in kgs) + (539.6 x height in cm)]
5) Plug it in and do the math:
Por ejemplo (Latino outreach, le gusta?), we'll do mine:
Male, 28 years, 157 lbs (71.4kg), 68 inches (1.73m), very low active (1.08)... working... the magic number is 2630. Nice. I can eat 2630 worth of calories each day without weight gain or loss AND without additional exercise. Sounds too good to be true. Could it be???
Understanding Nutrition warns that the actual burn rate is somewhere AROUND this number, probably plus or minus 200 calories on any given day. There are several other considerations that we'll go over in future posts.
Plug in your info. Do the math. Crack open an old algebra textbook if you need to. Find out if you're eating near your daily balance. If you're over and want to lose weight, eat less or move more.
Keep training,
LSF
"Activity Level" slide backstory: I got started on making the table above, since crappy ole Blogger doesn't have an "insert table" option, I opted for some MS Office action. Excel was too dull for this action-packed blog so I went to Power Point. It turned into a 10 minute project similar to what every yuppie has done at work. I discovered the slide jockeying and ran with it. A relevant stock picture and Dilbert strip got thrown on top of a tasteful but fun background. The font could be better but so could our use of free time. I'm sure you are as impressed as the execs at corporate.
Bib: Whitney, Ellie and Sharon Rolfes. Understanding Nutrition, 11th Ed. Wadsworth Publishing, 2008.
a reader and friend noticed the discrepancy in heights (meters vs cm). fixed it... thanks mike
ReplyDelete