| Author | Post |
|---|
rhema
New Member
| Joined: | 25 Nov 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 30 Nov 2006 10:12 pm |
|
To anyone who knows how much sugar intake can one have who's calorie intake is
1250 a day?  Rhema
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 1 Dec 2006 11:02 am |
|
US Govt guidelines are for 8% of intake, which would be 100 cals or 25grams per day in your case.
1250 sounds very low, by the way, unless you're tiny.
Overdoing calorie restriction will undo your sugar monitoring - and damage your body's muscle content.
|
rhema
New Member
| Joined: | 25 Nov 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 2 Dec 2006 01:12 pm |
|
Thanks for the info on the sugar intake. Well i'm sure not tiny by far i've lost 15 pounds in 30 days. But if i'm hurting my body because not enough calories i need, i don'twant that, but i do want is a healthy way of losing weight. I tried calulating but i'm not understanding the calulator system on caloriesprehour. My current weight is 315 like i said tiny not at all. Rhema
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 2 Dec 2006 03:49 pm |
|
Hi Rhema -
Here's a 'rule of thumb' that I offer to people who get confused by the calculations...
If you hardly exercise at all, multiply your body weight in pounds by 9, and that's your calorie target.
If you exercise a bit more, use 10 as the multiplier. If you're reasonably active, use 11.
If you're active 5 days a week (exercising, that is) use either 12 or 13 as the multiplier, depending on your perception of your exercise (you need to be honest with yourself).
So, for instance, if you exercise 3 times a week (or do weights for 3 x 30 minutes), use 10. That gives 315 x 10 = 3150 calories. You should be able to lose around 0.5 to 1.0 pounds per week with that intake.
Or, use 9 x 315 = 2835 if you want to lose between 1 and 1.5 pounds per week.
I'm afraid your 1250 calories was woefully low, and not sustainable. (Weight loss is not the same as fat loss).
Good luck with your (adjusted) program.
Last edited on 2 Dec 2006 03:54 pm by NevD
|
rhema
New Member
| Joined: | 25 Nov 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 2 Dec 2006 04:57 pm |
|
Thanks, Nervd
Boy was I not eating enough for my weight . thanks alot and thanks for the encouragement. Rhema
|
rhema
New Member
| Joined: | 25 Nov 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 2 Dec 2006 05:06 pm |
|
Nervd,
Is that male or female, i'm female?
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 2 Dec 2006 05:10 pm |
|
That's either, as it's a rule of thumb - and therefore not gender-oriented.
You may need to fine-tune, as you find what works for you personally - but it's a reasonable guide, since obviously your calorie allowance will reduce as you lose the weight (so recalculate every time you lose 10 pounds or so).
|
rhema
New Member
| Joined: | 25 Nov 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
|
Posted: 2 Dec 2006 05:36 pm |
|
| Thanks again.
|
fsahurie
New Member
| Joined: | 6 Dec 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 413 |
|
Posted: 6 Dec 2006 11:42 pm |
|
Hi,
Just a quick heads up that sugar(excluding fructose and lactose) gets converted immediately into stored body fat.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 7 Dec 2006 10:32 am |
|
Sugar very quickly makes it to blood glucose, potentially raising your blood glucose level and encouraging the production of insulin - which will go ahead and distribute the sugar away from your blood. Don't forget though that it is the excess sugar that is stored as fat. The first port of call for some glucose is to be converted to glycogen and be stored in your muscles and liver, ready to be used as energy. It is the 'spare' glucose (once your glycogen stores are full to capacity) that will be stored as fat.
When looking at fructose, the difference is that it is released into the blood as blood glucose more slowly. But when it gets there it behaves exactly the same way. As indeed do all carbohydrates (e.g. grains such as bread rice pasta potatos etc.). Nothing too magical about sugar.
Having said that, it is probably sensible to limit your sugar, as it is empty calories providing you with absolutely no nutritition (no fibre, protein, vitamins, minerals, pytochemicals etc.) and doesn't do your teeth any favours either.
|
fsahurie
New Member
| Joined: | 6 Dec 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 413 |
|
Posted: 7 Dec 2006 10:39 am |
|
| Yes, but keep in mind that fruits contain fiber, which slows down the digestion of food and your body has to work a lot more to burn more calories by the TEOF(thermic effect of food), not to mention that fruit isnt a refined carb, so the insulin spike is not as deep and powerful as table sugar, syrup and honey,etc.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 7 Dec 2006 10:48 am |
|
Yes, that is indeed all valid.
But equally, what I said applies as well, i.e. some sugar will find its way to glycogen and thus be used in muscles and not stored as fat, and conversely some 'good' carbs (in fruit, vegetables, pulses, whole-grains etc.) can be found to be in excess (e.g. if you've recently eaten a lot and your glycogen stores are full) and thus end up being stored as fat. Even protein which is excess to immediate requirements can get converted to stored fat. So, in that "stored as fat" sense, the only thing that is special about sugar is that the fact that it has a shorter path to 'blood glucose' is the only thing that might make it more likely that it is stored as fat - but it isn't a guarantee.
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 7 Dec 2006 04:11 pm |
|
...fruits contain fiber, which slows down the digestion of food ...
Most fruits have very low fibre content in the lists I've seen. Not that I would wish to dissuade anyone from chomping on fruit. (Perish the thought!)
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 7 Dec 2006 06:05 pm |
|
What about figs and prunes? I think that's what they're famous for. Fruit seems to be a mixed bag!
Grams of fibre in 100g of fruit, a few examples: apple (1.6g); apricot (1.7g), blackberries (3.1g), figs (6.9g), grapes (0.7g), kiwi (1.9g), mango (2.6g), watermelon (0.1g), cantelope melon (1g), orange (1.7g), peach (1.5g), pear (2.2g), pineapple (1.2g), raspberries (2.5g), strawberries (1.1g)
|
fsahurie
New Member
| Joined: | 6 Dec 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 413 |
|
Posted: 7 Dec 2006 09:22 pm |
|
Well, I found a website that explains the theory of calories in/calories out to be nonsense.IT basically says you need to feed the body with the right nutrition(fruits and veggies) and avoid as much as the wrong nutrition as much as possible to lose weight,:
thefruitpages.com/weightloss.shtml
I think it makes sense.
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 8 Dec 2006 06:23 am |
|
I think it makes sense.
Received wisdom is often a blind alley. 'Scientists' used to accept that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Observation suggests that there's no one right way to lose weight, since we're all different. Some people lose it by watching how much they eat. Some by merely eating the right things in any amounts.
"Plus ?â?ºa change..." like the man said.
|
fsahurie
New Member
| Joined: | 6 Dec 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 413 |
|
Posted: 8 Dec 2006 01:28 pm |
|
| Good point!
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 8 Dec 2006 06:54 pm |
|
| Here's a personal observation: calories and healthy vs. junk food go hand in hand. If you're really eating primarily fruits, veggies, and very lean meata and dairy, it's pretty unlikely that you'll be eating thousands upon thousands of calories a day. Calories in v. calories out is factual; how you go about it DOES make a difference, though (i.e., 2000 calories of Bic Macs vs. 2000 calories of nutritious foods).
|
pink***
Senior Member
|
Posted: 3 Apr 2007 04:50 pm |
|
nevd wrote:
If you hardly exercise at all, multiply your body weight in pounds by 9, and that's your calorie target.
Sorry to go back to this, I just saw it. Just wondering, I am 120lbs which means I should be eating 1080 cals but on the calculators it says my bmr is 1380? What is the right amount? Should I not go below 1380 or should I not go below 1080 or should I be aiming for either of those numbers. I am also fairly active. thanks
Last edited on 3 Apr 2007 04:53 pm by pink***
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 3 Apr 2007 04:54 pm |
|
| The "take your weight and multiply by 9" is an approximation that is mainly used when other data (person's height, age, sex) are not available. The RMR calculator is a better estimate - go by that.
|
pink***
Senior Member
|
Posted: 3 Apr 2007 04:59 pm |
|
ok thank you, I don't know if you saw my other post but I was wondering how much I should eat now to maintain even after I have slowed down my metabolism. I have put on about 1lb per week eating around 1700 cals which is lower than what is required for optimum weight loss. Im just a bit confused.
Weight 120, height 5'9' fairly active thanks
|
Current time is 03:32 pm | |
|
