Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > JUDDD
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-22-2012, 07:08 PM   #1
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,889
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
How the calories vary depending on your height

I thought this might be interesting this evening. We know that overall, larger folks can burn up more calories than smaller people, but just how much do you think that might be?

Using the *Rule of Thumb* that says women should weigh 100 pounds at 5 feet of height, and should weigh 5 pounds more for each additional inch of height, here are the calorie numbers for JUDDD at various heights for a hypothetical woman who is 40 years old and at her goal weight, based on the above Rule of Thumb. (Which we all know is only build on averages...)

So here are maintenance calories based on the 50% maintenance Down Day calculation:

5 feet, weight 100 pounds
711/1453 = 14,932 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 1 inch, weight 105 pounds
727/1453 = 15,260 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 2 inches, weight 110 pounds
743/1486 = 15,603 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 3 inches, weight 115 pounds
759/1517 = 15,932 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 4 inches, weight 120 pounds
774/1548 = 16,254 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 5 inches, weight 125 pounds
790/1580 = 16,590 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 6 inches, weight 130 pounds
806/1612 = 16,926 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 7 inches, weight 135 pounds
822/1644 = 17,262 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 8 inches, weight 140 pounds
838/1675 = 17,591 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 9 inches, weight 145 pounds
854/1708 = 17,934 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 10 inches, weight 150 pounds
870/1739 = 18,263 calories over two weeks

5 feet, 11 inches, weight 155 pounds
855/1770 = 18,375 calories over two weeks

6 feet, 160 pounds
901/1802 = 18,921 calories over two weeks

So this takes our 40-year-old woman from 5 feet of height to 6 feet of height. But we have to remember, all of these numbers are just a *formula*. So first of all, we have to remember that they may not apply to us, exactly. Even at the same height, one of us might be heavier in the bosom and hips, while our sister has a very slim petite build, etc.

This is merely a generalization. A theoretical workup on hypothetical women. Many of us end up being able to eat MORE than the chart would prescribe for us. No doubt, our keeping that nice spread between our DD/UD calories helped in that. LOL And exercise doesn't just burn a few extra calories while it's occurring, but in building muscle through exercise, we can generally rely on being able to eat a bit more too.

Age plays a role. In general, the older we are, the fewer calories we can eat and expect to maintain. But exercise and activity play a big role there too.

And finally, when we reach goal, we get to play around with those DD/UD numbers a bit. In maintenance some of us decide not to increase the DD number by all that much and instead... add the additional calories to our UDs to make them even higher and more lavish! A little room to play once you get to maintenance. And that's fun.

Just thought this might be fun this evening. Hope you all are doing well.
__________________
Best wishes, Pat

Last edited by SoHappy; 05-22-2012 at 07:10 PM..
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 05-22-2012, 08:12 PM   #2
Way too much time on my hands!
 
KeirasMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 15,122
Gallery: KeirasMom
Stats: 277.6/150/150
WOE: Whatever plan keeps me around 150 lbs!
Thanks Pat. Some food for thought, but only if it's an UD!
KeirasMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2012, 10:40 PM   #3
Major LCF Poster!
 
hockey_gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: West Coast of Canada
Posts: 1,272
Gallery: hockey_gal
Stats: 172/156/150 5'7.5 Goal met: Aug 19/11
WOE: Moderate LC
Start Date: Aug 2010
I have problem with that height formula. It means I should be between 135 and 140 (I'm around 5'7.5 inches). When I was boxing and mtn biking 26 hours/week, I got down to 136...but boy that was hard to maintain

I'm eating way more than that on my UDs...but I find lower #s on DDs easier bc if I try to get to 800 than I want to do an UD or MD, lol.

Thanks for the food for thought.
hockey_gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 11:09 AM   #4
Way too much time on my hands!
 
Luna Loca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin
Posts: 11,231
Gallery: Luna Loca
Stats: 303/159/159
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: 10/17/10 started JUDDD on 1/28/12 at 198
I don't think I'll ever achieve a weight of 115 pounds as dictated by my height.

I know my goal weight is high for someone of my height (5'3"). I picked that weight out of thin air as a "wow, wouldn't that be amazing" type of ideal world goal. I never truly thought I'd be anywhere in the neighborhood of 150.

As I get closer, I think I might re-evaluate. But I have a large frame, and was 135 in high school. I had a bit of a pot belly then, but looked and felt pretty good. I might re-set my goal to 135, but probably no lower.
__________________
"before" from the bad old days.

"Success occurs in clusters and is born in generosity" --Julia Cameron

Describes my JUDDD Buddds perfectly.
Luna Loca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 04:10 PM   #5
Big Yapper!!!!
 
minimonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,021
Gallery: minimonkey
Stats: 5'0" -- very small frame
WOE: Clean eating, whole foods
Yeah, that rule of thumb is a bit outdated, and doesn't work for a lot of people. I am 5 feet tall and very small boned, and if you adjust for frame size (as the formula indicates that one should), I end up with a target weight of 95 or even 90 lbs, depending how much you take off for frame size.

My body won't go there -- I've tried and tried! I can get down to 105, and I can maintain that if I am diligent, but my body just kicks up a huge fit if I try to go lower. I work out, and I have a lot of muscle ... and that shows up on the scale. I've resigned myself to 105 as a goal weight -- if by some miracle I can drop lower, fantastic -- but I am not going to live on 400 calories a day, every day, to do it... and that is what it would take for me to get down to 90 lbs, I think.
__________________
Rogue p2 cycling:

8/28:128.6 .... 10/7 118.4 ....10/20: 115.8
minimonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2012, 04:32 PM   #6
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,889
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Yes, as we know, The Rule of Thumb scale for height/weight is only a very general rule of thumb, and it varies up or down depending on an awful lot of difference in body types. Plus, on another thread, we were talking about how small women's waists used to be compared to most now, etc. Lots of variables to be taken into account. I don't know whether I really think it is *outdated* as much as it just isn't ever seen much anymore. I would definitely say that because we don't see the percentage of slim folks these days as decades ago, it is certainly more rare!

This was more focusing on the difference in how many more calories slender *at goal weight* women will be able to eat than shorter *at goal weight* women, everything else being equal. Which, of course, it never is.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2012, 10:42 PM   #7
Big Yapper!!!!
 
minimonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,021
Gallery: minimonkey
Stats: 5'0" -- very small frame
WOE: Clean eating, whole foods
I meant outdated in the sense that most insurance companies, doctors, etc. don't use it any more... but you are right -- people used to be SO much smaller in the waist than they are now.

I love vintage clothing, and the waist sizes on many of those pants are unbelievably tiny!

Even below goal, and with as short and small framed as I am, I will never again have a 20 inch waist! My waist just won't go below 23", and that is when I am so thin that I have bones showing everywhere -- ribs showing up my back, breastbone sticking out...( I was that thin a couple of years ago, when I lost weight due to being very sick) -- I still had a 23" waist. Without a corset, 20 inches just ain't gonna happen!

In my case, it is because I have a lot of abdominal muscle, I think ... but I also think that environmental factors are causing our bodies to change over time.

The good news is that being muscular and active allows more caloric freedom, so I'll live with the muscle...lol. I'm kidding... I love my muscles, and I work hard to build them.
minimonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2012, 11:07 PM   #8
Senior LCF Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 397
Gallery: Abby
Stats: 5'7";197_'09;167/139/132_'12
WOE: LC/VLC
I also use the Devine formula which you detail to obtain my ideal weight. While everyone has to feel comfortable with their OWN goals, Devine is still utilized to determine if patients with eating disorders merit inpatient treatment; the rule of thumb for most insurers allows for hospitalization for these folks if their weight falls below 75% of their IBW( ideal body weight) or if they have suffered major medical complications such as arrhythmias, hypotension, or low potassium.

The calorie counts appear to be around 12x the weight offered. That's a reasonable calculation for people who are moderately active. For couch potatoes, 10x their weight is probably more realistic.

Thanks,
Abby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2012, 05:37 AM   #9
Major LCF Poster!
 
theredhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 2,601
Gallery: theredhead
Stats: 229/152/150
WOE: Atkins/hCG/maintaining EASILY with JUDDD
Start Date: 09/04/03
Quote:
Originally Posted by minimonkey View Post

Even below goal, and with as short and small framed as I am, I will never again have a 20 inch waist! My waist just won't go below 23", and that is when I am so thin that I have bones showing everywhere -- ribs showing up my back, breastbone sticking out...( I was that thin a couple of years ago, when I lost weight due to being very sick) -- I still had a 23" waist. Without a corset, 20 inches just ain't gonna happen!

In my case, it is because I have a lot of abdominal muscle, I think ... but I also think that environmental factors are causing our bodies to change over time.

The good news is that being muscular and active allows more caloric freedom, so I'll live with the muscle...lol. I'm kidding... I love my muscles, and I work hard to build them.
This post made me think about how much my body has changed, even at the same weight as when I was a teenager. I recently got out my 37 year old wedding dress and tried to squeeze into it. It was a size 12. (I'm a size 6 now....vanity!) Even though I weigh the same, and it has a high Empire waist (so no issues with actual waist or hip measurements), my RIB CAGE is bigger! With my DH's help, I actually got it zipped, but I couldn't breathe. Someone told me that our rib cages get bigger after having children. I know my FEET did, lol!

Pat's chart is interesting. I calculated what I'm approximately eating, and it's many more calories, on average. I'm maintaining about five pounds above that "ideal" weight, but eating an AVERAGE of 467 calories a day more. Hmmm.... if that formula worked for me, I would be gaining.

I think it's due to JUDDD's affect on my metabolism. It's definitely revved. I JUDDD!
__________________
Laurie
5'7" female, 57 yo
DH has lost 90 pounds
Click here for our fatties pics!
And another old one

Click here for a new picture.
And another newer one
theredhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2012, 06:50 AM   #10
Way too much time on my hands!
 
Kissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London UK
Posts: 19,046
Gallery: Kissa
Stats: 184/137/126 5'3" Age 67
WOE: JUDDD restart 8/25/2014
Start Date: 2001 Atkins -50 2011 JUDDD - 10
Fascinating thread Pat.
Kissa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2012, 07:22 AM   #11
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,889
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
I found it interesting in that when I was a young woman, during the later teenage years and twenties/thirties.. I was right at that chart's height/weight calculation. I am 5'-3" and weighed in at about the 115 recommended. I was sleek and slim and trim and straight and strong.

Now, at age 69, if I weighed in at 115 I would look gaunt and shriveled, wrinkled crepe on a boney skeleton, weak and frail.

The Rule of Thumb chart is no more than that.. a general starting place. After that we have to apply some thought to where it should be adjusted for our own physicality.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2012, 07:24 AM   #12
Way too much time on my hands!
 
Kissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London UK
Posts: 19,046
Gallery: Kissa
Stats: 184/137/126 5'3" Age 67
WOE: JUDDD restart 8/25/2014
Start Date: 2001 Atkins -50 2011 JUDDD - 10
You and me both Pat.
Kissa is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 PM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.