This article in Time has a caloric formula:
Multiply your weight by 13 (15 if you are active), and if you want to lose weight subtract 250, and that should be your caloric intake.
For me, that's 1570 calories a day. If I actually did the exercise I was supposed too, it'd be 1850.
The only diet I've ever tried was the one where you cut your calories back to 1200 a day. I got that number by taking the weight I wanted to reach, using this same formula, and subtracting 375 calories - I read that one somewhere too.
What I need to do is ignore the calories and eat right. I'm convinced if I ate healthy food instead of junk, my extra weight would slowly dissolve over a year.
But eating right takes a lot of time, and a lot of time I don't have.
I feel like I'm doing better just by eating apples for my morning snack instead of potato chips or bagels smoothered in cream cheeze. But I could do a lot better. I could eat salad and soup for lunch every day. I could make my own healthier salad dressing - because I like the healthier one anyway.
Ugh. Health. That's why if I got rich the first thing I'd do is hire a cook - a healthy cook.
Posted by Liz at October 13, 2003 10:54 AM | TrackBackUnfortunately, I don't get half those calories a day, and I'm not losing anything. But I also know that it isn't a matter of diet (although I could possibly eat enough to keep from starving if I tried...)
Back to the gym for me!
Posted by: MT Fierce at October 14, 2003 11:37 AMIf you get too few calories, your body thinks it's starving and does everything in it's power not to lose weight. It's a fine line.
I also think the formula is too broad. It would depend on your metabolism. It would depend on the kind of food - some calories burn easier than others.
But for a basic benchmark, I guess it's okay.
Posted by: LizT at October 14, 2003 11:43 AM