After a discussion with my wife regarding lifestyles, as in men are allowed to eat more than women, we sat down and looked at one of Rosemary Connelly's books. In one of her books she publishes tables showing daily energy requirements and they make for interesting reading.
For 10 stone women aged 30-59:
Basic requirement1374 kcal just to stay alive
sedentary 2060
Active 2340
very active 2610
For the same 10 stone woman over 60:
basic 1174, sedentary 1760, active 2000, very active 2230.
As a 75 year old man weighing about 13 stone
Base rate is 1555, sedentary 2332, active 2644, very active 2954. Yesterday my fitbit recorded 10696 steps, about 5 miles, mainly as result of a good morning walk, which puts me firmly into the active category.
For men and women being very active creates an extra calorie burn of about 500 cals which can be satisfied by extra food , or by using the 500 calorie requirement to burn fat. For the over 60's who are, or have to be sedentary , the amount of food they can eat is more limited at 1760 calories.
She also identifies the top ten excuses:
I have a slow metabolism, I can't exercise, I'm on HRT, It's my glands, I don't have time, I eat hardly anything, I work irregular hours, It's not fat it's muscle, it's my genes, I can't lose it since I had children.
Written by
Ianc2
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Interesting. The calculator comes up with about 1600 cals a day, which seems a bit low to me. However my fitbit tells me I am burning between 2000 and 2600 calories a day and I am on the top edge of my BMI, If I cut back my treats slightly I should be able get to somewhere near to the mid point of the range, at which point I will be well pleased.
To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:
If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9
It's a good starting point to work out your personal intake, but remember that it can't guess things like your muscle mass or how fast your metabolism is, so you'll probably make some adjustments as you start learning about yourself
There is a lot more to calories than this, and I dislike that she uses the term "excuses" as a descriptor for those who are overweight.
I was surprised to learn that calorie GDAs are not the same in every country. For example, I think Australia recommends 1800 for both men and women.
The way they first established how many calories people needed was to get a group of women to fill in food diaries for a week, determined how many they ate, and then took a few hundred off the final number to help us stay slim.
Then we have to consider caloric availability of food - we don't extract as many calories from nuts as we do pure sugar, for example. We can eat 100 calories worth of nuts and sugar, and only absorb 60 calories from the nuts, whilst we'd get 99 from the sugar.
Studies have also found that the fewer calories we eat, the slower our metabolism becomes. Your basal metabolic rate can drop by a third on a 1200 calorie a day diet.
Not everyone who can't lose weight is hiding behind excuses, and I say that as someone who has calorie counted 1200 calories a day and still gained weight due to thyroid issues.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
x 
Can We Increase More Calories Burning while Sleeping? 🤔❤️😴💤☮️☯️🧘🏻♀️🌈🙏🌺
Eating for weight loss
Mark Hyman: The Problems with Nutrition Science
