5000 calories a day just to maintain a 200lbs weight? 5'8" and claims 11% bodyfat? Probably 20 years old at the time. He's 27-28 now and a total slob. That just doesn't seem accurate to me!
5000 calories a day just to maintain a 200lbs weight? 5'8" and claims 11% bodyfat? Probably 20 years old at the time. He's 27-28 now and a total slob. That just doesn't seem accurate to me!
IMO ur "buddy" is bullshITTing u. ill give u 3 reasons why i think so:
ONE:
200lbs x 0.11(%BF) = 22(LBS fat)
200 - 22 = 178lbs Lean Body Mass
rough starting maintenance = LBM x 15 (178 x 15) = 2670cals (rough maintenance)
TWO:
using Katch/McArdle (which is an inaccurate tdee that claims u need more cals than u really do):
200 x .11 = 22
200 - 22 = 178
178 x .4536 = 80.74(kg LBM)
(80.74 x 21.6) + 370 = 2113(BMR)
2113 x 1.55 = 3276cals (this is high estimation)
THREE:
my stats are 5' 9" 197.8lbs 8.67%bf
which gives me 180.65lbs LBM (2.65lbs LBM more than ur buddy) and im bulking with 3200cals gaining about 2lbs per week
i coulda just posted my opinion but figd id give u some numbers. its funny to see the same old BS talk going around. u say hes overweight now rite? talkn bout back in the day??
have him come here and we can help get him back to his 200lbs and 11%bf!![]()
^^^
Brilliant post.
In my teens I could eat anything and as much as i wanted. Could not break 150 pounds(at 5'6"). I wasn't a skinny kid either, but no one would have called me fat. Just normal looking.
I'm not much taller now, but at 38 and 175 lbs, I physically cannot eat what I could in my teens. Yet, the weight can pack on really quick.
I've heard alot of theories as to why older=fatter, but reguardless of why, it's a bitter reality.
lmfao! Love the posts!
He said he "trains hard!"
my girlfriend is at work right now, and im re in acting that scene with tom cruise in risky business in her panties.
New cardio routine?Originally Posted by mockery
I agree his numbers are off. However I have been thinking about this as well. take two guys, both at 200lbs and both at 10%. But guy a is small framed and has alot of muscle mass. The other guy has a large frame(shoulder width, wrist/ankle size, etc), with very little muscle mass. Would they both require the same cals to cut/maint/bulk???
Everyone's different obviously, and everyone processes a little differently as well. I always tell people I have to eat at least 3k calories or I will lose weight. They look at me in shock. I consume a decent amount over 3k though. And I've lost and gained and staying fairly even atm.
One reason I don't like going off lean body mass is because first off it is already a rough estimate...Secondly, most don't think to consider that after you calculate your "Lean Body Mass" that is REALLY NOT A CORRECT NUMBER...Did everyone forget about their frickin bones in their body? A skull alone is about 10 lbs...Then you have the rest of your bones, organs, water in the muscle etc. etc...So that would bump down your "Lean Body Mass" AT LEAST ANOTHER 30 LBS. Probably even more...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)