Appropriate Caloric Intake- Differences in Activity Level?

[Kev92]

Hi, im a college student, 19 years old, 140lbs, 5ft 10, and looking to bulk. (obviously lol)

I lift for around 1-1.5 hours, 4 days a week. I play squash for 1 hour 3 times a week. Aside from the walking to and from campus, the rest of my life is relatively sedentary, as I am mostly in school studying. Aside from squash/lifting, I probably average around 5k walking a day.

According to the mifflin-st jeor equation, my bmr is around 1660. This seems relatively close the schofield equation, which uses specific age categories ( i am under 19-30), which calculates my bmr at around 1640. no worries.


However, what im concerned about are the conflicting activity levels in different sources. Given a rough estimate, I think I am between lightly-moderatly active. On these stickies, and most ofther non-scientific reports (e.g. livestrong, ehow, etc) this corresponds to around 1.4-1.5 PAL. However, in caloric rdas for many countries, and the fao, and most scholarly articles, this is a PAL of around 1.7.

Here is my evidence: (please remove spaces from urls as i have a too low post count)

http :/ /www . fao. org / docrep/007/y5686e/y5686e07. htm #bm 07.2

http : //www . sacn . gov . uk/ reports_position_statements/reports/sacn_dietary_recommendations_for_energy_report . html ( this report states the average PAL for british adults is 1.63, corresponds to quite active in the stickies. Also, apparently the lowest PAL sustainable for long term health is 1.38, which is still 'lightly active'.)

http :/ / www .nrv. gov. au /energy . htm '' PAL ranges from 1.2 (bed rest) to 2.2 (very active or heavy occupational work). PALs of 1.75 and above are consistent with good health. PALs below 1.4 are incompatible with moving around freely or earning a living. PALs above 2.5 are difficult to maintain for long periods"

In my experience based on what I have read, these articles may be more accurate since most people without a bodybugg seem to have previosuly underate, probably to innaccruate calculations.

This is is probably quite important, not only for me, as a calorie difference of up to 500 could mean the difference between maintainence and a full out bulk.

Hope others could chime in on this topic, thanks

[Reloadguy]

Go with 1.4 or 1.7 or whichever and after a week check the scale and mirror, if your gaining stick to those cals if not then up them by a couple hundred. No need to be anal about it, those formulas are just estimates after all so just stick to mirror/scale to gauge progress and hit those weights hard.

[nosix]

Go with 1.4 or 1.7 or whichever and after a week check the scale and mirror, if your gaining stick to those cals if not then up them by a couple hundred. No need to be anal about it, those formulas are just estimates after all so just stick to mirror/scale to gauge progress and hit those weights hard.

^^ This

[Kev92]

Cheers for the reply.


As a general request; if any Bodybugg owners read this thread, it would be helpful to list your calculated bmr, TDEE and activity level. IMO, this would not only help me, but many others who cannot afford a BB.

However, whilist empirical data seems the most practical, I too like many others have previously underate. I have already been bulking at around 2700-2800 and making quite lean, albeit gains. However, given some PALs, i could increase calorie intake significantly, whilst making the same gain rate, given my thyroid/hormones etc were running smoothly. Anecdotally, it seems that many BBers on other forums (t-nation, anabolicminds) etc eat rather little calories whilst compared to their size; they eat less than many off season 'iffymers' who have less mass than them. Apart from PAL, could this be also due to a slowed metabolism, or other factor perhaps better solved by the fao/uk rda etc guidelines?

In addition, I was looking through determined's thread about 'how much time you spend in the gym' and it seems many people seem to eat contrasting amounts of calories in relation to their activity level. e.g- some 'active' people spending long hours in the gym may have a PAL of around 1.4, while other more sedentary people have pals of 1.6+.