I don't have PBD.
Just thinking outloud: it probably doesn't assume you are doing Alwyn's workouts.
Does it say to use the Owen equation? Does it give the various multipliers?
What goals does it state - is it telling you to eat at maintenance and therefore you are calculating your maintenance - or is it having you calculate a caloric deficit?
What are the assumed conditions for which it is recommending calories?
I don't have PBD.
Just thinking outloud: it probably doesn't assume you are doing Alwyn's workouts.
Does it say to use the Owen equation? Does it give the various multipliers?
What goals does it state - is it telling you to eat at maintenance and therefore you are calculating your maintenance - or is it having you calculate a caloric deficit?
What are the assumed conditions for which it is recommending calories?
In TPBD it's an equation/multipliers and says that my maintenance cals are 1720 and on training days stay around 1420 and off days 1220.
In the NRL4W it's 1716 on off days, 1961 on active days (intervals) and 2206 on strenuous workouts (lifting). I guess I'll just go with a number in between the two and see how it goes. Maybe Cassandra could shed some light on this.
From what I recall, someone asked about this on the Oxygen boards and Cassandra answered that the workouts for PBD are much less intense, etc. I don't want to put words in her mouth but I *believe* it was something to that extent.
I don't have the PBD book but there was a section in Women's Health Magazine about it. That issue had a featured "best body ever" workout or something like that and I assumed that was the workout meant to go with the diet. It looked no where near as intense as NROL4W.
From what I recall, someone asked about this on the Oxygen boards and Cassandra answered that the workouts for PBD are much less intense, etc. I don't want to put words in her mouth but I *believe* it was something to that extent.
I don't have the PBD book but there was a section in Women's Health Magazine about it. That issue had a featured "best body ever" workout or something like that and I assumed that was the workout meant to go with the diet. It looked no where near as intense as NROL4W.
The workouts look intense in TPBD. I guess the numbers in these books are meant for a starting point anyway and I just need to figure out what works for me.
It's the same RMR equation (Owen), but the activity multipliers are lower.
For ex. From NROL4W for me:
795 + (7.18 x 61.4 kg) = 1235 RMR
BMI less than 24.9 on an active workout day is PAL of 1.8
1235 x 1.8 = 2223 kcals needed on activity days
Less 300 to lose weight = 1923
From PBD for me:
795 + (7.18 x 61.4 kg) = 1235 RMR
Under 35 and less than 30 lbs over my ideal weight is PAL of 1.5
1235 x 1.5 = 1852 kcals needed on all days
Less 300 to lose weight = 1552
There are no PAL for activity in PBD because the editors thought it was too confusing, so we just went with one. Also, since the cals ended up higher with the higher PALs, the editors also didn't like that, so the PAL was set to 1.5., They didn't want our (diet) book to be so radical as to proposed that high of cals because women would mostly freak out because all the other diet books have about that or lower for calorie recommendations. However, as we're learning here on this forum, women are now starting to see it's ok to eat that much when you're expending a lot of activity with ACs programs and the weight they gain will be muscle as fat is lost.
Another thing, with PBD, they wanted big results in just 8 weeks. Not any longer, especially not 6 months. I wanted a 12 week program at least, but that was nixed because no one thought they had to work out and eat right for 3 months to lose weight - especially in the diet world. NROL4W is also not a diet book - it's a book to encourage women to lift very hard and very intensely, so if the cals were any lower, they'd all fail.
Books are funny, but I truly believe in both books or I wouldn't have my name on them.
__________________
Fitness and Nutrition Scientist Blog:
From NROL4W for me:
795 + (7.18 x 61.4 kg) = 1235 RMR
BMI less than 24.9 on non-workout day is PAL of 1.6
1235 x 1.6 = 1976 kcals needed on non-wo days
Less 300 to lose weight = 1676
From PBD for me:
795 + (7.18 x 61.4 kg) = 1235 RMR
Under 35 and less than 30 lbs over my ideal weight is PAL of 1.5
1235 x 1.5 = 1852 kcals needed on all days
Less 500 to lose weight on non-workout days (doing nothing at all, which is not recommended in the book, as I call for at least 30 mins of movement everday)= 1352
This is a difference of about one smaller meal.
__________________
Fitness and Nutrition Scientist Blog:
It's the same RMR equation (Owen), but the activity multipliers are lower.
For ex. From NROL4W for me:
795 + (7.18 x 61.4 kg) = 1235 RMR
BMI less than 24.9 on an active workout day is PAL of 1.8
1235 x 1.8 = 2223 kcals needed on activity days
Less 300 to lose weight = 1923
From PBD for me:
795 + (7.18 x 61.4 kg) = 1235 RMR
Under 35 and less than 30 lbs over my ideal weight is PAL of 1.5
1235 x 1.5 = 1852 kcals needed on all days
Less 300 to lose weight = 1552
There are no PAL for activity in PBD because the editors thought it was too confusing, so we just went with one. Also, since the cals ended up higher with the higher PALs, the editors also didn't like that, so the PAL was set to 1.5., They didn't want our (diet) book to be so radical as to proposed that high of cals because women would mostly freak out because all the other diet books have about that or lower for calorie recommendations. However, as we're learning here on this forum, women are now starting to see it's ok to eat that much when you're expending a lot of activity with ACs programs and the weight they gain will be muscle as fat is lost.
Another thing, with PBD, they wanted big results in just 8 weeks. Not any longer, especially not 6 months. I wanted a 12 week program at least, but that was nixed because no one thought they had to work out and eat right for 3 months to lose weight - especially in the diet world. NROL4W is also not a diet book - it's a book to encourage women to lift very hard and very intensely, so if the cals were any lower, they'd all fail.
Books are funny, but I truly believe in both books or I wouldn't have my name on them.
Thanks for the quick response and it makes sense....I'm sticking around 1800 cals this week to see how I do and will go up from there pending my results. I really like both books as well. I looked the workouts over in TPBD and really liked what I saw. I'm going to try the workouts in both books.
Thanks for the quick response and it makes sense....I'm sticking around 1800 cals this week to see how I do and will go up from there pending my results. I really like both books as well. I looked the workouts over in TPBD and really liked what I saw. I'm going to try the workouts in both books.
Sounds good TxGirl. You know your body best. But, remember, it's OK to eat, especially when you've had a good hard workout. Stick to healthy choices like complete proteins and good fats, and you're golden.
__________________
Fitness and Nutrition Scientist Blog:
Sounds good TxGirl. You know your body best. But, remember, it's OK to eat, especially when you've had a good hard workout. Stick to healthy choices like complete proteins and good fats, and you're golden.
I try to eat every 2 hours. Just creeping the cals up slowly to see how the body responds, BUT making sure it's more cals on training days versus non-training days.
Another calorie intake question
A deficit of 300 on training days and 500 deficit for non-training days in TPBD book.
Linear Mode
