14-16 sounds too low. For an adult maybe. For someone his age I would think
22-28 cal/lb would be better.
-Chad
In data Tue, 24 Aug 2004 04:44:35 -0700, Chad C. <johnkeynesX@Xemail.com>
ha scritto:
> 14-16 sounds too low. For an adult maybe. For someone his age I would
> think
> 22-28 cal/lb would be better.
>
> -Chad
Thanks for your answer
I've still some doubt
I calculated his Basal Metabolic Rate at:
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html
if I set Resting Hours at 24 (resting metabolic rate) and I
change the age between 14 and 30 the difference is just 100
That means that the difference between his resting metabolic rate and
a 30 years old metabolic rate is just 100 calories
So, his exrx calculator wrong ?
If not, what the difference between 14-16 and 22-28 account for ?
Not only age, it seems age only results in a difference of 100-150
calories more or less
Thanks again
Daniel
Chad C. - 25 Aug 2004 20:41 GMT
Hi Daniel,
I'm not the best person at all to answer your question. My figure was a sum
of what I think a good basal figure might be + enough calories to support
normal physical growth of that age and allow for muscle growth & large
amounts of physical activity. That's the scope of my answer. My figures are
not BMR.
Thanks,
-Chad
> In data Tue, 24 Aug 2004 04:44:35 -0700, Chad C. <johnkeynesX@Xemail.com>
> ha scritto:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Thanks again
> Daniel