Subsistance level calories - 1911Forum
1911Forum
Advertise Here
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2016, 01:09 PM
Sailormilan2 Sailormilan2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Behind the lines in Occupied Central CA
Posts: 537
Subsistance level calories

What is considered subsistance level calorie count? After reading Redneck Jims thread re How much food should be stored, I was wondering what would be an approximate level? I say "approximate" as I understand everyone's level will be a bit different, but a ball park answer will do.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-22-2016, 01:49 PM
wccountryboy wccountryboy is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,903
Nutritional values on food labels are based off a 2000 calorie/day diet, so thats probably a starting point....

There's more to the equation than raw calories- I can get 2000 a day from a half rack of beer, but I can't live on it. The source of the calories, how they're processed, how the interact with each other, the various nutrients they contain.... it all matters.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. ~Samuel Adams~
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2016, 02:28 PM
John Joseph John Joseph is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 505
Location has something to do with it.
You'll require far more calories to survive in Alaska than in Hawaii
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2016, 02:53 PM
racoonbeast60 racoonbeast60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 264
I think that if you planned on 2000 calories of wholesome, balanced diet per day per person, you would be pretty close to okay. Add hard physical work, long walks in rough country, extreme cold weather, or being wet all the time would blow that theory out of the water.

If I wanted a comfortable margin, and if the groups was fairly sedentary or doing light work, I would lay in thirty-five hundred calories from foods from all of the food groups per person and not worry too much. I think that this would give me enough buffer to make it through periods of the above named activities.

If you are on the move, and subject to all of the above conditions (cold, wet, long hikes in rough country, etc.) I would plan on about forty-five hundred or more calories a day per person. Of course, I could stay alive on much less, for a while at least, but if I wanted to guarantee good health and happiness, that would be my plan.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2016, 04:03 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 1,475
As others have mentioned, the actual numbers depend greatly on location and activity level. Eating 3000 calories a day while sitting around in balmy CA will fatten you up however the same amount of food when living through a MT winter and taking care of your farm/animals will see you slowly starving to death.

Even in CA the intake needs to go up if you are doing labor repairing your dwelling/property, patrolling to guard against bad guys, having to walk/bike every where since fuel is unobtainium, etc..

The aim should be to achieve at least the 2000 calorie balanced diet.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2016, 05:39 PM
John Galt 1 John Galt 1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 14
2000 calories a day. Some of those pre packaged meal buckets only give you about 1300 calories a day.
I weigh 180 and on an active day I burn between 2450 and 2800 calories. A day in front of the tv and it's only 1700 calories.
My 17 yr old 185 lb boy in school and then laying all evening in front of the idiot box only burns 1300 calories but when I make him work digging post holes all day he uses over 2700 calories.
My middle ages lady friend who weighs 125 lbs working at a store burns 1400 calories a day.

All calorie counts above derived from a fit bit wrist band over 24 hrs so the accuracy is probably off a bit.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-22-2016, 05:55 PM
RetiredRod's Avatar
RetiredRod RetiredRod is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Springfield, Missouri
Posts: 11,926
It all depends on your activity level and body metabolism. A healthy adult, with a normal metabolism, will need 15 to 18 calories per pound of body weight per day to maintain current weight. Muscle tissue burns calories, fat does not.
__________________


NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-23-2016, 09:43 AM
Sailormilan2 Sailormilan2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Behind the lines in Occupied Central CA
Posts: 537
Thanks, guys. That is the information I was hoping for.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-24-2016, 06:58 PM
scubadad scubadad is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 999
15 years ago when I was really fat I read something that said I needed to eat 4600 calories to maintain my weight. Cut that down to 2000 and started exercising and I lost a lot of weight. Gained some back but I am still 50+ down from where I was
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-01-2017, 04:50 AM
Kilibreaux Kilibreaux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 207
Men in the field need around 5,000 Kcals to function.

FAT people living in fat homes in fat society think in terms of 2,000 Kcals, but this is not nearly enough to feed MEN who are exposed to the elements, and must move about all day long including manual labor.

Interesting, the BEST way to lose weight is also the time one needs to double caloric intake!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-01-2017, 05:44 AM
Hopknockious Hopknockious is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 130
After reading all these posts. It looks like you should find your personal caloric need for resting/survival. Should be between 1500-2500 per day. I think 1.5x-2x resting would be needed if doing manual labor, land foot travel, or living in a cold climate during winter.

William R. Forstchen's novel "One Second After" takes note of this in regards to digging graves. He assumed 4k per day for men digging graves by hand.
__________________
Guns: Not enough
Hobby: Trying to find "enough"
Is it the role of the patriot to protect the rights the fool?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-01-2017, 03:19 PM
NM Reworks NM Reworks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 179
I've wondered about this for a long time. As stated above, I can understand needing 2000+ calories in an active wilderness survival situation, but for someone in a warmer climate loafing around the house for a couple of days waiting for the power to come back on, or waiting for the National Guard to suppress the folks downtown, or whatever the temporary situation is, I have a hard time seeing the need unless you have a high metabolism. The only amount of calorie-burning I have only a slight inkling about is what the treadmill or elliptical machine tells me at the gym. Basically, by the time I get off, I've burned off a Snickers bar. And then it's off to the weights. I don't know what I burn on the racks, but sitting around the house is nothing compared to that. In a "wait and see" survival situation (I've been through three hurricanes), I just sat around watching the news until it got boring. I've counted intake and (not eating at restaurants), I've gotten fat on a higher calorie diet. I can maintain my weight on a <1000 cal diet and not doing anything. So if there is no "accurate" way to measure how many calories an individual has burned, where does the magical "2000" come from? To me it seems as hypothetical as the food pyramid that was created for livestock.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-07-2017, 09:46 PM
John Galt 1 John Galt 1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 14
The 2000 calorie number is a very rough average for an average person living an average life visiting the mall and not working out daily. If SHTF ever happens I figure on being very active the first week or two (3000 calories/day) getting wood in ect (large property with wood burning stoves) Then in an effort to be very quiet (playing the grey man) my daily calorie needs will probably drop way down (< 1800/day) for months. After that we'll see.

Plan for 2000 calories/day per adult and realize that if you guys are active that will not be enough to maintain weight.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-07-2017, 10:24 PM
USMM guy USMM guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rural VA
Posts: 14,031
As has been stated, it is all relative.

Having worked supertankers running to Alaska in the wintertime. It would not surprise me a bit if us deckies at least were burning 6,000 to 8,000 calories per day just to maintain. This was in my late twenties and early thirties working eight hour shifts+ in subzero weather doing physical labor, generally under clothed as opposed to over clothed which would be seriously bad JuJu.

No net weight gain would typically be encountered other than in the form of muscle on these months long articles of employment. If I ate like I did back then I would be as big as a house in fairly short order.

In retrospect, when I reminisce about those days. I can not help but think about the Paul Bunyan books that I read so many years ago about Paul and Babe the blue ox. The person that wrote those wonderful tales had a thing or two to say about food consumption. I am guessing from some experience. Jack London as I recall had some things to say about this as well. Of course all of these works of literature have no doubt long been pulled from all of the public libraries in CA, NY, IL, NJ, MD, CT, and likely a few more states as just being horrible in general aside from being politically incorrect. This country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-07-2017, 11:02 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Reworks View Post
I've wondered about this for a long time. As stated above, I can understand needing 2000+ calories in an active wilderness survival situation, but for someone in a warmer climate loafing around the house for a couple of days waiting for the power to come back on, or waiting for the National Guard to suppress the folks downtown, or whatever the temporary situation is, I have a hard time seeing the need unless you have a high metabolism. The only amount of calorie-burning I have only a slight inkling about is what the treadmill or elliptical machine tells me at the gym. Basically, by the time I get off, I've burned off a Snickers bar. And then it's off to the weights. I don't know what I burn on the racks, but sitting around the house is nothing compared to that. In a "wait and see" survival situation (I've been through three hurricanes), I just sat around watching the news until it got boring. I've counted intake and (not eating at restaurants), I've gotten fat on a higher calorie diet. I can maintain my weight on a <1000 cal diet and not doing anything. So if there is no "accurate" way to measure how many calories an individual has burned, where does the magical "2000" come from? To me it seems as hypothetical as the food pyramid that was created for livestock.
It is not mythical or made up. The figure is based on what used to be a normal American. In other words one who was physically fit and at least moderately active. NOT the current couch potato types that are becoming ever more prevalent.

Hence why we are all saying the answer....depends.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:49 PM
NM Reworks NM Reworks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 179
Thank you, but that's why I'm asking. If the 2,000 amount was derived in the 1940s or 50s with the smaller portions and more wholesome diets, I can understand the theory, but I'm still skeptical because of the limited technology (for determining metabolic consumption) they had at the time.

RetiredRod- where did you get those numbers? They sound more plausible.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-11-2017, 10:34 PM
Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 29 Palms, SoCal
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Reworks View Post
Thank you, but that's why I'm asking. If the 2,000 amount was derived in the 1940s or 50s with the smaller portions and more wholesome diets, I can understand the theory, but I'm still skeptical because of the limited technology (for determining metabolic consumption) they had at the time.

RetiredRod- where did you get those numbers? They sound more plausible.
What exactly are you worried about here?

You could always try keeping track of the calories you are consuming now to get a baseline.

Last edited by Steve_In_29; 01-11-2017 at 10:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 PM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2015 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved