Thoughts on TDEE calculators and switching from MFP to TDEE.

SideSteel

This is just my opinion.

Often times in the forums people will post questions about moving from MFP's exercise calorie model to a TDEE method.

I like the TDEE method a great deal but one thing people tend to do is put their trust into an equation without considering their previous energy intake. This doesn't always end well.

This doesn't mean switching is bad, but often times someone will end up gaining weight because they've just jacked their energy intake upwards by a significant amount. Sometimes I think this is the draw to using a TDEE method. It appears as though you get to eat more. That sounds great, but it's only great if you can still lose weight when you eat at that intake level.

(So for example if you are using MFP and averaging 1600 calories over the past 7 weeks and you're losing 1lb/week, and a TDEE calculator tells you that your TDEE is 2625, and you figure "Hey I'll take TDEE-20% and set my intake to 2100", I'm suggesting this is not likely to end in favorable results.)

We have seen multiple examples in our ETP group where someone makes the switch to a TDEE method and starts gaining weight and many times it's because they are now over-eating. It sounds like I'm bashing the TDEE method, and that's not my intent.

What I'm really getting at, is that your results are a great indicator and if you have accurate data from tracking your food intake and accurate data by tracking your progress over several weeks, you should be using that data to the best of your ability to make conclusions about your intake needs.

I think a more reasonable approach for most people would be to take the previous 4-8 weeks worth of intake data that they have on MFP and average that out. This will tell you your average caloric intake and you can then use your change in weight to at least give you some approximation as to what that intake level does for you as far as change in weight.

It's not going to be perfect of course, but it's certainly valuable data and I am suggesting that it's probably going to be superior to a calculator.

Assuming your results are somewhat reasonable, setting your daily intake to that average value seems like a good idea.

If your results are not reasonable, you can make adjustments upwards or downwards to that average intake to try and produce the desired results. If for some reason you need to start increasing food intake and you want to avoid gaining excessive amounts of fat, you're probably best off gradually increasing intake by slowly adding calories on a weekly basis and monitoring change in weight on the way up. (As an aside, I'd also use this gradual increase method when it comes time to move out of an energy deficit into maintenance or a surplus depending on your goals).


Using your current data and paying attention to the results of that data are going to lead you to a reasonable intake in most situations/for most people.


That's really the end of this rant. This is just my opinion but I'm going to post it here in case it helps anyone.

If not, well then you can just .gif me.

UsedToBeHusky

I did not see any progress in body composition until I switched to this method.

+1 for SideSteel!

ladynocturne

I think what most people don't understand is that you are generally grossing the same amount of calories with either method.

If you're allotted 1600 calories and burning 500 working out, your gross calorie intake is 2100.

If your TDEE-20% is 2100 calories, you're grossing 2100 calories.

It's really the exact same thing, just easier for some people to follow. I'll probably do TDEE when I switch to maintenance/bulk.

Also just to point out that while a lot of your ideas are sound and logical, the people on this website are not. There are many people who just want to do one thing, and wake up in 6 months weighing less, they don't want/have time to make charts, analyze data ect. And there are many people with disordered views on food and of course, the scale. They eat more one day and then jump on the scale the next morning and FREAK OUT because they gained 1lb. Their way of thinking is that because they ate more, they magically gained 1lb on that amount of calories, so they are different than everyone else in the world.

ironmonkeystyle

I tend to think a lot of the devil is in the details. Logging calories in precisely is not easy. Estimates can be wildly off, even with the best intentions and sincere attempts to use things like food scales and measuring cups for everything. It gets harder to accurately log when one eats out a lot, again even when one tries hard to log precisely.

I agree with the idea that it's important to use available data and information instead of relying too heavily on a formula. It's also important to be patient and consistent. Even when the scale or other measurements aren't returning the desired consistently positive feedback you think you deserve. :-)

Crystal_Pistol

I find that TDEE works well for me, WHEN I follow it. For some reason, I tend to obey the MFP style of "eating calories back" more than the "eat this amount no matter what you do." The other issue for me is that I have a number in my head that I know I won't drop my intake below. It just so happens that after I did my TDEE -20%, it was that number. It's also the number recommended by my physician.

A lot of calorie goal/ weight loss is how honest the user *really* is with reporting. You have posted this a million times before, but those bites/sips/licks/tastes really add up but people tend to ignore them. I can only speak for myself, but when I go hard and go honestly, either method gives me results. I am better off with the "eating back calories" if I'm gonna half-*kitten* it because I am limited by my physical activity reporting.

This is such a ramble...

UsedToBeHusky

I think what most people don't understand is that you are generally grossing the same amount of calories with either method.

If you're allotted 1600 calories and burning 500 working out, your gross calorie intake is 2100.

If your TDEE-20% is 2100 calories, you're grossing 2100 calories.

It's really the exact same thing, just easier for some people to follow. I'll probably do TDEE when I switch to maintenance/bulk.

It's a psychology thing. Most people need to "see" the deficit (have numbers in the green) to feel confident in weight loss. MFP's "eat-back-exercise" method eliminates the deficit, therefore, you shouldn't "see" the deficit.

SideSteel

I think what most people don't understand is that you are generally grossing the same amount of calories with either method.

If you're allotted 1600 calories and burning 500 working out, your gross calorie intake is 2100.

If your TDEE-20% is 2100 calories, you're grossing 2100 calories.

It's really the exact same thing, just easier for some people to follow. I'll probably do TDEE when I switch to maintenance/bulk.

Perhaps for many people it works out this way, but in many cases my belief is that it does not, which is why people need to actually pay attention to what they are actually eating and compare it to results before trusting a different estimation device.

etoiles_argentees

I think what most people don't understand is that you are generally grossing the same amount of calories with either method.

If you're allotted 1600 calories and burning 500 working out, your gross calorie intake is 2100.

If your TDEE-20% is 2100 calories, you're grossing 2100 calories.

It's really the exact same thing, just easier for some people to follow. I'll probably do TDEE when I switch to maintenance/bulk.

Perhaps for many people it works out this way, but in many cases my belief is that it does not, which is why people need to actually pay attention to what they are actually eating and compare it to results before trusting a different estimation device.

I agree. I've been drinking sweet tea all summer and just realized I have not logged it once.

Ophidion

bump solid advice, no surprise really considering the source.

ladynocturne

I think what most people don't understand is that you are generally grossing the same amount of calories with either method.

If you're allotted 1600 calories and burning 500 working out, your gross calorie intake is 2100.

If your TDEE-20% is 2100 calories, you're grossing 2100 calories.

It's really the exact same thing, just easier for some people to follow. I'll probably do TDEE when I switch to maintenance/bulk.

Perhaps for many people it works out this way, but in many cases my belief is that it does not, which is why people need to actually pay attention to what they are actually eating and compare it to results before trusting a different estimation device.

Most people don't have the education on the issue to make any more of an informed decision on what to eat or what they should do if something isn't working. All they have are these numbers. People tend to give up instead of reassess. The human body is extremely complex and we're trying to turn it into a math equation.

Of course it lies solely on the individual logging their food/drinks and workouts correctly. I thought that was a given.

Zaniejane

Tracking daily intake and learning from posts like this one is what has led me to success in controlling what I weigh. Tracking caloric intake helps me to understand how I control my weight gain and loss, and gives me information about my individual caloric needs. In other words, tracking gives me the tools to confirm or re-evaluate my TDEE and the confidence to move forward without a doubt in my mind. I am so grateful to the op and to the subject of this thread:)

bumblebums

I have tried it both ways, and the thing that puzzled me about the MFP way is that you end up with wild fluctuations in your intake if your expenditure varies a lot from day to day. I logged my exercise calories meticulously and ate them back for a few months, just as an experiment, and I ended up with an intake graph that looked something like a cardiac arrest patient's EKG. This method also seems to assume that on rest days, you shouldn't eat as much. But, depending on your activity type and level, quite a lot could be happening on a rest day. You need that food to recover, not just to fuel your workouts.

I am much happier with a more level intake, day to day, but I got to my current level by carefully ramping calories up from my cutting "average", just as you said. I got there by sitting down for a minute and thinking about it. That's all it took.

Tobi1013

I needed to read this this morning. I've been frustrated with my progress, know that I've been eating at/near maintenance due to overages on the weekends, and just averaged out the last few weeks of intake. Wow. At least I have a good idea of where to start at this point!! Hoping the next few weeks will find me much happier with my progress!

ETA: In addition to updating my intake goal and going with a TDEE-20% approach based upon my actual numbers and results readily available here (Holy "DUH" moment, Batman!) moving forward, I am also committing to logging more accurately each and every day since much of my current frustration with progress is a direct result of my failure to log consistently. After a month or two, I will take another look at my results and adjust as needed.

AbbeyDove

You know, what would be helpful with this is a spreadsheet that automatically makes the calculations as people input their data. I made myself one based on what I had read on this forum, but it's pretty ugly and I keep having to adjust the formulas. If anyone else is really good with Excel and has one that they'd be willing to share, that would be much appreciated (by me, too!). I don't think we can do attachments in MFP, but a PM with a real email address would work.

Francl27

You're making a great point. The other issue with the TDEE method is that it's hard to guess what our exercise level is. After all it's based on 'light exercise 1-3 hours a week' or 'moderate exercise 4-6 hours a week', and that's very subjective (and doesn't take into account at all what you do the rest of the time).

When I switched, I was pretty much 100 calories over MFP (counting exercise calories), by picking some point between lightly active and moderately active (I work out/walk 7-10 hours a week but mostly sit the rest of the time) but once I got a fitbit I realized that my activity level was actually closer to lightly active... which wasn't a big deal as I wasn't eating all my calories most of the time. But it's something to keep in mind.

summer8it

I'm having success maintaining using the TDEE method, but my change in calorie goals was a modest one -- I went from eating 1550 plus my exercise calories using the MFP model to 1750 using TDEE.

I used an online TDEE calculator that I can't find now, but it included a section to break down the amount of time I do all kinds of activities during a 24 hour period in order to calculate an estimated energy expenditure (i.e. 8 hours sleeping, 1.5 hours preparing food, 8 hours desk job, etc.), rather than just using basic categories of sedentary/lightly active/active. Anyone know the site I'm remembering?

BikerGirlElaine

What a great post, SideSteel, thank you.

I was lucky int that I found you and the ETP group pretty soon after I joined, so I started with TDEE right away. The number that the calculators gave me seemed reasonable at first. But it turned out to be too low, and I was hungry and cranky. But because I was looking at my actual results, I was able to adjust my intake and feel better and continue to lose weight.

And this summer, I haven't lost weight as steadily -- but tracking my intake accurately shows me why that's happened -- I haven't had much of a deficit!! (duh)

All I can say is, it's been such a relief to have a method that actually takes into account me as an individual. I was marveling this morning that I've stuck with this site and logging my food here for so long now, and it's definitely because I found ETP, TDEE and monitoring my actual results early on in the game.

grantwashere

Yeah, I concur. Great post! I too, fell victim to this very thing about a year ago. I had been losing without counting calories and then when I started doing MFP, I began to gain. I couldn't figure out what the problem was initially.

aakaakaak

I wish MFP allowed you to make your own adjustments better, and to add TDEE calculators as an option. There are so many simple tools this site could integrate that they just don't or won't.

IMO, what it really needs is a library of fact-based information on how to attain goals.

---

So yeah, if you eat a certain amount and exercise a certain amount and you're not seeing the results you want, don't trudge along mindlessly along the same path. Change your intake and/or your output on your own. Don't wait for a website to tell you what you need to fix.

leebesstoad

Dead on the mark SideSteel. I've been doing it for a while. I am fanatical about making sure I log everything in MFP's food diary and weigh myself on a regular basis under identical conditions. Take the food you've eaten from Time A to now, add in the weight you've lost in that exact same time period and you can actually figure out your own TDEE. The problem with the calculators is that are far too generic and don't work for everyone. I was over at IIFYM yesterday and played with the "RMR" calculator. It said my RMR, based on age and weight was about 1475 calories. But I had it tested a month or so ago at my gym using Korr. The R.D. who administered the test is someone I've worked with for a couple of years and trust her (yes the gym has an R.D. on staff for consultations). It calculated my RMR at 2230. A full 775 calories higher. Just a fast metabolism I guess. But that works out to 1.5 pounds a week difference.

So I've started calculating my own TDEE using the actual data rather than some approximation by calculator. And it works. And it isn't hard at all. But you have to know you are accurately recording everything that you eat.

odusgolp

I'm shaking what my mama gave me for SS.