TDEE and activity level question....
highlanderthedog
Posts: 14 Member
Hi,
When figuring out the activity level does it mean how many days one exercises including weight training or is it cardio? Moderately active says moderate exercise 3-5 days a week....if The training is 30 minutes of weights 3 x a week and cardio 2x would that be lightly active? (1-3 days a week) a bit confused here. TIA!
When figuring out the activity level does it mean how many days one exercises including weight training or is it cardio? Moderately active says moderate exercise 3-5 days a week....if The training is 30 minutes of weights 3 x a week and cardio 2x would that be lightly active? (1-3 days a week) a bit confused here. TIA!
0
Replies
-
The calculators are all based on average's.
I work out 4 times a week (20 mins of cardio, 20 mins of weight training) but as I have a sedentary full time job, I set mine to 'lightly active'.
I'd suggest getting a fitbit if you can - A lot of calculators put my TDEE at around 2000 when in fact, it's morelike 1800 based on my movement throughout the day
0 -
Lightly active sounds about right for you.0
-
im the same - i have a part time desk job - and i do body combat 4 times a week - i always set mine to lightly active0
-
It's more like 1900 based on your intake and weight loss.PinkPixiexox wrote: »The calculators are all based on average's.
I work out 4 times a week (20 mins of cardio, 20 mins of weight training) but as I have a sedentary full time job, I set mine to 'lightly active'.
I'd suggest getting a fitbit if you can - A lot of calculators put my TDEE at around 2000 when in fact, it's morelike 1800 based on my movement throughout the day
OP, weightlifting burns far fewer calories than you think or hope. I think it's easier to pick a lower activity setting and adjust from there, rather than picking one that's two high such that it includes too many calories. Plus, the categories are very broad and not as useful as your individual results.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's more like 1900 based on your intake and weight loss.PinkPixiexox wrote: »The calculators are all based on average's.
I work out 4 times a week (20 mins of cardio, 20 mins of weight training) but as I have a sedentary full time job, I set mine to 'lightly active'.
I'd suggest getting a fitbit if you can - A lot of calculators put my TDEE at around 2000 when in fact, it's morelike 1800 based on my movement throughout the day
OP, weightlifting burns far fewer calories than you think or hope. I think it's easier to pick a lower activity setting and adjust from there, rather than picking one that's two high such that it includes too many calories. Plus, the categories are very broad and not as useful as your individual results.
Even better then! More food for me
0 -
Lightly active, UNLESS you have an activity tracker, in which case sedentary, with negative calorie adjustments enabled.0
-
highlanderthedog wrote: »Hi,
When figuring out the activity level does it mean how many days one exercises including weight training or is it cardio?
Another option is to set your activity level to what you burn if you go about your business and don't get any intentional, planned exercise. Sedentary or lightly active would cover most people. Then, log your exercise. But, if you've been exercising regularly for awhile and are confident you are going to continue, then it might be more convenient to not log each and exercise routine and instead increase your base activity level to reflect the that same level of daily calorie burn. What you don't want to do is set your activity level high based on exercise, and then also log your exercise.
I use my average number of daily steps from the previous two weeks to determine where my activity level should be set for the upcoming week. (I don't use my pedometer during exercise.) So, there has to be a sustained increase in activity before I'll increase my calorie level.
Then, each night I log in half of my estimated calories burned from any exercise, which pretty much only ever consists of weight lifting and cycling. Activities like tennis or hiking contribute to my activity level on the pedometer and so I do not count them as exercise.
Actually, I actually log the earned exercise calories towards the following day. I typically exercise in the evening and not consistently. So, when I do, I would have to eat the calories back before bed, and eating too much before bed is something I'm trying to avoid. Putting the exercise calories toward the next day allows me to plan how I'll use them, and that feels more like a reward. Also, unless the exercise is truly predictable, logging evening exercise for the same day promotes using exercise to compensate for unplanned (over) eating earlier in the day. With my approach, logging them for the next day, I have to accept that today "is what it is" and the reward for exercise will come tomorrow.
0 -
Thank you for the responses! I wear a Fitbit and am on my feet all day as an elementary teacher....never sit down except a quick lunch. I usually hit 10,000+per day between work and exercise. The weekends are a different story! Should I set myself as sedentary on MFP and enable negative calorie adjustment? (Not sure how to go about that). Right now MFP gives me extra calories based on how active I am with the Fitbit. I think I may eating too much or going over my calories when I have a treat meal on the weekend. I am consuming 1500 calories , age 45, 5'1". MFP set me at 1200 but I think that is too low. Thanks again for the help!0
-
1,200 is far too low for your activity level. That's bikini comp prep numbers. If you are looking to drop fat, try bodyweight in lb X 12 for your calorie limit (don't know if your tracking macros also). Hit that for a week and if you drop more than 0.5-1% of your original weight, add another 100cals for the next week, if you lose around 0.5-1% that week, keep it the same. Continually *kitten* and readjust. Also, don't solely go by scale weight, if the scales have not moved but you feel leaner and clothes for differently, that is progress. Probably better to take a weekly average weight (especially for women). A nice sustainable loss is what you are after.0
-
Is that your GOAL body weight or your current body weight?scottwilson16 wrote: »1,200 is far too low for your activity level. That's bikini comp prep numbers. If you are looking to drop fat, try bodyweight in lb X 12 for your calorie limit (don't know if your tracking macros also). Hit that for a week and if you drop more than 0.5-1% of your original weight, add another 100cals for the next week, if you lose around 0.5-1% that week, keep it the same. Continually *kitten* and readjust. Also, don't solely go by scale weight, if the scales have not moved but you feel leaner and clothes for differently, that is progress. Probably better to take a weekly average weight (especially for women). A nice sustainable loss is what you are after.0 -
My body weight x12 would give me a limit of 1500 calories which is what the TDEE calculator had me at with being moderately active 3-5 days a week. My concern is that with the weight training it doesn't burn as many calories so I should increase cardio although everything I've read says to focus more on weights and not so much on cardio. I am starting to track macros and go for 35%c,35% p and 30 f. Does that sound right or should I increase protein? Thanks again for the help. Truly appreciate it.0
-
Is that your GOAL body weight or your current body weight?scottwilson16 wrote: »1,200 is far too low for your activity level. That's bikini comp prep numbers. If you are looking to drop fat, try bodyweight in lb X 12 for your calorie limit (don't know if your tracking macros also). Hit that for a week and if you drop more than 0.5-1% of your original weight, add another 100cals for the next week, if you lose around 0.5-1% that week, keep it the same. Continually *kitten* and readjust. Also, don't solely go by scale weight, if the scales have not moved but you feel leaner and clothes for differently, that is progress. Probably better to take a weekly average weight (especially for women). A nice sustainable loss is what you are after.
Current bodyweight. As I'm sure has already been mentioned above (I haven't read all the comments) every calculator is an estimate. Bw in lb X 12 will generally create a deficit for the majority of people, it will probably need adjusted. Bw in lb X 14 would be an estimate for maintenance. Just need to make sure you get the appropriate macronutrient intake to support your activity levels, within those calorie limits0 -
highlanderthedog wrote: »My body weight x12 would give me a limit of 1500 calories which is what the TDEE calculator had me at with being moderately active 3-5 days a week. My concern is that with the weight training it doesn't burn as many calories so I should increase cardio although everything I've read says to focus more on weights and not so much on cardio. I am starting to track macros and go for 35%c,35% p and 30 f. Does that sound right or should I increase protein? Thanks again for the help. Truly appreciate it.
To be honest, I wouldn't worry about the energy expended via training. I would solely focus on your energy intake and what the feedback is from visual progress, measurements and scale weight. As long as you are consistent in terms of diet and training you will get feedback from either static weight/weight loss/weight gain and you can adjust accordingly. I wouldn't go by % either, it can be misleading in terms of macros. Going by grams is more accurate. For your activity levels I would probably have you at 85g PRO/204 CHO/43g Fat which is 1,543kcals. Try that for a week and see how you feel, sleep, perform in and out the gym and also the feedback from the scales etc. Lose more than 0.8kg in the first week or so, add 100kcals and wait a week or so and reassess again
0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »scottwilson16 wrote: »
Is that your GOAL body weight or your current body weight?scottwilson16 wrote: »1,200 is far too low for your activity level. That's bikini comp prep numbers. If you are looking to drop fat, try bodyweight in lb X 12 for your calorie limit (don't know if your tracking macros also). Hit that for a week and if you drop more than 0.5-1% of your original weight, add another 100cals for the next week, if you lose around 0.5-1% that week, keep it the same. Continually *kitten* and readjust. Also, don't solely go by scale weight, if the scales have not moved but you feel leaner and clothes for differently, that is progress. Probably better to take a weekly average weight (especially for women). A nice sustainable loss is what you are after.
Current bodyweight. As I'm sure has already been mentioned above (I haven't read all the comments) every calculator is an estimate. Bw in lb X 12 will generally create a deficit for the majority of people, it will probably need adjusted. Bw in lb X 14 would be an estimate for maintenance. Just need to make sure you get the appropriate macronutrient intake to support your activity levels, within those calorie limits
Are you assuming sedentary? Just asking because I would lose a pound a week at x14 and I only do purposeful exercise for about three hours a week - two days of strength training 40 min/20 min cardio and one hour of yoga a week. I fully realize this is because my job is active, but some of the people reading this advice may not.
This assumes some exercise included. As I said, this and all other calculators are estimates that will need adjusted for the individual, dependant on training load and general activity levels. I would always try to find maintenance first then commence dieting from there. But everyone wants results quick so as long as the loss is sustainable and adjustments are made, x12 won't be Farr off. This is Lyle McDonalds method0 -
The 12x formula is really, really off for some people. For instance, at my starting weight, 12x would've given me about 100 calories *over* maintenance. It would've been more accurate midway through my weight loss, but close to my goal weight it would've dropped my calories too low. And as for maintenance, at my current weight, 14x gives me about 150 calories *under* maintenance.
Better to just use either MFP's calculator, or a TDEE calculator. Those things take your height, weight, age and activity level into consideration, which a ballpark number like 12x or 14x can't do.
Like everyone's said, all these numbers are only estimates. The only way to know for sure is to try it for a while and compare real-world results. Get your tracking and logging as accurate as possible (most people overestimate their burns and underestimate their food intake) and then give it a try for 6-8 weeks and see if you're losing at the desired rate. If so, great. If not, adjust.0 -
The 12x formula is really, really off for some people. For instance, at my starting weight, 12x would've given me about 100 calories *over* maintenance. It would've been more accurate midway through my weight loss, but close to my goal weight it would've dropped my calories too low. And as for maintenance, at my current weight, 14x gives me about 150 calories *under* maintenance.
Better to just use either MFP's calculator, or a TDEE calculator. Those things take your height, weight, age and activity level into consideration, which a ballpark number like 12x or 14x can't do.
Like everyone's said, all these numbers are only estimates. The only way to know for sure is to try it for a while and compare real-world results. Get your tracking and logging as accurate as possible (most people overestimate their burns and underestimate their food intake) and then give it a try for 6-8 weeks and see if you're losing at the desired rate. If so, great. If not, adjust.
Agreed, body weight times 12 would put me way over maintenance. 204lbs x 12 is more than 2400 a day! I'm sedentary so I'm barely losing on 1500-1600. Be careful lurkers!0 -
Yeah I don't think the body weight ×12 would work for me either. That would have my calories at roughly 2800 when most say my maintenance calories are 2300. So i would be 500 calories over what most calculations give me.0
-
Winter_Girl92 wrote: »Yeah I don't think the body weight ×12 would work for me either. That would have my calories at roughly 2800 when most say my maintenance calories are 2300. So i would be 500 calories over what most calculations give me.
Have you tried to Find your maintenance via trial and energy with energy intake at all? Using a macronutrient split? Only track calories?0 -
Thanks for the responses everyone. Such a helpful and informative group!0
-
The website is titled "body recomposition" which implies it's aimed at people who are in the normal weight range but who'd like to appear more muscular. No one is saying your rule of thumb isn't a starting point, it's just wildly inaccurate for some people. And we want to make sure people who read this post (but who aren't commenting) understand the limitations of your rule of thumb calculation.scottwilson16 wrote: »
0 -
The website is titled "body recomposition" which implies it's aimed at people who are in the normal weight range but who'd like to appear more muscular. No one is saying your rule of thumb isn't a starting point, it's just wildly inaccurate for some people. And we want to make sure people who read this post (but who aren't commenting) understand the limitations of your rule of thumb calculation.scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is run by one of the most knowledgable people in the world with regard to nutrition and weight management. I would say that myfitnesspal is the one that's wildly out with its energy requirement estimations. Seeing so many people on here on 1,200kcals because of a myfitnesspal estimation and scared to eat more because it will estimate they will gain weight week in week. It throws out estimations with no education behind it.0 -
scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is titled "body recomposition" which implies it's aimed at people who are in the normal weight range but who'd like to appear more muscular. No one is saying your rule of thumb isn't a starting point, it's just wildly inaccurate for some people. And we want to make sure people who read this post (but who aren't commenting) understand the limitations of your rule of thumb calculation.scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is run by one of the most knowledgable people in the world with regard to nutrition and weight management. I would say that myfitnesspal is the one that's wildly out with its energy requirement estimations. Seeing so many people on here on 1,200kcals because of a myfitnesspal estimation and scared to eat more because it will estimate they will gain weight week in week. It throws out estimations with no education behind it.
I agree that most people could still lose weight eating much more than 1200 calories per day. I think you'll find that most experience posters here also question generic 1200 for women and 1500 for men goals and often tell people they're eating too little. I didn't mean to offend you or say the information wasn't a starting point. But obese 65 year old, post menopausal women with hypothyroidism need different nutrition than people who are at a healthy weight and are trying to build muscle. You understand what I'm saying, yes?0 -
scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is titled "body recomposition" which implies it's aimed at people who are in the normal weight range but who'd like to appear more muscular. No one is saying your rule of thumb isn't a starting point, it's just wildly inaccurate for some people. And we want to make sure people who read this post (but who aren't commenting) understand the limitations of your rule of thumb calculation.scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is run by one of the most knowledgable people in the world with regard to nutrition and weight management. I would say that myfitnesspal is the one that's wildly out with its energy requirement estimations. Seeing so many people on here on 1,200kcals because of a myfitnesspal estimation and scared to eat more because it will estimate they will gain weight week in week. It throws out estimations with no education behind it.
I agree that most people could still lose weight eating much more than 1200 calories per day. I think you'll find that most experience posters here also question generic 1200 for women and 1500 for men goals and often tell people they're eating too little. I didn't mean to offend you or say the information wasn't a starting point. But obese 65 year old, post menopausal women with hypothyroidism need different nutrition than people who are at a healthy weight and are trying to build muscle. You understand what I'm saying, yes?
I understand what you are saying but I also think that Lyle McDonald's general rule of thumb is no less correct as a guideline than is MFP. They are all estimates. You use one for a few weeks and then tweak it. I like Lyle's because it's extremely simple and people don't need to gnash their teeth over their activity levels. If anything, it comes in low for me (14 x 149 = 2086 when my TDEE is more like 2350) which IMO means that it's going to favor post menopausal women with hypothyroidism.0 -
scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is titled "body recomposition" which implies it's aimed at people who are in the normal weight range but who'd like to appear more muscular. No one is saying your rule of thumb isn't a starting point, it's just wildly inaccurate for some people. And we want to make sure people who read this post (but who aren't commenting) understand the limitations of your rule of thumb calculation.scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is run by one of the most knowledgable people in the world with regard to nutrition and weight management. I would say that myfitnesspal is the one that's wildly out with its energy requirement estimations. Seeing so many people on here on 1,200kcals because of a myfitnesspal estimation and scared to eat more because it will estimate they will gain weight week in week. It throws out estimations with no education behind it.
I agree that most people could still lose weight eating much more than 1200 calories per day. I think you'll find that most experience posters here also question generic 1200 for women and 1500 for men goals and often tell people they're eating too little. I didn't mean to offend you or say the information wasn't a starting point. But obese 65 year old, post menopausal women with hypothyroidism need different nutrition than people who are at a healthy weight and are trying to build muscle. You understand what I'm saying, yes?
I understand what you are saying but I also think that Lyle McDonald's general rule of thumb is no less correct as a guideline than is MFP. They are all estimates. You use one for a few weeks and then tweak it. I like Lyle's because it's extremely simple and people don't need to gnash their teeth over their activity levels. If anything, it comes in low for me (14 x 149 = 2086 when my TDEE is more like 2350) which IMO means that it's going to favor post menopausal women with hypothyroidism.
I'm neither defending MFP's estimates or deriding Lyle's. I'm saying IMO caveats need to be added when giving rules of thumb when you don't know people's age, body fat levels, medical issues, etc.
In case it's getting overlooked, I'll repeat it: I'm not discounting MFP's or Lyle's method of determining calorie intake estimates for people.0 -
scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is titled "body recomposition" which implies it's aimed at people who are in the normal weight range but who'd like to appear more muscular. No one is saying your rule of thumb isn't a starting point, it's just wildly inaccurate for some people. And we want to make sure people who read this post (but who aren't commenting) understand the limitations of your rule of thumb calculation.scottwilson16 wrote: »
The website is run by one of the most knowledgable people in the world with regard to nutrition and weight management. I would say that myfitnesspal is the one that's wildly out with its energy requirement estimations. Seeing so many people on here on 1,200kcals because of a myfitnesspal estimation and scared to eat more because it will estimate they will gain weight week in week. It throws out estimations with no education behind it.
I agree that most people could still lose weight eating much more than 1200 calories per day. I think you'll find that most experience posters here also question generic 1200 for women and 1500 for men goals and often tell people they're eating too little. I didn't mean to offend you or say the information wasn't a starting point. But obese 65 year old, post menopausal women with hypothyroidism need different nutrition than people who are at a healthy weight and are trying to build muscle. You understand what I'm saying, yes?
Yes of course - everyone needs dialled in bespoke nutrition. That obvious they would. The site deals in scientific facts, not solely in adding lean mass and is a library of debunking the nutritional myths out there (the site name may be slightly misleading). He is bringing out a book purely for women which will probably be the most comprehensive book ever written with regards women's nutrition.0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »The reason, as I see it, that so many people get 1200 calorie goals is because they're impatient and they don't realize that they're supposed to eat back any exercise calories they earn. So, in a lot of cases, they shouldn't just be consuming 1200 calories. With your recommendation, you're discussing using a TDEE method and MFP isn't set up as TDEE. This confuses a lot of people. I used MFP's goals and ate back my exercise and managed to lose 70+ pounds. When I hit maintenance, I switched to TDEE. I've done and seen both sides and the benefit to either side is just personal preference. Some people have steady exercise habits and prefer to eat the same amount of calories every day. Some people prefer to "earn" their calories because they feel that helps keep them active. It all works out the same in the end. If both methods start as estimates and need tweeking based on real-life results, why should someone using MFP not just stick with using MFP as designed and tweek as needed?
I actually think that eating back exercise 'could' lead to a unhealthy relationship with food and dieting in general. But that's just personal preference and how I would coach someone and educate them on the way. Delighted that it's worked for you!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions