TDEE vs MFP

sllm1
sllm1 Posts: 2,130 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
If I calculate my TDEE, with a desk job but including 4 difficult workouts per week, I get 1957.

MFP has me at 1990 maintenance calories if I am set at sedentary.

Shouldn't the TDEE be higher given that the exercise is figured in? Or am I missing something completely?

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Seems off. The TDEE should be higher than MFP at sedentary, if you aren't deducting anything from TDEE. What are your stats?
  • sllm1
    sllm1 Posts: 2,130 Member
    5'8"
    155
    Female
    43yo
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2016
    Scooby gives me 2232 for TDEE, which seems more in line with the MFP estimate. Might the calculator you used have been deducting some amount, like 10%, which it would if you were trying to lose?

    See here: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
  • elaineamj
    elaineamj Posts: 347 Member
    I'm still learning about TDEE, etc. But I am confused - why is there such a big difference between 2232 (Scooby TDEE) and 1990 (MFP maintenance). Isn't TDEE basically the same as maintenance?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited January 2016
    This content has been removed.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    elaineamj wrote: »
    I'm still learning about TDEE, etc. But I am confused - why is there such a big difference between 2232 (Scooby TDEE) and 1990 (MFP maintenance). Isn't TDEE basically the same as maintenance?

    MFP doesn't account for your exercise expenditure. So on average, Scooby is saying OP burns about 242 kcals per day through exercise.

  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    Also, keep in mind, that most people don't exercise 7 days a week. And TDEE is an average. So if OP only works out 3 times a week she's really burning ~565 kcals per workout and ~0 on rest days.

    ie:
    242 calories per day x 7 days per week = total calories burnt working out per week = 1694.
    Total calories burnt working out each week/# of workouts per week: 1624/3 = ~565
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited January 2016
    This content has been removed.
  • sllm1
    sllm1 Posts: 2,130 Member
    I used the IIFYM TDEE calculator, and it did not deduct for weight loss/calorie restriction.

    So, it still doesn't make sense.

    My TDEE (with exercise) shouldn't be lower than the sedentary MFP maintenance number.

    I've always used MFP's numbers and I lose weight accurately (meaning, they work and seem to be pretty "spot on.") I add my exercise calories, though.

    I thought I would check out my TDEE to see how it compares, and now I have no idea what I'm looking at.

    This "scooby" number seems to be more accurate to me (if compared with MFP), but then someone said that it's not accurate. Why would that be? In my mind, scooby and MFP seem fairly in line with each other, and this IIFYM number seems off.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    sllm1 wrote: »
    I used the IIFYM TDEE calculator, and it did not deduct for weight loss/calorie restriction.

    So, it still doesn't make sense.

    My TDEE (with exercise) shouldn't be lower than the sedentary MFP maintenance number.

    I've always used MFP's numbers and I lose weight accurately (meaning, they work and seem to be pretty "spot on.") I add my exercise calories, though.

    I thought I would check out my TDEE to see how it compares, and now I have no idea what I'm looking at.

    This "scooby" number seems to be more accurate to me (if compared with MFP), but then someone said that it's not accurate. Why would that be? In my mind, scooby and MFP seem fairly in line with each other, and this IIFYM number seems off.

    Keep in mind that all of these calculators give you estimates based on various formulas. I've always found that my Scooby number is much closer to my actual TDEE, which I've determined based on counting calories for a long time, than is IIFYM's number. IIFYM is always 200 or so calories low for me.
  • sllm1
    sllm1 Posts: 2,130 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    sllm1 wrote: »
    I used the IIFYM TDEE calculator, and it did not deduct for weight loss/calorie restriction.

    So, it still doesn't make sense.

    My TDEE (with exercise) shouldn't be lower than the sedentary MFP maintenance number.

    I've always used MFP's numbers and I lose weight accurately (meaning, they work and seem to be pretty "spot on.") I add my exercise calories, though.

    I thought I would check out my TDEE to see how it compares, and now I have no idea what I'm looking at.

    This "scooby" number seems to be more accurate to me (if compared with MFP), but then someone said that it's not accurate. Why would that be? In my mind, scooby and MFP seem fairly in line with each other, and this IIFYM number seems off.

    Keep in mind that all of these calculators give you estimates based on various formulas. I've always found that my Scooby number is much closer to my actual TDEE, which I've determined based on counting calories for a long time, than is IIFYM's number. IIFYM is always 200 or so calories low for me.

    Thanks - I think this is the case for me as well.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    edited January 2016
    I might try using the Katch-Mcardle formula if you know your bf%.

    Katch-McArdle: Considered one of the most accurate formulas for those who are relatively lean. Use ONLY if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
    • BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM) Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100
    • As these are only BMR calculations To convert BMR to a TOTAL requirement you need to multiply the result of your BMR by an 'activity variable' to give TEE (total energy expenditure).

    The Activity Factor is the TOTAL cost of living, NOT JUST YOUR TRAINING. Think about it - if you train 1 hr a day - WHAT ARE YOU DOING THE OTHER 23 HRS?! So MORE important than training -- it includes work, life activities, training/sport & the TEF of ~15% (an average mixed diet).

      Average activity variables are:
    • 1.2 = Sedentary (Desk job, and Little Formal Exercise)
    • 1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Light daily activity AND light exercise 1-3 days a week)
    • 1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately daily Activity & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
    • 1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Physically demanding lifestyle & Hard exercise 6-7 days a week)
    • 1.9-2.2 = Extremely Active (Athlete in ENDURANCE training or VERY HARD physical job)

    **It's important to remember these are estimates. You're going to have to play with it a little based on your goal. If you want to lose at a slow rate, reduce TDEE by 10% or 250-500kcals, whichever is lesser.**
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    elaineamj wrote: »
    I'm still learning about TDEE, etc. But I am confused - why is there such a big difference between 2232 (Scooby TDEE) and 1990 (MFP maintenance). Isn't TDEE basically the same as maintenance?

    MFP excludes exercise calories (you add them in only after you do it) and TDEE includes them. Given that OP exercises, the TDEE should be higher. The scooby one is in line with MFP (and happens to be just about right for me, usually, although of course one should always adjust for actual results).
  • Yi5hedr3
    Yi5hedr3 Posts: 2,696 Member
    MFP doesn't give very accurate guestimations. Partly because it does not ask you for your percent of body fat! Two folks weighing the same amount but with different amounts of Lean Body Mass will burn calories at totally different rates, the one with lower body fat requiring more calories. Your 1957 estimate (incudes workouts) sounds about right!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,979 Member
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    When I use Scooby TDEE calculator, I gain weight. IIFYM is accurate for me. It tends to be lower. Scooby is ridiculously high, IMO. It is also very high for my fiancé. We like IIFYM.com

    My husband and I have had the opposite experience. We both found IIFYM to be ridiculously low and scooby spot on. But, at least we've all been able to figure out what works for us. :)
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    kami3006 wrote: »
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    When I use Scooby TDEE calculator, I gain weight. IIFYM is accurate for me. It tends to be lower. Scooby is ridiculously high, IMO. It is also very high for my fiancé. We like IIFYM.com

    My husband and I have had the opposite experience. We both found IIFYM to be ridiculously low and scooby spot on. But, at least we've all been able to figure out what works for us. :)

    Exactly. They are all estimates--starting points. None of them will be right for everyone.
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,979 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    kami3006 wrote: »
    GuitarJerry wrote: »
    When I use Scooby TDEE calculator, I gain weight. IIFYM is accurate for me. It tends to be lower. Scooby is ridiculously high, IMO. It is also very high for my fiancé. We like IIFYM.com

    My husband and I have had the opposite experience. We both found IIFYM to be ridiculously low and scooby spot on. But, at least we've all been able to figure out what works for us. :)

    Exactly. They are all estimates--starting points. None of them will be right for everyone.

    Yep

Categories