An interesting tool

jammer1963

http://www.bodyweightcoach.com/02/eating-for-fat-loss/

I found this site I thought I would share. It helped me find my true upper and lower calorie intake numbers.

Mouse_Potato

Am I reading this correctly? According to that chart, my TDEE is about 1300 calories and I would need to drop to 900 to lose weight. Yikes! No, thanks. I think I will stick with what I am doing and preserve my health.

BillMcKay1

Mouse_Potato wrote: »

Am I reading this correctly? According to that chart, my TDEE is about 1300 calories and I would need to drop to 900 to lose weight. Yikes! No, thanks. I think I will stick with what I am doing and preserve my health.

If you read it through, it is heavily weighted to those carrying higher body fat%. As a dude with some weight to lose I ran their calc and it came out within 30cals of what MFP here is giving me, higher than MFP actually.

I realize MFP is not TDEE and you are supposed to eat back some of the exercise calories, but honestly not far off. I would imagine just like MFP won;t give someone who is already of smaller stature a sub 1200kcal diet, this calc would need some tweaking for those with smaller and lower bf%.

Take a 165lb woman with 26% BF which is in the normal range. Their TDEE cal would give you 1587calories. -200 (note it says 200-400)for weight lose and you get 1300 cal.

Let's take an athletic female. 135lbs 15% body fat. Not sure why they would want to cut, but let's say they are MMA fighters trying to drop a weight class. Their calculation 135lbs-20.25lbs fat = 114.75lbs of lean muscle *16kcal per lb of lean muscle= 1836calories. -200 = just under .5lbs per week eating 1636 cals daily. Hardly what anyone would call unhealthy weight loss.

capaul42

BillMcKay1 wrote: »

Mouse_Potato wrote: »

Am I reading this correctly? According to that chart, my TDEE is about 1300 calories and I would need to drop to 900 to lose weight. Yikes! No, thanks. I think I will stick with what I am doing and preserve my health.

If you read it through, it is heavily weighted to those carrying higher body fat%. As a dude with some weight to lose I ran their calc and it came out within 30cals of what MFP here is giving me, higher than MFP actually.

I realize MFP is not TDEE and you are supposed to eat back some of the exercise calories, but honestly not far off. I would imagine just like MFP won;t give someone who is already of smaller stature a sub 1200kcal diet, this calc would need some tweaking for those with smaller and lower bf%.

Take a 165lb woman with 26% BF which is in the normal range. Their TDEE cal would give you 1587calories. -200 (note it says 200-400)for weight lose and you get 1300 cal.

Let's take an athletic female. 135lbs 15% body fat. Not sure why they would want to cut, but let's say they are MMA fighters trying to drop a weight class. Their calculation 135lbs-20.25lbs fat = 114.75lbs of lean muscle *16kcal per lb of lean muscle= 1836calories. -200 = just under .5lbs per week eating 1636 cals daily. Hardly what anyone would call unhealthy weight loss.

Well as a 148lb woman with a body fat% of 27...1390 is below what I eat now to lose. To take even a 200 deficit off that? I'd be under recommended levels for nutrition.

Not to mention the fact that most calculators/devices for BF% are inaccurate to begin with unless you get a full body dexa scan and I'm thinking I'll stick with MFP.

lemurcat12

I'm a 125 woman with BF% of about 25% (which is perfectly healthy for a woman, although too high for a man). It claims to lose I should eat 1219-200 (or 1019) at the most and as low as 819. Supposedly this is to maximize my muscle retention.

Doesn't take into account activity. With my activity my TDEE seems to be more like 2100-2200.

Maybe it works better for men.

Mouse_Potato

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'm a 125 woman with BF% of about 25% (which is perfectly healthy for a woman, although too high for a man). It claims to lose I should eat 1219-200 (or 1019) at the most and as low as 819. Supposedly this is to maximize my muscle retention.

Doesn't take into account activity. With my activity my TDEE seems to be more like 2100-2200.

Maybe it works better for men.

We are very similar. 122 pounds, about 23% body fat. BMR is around 1300 and my TDEE is 2000+. I can't even imagine eating 1300, much less 1100 or, God forbid, 900!

Could be a good tool for men or those with a little more to lose, but clearly not for smaller women.

spring913

It came very very close to what MFP gives me. The high is just above what I use here at 1.5 lbs loss a week and the low is just above what MFP gives me for a 2 lbs a week loss.

I think it must work better when you have a higher body fat %.

allyphoe

I'm not particularly small for a woman, and have a high body fat percentage. "Maintenance" per that site is 700+ calories below my actual sedentary maintenance, as determined by my calories in vs long term weight change spreadsheet, which has 200+ data points for my current weight.

yirara

Pretty much the same as what MFP gives me, however, MFP is off by at least 250kcal