Scooby calculator question

OrangePandaGreenTurtle

I have been getting mixed answers to this question- originally i was told to go on the Scooby calculator, put in my info and choose sedentary lifestyle, use that number and eat back my exercise calories if i wanted.

Now i am told to choose my activity level instead and not eat anything back after working out.

Which is correct? And which activity level should be right for me? What is the differences between light, moderate, and strenuous?

cnbbnc

If I'm not mistaken, scoobys number already includes exercise whereas MFP doesn't. So if you go by scooby, you generally wouldn't eat anything back.

As far as activity level, sedentary is if you spend most of the day sitting. Active would be on your feet a lot during the day....having a job where you're constantly moving, etc. Very active would be for people who work physically demanding jobs, or people who do a lot of aerobic activity.

And keep in mind when you're finding the correct amount of calories for you that both scooby and MFP are giving estimations only, so you may have to play around a bit to narrow down the number more.

ccsernica

Someone got their wires crossed. The directions you were first given are appropriate for MFP, not Scooby.

Scooby's calculator gives you TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), which is an estimate of how many calories you burn in total. So when you choose your activity level there, you're supposed to include exercise. With this method you don't eat your exercise calories back because they're already included in the total calories you're allocated every day.

MFP's estimates are based on NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), which is from your activity level without purposeful exercise. So if you're going by MFP's numbers you're supposed to record your exercise on the site and the calories are subtracted back out of your total so yes, you're supposed to eat more in that case. (Most only eat back a portion of our exercise calories to allow for possible overestimates.)

AnnPT77

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between TDEE at sedentary, and NEAT at sedentary?

So, TDEE at sedentary includes daily activity & exercise, the latter of which is none. And NEAT at sedentary includes daily activity, but no exercise. For me, the numbers are as close to equal as are the numbers from any two different TDEE calculators.

So, conceptually speaking, the difference between TDEE at sedentary and NEAT at sedentary is . . . ?

PAV8888

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between TDEE at sedentary, and NEAT at sedentary?

So, TDEE at sedentary includes daily activity & exercise, the latter of which is none. And NEAT at sedentary includes daily activity, but no exercise. For me, the numbers are as close to equal as are the numbers from any two different TDEE calculators.

So, conceptually speaking, the difference between TDEE at sedentary and NEAT at sedentary is . . . ?

Why none Granny Ann.
All these labels are just that, labels we put on various numbers so as to try and come up with a prediction as to how much someone will burn in a day--short of shoving them in a metabolic chamber and monitoring them all day!

Maybe this will help?

1.2x BMR Scooby's Desk job with little exercise Little to no exercise
1.25x BMR MFPs Sedentary Level
1.375x BMR Scooby's1-3 hrs/wk of light exercise Light exercise (1–3 days per week)
1.4x BMR MFP's Lightly Active Level
1.55x BMR Scooby's 3-5 hrs/wk of moderate exercise Moderate exercise (3–5 days per week)
1.6x BMR MFP's Active Level
1.725x BMR Scooby's 5-6 hrs/wk of strenuous exercise Heavy exercise (6–7 days per week)
1.8x BMR MFP's Very Active Level
1.9x BMR Scooby 7-21 hrs/wk of strenuous exercise/work Very heavy exercise (twice per day, extra heavy workouts

Note that BMR is calculated using Mifflin St.Jeor's formula for both MFP and by default on Scooby's accurate calculator. However, on Scooby, you can also change the BMR "research model" and try alternative formulas for calculating BMR.

Note that MFP assumes you will log exercise on top of the activity level. Scooby "includes" the exercise.

CattOfTheGarage

AnnPT77 wrote: »

So, conceptually speaking, the difference between TDEE at sedentary and NEAT at sedentary is . . . ?

None, unless you are doing exercise. The difference between the two methods is only to do with exercise.

So if I have a sedentary NEAT of 2000, and I do no purposeful exercise, I will also have a sedentary TDEE of 2000.

However if I get off my normally sedentary butt and start working out daily, burning 200 calories, my TDEE will go up to 2200. My NEAT will not change, but I will log 200 calories of exercise, meaning my daily goal will become... Guess what? 2200 calories.

Then if I change my lifestyle so I become "lightly active", my TDEE will go up to say 2440. My NEAT will be only 2240, but I'm logging 200 calories a day so I'm eating... 2440.

Done right, the two methods should arrive at exactly the same answer. The choice between them is one of personal preference. Maybe you dislike logging exercise, prefer to eat the same every day, and have fairly consistent exercise routines - so TDEE works best for you. Someone else (like me) may have a more inconsistent exercise pattern and finds logging exercise to be motivating, so they prefer NEAT. It's not something to divorce over.

Where problems come is when people use NEAT to calculate their goals, then exercise but don't log or eat back exercise calories. That's misusing the method, and amounts to starving yourself.

AnnPT77

PAV8888 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between TDEE at sedentary, and NEAT at sedentary?

So, TDEE at sedentary includes daily activity & exercise, the latter of which is none. And NEAT at sedentary includes daily activity, but no exercise. For me, the numbers are as close to equal as are the numbers from any two different TDEE calculators.

So, conceptually speaking, the difference between TDEE at sedentary and NEAT at sedentary is . . . ?

Why none Granny Ann.
All these labels are just that, labels we put on various numbers so as to try and come up with a prediction as to how much someone will burn in a day--short of shoving them in a metabolic chamber and monitoring them all day!

Maybe this will help?

1.2x BMR Scooby's Desk job with little exercise Little to no exercise
1.25x BMR MFPs Sedentary Level
1.375x BMR Scooby's1-3 hrs/wk of light exercise Light exercise (1–3 days per week)
1.4x BMR MFP's Lightly Active Level
1.55x BMR Scooby's 3-5 hrs/wk of moderate exercise Moderate exercise (3–5 days per week)
1.6x BMR MFP's Active Level
1.725x BMR Scooby's 5-6 hrs/wk of strenuous exercise Heavy exercise (6–7 days per week)
1.8x BMR MFP's Very Active Level
1.9x BMR Scooby 7-21 hrs/wk of strenuous exercise/work Very heavy exercise (twice per day, extra heavy workouts

Note that BMR is calculated using Mifflin St.Jeor's formula for both MFP and by default on Scooby's accurate calculator. However, on Scooby, you can also change the BMR "research model" and try alternative formulas for calculating BMR.

Note that MFP assumes you will log exercise on top of the activity level. Scooby "includes" the exercise.

LOL - you're spoiling granny's wide-eyed innocent "please explain" schtick here, PAV!

OP: Yes, like Mr. PAV is clearly illustrating, the two pieces of advice you've been given are overlapping.

TDEE at sedentary & NEAT at sedentary are the same thing (except for tiny wiggle room when individual calculators use different researchers' algorithms).

The question of whether to eat back exercise (if you haven't included it in your base calories) is separate. Some people think MFP (or other methods of estimating) over-estimate calorie burns, and that it makes more sense not to eat those calories (it just increases your calorie deficit, increasing your loss rate).

Other people argue that if you don't eat back at least some exercise calories, you're under-fueling yourself, and will pay for it in fatigue, ill-health, adaptive thermogenesis, or some other undesired side effect.

Both views are correct . . .

. . . kind of. Whaaa?

Sometimes, exercise calories are over-estimated. That's why some folks sensibly say you should start by eating back 50% of them, then use your weight loss rate results to adjust.

And if your exercise level is modest (say 10-15% of your eating-goal calories 2-3 times a week) on top of a relatively modest calorie deficit (say, 0.5-1 pound loss per week, with at least some 10s of pounds left to go), then it's probably fine not to eat back your exercise calories, and just let it make your deficit bigger, unless/until you see some negative effect from doing so. (You still want to adjust if your loss rate proves to be bigger than expected/sensible/healthy.)

However, if you work out a lot, like daily, and burn many hundreds of calories (even inflated ones), and you already have an aggressive calorie deficit (like 2 pounds a week loss rate, or even a lower rate if you have less than 20-30 pounds to goal), then not eating back any exercise calories is probably a really, really bad idea. This is where "start with 50% and adjust" really ought to come in.

Ahanaz

I had a discussion about this with my PT a couple of weeks ago. Essentially what she told me was, that on the days you exercise you will need more calories than on the days you're not. I know from spreadsheets I have, that "lightly active" on MFP puts your goal with a 500 built in calorie deficit per day. Now, if you were to eat back All calories, you wouldn't lose weight any faster than if you weren't exercising at all. However, you want to lose fat, not muscles, which is making it crucial for you to eat back at least some of what you burn from exercise. Therefor, personally, I have goal to eat back 25-50% of the calories I burn, so I make sure that the body gets the extra energy it needs to build those muscles, but still allows me to lose weight a little faster than if I didn't exercise at all.

CattOfTheGarage

Ahanaz wrote: »

Now, if you were to eat back All calories, you wouldn't lose weight any faster than if you weren't exercising at all.

Yes. That's how it's supposed to work. Your weight loss is based on the built in deficit, not on fiddling your exercise figures.

On NEAT, if you're doing it right, you should lose fat at a constant rate, whether you spent the day in the gym or on the sofa. You don't exercise to speed up weight loss, you exercise so you can eat more (therefore making it easier to stick to your goals) and to improve your general health.

AnnPT77

Ahanaz wrote: »

I had a discussion about this with my PT a couple of weeks ago. Essentially what she told me was, that on the days you exercise you will need more calories than on the days you're not. I know from spreadsheets I have, that "lightly active" on MFP puts your goal with a 500 built in calorie deficit per day. Now, if you were to eat back All calories, you wouldn't lose weight any faster than if you weren't exercising at all. However, you want to lose fat, not muscles, which is making it crucial for you to eat back at least some of what you burn from exercise. Therefor, personally, I have goal to eat back 25-50% of the calories I burn, so I make sure that the body gets the extra energy it needs to build those muscles, but still allows me to lose weight a little faster than if I didn't exercise at all.

That (bolded) is IMO misleading.

"Lightly active" gives you more calories than "sedentary" (exactly how many more depends on how big you are, M/F status, and age).

If you set your activity level in a way that's accurate for your actual daily life (before exercise), and you set your goal at "maintain", then MFP gives you no calorie deficit (from an expected/average estimated calorie level for those characteristics).

All other things equal, if you set your goal at "lose a pound a week", it gives you a 500 calorie daily deficit (no matter your size, etc., as long as doing so won't put you below 1200 calories (for women) or 1500 (for men)). If you set your goal at "lose two pounds a week" it gives you a 1000 calorie daily deficit (ditto).

CattOfTheGarage

The size of the deficit depends on the rate of loss - 500cal for 1lb per week, 1000cal for 2lb etc - not on the activity level.

Ahanaz

AnnPT77 wrote: »

That (bolded) is IMO misleading.

I'm sorry, still coming off a sickness. I meant to say the amount per lbs per day like you said, is included in the goal MFP gives. And from my spreadsheets, my lightly active corresponds ~500.

As mentioned this was what my PT and I talked about, hence all numbers in relation to my specific situation. But in the end, the point I wanted to get to, was that exercise will require a higher intake than if you don't, if you want to make sure to build your muscles. But at the same time it's not necessary to eat back all the calories you burn to do so.

AnnPT77

Ahanaz wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

That (bolded) is IMO misleading.

I'm sorry, still coming off a sickness. I meant to say the amount per lbs per day like you said, is included in the goal MFP gives. And from my spreadsheets, my lightly active corresponds ~500.

As mentioned this was what my PT and I talked about, hence all numbers in relation to my specific situation. But in the end, the point I wanted to get to, was that exercise will require a higher intake than if you don't, if you want to make sure to build your muscles. But at the same time it's not necessary to eat back all the calories you burn to do so.

I figured you knew - just wanted to make sure others understood. No dispute with the major thrust of a reasonable (not massive) deficit while working out!

Hope you feel back to 100% soon!