Does this edtimate TDEE sound about right?
shadow2soul
Posts: 7,692 Member
Recently I switched from a Fitbit Blaze to the Gear s2. I can't figure out how to view the estimate of my TDEE through sHealth or even on the watch.
So I am curious if the number that MFP is coming up with for the adjustment sounds about right.
5'4.5"
133.4 lbs
27 years old
I am a server. Today I had 8,500 steps while at work (7am -2pm).
This afternoon I did-
DailyBurn Live to Fail: Chest & Back (35 mins)
Strong Curves: Best Butt Bodyweight W1A (32 mins)
I aldo did some light cleaning and I am ending the day with 12700 steps.
MFP is estimating based on the data from sHealth a TDEE of 2542.
So I am curious if the number that MFP is coming up with for the adjustment sounds about right.
5'4.5"
133.4 lbs
27 years old
I am a server. Today I had 8,500 steps while at work (7am -2pm).
This afternoon I did-
DailyBurn Live to Fail: Chest & Back (35 mins)
Strong Curves: Best Butt Bodyweight W1A (32 mins)
I aldo did some light cleaning and I am ending the day with 12700 steps.
MFP is estimating based on the data from sHealth a TDEE of 2542.
0
Replies
-
I dunno. I'm the same height, 10 lbs heavier, same step count and have a TDEE of 1800-1900. My step counter will give me something like 2000 for a day like that but I've never tried maintaining on that...I bulked on that. 2500 seems high.0
-
I dunno. I'm the same height, 10 lbs heavier, same step count and have a TDEE of 1800-1900. My step counter will give me something like 2000 for a day like that but I've never tried maintaining on that...I bulked on that. 2500 seems high.
I know mine is higher than 2000. I have been averaging 2200-2300 and am seeing a very slow trend down since starting my new job 3 weeks ago. By slow I am talking a 0.1-0.3 lb per week loss (data from libra with daily weigh in's).
~If I look at my gear s2 it's saying 1689 burned at 10:42 pm. I'm pretty sure it's going to end in the 1700's which is what calculators like IIFYM give me for a cut. I also know based on previous data, I would lose weight if I ate that.1 -
Im 5'6 1/2 and 166lbs(42yrs). according to my fitbit I have a TDEE of about 2500+(with exercise and 12,000+ steps). I have a metabolic disorder and someone suggested I set my weight(on my fitbit) about 25lb lower to accommodate for my metabolic issue, and Im still burning the same amount of calories.
I have a charge HR. so I dont see how that could possibly be correct for both weights.I was maintaining at about 1700.I went back to trying to lose after a hiatus.0 -
Oh. Well then this is just another post that makes me feel horrible about myself. But happy you can maintain on more. I wonder what's wrong with me.0
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Im 5'6 1/2 and 166lbs(42yrs). according to my fitbit I have a TDEE of about 2500+(with exercise and 12,000+ steps). I have a metabolic disorder and someone suggested I set my weight(on my fitbit) about 25lb lower to accommodate for my metabolic issue, and Im still burning the same amount of calories.
I have a charge HR. so I dont see how that could possibly be correct for both weights.I was maintaining at about 1700.I went back to trying to lose after a hiatus.
My fitbit was giving me 2500-2800 when I worked at McDonald's. But I haven't used it since starting my new job which definitely has me on my feet constantly moving (unlike McDonald's). The Gear s2 is what I have been using since switching jobs.1 -
-
shadow2soul wrote: »
Not from what I've read. I do feel like I'm on the low end.
2500 still seems high though.0 -
To get 2500 i have to walk 15-20k steps and do alot of heavy lifting and and i weigh more
Wish i could burn that much 
0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »
Not from what I've read. I do feel like I'm on the low end.
2500 still seems high though.
dont feel bad. I should be losing and have a hell of a time doing so,even with lower calories and exercise. I havent lost anything since feb 1st. before that I lost less than 2 lbs and that took me a few months. before that it took me 6 months to lose 1.2 lbs..lowered my calories yet again and so fat nothing.I even did a few months in maintenance. but hunger is becoming a beast here too.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »
Not from what I've read. I do feel like I'm on the low end.
2500 still seems high though.
dont feel bad. I should be losing and have a hell of a time doing so,even with lower calories and exercise. I havent lost anything since feb 1st. before that I lost less than 2 lbs and that took me a few months. before that it took me 6 months to lose 1.2 lbs..lowered my calories yet again and so fat nothing.I even did a few months in maintenance. but hunger is becoming a beast here too.
Thanks...I didn't mean to derail. I just get a bit jealous. CICO...yeah yeah. But there is something to be said for genetics and just getting the *kitten* end of the stick at some point.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
sounds like we all have some kind of issue.@shadow2soul,the best way is if you are losing weight then its possible its accurate, if not then its probably not.if you arent losing(and you weigh everything and log properly-although for some its not a necessity),then lower your calories a bit. you dont say what your calorie intake is though either.0
-
off the top of my head and counting nothing else, 12,500 steps of which a good quantity were vigorous (exercise , serving and carrying things)... would be just above MFP's very active setting (for most people it would be the beginning of very active; but I am taking you at your word that you're burning on the high side).
What is MFP's very active setting to maintain for you?
OK: re-read your original and I am now even more confused
You said that MFP / Samsung are coming up with 2500 via their integration and that you are losing slightly at 2300.... Right? <-- well this statement is a tautology... if your maintenance is 2500 you are, of course, losing slightly at 2300... so what is there to doubt or wonder about?
Eat the 2500 and if it proves a bit much down the road adjust down again... (what am I missing here?)1 -
Is the Gear S2 doing HR-based or step-based calorie burn on the workout time?
If step-based - your resistance training would be woefully underestimated, since probably given BMR sleeping level burn for a good part of the workout. But only 1 hr, so 60 cal instead of say 180.
If HR-based - slightly over estimated - but then again it's % incorrect in an otherwise good active day is not much - probably more inaccuracy in your food labels.
If step-based - an incorrect stride-length or pace for those daily steps (like set to exercise level pace) could lead to decent amount off with that many steps.
If HR-based - if it assumed some slightly elevated HR during work was elevated and starting doing HR-based calorie burn for big chunks of time, that could lead to bad inflation usually.
While you can do some things to allow the S2 to be as accurate as possible (like manually logging some workouts it will estimate badly) - it will still come down to the testing as mentioned in several posts above.
And as soon as you think you have it nailed - seasons change.
https://youtu.be/Yqk6y5Hmy9s
1 -
Sounds excessive. Sure, I'm a bit heavier and 10 years older but I'd have to walk 25k steps to reach 2600.0
-
... so what is there to doubt or wonder about?
My confusion comes from how the adjustment works.
Right now I have MFP set at active.
The sHealth adjustment looks to literally just be adding what sHealth thought my very active burn to be to MFP's base. No adjusting down for periods of inactivity.
MFP base 2148.
MFP sHealth estimate 2550 based on calorie burn of 402.
So no matter the activity level setting, sHealth is going to give me 402 extra calories.
0 -
Is your activity level set correctly in MFP, when I first got my fitness tracker it was giving me some crazy amounts of calories, I changed MFP to lightly active (I do around 11-12000 steps per day) and it seems to be adjusting correctly now.
To give you a bit of context, I'm 5'8" 238lbs and my TDEE with my steps in but not including additional exercise is around 2700. My MFP calorie intake based on Lightly Active, losing 2lb per week is 1480, which I've upped to 1600 manually as I find this more sustainable.0 -
-
I am 5'3.5'', 133 pounds...my TDEE is roughly 2,250.
That includes an average of probably 13,000 steps per day and 4-5 40 minute workouts per week.
So, using my own figures, I would reckon that your estimate is probably within the appropriate range.0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »... so what is there to doubt or wonder about?
My confusion comes from how the adjustment works.
Right now I have MFP set at active.
The sHealth adjustment looks to literally just be adding what sHealth thought my very active burn to be to MFP's base. No adjusting down for periods of inactivity.
MFP base 2148.
MFP sHealth estimate 2550 based on calorie burn of 402.
So no matter the activity level setting, sHealth is going to give me 402 extra calories.
The adjustment works like this.
BMR 1343 x 1.6 Active MFP level = 2148 estimated daily burn based on your guess for non-exercise activity level.
SHealth sends to MFP you burned 2550 at end of day say, based on actually seeing your activity level and exercise.
SHealth 2550 - 2148 MFP = 402 adjustment.
MFP eating level was say MFP estimated 2148 - 500 deficit = 1648 non-exercise goal.
1648 base goal + 402 adjustment = 2050 eating goal
Still 500 deficit.
That 402 adjustment could have been a workout. Perhaps 600, perhaps 200. Then your daily activity made the difference.
Could have been no workout but merely more active (steps) than Active Level was giving credit for - meaning you guessed wrong if no workout.
During the day, the way the adjustment works is different.
If you really want to know and enjoy math, read the 2nd half of this FAQ - different device, same methods used on MFP though.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy/p10 -
Depends on how much lean mass you have. It's significantly more calorically 'expensive' to run 120lbs of lean mass even if you're only 140lbs. You could have that much, so could a 180lb person, depending on bf%. The fat doesn't cost you much, so even a heavy person could have a similar tdee. What does your mfp data suggest? That's really the only way to tell0
-
Depends on how much lean mass you have. It's significantly more calorically 'expensive' to run 120lbs of lean mass even if you're only 140lbs. You could have that much, so could a 180lb person, depending on bf%. The fat doesn't cost you much, so even a heavy person could have a similar tdee. What does your mfp data suggest? That's really the only way to tell
she would have to have a lot of lean mass. a lb of muscle/lean muscle only burns on average an extra 6-10 calories? something like that. Im sure heybales or someone can correct me on this. if she is losing weight then she is on the right track
0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »I have been averaging 2200-2300 and am seeing a very slow trend down since starting my new job 3 weeks ago. By slow I am talking a 0.1-0.3 lb per week loss (data from libra with daily weigh in's).
Regardless of what MFP says or what your Gear s2 states, this right here will give you the most accurate estimate of your actual TDEE. Based on this info, we can take a well educated guess that average TDEE is about 2350. When you have more days closer to 2200, you daily calorie deficit would be closer to 100-150 cals a day, which explains the .3lb loss (150x7 = 1050 cal deficit for the week. divided by 3500 (cal deficit needed to lose 1lb) gives you about a .3lb per week loss. When more days are closer to 2300, same math shows a .1lb per week loss.
So, if I were you, I see my TDEE as 2350 and use that to judge the accuracy of both MFP and your Gear s2.
1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Depends on how much lean mass you have. It's significantly more calorically 'expensive' to run 120lbs of lean mass even if you're only 140lbs. You could have that much, so could a 180lb person, depending on bf%. The fat doesn't cost you much, so even a heavy person could have a similar tdee. What does your mfp data suggest? That's really the only way to tell
she would have to have a lot of lean mass. a lb of muscle/lean muscle only burns on average an extra 6-10 calories? something like that. Im sure heybales or someone can correct me on this. if she is losing weight then she is on the right track
Right I realize that but for the people saying I'm xx weight and my tdee is the same etc it doesn't mean much if their lean mass is similar. I'm just saying it costs next to nothing to run the fat cells in your body so their tdee could be similar save for the walking around with fat part lol
0 -
To compare, I have about 120lbs of lean mass and if I get 10-12K steps in a day my observed tdee is about 23000
-
shadow2soul wrote: »... so what is there to doubt or wonder about?
My confusion comes from how the adjustment works.
Right now I have MFP set at active.
The sHealth adjustment looks to literally just be adding what sHealth thought my very active burn to be to MFP's base. No adjusting down for periods of inactivity.
MFP base 2148.
MFP sHealth estimate 2550 based on calorie burn of 402.
So no matter the activity level setting, sHealth is going to give me 402 extra calories.
The adjustment works like this.
BMR 1343 x 1.6 Active MFP level = 2148 estimated daily burn based on your guess for non-exercise activity level.
SHealth sends to MFP you burned 2550 at end of day say, based on actually seeing your activity level and exercise.
SHealth 2550 - 2148 MFP = 402 adjustment.
MFP eating level was say MFP estimated 2148 - 500 deficit = 1648 non-exercise goal.
1648 base goal + 402 adjustment = 2050 eating goal
Still 500 deficit.
That 402 adjustment could have been a workout. Perhaps 600, perhaps 200. Then your daily activity made the difference.
Could have been no workout but merely more active (steps) than Active Level was giving credit for - meaning you guessed wrong if no workout.
During the day, the way the adjustment works is different.
If you really want to know and enjoy math, read the 2nd half of this FAQ - different device, same methods used on MFP though.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10098937/faq-syncing-logging-food-exercise-calorie-adjustments-activity-levels-accuracy/p1
That's just it. 402 is what its MFP gets from sHealth.
It doesn't adjust like Fitbit or garmin (both of which I have had and totally get).
The adjustment says
" Projection based on 402 calories burned as of 11:42 pm."
So today for example:
sHealth 2398
Projection based on 250 calories burned as of 1:50 pm
Now I switched MFP to Sedentary and get-
sHealth 1990
Projection based on 312 calories burned as of 2:05 pm
Unlike with Fitbit or Garmin, sHealth isn't sending a TDEE estimate.
Screenshots:
Sedentary -
Active -
And then of course we have what sHealth reports on the watch (and in weekly summaries):
0 -
Ahh - this is the 3rd party sync option where MFP totally does use it's own estimate and uses the 3rd party app.
Samsung DID report their estimated TDEE burned as of then to MFP - 2472.
For MFP to forget it's own figure and trust Samsung estimate - it merely subtracted it's own non-exercise TDEE estimate and made the difference the adjustment.
The end of the day is going to be the same though between all these devices.
Except in this case Samsung keeps correctly it's own math as it goes along, reporting that to MFP.
At the end of the day - MFP is using the 3rd party reported calorie burn to adjust it's eating level.
With vast majority of devices - it does the math for the full day estimate.
For some devices - it does the math so that the 3rd party app is doing the math for the full day estimate.
Samsung does the latter.
No idea what the watch is trying to show, since not related to even the figures sent to MFP.
Probably need to do some reading up on it.
0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »... so what is there to doubt or wonder about?
My confusion comes from how the adjustment works.
Right now I have MFP set at active.
The sHealth adjustment looks to literally just be adding what sHealth thought my very active burn to be to MFP's base. No adjusting down for periods of inactivity.
MFP base 2148.
MFP sHealth estimate 2550 based on calorie burn of 402.
So no matter the activity level setting, sHealth is going to give me 402 extra calories.
It sounds to me that Shealth is not acting like an all day tracker but is acting like an exercise app instead. *not sure if that's true; but, that's what it sounds like based on your description.
So why are you trying to square a circle... if S-health is doing it's own thing... it's doing its own thing. I've usually not found it fruitful trying to get apps and devices to change what they do... it is easier to just pick another device that does what I actually want!
If you prefer the input of an all day tracker (I know I would!)... and if you already have an all day tracker... just go back to using your Fitbit! ;-)
however, it is worth noting (as mentioned by others above) that your own data is probably the most relevant. And it sounds to me without doing the math that if you're losing at 2300... eating a bit more than 2300 will have you maintain So whichever way you're getting to the estimates... they ain't that far off reality! 0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »... so what is there to doubt or wonder about?
My confusion comes from how the adjustment works.
Right now I have MFP set at active.
The sHealth adjustment looks to literally just be adding what sHealth thought my very active burn to be to MFP's base. No adjusting down for periods of inactivity.
MFP base 2148.
MFP sHealth estimate 2550 based on calorie burn of 402.
So no matter the activity level setting, sHealth is going to give me 402 extra calories.
It sounds to me that Shealth is not acting like an all day tracker but is acting like an exercise app instead. *not sure if that's true; but, that's what it sounds like based on your description.
That's how it seems to be communicating to MFP. However the app itself does give an estimated TDEE (just a really low one). My weekly sHealth summaries usually have an average TDEE of 1600-1700 and tell me I am eating too much :laugh: . The pic of my watch was sHealths estimated calorie burn from midnight to a little after 2 pm (resting +activity...similar to what a fitbit would show...I had already hit 10k steps for the day).
Last week sHealth reported an average TDEE of 1679. That's lower than MFP's sedentary estimate for me.
I'm going to see what happens over the next few weeks since in the 3 weeks I have had it, I had TOM and retained a bit of water. My tracking has also been a bit sloppy (example: unlogged hershey kiss yesterday...cracker not logged today....if anything though logged calories are low due to ublogged items). I'm just so confused by this watch and how it communicates with MFP.0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »shadow2soul wrote: »... so what is there to doubt or wonder about?
My confusion comes from how the adjustment works.
Right now I have MFP set at active.
The sHealth adjustment looks to literally just be adding what sHealth thought my very active burn to be to MFP's base. No adjusting down for periods of inactivity.
MFP base 2148.
MFP sHealth estimate 2550 based on calorie burn of 402.
So no matter the activity level setting, sHealth is going to give me 402 extra calories.
It sounds to me that Shealth is not acting like an all day tracker but is acting like an exercise app instead. *not sure if that's true; but, that's what it sounds like based on your description.
That's how it seems to be communicating to MFP. However the app itself does give an estimated TDEE (just a really low one). My weekly sHealth summaries usually have an average TDEE of 1600-1700 and tell me I am eating too much :laugh: . The pic of my watch was sHealths estimated calorie burn from midnight to a little after 2 pm (resting +activity...similar to what a fitbit would show...I had already hit 10k steps for the day).
I'm going to see what happens over the next few weeks since in the 3 weeks I have had it, I had TOM and retained a bit of water. My tracking has also been a bit sloppy (example: unlogged hershey kiss yesterday...cracker not logged today....if anything though logged calories are low due to ublogged items). I'm just so confused by this watch and how it communicates with MFP.
Again, I highlight the need to ignore bad inputs when you know (from other sources) that they are wrong.
Fitbit over-estimates my own TDEE by about 5% (about 150 cal a day). I take that into account and continue to use the Fitbit estimates. (note that a good percentage of that 150 cal is probably related to my food logging, with almost 100Cal a day being entries whose macros don't quite add up)
Google Fit under-estimates my TDEE by about 800Cal a day. I noticed once or twice that it was giving insanely low values. Sometimes more than 1200 lower than Fitbit. Even looked once as to where I could send feedback to tell them they're crazy. PACER is also lower than reality, though in 10-15% range as opposed to Google Fit's 30 to 40% out-of-whackness (so it is not just a phone vs device issue with Google Fit, they really ARE out of whack for me).
Easier to just ignore the crazy apps/devices and go with what you know is working 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions