# Does this edtimate TDEE sound about right?

Options
2»

## Replies

• Posts: 2,343 Member
edited March 2017
Options
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
• Posts: 7,682 Member
Options
fascha 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
• Posts: 240 Member
Options
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.
• Posts: 2,343 Member
Options
fascha 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
• Posts: 2,343 Member
Options
To compare, I have about 120lbs of lean mass and if I get 10-12K steps in a day my observed tdee is about 2300
• Posts: 7,692 Member
edited March 2017
Options
heybales wrote: »
PAV8888 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.

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.

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).

" 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):

• Posts: 18,842 Member
Options
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.

• Posts: 13,761 Member
edited March 2017
Options
PAV8888 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!
• Posts: 7,692 Member
edited March 2017
Options
PAV8888 wrote: »
PAV8888 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.
• Posts: 13,761 Member
Options
PAV8888 wrote: »
PAV8888 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
• Posts: 16,049 Member
Options
This is precisely why i love Fitbit, it's simple and there's no need to to play mental gymnastics trying to figure out the whys/hows of the numbers and no need to have to read a novel to figure out how it works.
• Posts: 1,804 Member
edited March 2017
Options
fbchick51 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.

This.

I'm about 20 pounds heavier than you and burn about ~2500(+/-100) calories on a non-workout day if I get ~15,000 steps. Admittedly, I'm also almost 15 years older than you. But my experience suggests that 2350-2400ish is probably in the right ballpark for you at 12,000 steps/day. More importantly, *your* experience suggests that.