Thoughts on TDEE calculators and switching from MFP to TDEE.

norahwynn

It's been working for me!!

Sarauk2sf

Tagging to add my thoughts/observations when not on my phone, but they will just be reiterating the OP (shocking, I know!).

pepperpat64

Thanks for posting this. I've been using the TDEE-20% method (as explained by the "In Place of a Road Map" post) but I'm concerned I'm not doing it properly, in part because I don't completely understand it. Unfortunately, MFP's settings don't make a lot of sense to me either. I have a mostly sedentary job, but when I'm home I rarely sit down for more than 30 minutes at a time because I'm doing chores, exercising, running errands, etc., so I'm not sure which MFP setting I should use. I've been losing weight very slowly (6 lbs in 5 months) but do seem to be losing much more in inches. However, I suspect (or hope!) my slow weight loss is due more to weightlifting and the resulting muscle mass increase. I appreciate these discussions because they help me understand everything a little better. :-)

katelynal

I'm having success maintaining using the TDEE method, but my change in calorie goals was a modest one -- I went from eating 1550 plus my exercise calories using the MFP model to 1750 using TDEE.

I used an online TDEE calculator that I can't find now, but it included a section to break down the amount of time I do all kinds of activities during a 24 hour period in order to calculate an estimated energy expenditure (i.e. 8 hours sleeping, 1.5 hours preparing food, 8 hours desk job, etc.), rather than just using basic categories of sedentary/lightly active/active. Anyone know the site I'm remembering?

http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/

EmilyOfTheSun

I do enjoy being able to "eat calories back" because my workouts vary, a LOT. Running, climbing and lifting are pretty different when it comes to how many cals I'm burning. I do use a heart rate monitor (yeah, yeah, I know some people bash the use of HRM's and say it's just an estimate), but mine has worked great for me. It must be fairly accurate because this is always the method I've used, and when I am eating at a deficit, I steadily and consistently lose weight. I did plug my numbers into a TDEE calculator out of curiosity.

I calculated my TDEE with a sedentary lifestyle, NOT including any workouts, then -20%....it pretty much put me at the number MFP had me at to lose 1 pound per week. So I just stuck with that number, wear my HRM, and "eat back my exercise calories." It's been working well. The only drawback is that I can't fully plan out my food for the day until I know how many calories I've burned from working out, but that's not too big a deal to me.

suziepoo1984

Of course, i do agree. TDEE works out for those people that have a very consistent lifestyle. For eg: someone works out 6 days a week and sets as moderately active and eats that much, but if workouts change, the calories need to change too.
I follow a mix of both these methods and seems to be working well, though i am gradually moving on to TDEE now

_KrisMarie_

Thanks for this post, SS!

I was feeling a little guilty about not doing more with the calculators and figuring things out precisely, but honestly, the "experience method" works pretty well for me. I tend to get a basic idea from MFP and the TDEE calculators, then just go with a reasonable amount of calories and see what happens. I've lost weight, and I still go down to the exercise physiology lab once a year and have all my numbers run. I'm in good shape and have increased my LBM while losing body fat; can't complain about that!

manique45

This is just my opinion.

Often times in the forums people will post questions about moving from MFP's exercise calorie model to a TDEE method.

I like the TDEE method a great deal but one thing people tend to do is put their trust into an equation without considering their previous energy intake. This doesn't always end well.

This doesn't mean switching is bad, but often times someone will end up gaining weight because they've just jacked their energy intake upwards by a significant amount. Sometimes I think this is the draw to using a TDEE method. It appears as though you get to eat more. That sounds great, but it's only great if you can still lose weight when you eat at that intake level.

(So for example if you are using MFP and averaging 1600 calories over the past 7 weeks and you're losing 1lb/week, and a TDEE calculator tells you that your TDEE is 2625, and you figure "Hey I'll take TDEE-20% and set my intake to 2100", I'm suggesting this is not likely to end in favorable results.)

We have seen multiple examples in our ETP group where someone makes the switch to a TDEE method and starts gaining weight and many times it's because they are now over-eating. It sounds like I'm bashing the TDEE method, and that's not my intent.

What I'm really getting at, is that your results are a great indicator and if you have accurate data from tracking your food intake and accurate data by tracking your progress over several weeks, you should be using that data to the best of your ability to make conclusions about your intake needs.

I think a more reasonable approach for most people would be to take the previous 4-8 weeks worth of intake data that they have on MFP and average that out. This will tell you your average caloric intake and you can then use your change in weight to at least give you some approximation as to what that intake level does for you as far as change in weight.

It's not going to be perfect of course, but it's certainly valuable data and I am suggesting that it's probably going to be superior to a calculator.

Assuming your results are somewhat reasonable, setting your daily intake to that average value seems like a good idea.

If your results are not reasonable, you can make adjustments upwards or downwards to that average intake to try and produce the desired results. If for some reason you need to start increasing food intake and you want to avoid gaining excessive amounts of fat, you're probably best off gradually increasing intake by slowly adding calories on a weekly basis and monitoring change in weight on the way up. (As an aside, I'd also use this gradual increase method when it comes time to move out of an energy deficit into maintenance or a surplus depending on your goals).


Using your current data and paying attention to the results of that data are going to lead you to a reasonable intake in most situations/for most people.


That's really the end of this rant. This is just my opinion but I'm going to post it here in case it helps anyone.

If not, well then you can just .gif me.

Great points, This is what led me to purchasing a bodymedia... Has over a 90% accuracy and it really showed me my estimated TDEE is pretty darn close... I've been severly under eating for almost 9 months... On the road to recovering my metabolism... and hopefully eventually out of this plateau...

faely

Adding to my list of 'awesome sensible information by SS and Sara'

Great stuff, as always!

Thanks :drinker:

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Posting just so it shows up in my newsfeed.

WeCallThemDayWalkers

I find that TDEE works well for me, WHEN I follow it. For some reason, I tend to obey the MFP style of "eating calories back" more than the "eat this amount no matter what you do." The other issue for me is that I have a number in my head that I know I won't drop my intake below. It just so happens that after I did my TDEE -20%, it was that number. It's also the number recommended by my physician.

A lot of calorie goal/ weight loss is how honest the user *really* is with reporting. You have posted this a million times before, but those bites/sips/licks/tastes really add up but people tend to ignore them. I can only speak for myself, but when I go hard and go honestly, either method gives me results. I am better off with the "eating back calories" if I'm gonna half-*kitten* it because I am limited by my physical activity reporting.

This is such a ramble...

pretty sure this is my exact experience

codycsweet

Thanks for the thoughts. I like TDEE b/c I know what I need to eat every day vs varying depending on my activity level. I do work out 5-6 days a week and along with my Fitbit I get a good look at what my TDEE is and make adjustments as needed. It's amazing how many people don't think about making adjustments if something isn't working or doing a little research.

When I first started I wasn't using TDEE and with the inflated calorie burn I had all of these extra calories that I wasn't eating b/c I was full. I now know from using a HRM that the reason I wasn't able to eat most of the cal back is because the #'s were inflated.

babyluthi

Great post!)

scrapjen

When I actually crunch the numbers ... they do seem to work out about the same to me. But I like the MFP method, seeing the calorie allowance start out low, and then grow as I'm active throughout the day. It really shows me how important the activity is ... that if I am not active, I won't have those extra calories. So even though MFP only gives me 1350 to start the day, I know I'm going to eat closer to 2000 going in. That's the goal in my mind ...

There is a graph on Fitbit showing your total burn for the past 30 days vs your total intake for the past 30 days ... and also your average of both. I find this to be very helpful and motivating for me. I always TRY to keep those lines from crossing, or even touching. I'm not always successful, but it's so helpful for me to see it visually graphed out like that.

I keep them (for my records) on my blog
http://jenbsjourney.blogspot.com/2013/07/june-intake-and-burn-graph.html
http://jenbsjourney.blogspot.com/2013/08/july-look-back.html

thefragile7393

This whole thing confuses me and I don't know which to follow...though I agree they both seem to be the same...I don't know I just find throwing in TDEE with MFP with the BMR completely confusing

fultimers

Bump

Sarauk2sf

I think what most people don't understand is that you are generally grossing the same amount of calories with either method.

If you're allotted 1600 calories and burning 500 working out, your gross calorie intake is 2100.

If your TDEE-20% is 2100 calories, you're grossing 2100 calories.

It's really the exact same thing, just easier for some people to follow. I'll probably do TDEE when I switch to maintenance/bulk.

Perhaps for many people it works out this way, but in many cases my belief is that it does not, which is why people need to actually pay attention to what they are actually eating and compare it to results before trusting a different estimation device.

Most people don't have the education on the issue to make any more of an informed decision on what to eat or what they should do if something isn't working. All they have are these numbers. People tend to give up instead of reassess. The human body is extremely complex and we're trying to turn it into a math equation.

Of course it lies solely on the individual logging their food/drinks and workouts correctly. I thought that was a given.

Many people do not know what to do, which is why this is a post to help people consider what may not be working and what to look into to do something about it. It is also a 'heads up' that if someone is considering changing from the MFP method to the TDEE less x% method, then they should look to actual results rather than just take what an online calculator spits out as gospel. At the end of the day, going from one method to another really is just math. If you are losing 1lb a week on say 1,600 calories on average under the MFP method, then you should lose 1lb a week under the TDEE method, assuming you take a 1lb a week equivalent cut off that TDEE. If the online calculator has you eating 2,000, then the math and therefore the results, will not be the same.

And accurate logging is not a given tbh. I see time and time again people estimating portion sizes, not logging all the time, using measuring cups and not digital scales, selecting inaccurate information from the database and so on.. And that is just the intake side.

SiXiam

This topic is really confusing me because MFP uses a TDEE calculator. That's how it calculates calories when you say how much weight you want to lose. For example right now the MFP TDEE calculator tells me I'm at 2160 calories. My preferred online TDEE calculator over at fitnessfrog says 2150! That's little or no exercise in the calculator.

On the website you can see your MFP TDEE number in the GOALS section.

Sarauk2sf

I really do not use either method as I use my actual results to give me my TDEE and take an appropriate cut from there. This is predicated on having results for a reasonable period of time with a relatively consistent activity level and logging accuracy in order to estimate actual TDEE.

The challenge with this method (or with using the calculators) comes in when you have very inconsistent activity week after week (or inconsistent logging). Having some variability is fine a it all evens itself out in the wash, but having too much variability can make using historic information and applying it to future intake problematic.

I did use a BMF early on when dieting. It was actually pretty accurate for me, but I had not been at a deficit for very long and was a reasonably high BF%, and so and adaptations were minimal, I did not do any cardio to speak of, and I do not have any underlying metabolic issues that I am aware of. These types of devices are the same as online calculators in that they use estimates, albeit more granular, and do not take into account everyone's individual circumstances. I did find it a very useful tool at first to realize just how many more calories we burn proportionately doing non exercise activities, like shopping and just walking around.

Sarauk2sf

This topic is really confusing me because MFP uses a TDEE calculator. That's how it calculates calories when you say how much weight you want to lose. For example right now the MFP TDEE calculator tells me I'm at 2160 calories. My preferred online TDEE calculator over at fitnessfrog says 2150! That's little or no exercise in the calculator.

On the website you can see your MFP TDEE number in the GOALS section.

But those numbers do not go anywhere. You need to over-ride your settings if you are gong to have it impact your targets. You also should not be logging exercise if you use that.