NIH's Body Weight Planner

Options
beulah81
beulah81 Posts: 168 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
When I plug my numbers into NIH's planner the difference in calorie # is significantly different from MFP's. For example, to maintain my current weight at sedentary setting MFP gives me 1530 but NIH gives me 1719.

Replies

  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    Options
    The difference is probably in the activity setting. If I use the guided set up for the NIH, it puts me at an activity factor of 1.5x BMR.

    So according to the NHI, to reach my goal, I need to eat around 1800kcal day.

    MFP's sedentary activity setting is 1.2x BMR. So It tells me I need around 1350kcal day to lose weight.
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    Options
    I just ran my numbers through the NIH planner and it seems high. As far as I can tell, the "physical activity level" setting they use is the activity level multiplier based on BMR. MFP uses a multiplier of 1.25 when you choose sedentary. Most TDEE calculators use 1.2. However the NIH uses 1.4, which is significantly higher. That is the multiplier that MFP uses for lightly active.

    I am not quite sure why they use a multiplier that high, but if you are truly sedentary, you should use the MFP numbers. However if you walk at least 4000 steps a day, I'd recommend choosing lightly active on MFP. That will give you about the same level as the NIH did for sedentary.
  • beulah81
    beulah81 Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    Does the NIH include exercise in the calculations giving you a weekly TDEE?

    MFP does not include exercise, it is giving you your NEAT, calorie burn before exercise. You add exercise cals to your MFP cals. Using TDEE you don’t.

    Cheers, h.

    The NIH number does not include exercise.
  • beulah81
    beulah81 Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    MikePTY wrote: »
    I just ran my numbers through the NIH planner and it seems high. As far as I can tell, the "physical activity level" setting they use is the activity level multiplier based on BMR. MFP uses a multiplier of 1.25 when you choose sedentary. Most TDEE calculators use 1.2. However the NIH uses 1.4, which is significantly higher. That is the multiplier that MFP uses for lightly active.

    I am not quite sure why they use a multiplier that high, but if you are truly sedentary, you should use the MFP numbers. However if you walk at least 4000 steps a day, I'd recommend choosing lightly active on MFP. That will give you about the same level as the NIH did for sedentary.

    Thank you for checking Mike! I still find it puzzling why such a significant discrepancy between the two reputable sources.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    Options
    beulah81 wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    Does the NIH include exercise in the calculations giving you a weekly TDEE?

    MFP does not include exercise, it is giving you your NEAT, calorie burn before exercise. You add exercise cals to your MFP cals. Using TDEE you don’t.

    Cheers, h.

    The NIH number does not include exercise.

    I’ve just run my numbers through it and it had me include leasure time activities, that includes your exercise/sports.

    Cheers, h.
  • beulah81
    beulah81 Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    beulah81 wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    Does the NIH include exercise in the calculations giving you a weekly TDEE?

    MFP does not include exercise, it is giving you your NEAT, calorie burn before exercise. You add exercise cals to your MFP cals. Using TDEE you don’t.

    Cheers, h.

    The NIH number does not include exercise.

    I’ve just run my numbers through it and it had me include leasure time activities, that includes your exercise/sports.

    Cheers, h.

    But you can also mark "very light" and it will not add any calories to your "what you do at leisure time".
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    Options
    beulah81 wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    beulah81 wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    Does the NIH include exercise in the calculations giving you a weekly TDEE?

    MFP does not include exercise, it is giving you your NEAT, calorie burn before exercise. You add exercise cals to your MFP cals. Using TDEE you don’t.

    Cheers, h.

    The NIH number does not include exercise.

    I’ve just run my numbers through it and it had me include leasure time activities, that includes your exercise/sports.

    Cheers, h.

    But you can also mark "very light" and it will not add any calories to your "what you do at leisure time".

    Yep, I just did very light across the board and it came out at just under (negligible) MFP’s lightly active.

    I will agree with mike’s assessment that the 1.4 base is where it differs.
    Cheers, h.
  • beulah81
    beulah81 Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    beulah81 wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    beulah81 wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    Does the NIH include exercise in the calculations giving you a weekly TDEE?

    MFP does not include exercise, it is giving you your NEAT, calorie burn before exercise. You add exercise cals to your MFP cals. Using TDEE you don’t.

    Cheers, h.

    The NIH number does not include exercise.

    I’ve just run my numbers through it and it had me include leasure time activities, that includes your exercise/sports.

    Cheers, h.

    But you can also mark "very light" and it will not add any calories to your "what you do at leisure time".

    Yep, I just did very light across the board and it came out at just under (negligible) MFP’s lightly active.

    I will agree with mike’s assessment that the 1.4 base is where it differs.
    Cheers, h.

    Thank you for looking into it! 🤗
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    I run a TDEE system that I know is accurate from months of number crunching and NIH is 255 calories too high per day for me if I didn't notice the activity multiplier was too high. I set work for very light and leisure to lightly active and it gave me 1.5. I should be at 1.4 (in my system 1.375) which to get there I would need to be light on both or sedentary. This means when I really was sedentary it would have had me too high because sedentary is 1.2.
  • beulah81
    beulah81 Posts: 168 Member
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    The NIH body weight planner is based on mathematical modeling for weight loss based on the research led by Kevin Hall. Hall and his researchers produce some of the preeminent research on weight loss you can find anywhere. IMO there is no one currently more reliable than Dr Hall when it comes to research on obesity and weight loss.

    Because of all of the variables involved with estimating TDEE, and especially estimating the calorie expenditure of routine activities, there are likely going to be differences between different tools. Mainly because they are not calculating TDEE the same way.

    Here is a link explaining more about the NIH planner. I believe that page also contains a link to some of Hall’s or original research on the mathematical modeling.

    https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/laboratory-biological-modeling/integrative-physiology-section/research/body-weight-planner

    Thank you Azdak! Yes, Dr. Hall is brilliant and highly respected in his field. His lectures on YouTube are very enlightening.
  • MelanieCN77
    MelanieCN77 Posts: 4,047 Member
    Options
    I just read a couple of articles about this planner, linked from a blurb about how 3500 calories per pound is considered fuzzy. Naturally the part that stuck in my head was "may be nearer 4200" for a lot of people. Note the also fuzzy language around that, fwiw. They talk about how the 3500 rule is good at first but then most people need finer math and in comes the NIH model. Article, for the interested: https://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml

    Might shed some light on the differences you're seeing. Point being it's not a traditional TDEE calculator.

Categories