Calorie confusion

Leonie_M234
Leonie_M234 Posts: 57 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
So whilst googling about calorie allowance I came across this on Harvard health...
As a rough guide, a sedentary person needs about 13 calories per pound of body weight to maintain a steady weight; moderate physical activity boosts the daily quota to 16 calories a pound, vigorous exercise to 18 calories a pound each day.
This is much higher than the number that comes up on TDEE calculators to get your maintenance number. What are peoples thoughts?

Replies

  • smithsusan961
    smithsusan961 Posts: 75 Member
    Do you have the link?
  • Leonie_M234
    Leonie_M234 Posts: 57 Member
    It just comes up on google when I type this into the search harvard health- how many calories to eat ( you might be able to read the article, ive looked too many times and asking me to join up)
  • smithsusan961
    smithsusan961 Posts: 75 Member
    https://tdeecalculator.net/ is the best tdee calculator I have found. There are others I like this one.

    The article I found was very generalized and you have to have more information than they had in that article.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    I have seen numbers like that in various articles - 13 to 18 calories per pound, depending on where you fall on the sedentary to active continuum. That seems waaaaaay off to me.

    My actual ratio of TDEE to weight is currently 9.2.

    The 13 to 18 calories per pound figures don't square with any of the TDEE calculators online. TDEEcalculator.net will give you different results depending on gender, age, etc., but in general its results range from 8.5 cals per pound for a sedentary, small female to around 11 cals per pound for an active male. The ratio can definitely go up from there to as high as 14 for their top category - "athletes" - but I'm not sure how relevant that is to most people on a dieting board. But even that top activity level maxes in the 14's; 18 is just completely unrealistic. That'd entail a 160 lb 5'3" woman breaking even at 2,880 calories per day, which is a bit preposterous. TDEEcalculator.net says her break even would be 1,698, for a ratio of around 10.6.

    imho the lived experience of actual dieters suggests that a ratio of 9-11 is the typical range, and that is backed up by the tdee calculators.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,253 Member
    Cough, cough, err, not that it doesn't involve a lot of activity; because it does.

    But, cough, I just might know a 54 yo 172.25cm 154-155lb for whom 18 is perfectly valid for a tiny bit of weight loss if very active, or maintenance if a bit less active?

    2913 Cal / 162.45 = 17.93 was -11.1lbs from 168 to 156.9 Nov 2015 to Nov 2016, average steps 19597 per day
    2911 Cal / 155.55 = 18.71 was -2.7 lbs from 156.9 to 154.2 Nov 2016 to Nov 2017, average steps 19104 per day
    2920 Cal / 153.95 = 18.97 was -0.5 lbs from Nov 2016 to April 2018, average steps 18813 per day

    MFP uses Mifflin St Jeor and works as well as anything for a first approximation... which is all you need to start on your way to collecting your own data and results!

    https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ allows you to play around a bit more, if you understand what you're doing.
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    I tend not to pay too much attention to Harvard Health. It's surprising given the source, but there's a lot of pretty bad information there when it comes to diet and weight loss.

    Stepping away from the skepticism of their numbers being too high, it's also a bad idea to use weight (and activity) as the sole determiner of calorie intake. Calorie goal can vary significantly based on factors such as height, age, and gender.

    For example, using MFP's calculations, a 22 year old male who is 6'1" and 200 pounds would maintain on 2440. A 50 year old female who is 5'2" at the same exact weight would maintain at 1850. That's a substantial difference. So I would never decide based on weight alone.

    The good news is that this isn't really something we need to Google. Put your stats in either MFP or a TDEE calculator, and they will give you your maintenance target (with MFP you would eat back your exercise calories, with TDEE you would not). That is a much better place to start from rather than worrying about how many calories per pound. Then from there, you can adjust based on your personal experience, as everyone is different. But the calculators will give you a much better starting place than that article will.
  • lightenup2016
    lightenup2016 Posts: 1,055 Member
    I’ve calculated my TDEE based on my history of weight loss. At my “heavy normal” weight of 145, I maintain on 2150 calories. That’s 14.8 calories per lb. in the past, at lower weights, I’ve found that 14.5 is a pretty accurate multiplier. I’m a 5’6” female. If I used 8.5, my TDEE at 145 lbs would be 1232–and I KNOW that’s not right! Even 11 is 1595, which is what I eat to lose 1lb per week. So I don’t get those numbers of 8-11. I had always read 12-16, depending on activity.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,225 Member
    At best, it's a rough, rough rule of thumb, to get a estimate. (And I think those are higher than other estimates, too, even other TDEE estimates, especially if you're female. Was the writer male, and young? ;) ).

    The so-called "calculators" give you an estimate based on extensive research, and they consider more variables. (Keep in mind that MFP's estimate does not include intentional exercise in base calories, but expects you to add exercise when you do it. TDEE calculators include the exercies in the base calorie estimate.)

    Fitness trackers (decent quality ones) give you a personalized estimate based on essentially the same research as the "calculators" do.

    This is all assuming you set the inputs accurately, too, of course.

    Your own logging, if you're as meticulous and consistent about it as practical, will produce the best estimate.

    Still, all of them are estimates. Above, I put them in what I think is the most probable order for least to most accurate, for most people. But they're all estimates. Except for your own logging, they're giving you, in essence, the mean value (average) of a population that varies. Most people will be close (there's a small standard deviation, in statistical terms), but a few will be somewhat off (higher or lower); and a very, very few people will be off by a good bit.

    It's all estimates.

    I'm 5'5", female, around 135 pounds, age 64.

    MFP thinks I'd maintain on around 1500 + exercise; exercise is around 250-350, usually 6 days a week.
    TDEE calculators suggest about the same, for sedentary; or around 1900 for moderately active, 2100 for very active. (I'm somewhere in the moderate to very active range per Sailrabbit definitions).
    My Garmin Vivoactive 3 thinks I burn 1600-1900 or so calories most of the time.

    Nearly 5 years of logging data (food, exercise, scale weight) suggests I maintain on something in the low to mid 2000s, 2200-2400, maybe, but it's seasonal. Some women my age/size maintain below 1500, perhaps even less, varying of course with activity level.

    OP, track your intake and exercise, and watch your weight changes. At the start, use at least 4-6 weeks of data, and if you're a premenopausal female, compare the same point in 2 or more different menstrual cycles. That will give you the best handle on your personal calorie needs.
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,464 Member
    edited December 2019
    I don’t know and won’t do the research, but is it possible Harvard said “an average person”? And how tall is the “average” person? Or a “typical “ person? How old? How much do they weigh? What percentage of weight is fat? Muscle? And how do they define “sedentary”? I agree that what you have said is way too generalized for anyone to try to use it on any one person. It might be okay to use to start a conversation.
  • errollmaclean
    errollmaclean Posts: 562 Member
    Think of calorie goals as an estimate. Then use what your weight does; is it staying the same, going up or going down as expected, as an indicator of whether you need to be more accurate with your calorie logging or if you can add or reduce calories based on your goals. Calories burned during exercise, is also an estimate, which is why many people advise only eating back a portion instead of all of your burned calories.

    Even though I'm not very active I found once I set my activity level to active, MFP gave me calories that matched up exactly with my settings. It took a while to figure out weekly vs monthly fluctuations in my weight, but now I can just dial my calorie goals in manually for the results I want.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    I’ve seen similar estimating methods but the sedentary number is usually more like 10 or maybe 11. That’s pretty close (for me).

    I’m training for a marathon (which makes me pretty active) and I am averaging about 14-15 calories/pound for maintenance. But aside from my exercise, I am very sedentary - so I would assume 18 would be close for someone who is overall very active (exercise and lifestyle whereas I am extremely active but only in exercise).

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    All estimating methods are estimates, as others have already stated. I think you contribute to your own confusion by checking lots of different ones. Pick one, MFP, a TDEE calculator, whatever you wish. Use it. Track for results compared to estimates for 10 weeks. Adjust based on your own actual data.
  • Leonie_M234
    Leonie_M234 Posts: 57 Member
    Thanks for the comments everyone, I find it really interesting
    @smithsusan961 Thanks that seems to match my own data.

Categories