More accurate calorie goal using adaptive TDEE calculations

kb62012
kb62012 Posts: 6 Member
edited December 2024 in Getting Started
Hey everyone - I hope this is allowed as I didn't see anything against it in the rules. I'm a long time lurker of this forum and have used MFP for almost 6 years on and off now.

I think most people on here know that pretty much all TDEE calculators online work by formulas to guestimate your TDEE based on variables like weight, sex, height activity level etc. I found this super frustrating for dieting becasue my weight and activity would change over time and i'd spend a week or more at a caloric intake goal that was completely off. I'm in medical school and start residency next year so I go through cycles where im working 70-90 hours in the week and barely get time to lift or bike and then off-service weeks where i bike and lift 6-7 days/week.

Eventually i found a few spreadsheets online to get TDEE calculations based on how many calories i ate and how my weight changed which was a huge gamechanger. I just had to log my weight and calories in MFP and the excel sheet and I'd know exactly how many calories i needed to eat each day on avg.

This brings us to last month when i got too lazy to enter data into an excel sheet. I made a nice online adaptive TDEE calculator and calorie/weight tracking system inspired by the spreadsheets I was using this past year (calorietracker.io). Its completely free webapp that supports direct logging of calories and weight. you can also import logs from a csv if you have one. After you have ~10 or so logs entered it gives u a super accurate TDEE that changes as your body and habits change. for me personally i just set up the auto sync with MFP and the site stays up to date for me.

heres a screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/V1YtBOk

as you can see theres other features too like weekly summaries and what not. id love to get some beta testers/users for feedback so i can figure out where to take this project from here since it already fulfills all my personal needs.

i sincerely hope i am not breaking any rules by posting this. i do not monetize any part of this and just keep it running on donations. i would be extremely grateful for anyone to try it and share their thoughts


here is a link: https://calorietracker.io

Replies

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 10,076 Member
    The thing is though that MFP doesn't use a TDEE method but NEAT. You're supposed to eat back your workout calories as they aren't part of your calorie allowance. Seeing that you don't seem to have looked into this properly gives me a bit of a suspicion that you're only trying to advertise something.
  • kb62012
    kb62012 Posts: 6 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    The thing is though that MFP doesn't use a TDEE method but NEAT. You're supposed to eat back your workout calories as they aren't part of your calorie allowance. Seeing that you don't seem to have looked into this properly gives me a bit of a suspicion that you're only trying to advertise something.

    hey I'm sorry if my post came off as advert-y. I will be a licensed physician next year and have looked into this very deeply. In fact I have published literature in the field and on the topic so its a little concerning that you'd suggest I haven't looked into this properly.

    TDEE accounts for all of your calories that you burn from any form of activity - your basal metabolic rate, your NEAT, the thermic effect of food (TEF), and exercise activity thermogenesis (EAT). This paper has a decent figure explaining this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260397860_Metabolic_adaptation_to_weight_loss_Implications_for_the_athlete/figures

    I'm not going to go too far in depth here into why MFP's caloric goals are estimates at best but I will say that eating back your calories on MFP is always going to be a risky endeavor as estimating one's caloric burn from an exercise is in and of itself a guess.

    Calculating one's TDEE based on their actual weight change and caloric intake data is theoretically perfectly accurate assuming accurate calorie and weight input data and proper handling of noise due to day-to-day variation of weight secondary to GI losses, water weight etc.

    This is what we do for inpatients in the hospital alongside monitoring lytes and other labs since many inpatients require very strict diets that are complicated by tube feeding, being bed ridden, having disrupted GI tracts etc. For some patients an overly aggressive caloric deficit can mean months of excess rehab due to necessarily lost muscle mass because they weren't being fed enough. That is why we figure out their TDEE based on their weight change and caloric intake and adjust accordingly and often.
  • brianpperkins131
    brianpperkins131 Posts: 90 Member
    edited November 2020
    The thing is that TDEE is also an estimate which depends upon a consistent deliberate exercise amount per period of time. "Theoretically perfect" is an amazing concept that tends to fail spectacularly in the real world. NEAT includes NEF and BMR, the Boolean operator of AND is inappropriate.

    The fact you then link to some "assistant" is a bit concerning (as is the first that your first two posts were this identical OP to include the same links). But, you'll be a physician "next year" ... meaning you're not now so exactly what qualifications do you currently hold?

  • kb62012
    kb62012 Posts: 6 Member
    edited November 2020
    brianpperkins131 wrote: »
    The thing is that TDEE is also an estimate which depends upon a consistent deliberate exercise amount per period of time. "Theoretically perfect" is an amazing concept that tends to fail spectacularly in the real world. NEAT includes NEF and BMR, the Boolean operator of AND is inappropriate.

    The fact you then link to some "assistant" is a bit concerning (as is the first that your first two posts were this identical OP to include the same links). But, you'll be a physician "next year" ... meaning you're not now so exactly what qualifications do you currently hold?

    Hi there - again, maybe there is something wrong with the tone of my posts but I did not expect so much backlash here. We've had incredibly positive reception most places

    I'll address your comment piece by piece:
    brianpperkins131 wrote: »
    The thing is that TDEE is also an estimate which depends upon a consistent deliberate exercise amount per period of time.
    TDEE does not have to be an estimate if one is tracking their caloric intake and weight daily. Of course this is underpinned by Weight change = CI - CO
    brianpperkins131 wrote: »
    "Theoretically perfect" is an amazing concept that tends to fail spectacularly in the real world.
    I'm not sure what to say here honestly. This is type of calculation is what we do in the hospital for patients whose diet has serious implications for their health and recovery and the stakes are extremely high. Do you not subscribe to the concept of CICO?
    brianpperkins131 wrote: »
    NEAT includes NEF and BMR, the Boolean operator of AND is inappropriate.

    Maybe there is some discrepancy in how the terminology is used in the literature but this is not true. Also NEF is a very dated concept that has fell out of practice. I already linked one research article's figure above with an image explaining this. Feel free to disagree with literature backing you.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260397860_Metabolic_adaptation_to_weight_loss_Implications_for_the_athlete/figures

    brianpperkins131 wrote: »
    But, you'll be a physician "next year" ... meaning you're not now so exactly what qualifications do you currently hold?
    Apologies for accidentally posting in the wrong sub forum! I didn't know that my medical knowledge suddenly appears once I receive my license...it feels incredibly tacky to explicitly answer "why im qualified" in this forum but:

    I have studied sports science since I was 12, I was a national athlete and d1 recruit, graduated college, took the mcat, went into medicine because of my interest in this field, have trained numerous junior athletes, worked with a few trainers and dietitians in the NFL, work daily in a hospital collaborating with registered dietitians and nutritionists, been part of the care team for numerous patients with the full spectrum of ED, obesity etc. I could go on and on here but I think most importantly I am part of the scientific research community when it comes to medicine and specifically sports science.

    brianpperkins131 wrote: »
    The fact you then link to some "assistant" is a bit concerning (as is the first that your first two posts were this identical OP to include the same links).

    Yes the tool above is one I made personally with a fellow gym buddy of mine. It is free and open source (i.e. you can see how it works if you want on git). I do not monetize any part of it. I do not collect any data for personal gain.

    I only wish to share it because I strongly believe it is an objective improvement and advantage of what most other services and calculators offer - especially when most still rely on an dated, poorly generalizable equation from the 1970s to give out caloric goals :smile:
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,965 Member
    The method is perfectly valid, there are people on here that do precisely the same thing for themselves (in their own spreadsheet): tracking their weight trend and food intake and deducing their TDEE from that. It's not an estimate based on population averages, it's a personalised calculation (although still approximate of course).

    As for the link, it's still a sort of publicity of course. If it's free, you're the product? 😉
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    That is much easier than the types of spreadsheets that many use that do exactly the same thing.

    Not sure why you are receiving backlash either, as I've not seen those offering a spreadsheet as getting backlash.

    Perhaps you are dealing with poster that doesn't understand.

    To the point that MFP was designed for a different system does need to be accounted for - it can be tweaked to use TDEE method.

    And TDEE method has use cases where it's not useful - someone ramping up their training for endurance cardio event, not only is avg TDEE changing every week, but doing daily avg, and basing changes on weight change could be not fast enough.

    Exercise burns can be difficult - but it's not a guess either in many cases - it can be a very decent estimate.
    And most aren't doing so much exercise or so much at high intensity that a small % off effects an otherwise active lifestyle. (me yes, but not always others)

    Good tool I intend to look over better - because many are using or could easily use that method better than MFP's NEAT method.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Here's my feedback as requested (I'm assuming you are being genuine....) - some flaws in your thinking.

    #1
    No-one says that MFP's NEAT + exercise estimates shouldn't be adjusted based on actual weight trend results over time. There goes one supposed advantage....
    When I was losing weight I only needed to make one adjustment of my base goal to fine tune my weight loss rate.

    #2
    Some people have a highly varied TDEE from day to day in line with their exercise, unlike people being tube-fed while bed-ridden. That's really not a sensible or valid comparison.
    People like me in fact!
    Today my TDEE is c. 4,000 and tomorrow it will be c. 2,500 - would be pretty dumb to eat to a same every day goal.

    #3
    People like me simply don't want to eat an average amount every day. Apart from me needing to fuel some of my exercise on the day I would also find it deadly boring and restrictive for no good reason.

    #4
    People's weight changes for reasons unrelated to calorie balance. Water retention from all its many causes for example.

    #5
    Estimating calorie intake is a million miles away from perfection - outside of your irrelevant to 99% of the population example of someone being tube-fed and bed-ridden.

    #6
    Precision in all the various estimates that combine into someone's TDEE absolutely isn't required for successful weight control. The numbers involved are so large there's a wide tolerance for error and someone can still lose/gain/maintain without being precise.
  • kb62012
    kb62012 Posts: 6 Member
    Lietchi wrote: »
    The method is perfectly valid, there are people on here that do precisely the same thing for themselves (in their own spreadsheet): tracking their weight trend and food intake and deducing their TDEE from that. It's not an estimate based on population averages, it's a personalised calculation (although still approximate of course).

    As for the link, it's still a sort of publicity of course. If it's free, you're the product? 😉

    appreciate that. your last comment is very cynical but i guess i also see where you're coming from

    heybales wrote: »
    That is much easier than the types of spreadsheets that many use that do exactly the same thing.

    Not sure why you are receiving backlash either, as I've not seen those offering a spreadsheet as getting backlash.

    Perhaps you are dealing with poster that doesn't understand.

    To the point that MFP was designed for a different system does need to be accounted for - it can be tweaked to use TDEE method.

    And TDEE method has use cases where it's not useful - someone ramping up their training for endurance cardio event, not only is avg TDEE changing every week, but doing daily avg, and basing changes on weight change could be not fast enough.

    Exercise burns can be difficult - but it's not a guess either in many cases - it can be a very decent estimate.
    And most aren't doing so much exercise or so much at high intensity that a small % off effects an otherwise active lifestyle. (me yes, but not always others)

    Good tool I intend to look over better - because many are using or could easily use that method better than MFP's NEAT method.


    thanks this is really good feedback!
    sijomial wrote: »
    Here's my feedback as requested (I'm assuming you are being genuine....) - some flaws in your thinking.

    #1
    No-one says that MFP's NEAT + exercise estimates shouldn't be adjusted based on actual weight trend results over time. There goes one supposed advantage....
    When I was losing weight I only needed to make one adjustment of my base goal to fine tune my weight loss rate.

    #2
    Some people have a highly varied TDEE from day to day in line with their exercise, unlike people being tube-fed while bed-ridden. That's really not a sensible or valid comparison.
    People like me in fact!
    Today my TDEE is c. 4,000 and tomorrow it will be c. 2,500 - would be pretty dumb to eat to a same every day goal.

    #3
    People like me simply don't want to eat an average amount every day. Apart from me needing to fuel some of my exercise on the day I would also find it deadly boring and restrictive for no good reason.

    #4
    People's weight changes for reasons unrelated to calorie balance. Water retention from all its many causes for example.

    #5
    Estimating calorie intake is a million miles away from perfection - outside of your irrelevant to 99% of the population example of someone being tube-fed and bed-ridden.

    #6
    Precision in all the various estimates that combine into someone's TDEE absolutely isn't required for successful weight control. The numbers involved are so large there's a wide tolerance for error and someone can still lose/gain/maintain without being precise.

    1. totally fair and I would hope most people do that!
    2. I mentioned these patients to demonstrate the high stakes. This is the methodology used for most patients who have concerns about eating and weight - ED patients like anorexia, BN, BD, and overweight to obese patients, patients with metabolic disorders etc.. This is also used when training athletes at high levels. Especially in bodybuilding where getting to an extremely low BF% without losing muscle mass is critical
    3. 100% agree. I don't eat at the same caloric goal every day either - some days im over, some days im under. Thats why theres a big emphasis on weekly stats in our analytics page.
    4. That is correct too - that is why your current weight should never just be a single measure but a median or mean of your last few weigh-ins. This is how I handle weights in my formulas
    5. Indeed it is - again my methodology here is not simply used for bed-ridden patients. I only included that as an example where stakes are very high.
    6. You're right that not everyone needs to be precise in everything to lose weight. Plenty of people get to their goals without calorie counting all together.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 10,076 Member
    TO, let me offer my excuses. You seem genuine. <3 There are lots of people here who show up, first post is advertising something, second post seconds later is the same in another subforum. You have to admit that it looked suspicious. Maybe stick around, collect feedback for your tool and see where it goes?
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Here's my feedback as requested (I'm assuming you are being genuine....) - some flaws in your thinking.

    #1
    No-one says that MFP's NEAT + exercise estimates shouldn't be adjusted based on actual weight trend results over time. There goes one supposed advantage....
    When I was losing weight I only needed to make one adjustment of my base goal to fine tune my weight loss rate.

    #2
    Some people have a highly varied TDEE from day to day in line with their exercise, unlike people being tube-fed while bed-ridden. That's really not a sensible or valid comparison.
    People like me in fact!
    Today my TDEE is c. 4,000 and tomorrow it will be c. 2,500 - would be pretty dumb to eat to a same every day goal.

    #3
    People like me simply don't want to eat an average amount every day. Apart from me needing to fuel some of my exercise on the day I would also find it deadly boring and restrictive for no good reason.

    #4
    People's weight changes for reasons unrelated to calorie balance. Water retention from all its many causes for example.

    #5
    Estimating calorie intake is a million miles away from perfection - outside of your irrelevant to 99% of the population example of someone being tube-fed and bed-ridden.

    #6
    Precision in all the various estimates that combine into someone's TDEE absolutely isn't required for successful weight control. The numbers involved are so large there's a wide tolerance for error and someone can still lose/gain/maintain without being precise.

    I’ll second all of this.

    I am part of the swath of people for whom using a straight TDEE calculation is not the most appropriate.

    My TDEE over the last week has varied from 1500 (rest day) to 5000 (ran 50k). My calorie needs on those days is similarly varied. Obviously this is an extreme week, but a normal week includes ranges from 1600 to 4000+.

    As a pre-menopausal woman who is also an endurance athlete, my weight can fluctuate 8 or more pounds in a day. I see you’re using the median value for your calculations. That would be an accurate reflection of my trending weight for 1 of the last 17 weeks. Median is nearly always high (leading to a lower TDEE calculation - in some cases assuming a gain when my trend was still losing). It has taken some wiggling and a lot of data and time to understand my weight trends in relation to my cycle and my workouts. But since weight is one of your only 2 inputs-having something reasonable here is critically important.

    Also keep in mind there are huge numbers of people with scale anxiety-who feel weighing less often is better for their mental health.

    Which brings me to the other input. Energy units in a bag delivered to an incapacitated, bed-ridden patient are a sure thing. Energy units weighed/measured/logged by a human are almost certainly NOT a sure thing. Even registered dietitians have been shown to be off substantially in their own weighed/logged tracking-and your average Joe will be even more off (if weighing/accurately logging to begin with). An argument can be made that as long as the person is being consistent, the margin of error should be about the same - which may be true or may not. Who really knows?

    But given the number of people who clamor to the forums because they are eating (logging) 1200 calories and not losing weight, the food logging side doesn’t really seem to be a sure thing.

    As mentioned, nothing needs to be 100% accurate to bring about weight loss/maintenance. Heck-you don’t even have to log anything at all - you just need to be in a calorie deficit.

    Regardless of what method one is using to estimate a calorie deficit-MFP’s NEAT + exercise, WW points, TDEE calculation from wherever, random number picked from a blog, just “eating less and moving more”, checking results against expectations is part of that process. If your gas gauge says the tank is empty, you need to stop at a gas station regardless of the car’s advertised fuel economy.

    For someone with relatively inconsequential weight fluctuations, who has very consistent levels of activity (week to week and day to day), and logs food as accurately as possible, and wants to eat roughly the same amount every day-your tool could give them another TDEE estimate that would likely be close.


  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    edited November 2020
    .
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,148 Member
    Minority report: Though I haven't loaded data into it yet, this site seems to be *trying* to provide a function that I've long wished MFP had, to take the calorie intake estimates and weigh-in data, and combine those to help a person home in on a personalized calorie goal. (Yes, the site is going for a TDEE goal, and I get why NEAT works better for some - it does for me, since I have variable/seasonal exercise.)

    Many people here use personal spreadsheets or weight-trend apps, to do parts of the things it looks like this site is trying to automate. If it does that well, that would be a helpful thing for the (unfortunately) fairly large segment (maybe still minority) of the population that is . . . shall we say, a bit challenged? . . . when it comes to mathematical and statistical concepts, and arithmetic besides.

    If I'm correctly understanding the site's goal, and general methodology, I think it could be pretty helpful, if it works. Sure, it has certain conceptual limitations, may fit some scenarios better than others, etc., and that's worth discussing. (I hope the OP would be receptive to that discussion.)

    That we can get along fine without this kind of tool, or that it wouldn't be suited for some of our individual personal practices . . . ? Hmmm, baby/bathwater? Maybe, maybe not.

    I'd still like to know what OP's plans are, regarding monetizing this. (In-site advertising, sales of some side products/services, subscription fees, something else?) I don't feel good about providing free beta testing service for something that will become a for-pay, high-priced subscription service to the public, down the road. Some of the other monetizing models don't feel as obnoxious to me (though others are entitled to differ, of course): I don't expect people/companies to provide services that cost them time, energy and money, without any return to them. I get that some people/companies do that pure generousity thing, but it seems unreasonable to demand it, to me.
  • kb62012
    kb62012 Posts: 6 Member
    thanks for the feedback everyone. i hope people find it useful! to those who don't find it useful, your insight is appreciated
This discussion has been closed.

Categories