Should we not all be more overweight?
hamburger100
Posts: 9 Member
Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
0
Replies
-
Any TDEE calculator is just an estimate based on statistical averages. So by definition a lot of people will be close to average and fewer people will be further from average, both above and below.
So it could very well be that your actual TDEE is higher than calculated. Other people find the opposite, that they need to eat less than calculators estimate.
I've tracked my intake for a long time now and I do seem to have a slightly higher TDEE than estimated (regardless of being in a calorie deficit or not).
Something else to take into consideration is that in 'calories in' can influence our 'calories out':
- eating less can give a signal to our bodies that food is scarce and energy needs to be conserved (slower rate of hair and nail growth, etc.) and on the opposite end eating over maintenance can give a signal that food is plentiful and energy doesn't need to be used quite as frugally.
- there might be other effects too of eating less (or too little) such as being more tired (so moving less), fidgeting less,...
- some foods require more energy to digest than others (protein requires more energy for example)2 -
hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
I think you're slightly misunderstanding the recommendation. People generally mean 250-500 below your TDEE, not what you're currently eating, especially if you're currently gaining weight. Yes, if you're gaining 2 pounds a week, and only reduce your calorie intake by 500, you will continue gaining at a rate of 1 pound per week instead of 2. This is why people who massively overeat are often shook over how little they can eat in order to lose weight.1 -
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5ft5, 62kg - not tiny IMHO and well below 1650 calories BMR
(just under 1300)
Us 'womenses' have slightly slower BMRs generally speaking
5 -
For sedentary, calculatirs give me about 1650/day. In reality it’s somewhat higher though. Plus exercise on top. Might not be a lit, but just 100 calories are easy to exercise. And it all adds up1
-
hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
If your TDEE is in fact 1650 calories and you regularly ate 2000 calories, then yes...you would be gaining weight. If you're regularly eating 2000 calories and not gaining weight then 1650 calories is not your TDEE...your actual TDEE would be higher than you're estimating.3 -
So how many calories are you eating? And are you gaining weight on it?
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5ft5, 62kg - not tiny IMHO and well below 1650 calories BMR (just under 1300)
Us 'womenses' have slightly slower BMRs generally speaking
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
So how many calories are you eating? And are you gaining weight on it?
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5ft5, 62kg - not tiny IMHO and well below 1650 calories BMR (just under 1300)
Us 'womenses' have slightly slower BMRs generally speaking
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I have no problem on principle to answer this question (it would require some research however ).
But how would my answer relate to my point being than you don't need to be 'TINY' to have a BMR below 1650? I would have zero issues with you saying that an average BMR for men is 1650.2 -
So how many calories are you eating? And are you gaining weight on it?
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5ft5, 62kg - not tiny IMHO and well below 1650 calories BMR (just under 1300)
Us 'womenses' have slightly slower BMRs generally speaking
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I have no problem on principle to answer this question (it would require some research however ).
But how would my answer relate to my point being than you don't need to be 'TINY' to have a BMR below 1650? I would have zero issues with you saying that an average BMR for men is 1650.
I would guess he's taking the average between both women and men. Avg BMR for women is around 1400 calories...1800 calories for men. Average of the two would be around 1600. Just hazarding a guess with math.1 -
Hi again, sorry, I don't think I've been very clear. Firstly I'm a 65 year old, 5ft 2in female (yes, 😂Hamburger100 does, somehow, imply a male), with an office job, and I'm mostly sedentary. I thought/think my TDEE is around 1650, especially as I lose very slowly on 1350 calories. So when NOT dieting, and perhaps eating 2000 calories or more, (🙄I love wine!), how come I'm not gaining weight like mad? I was just curious .........and I'm now confusing myself even more!!!🤣🤣🤣1
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »
So how many calories are you eating? And are you gaining weight on it?
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5ft5, 62kg - not tiny IMHO and well below 1650 calories BMR (just under 1300)
Us 'womenses' have slightly slower BMRs generally speaking
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I have no problem on principle to answer this question (it would require some research however ).
But how would my answer relate to my point being than you don't need to be 'TINY' to have a BMR below 1650? I would have zero issues with you saying that an average BMR for men is 1650.
I would guess he's taking the average between both women and men. Avg BMR for women is around 1400 calories...1800 calories for men. Average of the two would be around 1600. Just hazarding a guess with math.
Well, I tried to find some numbers via Google but couldn't find a clear answer quickly, except a website stating 1400 average for women and 1650 for men. Surprisingly hard to find clear numbers (quickly).
But I stand by my statement that being tiny is not required to have a BMR below 1650 🙂2 -
hamburger100 wrote: »Hi again, sorry, I don't think I've been very clear. Firstly I'm a 65 year old, 5ft 2in female (yes, 😂Hamburger100 does, somehow, imply a male), with an office job, and I'm mostly sedentary. I thought/think my TDEE is around 1650, especially as I lose very slowly on 1350 calories. So when NOT dieting, and perhaps eating 2000 calories or more, (🙄I love wine!), how come I'm not gaining weight like mad? I was just curious .........and I'm now confusing myself even more!!!🤣🤣🤣
This indicates your TDEE is actually around 2000 calories. No need to be confused! Sometimes (usually) calculated TDEE's are wrong.0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »hamburger100 wrote: »Hi again, sorry, I don't think I've been very clear. Firstly I'm a 65 year old, 5ft 2in female (yes, 😂Hamburger100 does, somehow, imply a male), with an office job, and I'm mostly sedentary. I thought/think my TDEE is around 1650, especially as I lose very slowly on 1350 calories. So when NOT dieting, and perhaps eating 2000 calories or more, (🙄I love wine!), how come I'm not gaining weight like mad? I was just curious .........and I'm now confusing myself even more!!!🤣🤣🤣
This indicates your TDEE is actually around 2000 calories. No need to be confused! Sometimes (usually) calculated TDEE's are wrong.
While I would agree that TDEE calculators only provide estimates based on population statistics, and certainly aren't gospel and can certainly be off, I've also noticed that many people don't use accurate inputs. A lot of people seem to be scared to put in anything other than sedentary even if their day to day lives and exercise are anything but sedentary. Basically a garbage in, garbage out scenario.2 -
hamburger100 wrote: »Hi again, sorry, I don't think I've been very clear. Firstly I'm a 65 year old, 5ft 2in female (yes, 😂Hamburger100 does, somehow, imply a male), with an office job, and I'm mostly sedentary. I thought/think my TDEE is around 1650, especially as I lose very slowly on 1350 calories. So when NOT dieting, and perhaps eating 2000 calories or more, (🙄I love wine!), how come I'm not gaining weight like mad? I was just curious .........and I'm now confusing myself even more!!!🤣🤣🤣
How long have you been at this? Even in menopause (as I'd guess you are), it takes 4-6 weeks at consistent reduced calories to reality-test a calorie needs estimate.
If you lose faster than just slightly more than half a pound a week on average over many weeks, then your TDEE is more than 1650. As has been said, not everyone is close to the calculators. IIRC, MFP thinks I'd maintain on something around 1500+exercise, and I actually maintain (for 7+ years now) on more like 2000+exercise, at 5'5", low 130s pounds, age 68 in a couple of weeks, female.
Also, human bodies are dynamic. Calories in affect calories out. Anecdotally, it seems like some people respond more dramatically than others to calorie intake changes, i.e., they're more lively at higher calories (from everything from metabolism up to daily movement and exercise intensity). Lower calories, they down-regulate.
That sort of thing can be pretty subtle: Do you notice how much you fidget? I don't. But even fidgeting can make a difference of something in the low hundreds of calories per day, potentially, according to some research I've seen.
On top of that, if you ate 2000, any weight gain would be fairly slow, even if 1650 is correct. Half a pound a week gain plays peek-a-boo on the scale for a long time with water weight changes and fluctuations in digestive tract contents that will eventually exit as waste. People show up here wondering how they gained 20 pounds in a year "without doing anything different". That's how. The slow creep can lull us into not noticing, and the "vanity sizing" size creep reinforces that lack of noticing.
But sometimes it's just a mystery, honestly.
Best wishes going forward!
1 -
Thank you again everyone. I feel I'm permanently dieting although I'm obviously not, (I'm 158lbs by the way), and I think I just lose a few, then get hungry/fed-up and gain it back again. I'm also not a fidget, sadly. Looking on Sailrabbit, when/if I'm lightly active my BMR is 1251 and my TDEE is 1671. Maybe I should take everyones advise and raise my numbers a bit and assume I burn more than thought. Thank you again all.1
-
hamburger100 wrote: »Thank you again everyone. I feel I'm permanently dieting although I'm obviously not, (I'm 158lbs by the way), and I think I just lose a few, then get hungry/fed-up and gain it back again. I'm also not a fidget, sadly. Looking on Sailrabbit, when/if I'm lightly active my BMR is 1251 and my TDEE is 1671. Maybe I should take everyones advise and raise my numbers a bit and assume I burn more than thought. Thank you again all.
What does your day to day actually look like? Also remember Sailrabit is a TDEE calculator for which you are supposed to account for your day to day goings on as well as purposeful exercise. If you're not doing any kind of regular exercise, starting is a good way to bump up your TDEE.0 -
hamburger100 wrote: »Thank you again everyone. I feel I'm permanently dieting although I'm obviously not, (I'm 158lbs by the way), and I think I just lose a few, then get hungry/fed-up and gain it back again. I'm also not a fidget, sadly. Looking on Sailrabbit, when/if I'm lightly active my BMR is 1251 and my TDEE is 1671. Maybe I should take everyones advise and raise my numbers a bit and assume I burn more than thought. Thank you again all.
I don't think we're all telling you that you should raise your calorie intake. For sure, I'm not. My point is that a calculator (MFP or whatever) doesn't tell you what your calorie needs are or what your calorie deficit is.
What a so-called calculator does is give you a starting estimate of those things. The estimate is basically the statistical average for people similar to you on the superficial things the calculator knows about you (age, weight, etc.). You're not an average, you're an individual. Most people are close to average, but not all.
I'm suggesting that you should start with a sensible calorie level (which 1350 may be), follow it reasonably closely for 4-6 weeks, and see how fast you lose weight. That's how you reality test the starting estimate, and figure out a more personalized estimate of your calorie needs.
If you don't have a lot to lose, half a pound a week would be a reasonable target, and that will take many weeks to show up clearly on the scale amongst routine water and waste fluctuations.
During that 4-6 weeks, if you seem to be losing much faster than your intent, and at the same time begin to feel fatigued or weak for no other obvious reason, eat more. Otherwise, stick it out. That will give you the information you need to make personalized calorie goals.1 -
Thank you all.0
-
I took the average. What I didn't ask was age since that also affects BMR calculation. But asking a woman's age..........
So how many calories are you eating? And are you gaining weight on it?
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5ft5, 62kg - not tiny IMHO and well below 1650 calories BMR (just under 1300)
Us 'womenses' have slightly slower BMRs generally speaking
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I have no problem on principle to answer this question (it would require some research however ).
But how would my answer relate to my point being than you don't need to be 'TINY' to have a BMR below 1650? I would have zero issues with you saying that an average BMR for men is 1650.
But reading back, the OP is 5'2 and over 60. Kinda tiny.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Unless you're really TINY, 1650 calories is an average for most people's BMR (basal metabolic rate). That's the rate you burn if you just lied in bed for 24 hours doing nothing. Add in your regular movement and even just a little exercise (say 300 calories) you'd then be over 2000 calories TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). So at that point, eating 2000 calories would just maintain weight.hamburger100 wrote: »Hi there, I know we're told that to lose .5lb per week/1lb per week, we need to reduce our calories by 250/500 calories. However, if my TDEE is only 1650 calories I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't ordinarily, (when not dieting), easily eat 2000 or more calories per day, which would mean I would gain weekly. Does anyone else think the same?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I’m similar to the OP. With my normal everyday activity my TDEE is around 1650-1700 (BMR around 1250). If I add exercise and constant activity I’ll reach the 2100 range. With that though, I burn out quickly in the week and my appetite becomes ravenous. What do you recommend for your clients as a happy medium? There’s just not much wiggle room here for us, is there?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions