What is your actual TDEE?

UCSMiami

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

I use this and find it quite accurate based on the previous two years. I went on a cut last July-August and the numbers were within single digit percentage points.

Reset the values and started bulking and find the numbers are correct as well.

LiftAllThePizzas

I get over 3,000 TDEE most days.. ... wayyy more then any calculator ever told me..

2800 is a low day for me apparently.

Your method only works if you are actually losing weight.. I'm losing inches not weight.. there is no way i'm eating 3000 calories per day.. i weigh and log everything.

You think you burn over 3000 calories a day.... but you're eating way less than 3000 calories a day..... and you're not losing weight?

I've got some news for you..

I measure and log everything. Good, Bad or in between. I leave out nothing. So unless the calories are way off in the database (which since everyone uses the database I doubt that) It should be fairly accurate. My body bugg might over estimate a little, but I cant' imagine it's over estimating that much. I don't think I burn that much, it's what it tells me. But I am super active. Even if it's off by a few hundred I'm still way under what it says I should be eating. I did gain some weight back a few weeks ago, but it's gone now. I've also changed my workout routine and increased what I was eating, so that might have messed with things?

Where did you get the 3000/2700 from?

If you're not losing weight, you are eating at maintenance. Whatever you are eating now is your TDEE.

from my body bugg. That is only off my body for 15/20 minutes a day. - I doubt my TDEE is 1700 or less.. gives me a reading of more like 3500 on the weekends,. because I am more active when not working.

If you are eating X amount of calories and not gaining or losing, then X is your TDEE. How else do you explain that you are not losing or gaining?

Cindyinpg

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

I use this and find it quite accurate based on the previous two years. I went on a cut last July-August and the numbers were within single digit percentage points.

Reset the values and started bulking and find the numbers are correct as well.

Yep, it gave me 2480. Right where I should be.

subsonicbassist

Did you find the calculators to estimate your TDEE too high or too low or pretty close to the mark? I'm not close enough to goal to do the test and I'm curious since I'm basing my daily calories on the TDEE I expect to have at goal weight.

Thanks!

On scoobysworkshop I have to put "5-6 hours a week of strenuous exercise" in order to get up to 3050. (The next one down gives me 2700.)

I have a high NEAT, but I don't do that much "exercise."

So the calcs underestimate for me by about 10%.

I just tried Scooby's estimator and it says my TDEE is over 8k calories... hmmmm, I weightlift 3 times a week, have a sedentary job, am 26 yo male with 28% Bodyfat and I'm 6'8".... use IIFYM.com calculator, much more accurate!

phytogurl

I did this last month and probable should recalculate since my activity level this month is lower.

QuietBloom

It's one thing to have a calculator tell you, another to see the real results. :happy:

Take the amount of calories you ate in a 28 day period, and add 3500 for each pound you lost during that period (or subtract 3500 for each pound gained) and divide that total by 28.

Here are mine:

Feb 1 - March 1 (29 days, started at 188 lbs)
77630 eaten
2 lbs lost (+7000 = 84630)
TDEE = 2918 (84630 / 29)

Sep 1 - Sep 29 (29 days, started at 178 lbs)
76626 calories eaten
1.8 lbs lost (+6300 = 82926)
TDEE = 2859 (82926 / 29)

What's your TDEE?

Excellent method, the only couple of problems with the method for many are that they started from the wrong side of the range from good to bad level of deficit amounts.

If the loss included muscle mass because deficit was too great, not enough protein, and no resistance training - then the 3500 assumption doesn't work.

If the logging had enough inaccuracies in it, not the food, but the meals or days, then TDEE is actually higher than calculated.
If you had 6 days of binges in there (easily could be done if undereating and hangry) where you logged nothing, that's 14% of the days missing data.
If you have 2 or 3 meals every weekend where you have no idea of the calorie count so don't even bother estimating, incomplete data.

If you started a new routine the last week before the month weigh-in, and were falsely retaining water weight.

If you just started a diet and had big water weight drop, false starting number.

Most of those things would cause the TDEE given to be artificially low, and would actually result in under-eating even more likely.

That kind of incomplete data requires longer than a month to drown out in the general noise.

So I agree a great idea, but for good application, the more incomplete the data, the longer it must be for decently correct calculation.

Thanks for weighing heybales. I agree with you, and plan to keep at this. This kind of calculation is one of the reasons I adamantly log everything, even the binges. And we never eat out, so I have good control over the actual calorie count.

I so wish I could use your spreadsheet, but my crappy home computer only has Excel 2003. 0_o

QuietBloom

OK, so I've gotten myself confused again. Isn't TDEE supposed to include your exercise calories?? If I do that, than I'm more like 1800-1900 per day.

GadgetGuy2

I'm confused. You say calculators aren't that accurate, and then you provide calculations to get it accurate.

Calculators can be automated (computer based including simple hand held calculators) or done with paper and pencil (i.e. long hand). They are still just calculations.

I thought to really get an accurate estimate of TDEE, you have to capture all the CO2 you breath out. Even then, a chemical calculation is used to translate the weight of the CO2 into kilocalories.

Where does the fat go, when you lose it? Answer: You breath the fat out as CO2. (note water is also a byproduct of the burn).

What?

I can buy a car that says on the sticker that it gets 30 MPG, and then empty the gas tank, out in 5 gallons, and run out of gas at 120 miles, or run out of gas at 180 miles. It depends on how I drive, weather/road conditions, and individual variations between vehicles.

The number on the sticker is just an estimate based on a test under certain conditions which may or may not match reality. The number I get from dividing "miles driven / 5" is the actual gas mileage for that trip.

I don't need to measure the exhaust because I already measured the amount of gas I put in.

The point is to get a reasonable estimate of, "how much food do I need to eat in order to stay the same weight?"

ETA: how much do "I" need to eat, as opposed to "a fictional idealized statistically average 175 lb 43 year old 6'1" male"

You forgot to mention that an empty gas tank was a measurement also.

In other words, you measured the amount of food you put into the car, measured the amount of exercise the car was able to do, until your gas gauge measurement said the gas was gone.

Had you measured the exhaust you would be able to calculate how much gas you burned, even though the average burn at any point along the way varied base on topography, rate of acceleration, how much you coast, standing on the break..etc.

If the gas pump I use is off by (say, for an illustrative example) enough that when it claims I put in one gallon, only half a gallon of gas actually entered my tank, then the exhaust method is going to be as inaccurate as the pump's reading.

The exhaust method might tell me I'm getting 30 miles per gallon, but I'd need to assume I'm getting 15 in order to put enough gas to get to my destination.

The number of calories in a food, and the logging techniques people use can be inaccurate, but are typically consistent for one person. That's why it's more useful to have a calibrated number. That tells me how much I need to eat, already scaled to any inaccuracies built into my calculations.

No, the exhaust method doesn't need to know how much gas was in the tank, at the beginning, along the way, or at the end. It simple measures the by products of the gasoline burn, and calculates the amount of gas that it took to make those by products.

To know average miles/gallon, you have to record how many miles you drove from the beginning of the exhaust measurement to the end of the exhaust measurent. At no time do you have to know how much gas you put into the car or how much is left,
This is because the exhaust method more directly measures the amount of gas burned, instead of estimating it from the amount put in and left over.

In the food analogy, you don't have to measure the food you put in, or the exercise that burns it, because you are measuring the by products of the food burn directly. For weight control, you have to know how much food you put in, so you don't eat more than you burn (i.e. diary calories consumed minus TDEE = budget deficit or surplus).

Confuzzled4ever

I get over 3,000 TDEE most days.. ... wayyy more then any calculator ever told me..

2800 is a low day for me apparently.

Your method only works if you are actually losing weight.. I'm losing inches not weight.. there is no way i'm eating 3000 calories per day.. i weigh and log everything.

You think you burn over 3000 calories a day.... but you're eating way less than 3000 calories a day..... and you're not losing weight?

I've got some news for you..

I measure and log everything. Good, Bad or in between. I leave out nothing. So unless the calories are way off in the database (which since everyone uses the database I doubt that) It should be fairly accurate. My body bugg might over estimate a little, but I cant' imagine it's over estimating that much. I don't think I burn that much, it's what it tells me. But I am super active. Even if it's off by a few hundred I'm still way under what it says I should be eating. I did gain some weight back a few weeks ago, but it's gone now. I've also changed my workout routine and increased what I was eating, so that might have messed with things?

Where did you get the 3000/2700 from?

If you're not losing weight, you are eating at maintenance. Whatever you are eating now is your TDEE.

from my body bugg. That is only off my body for 15/20 minutes a day. - I doubt my TDEE is 1700 or less.. gives me a reading of more like 3500 on the weekends,. because I am more active when not working.

If you are eating X amount of calories and not gaining or losing, then X is your TDEE. How else do you explain that you are not losing or gaining?

I'm not trying to,. I have no idea. Scoobies gives me 2426 if I put in very active. Even with that number I still eat more then 500 calories less everyday. Maybe TDEE is a myth.. (haha).
the IIFYM calc give me 2757 TDEE.. so not to far off what bugg says...on a light day.. If I put in everyday only (not intense) it give me 2617 and I do exercise over an hour every day.

LiftAllThePizzas

It's one thing to have a calculator tell you, another to see the real results. :happy:

Take the amount of calories you ate in a 28 day period, and add 3500 for each pound you lost during that period (or subtract 3500 for each pound gained) and divide that total by 28.

Here are mine:

Feb 1 - March 1 (29 days, started at 188 lbs)
77630 eaten
2 lbs lost (+7000 = 84630)
TDEE = 2918 (84630 / 29)

Sep 1 - Sep 29 (29 days, started at 178 lbs)
76626 calories eaten
1.8 lbs lost (+6300 = 82926)
TDEE = 2859 (82926 / 29)

What's your TDEE?

Excellent method, the only couple of problems with the method for many are that they started from the wrong side of the range from good to bad level of deficit amounts.

If the loss included muscle mass because deficit was too great, not enough protein, and no resistance training - then the 3500 assumption doesn't work.

If the logging had enough inaccuracies in it, not the food, but the meals or days, then TDEE is actually higher than calculated.
If you had 6 days of binges in there (easily could be done if undereating and hangry) where you logged nothing, that's 14% of the days missing data.
If you have 2 or 3 meals every weekend where you have no idea of the calorie count so don't even bother estimating, incomplete data.

If you started a new routine the last week before the month weigh-in, and were falsely retaining water weight.

If you just started a diet and had big water weight drop, false starting number.

Most of those things would cause the TDEE given to be artificially low, and would actually result in under-eating even more likely.

That kind of incomplete data requires longer than a month to drown out in the general noise.

So I agree a great idea, but for good application, the more incomplete the data, the longer it must be for decently correct calculation.

Wow this is almost as unnecessarily long and convoluted as IPOARM.

LiftAllThePizzas

I'm confused. You say calculators aren't that accurate, and then you provide calculations to get it accurate.

Calculators can be automated (computer based including simple hand held calculators) or done with paper and pencil (i.e. long hand). They are still just calculations.

I thought to really get an accurate estimate of TDEE, you have to capture all the CO2 you breath out. Even then, a chemical calculation is used to translate the weight of the CO2 into kilocalories.

Where does the fat go, when you lose it? Answer: You breath the fat out as CO2. (note water is also a byproduct of the burn).

What?

I can buy a car that says on the sticker that it gets 30 MPG, and then empty the gas tank, out in 5 gallons, and run out of gas at 120 miles, or run out of gas at 180 miles. It depends on how I drive, weather/road conditions, and individual variations between vehicles.

The number on the sticker is just an estimate based on a test under certain conditions which may or may not match reality. The number I get from dividing "miles driven / 5" is the actual gas mileage for that trip.

I don't need to measure the exhaust because I already measured the amount of gas I put in.

The point is to get a reasonable estimate of, "how much food do I need to eat in order to stay the same weight?"

ETA: how much do "I" need to eat, as opposed to "a fictional idealized statistically average 175 lb 43 year old 6'1" male"

You forgot to mention that an empty gas tank was a measurement also.

In other words, you measured the amount of food you put into the car, measured the amount of exercise the car was able to do, until your gas gauge measurement said the gas was gone.

Had you measured the exhaust you would be able to calculate how much gas you burned, even though the average burn at any point along the way varied base on topography, rate of acceleration, how much you coast, standing on the break..etc.

If the gas pump I use is off by (say, for an illustrative example) enough that when it claims I put in one gallon, only half a gallon of gas actually entered my tank, then the exhaust method is going to be as inaccurate as the pump's reading.

The exhaust method might tell me I'm getting 30 miles per gallon, but I'd need to assume I'm getting 15 in order to put enough gas to get to my destination.

The number of calories in a food, and the logging techniques people use can be inaccurate, but are typically consistent for one person. That's why it's more useful to have a calibrated number. That tells me how much I need to eat, already scaled to any inaccuracies built into my calculations.

No, the exhaust method doesn't need to know how much gas was in the tank, at the beginning, along the way, or at the end. It simple measures the by products of the gasoline burn, and calculates the amount of gas that it took to make those by products.

To know average miles/gallon, you have to record how many miles you drove from the beginning of the exhaust measurement to the end of the exhaust measurent. At no time do you have to know how much gas you put into the car or how much is left,
This is because the exhaust method more directly measures the amount of gas burned, instead of estimating it from the amount put in and left over.

In the food analogy, you don't have to measure the food you put in, or the exercise that burns it, because you are measuring the by products of the food burn directly. For weight control, you have to know how much food you put in, so you don't eat more than you burn (i.e. diary calories consumed minus TDEE = budget deficit or surplus).

100% completely missed the point.

When a real person eats real food in real life, guess what, they DO need to measure it in order to know how much they're eating.

When real food in real life has a calorie number associated with it, that number is an approximation that can be off by 10-20%.

I have to assume that you understand the concept of calibrating an instrument or process. Apply it here, instead of just assuming every other part of the process is magically perfect.

LiftAllThePizzas

I get over 3,000 TDEE most days.. ... wayyy more then any calculator ever told me..

2800 is a low day for me apparently.

Your method only works if you are actually losing weight.. I'm losing inches not weight.. there is no way i'm eating 3000 calories per day.. i weigh and log everything.

You think you burn over 3000 calories a day.... but you're eating way less than 3000 calories a day..... and you're not losing weight?

I've got some news for you..

I measure and log everything. Good, Bad or in between. I leave out nothing. So unless the calories are way off in the database (which since everyone uses the database I doubt that) It should be fairly accurate. My body bugg might over estimate a little, but I cant' imagine it's over estimating that much. I don't think I burn that much, it's what it tells me. But I am super active. Even if it's off by a few hundred I'm still way under what it says I should be eating. I did gain some weight back a few weeks ago, but it's gone now. I've also changed my workout routine and increased what I was eating, so that might have messed with things?

Where did you get the 3000/2700 from?

If you're not losing weight, you are eating at maintenance. Whatever you are eating now is your TDEE.

from my body bugg. That is only off my body for 15/20 minutes a day. - I doubt my TDEE is 1700 or less.. gives me a reading of more like 3500 on the weekends,. because I am more active when not working.

If you are eating X amount of calories and not gaining or losing, then X is your TDEE. How else do you explain that you are not losing or gaining?

I'm not trying to,. I have no idea. Scoobies gives me 2426 if I put in very active. Even with that number I still eat more then 500 calories less everyday. Maybe TDEE is a myth.. (haha).
the IIFYM calc give me 2757 TDEE.. so not to far off what bugg says...on a light day.. If I put in everyday only (not intense) it give me 2617 and I do exercise over an hour every day.

How much are you eating on average per day?

AHASRADA

I've been logging my food for 7 months, but only tracking daily activity with my Fitbit Zip for a month. I wasn't expecting it to be very accurate, especially when I'm doing floor work or other non-step type exercise, so I've been wearing my HRM during exercise and overriding the Fitbit's calories logged during that time. In fact, i just ordered a BM Fit armband so I would have a more accurate device, and not have to keep switching between the Fitbit and the HRM.

Still, i have been very curious to know how many calories I am actually burning per day, since I don't really trust the Fitbit "guesstimate", so I really appreciated you sharing your handy equation.

What did I discover;

Calories eaten + pounds loss = 59,546 calories over 28 days
Fitbit's estimated calorie burn = 61,684 calories over the same period

My fitbit calorie burn goal is 2150 cals. daily
How many calories did the equation tell me I burned daily: 2126!

Yay Fitbit, and yay OP for his handy calculator!

jonnythan

I've been logging my food for 7 months, but only tracking daily activity with my Fitbit Zip for a month. I wasn't expecting it to be very accurate, especially when I'm doing floor work or other non-step type exercise, so I've been wearing my HRM during exercise and overriding the Fitbit's calories logged during that time. In fact, i just ordered a BM Fit armband so I would have a more accurate device, and not have to keep switching between the Fitbit and the HRM.

Still, i have been very curious to know how many calories I am actually burning per day, since I don't really trust the Fitbit "guesstimate", so I really appreciated you sharing your handy equation.

What did I discover;

Calories eaten + pounds loss = 59,546 calories over 28 days
Fitbit's estimated calorie burn = 61,684 calories over the same period

My fitbit calorie burn goal is 2150 cals. daily
How many calories did the equation tell me I burned daily: 2126!

Yay Fitbit, and yay OP for his handy calculator!

Pretty wild that yours is that accurate too. They know what they're doing over at Fitbit.

MickeyBoo

Excellent method, the only couple of problems with the method for many are that they started from the wrong side of the range from good to bad level of deficit amounts.

If the loss included muscle mass because deficit was too great, not enough protein, and no resistance training - then the 3500 assumption doesn't work.

If the logging had enough inaccuracies in it, not the food, but the meals or days, then TDEE is actually higher than calculated.
If you had 6 days of binges in there (easily could be done if undereating and hangry) where you logged nothing, that's 14% of the days missing data.
If you have 2 or 3 meals every weekend where you have no idea of the calorie count so don't even bother estimating, incomplete data.

If you started a new routine the last week before the month weigh-in, and were falsely retaining water weight.

If you just started a diet and had big water weight drop, false starting number.

Most of those things would cause the TDEE given to be artificially low, and would actually result in under-eating even more likely.

That kind of incomplete data requires longer than a month to drown out in the general noise.

So I agree a great idea, but for good application, the more incomplete the data, the longer it must be for decently correct calculation.

OK, I'm new to the TDEE thing, so someone will need to clarify for me

I did my totals for the past month, have logged for 55 days so did a period of time in the middle that would not be affected by large water losses.

Total calories consumed 39853
On average 1428cals a day

Weight lost was 8pds = 28000

Oct 1 - Oct 28 (28 days)
39853 eaten

8 lbs lost (+28000)
Total = 67853

TDEE = 2423 (67853 / 28)

If I take 25% away to lose weight I'm left with 1818cal intake each day.

However :
My BMR on Scooby's Workshop is 1831.

TDEE was 2198 (set to sedentary)

Daily Calories to lose 25% fat loss - 1648

So does that mean technically I'm still overeating, or should I be factoring in my weekly exercise into the Scoobys calculations?

As for the pointers above:
No muscle mass loss, if anything it's gained
I logged everything religiously, the good, the bad and the binges
Middle section of my weight loss progress, no big water losses

Confuzzled4ever

I get over 3,000 TDEE most days.. ... wayyy more then any calculator ever told me..

2800 is a low day for me apparently.

Your method only works if you are actually losing weight.. I'm losing inches not weight.. there is no way i'm eating 3000 calories per day.. i weigh and log everything.

You think you burn over 3000 calories a day.... but you're eating way less than 3000 calories a day..... and you're not losing weight?

I've got some news for you..

I measure and log everything. Good, Bad or in between. I leave out nothing. So unless the calories are way off in the database (which since everyone uses the database I doubt that) It should be fairly accurate. My body bugg might over estimate a little, but I cant' imagine it's over estimating that much. I don't think I burn that much, it's what it tells me. But I am super active. Even if it's off by a few hundred I'm still way under what it says I should be eating. I did gain some weight back a few weeks ago, but it's gone now. I've also changed my workout routine and increased what I was eating, so that might have messed with things?

Where did you get the 3000/2700 from?

If you're not losing weight, you are eating at maintenance. Whatever you are eating now is your TDEE.

from my body bugg. That is only off my body for 15/20 minutes a day. - I doubt my TDEE is 1700 or less.. gives me a reading of more like 3500 on the weekends,. because I am more active when not working.

If you are eating X amount of calories and not gaining or losing, then X is your TDEE. How else do you explain that you are not losing or gaining?

I'm not trying to,. I have no idea. Scoobies gives me 2426 if I put in very active. Even with that number I still eat more then 500 calories less everyday. Maybe TDEE is a myth.. (haha).
the IIFYM calc give me 2757 TDEE.. so not to far off what bugg says...on a light day.. If I put in everyday only (not intense) it give me 2617 and I do exercise over an hour every day.

How much are you eating on average per day?

1500-1800 calories..

AshwinA7

It's definitely an interesting calculation. I never really thought about it this way.

But according to this calculation, my TDEE is way too high to be real. I'll have to be more diligent in my recording for the next few months and then check again.

TDEE = 2552.

Absolutely cannot be true, though. Based on this, 2552 with a 20% caloric reduction is a daily intake of 2041 calories which is like a dream come true compared to my current 1650 which is what I see actually works.

LiftAllThePizzas

I get over 3,000 TDEE most days.. ... wayyy more then any calculator ever told me..

2800 is a low day for me apparently.

Your method only works if you are actually losing weight.. I'm losing inches not weight.. there is no way i'm eating 3000 calories per day.. i weigh and log everything.

You think you burn over 3000 calories a day.... but you're eating way less than 3000 calories a day..... and you're not losing weight?

I've got some news for you..

I measure and log everything. Good, Bad or in between. I leave out nothing. So unless the calories are way off in the database (which since everyone uses the database I doubt that) It should be fairly accurate. My body bugg might over estimate a little, but I cant' imagine it's over estimating that much. I don't think I burn that much, it's what it tells me. But I am super active. Even if it's off by a few hundred I'm still way under what it says I should be eating. I did gain some weight back a few weeks ago, but it's gone now. I've also changed my workout routine and increased what I was eating, so that might have messed with things?

Where did you get the 3000/2700 from?

If you're not losing weight, you are eating at maintenance. Whatever you are eating now is your TDEE.

from my body bugg. That is only off my body for 15/20 minutes a day. - I doubt my TDEE is 1700 or less.. gives me a reading of more like 3500 on the weekends,. because I am more active when not working.

If you are eating X amount of calories and not gaining or losing, then X is your TDEE. How else do you explain that you are not losing or gaining?

I'm not trying to,. I have no idea. Scoobies gives me 2426 if I put in very active. Even with that number I still eat more then 500 calories less everyday. Maybe TDEE is a myth.. (haha).
the IIFYM calc give me 2757 TDEE.. so not to far off what bugg says...on a light day.. If I put in everyday only (not intense) it give me 2617 and I do exercise over an hour every day.

How much are you eating on average per day?

1500-1800 calories..

Ok. If your TDEE were higher than that, you'd be losing weight. Your TDEE is definitely not 3000 unless you are losing over a 2 lbs a week.

GadgetGuy2

100% completely missed the point.

Um.....maybe not, maybe you didn't read 100% of my post:

For weight control, you have to know how much food you put in, so you don't eat more than you burn (i.e. diary calories consumed minus TDEE = budget deficit or surplus).

When a real person eats real food in real life, guess what, they DO need to measure it in order to know how much they're eating.

When real food in real life has a calorie number associated with it, that number is an approximation that can be off by 10-20%.

I have to assume that you understand the concept of calibrating an instrument or process. Apply it here, instead of just assuming every other part of the process is magically perfect.

Yes I do. I'm reminded of having to learn how to calibrate a Metler scale in organic chemistry class. Gasoline and food fall into the category of organic chemistry. Studied cellular physiology and biochemistry also.

But..I'll admit I was wrong about CO2 in the "respiration method". Oxygen consumed, as stated by other posters, is more direct a measurement of food burned than CO2 produced.

I can admit when I am wrong.

Can you?

BusyRaeNOTBusty

If you are not loosing on what seems to be a "low" calorie level could be you aren't accurately logging and/or your are retaining water or glycogen that is "masking" the weight loss.

http://impruvism.com/slow-fat-loss/