What is your actual TDEE?

Confuzzled4ever

I don't really understand this.. I think you're saying that my metabolism is so slow.. that instead of bringing my tdee up when i exercise, my body slows it down further to compensate for the extra calories expenditure?? That just seems opposite to everything I've heard before..

i don't know how long I wasn't eating enough.. I only became aware of it when I landed in the hospital. So you're saying that because of that.. even though I was eating too much for 34 years prior to that.. I've screwed my metabolism and can't get it back?

None of this makes any sense to me.

You are raising your TDEE when you exercise, no doubt about it.

But what several studies have shown for those undereating, in order to leave you might say enough calories for the BMR functions, your other daily activity slows down, your NEAT.
So while you may add 400 in exercise, you lose 300 in NEAT. So you do indeed gain 100 in TDEE overall - but not the 400 you think.

The more recent studies have found that in addition to that effect, you body gets more efficient at everything, even exercise, and you don't burn as much. This is a suppressed TDEE. One study found up to 15%, another up to 20%.

If you want to find out about it, this topic starts out with the studies, other studies are scattered throughout the post, along with great BBC report talking to 2 of the scientist with their comments.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

That's why the method being discussed of honing in on true TDEE is so useful. It could take years eating at maintenance slowly trying to raise your calories to totally repair that effect.
So you might as well tackle the weight loss with the problem, and then hope you can survive in maintenance, and get it back later.

that was pretty interesting.... I didn't read the whole thread tho.. only the first few posts where OP explains everything. Did I miss where he says how long you have to be eating VLCD for this to occur?? It is interesting how an obese person who loses weight will likely have a lower TDEE then a person of the same weight and body comp who has never been obese.

WalkingAlong

I think he's saying body comp changes raised his NEAT without having to increase activity level. (It's one of the things I hope to accomplish by adding skeletal muscle, too.)

Are you sure you don't mean body comp changes raised his BMR? I don't see how you could raise your non-exercise activity thermogenesis without raising your non-exercise activity. It's the definition of NEAT.

200 is a lot of calories. It would imply he added 20-34 lbs. of muscle in a few months. I'm not sure if that's possible, especially eating at a deficit.

http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/

What I mean is that there would be a difference between me with 150 lbs of LBM and walking 5 miles a day, versus me with 160 lbs of LBM and walking 5 miles a day. It takes more energy (on the BMR side) to maintain muscle mass, and it also takes more energy to do stuff with it. IOW you wouldn't feel any difference between walking 5 miles from one scenario to the other and wouldn't need to change habits or anything, but you would end up using more calories to do it.

(Not sure that it would account for an additional 200 a day though.)

Ok, thanks, I get it. You'd have to gain almost 75 lbs. to burn 200 calories more over 5 miles walked.

jofjltncb6

I think he's saying body comp changes raised his NEAT without having to increase activity level. (It's one of the things I hope to accomplish by adding skeletal muscle, too.)

Are you sure you don't mean body comp changes raised his BMR? I don't see how you could raise your non-exercise activity thermogenesis without raising your non-exercise activity. It's the definition of NEAT.

200 is a lot of calories. It would imply he added 20-34 lbs. of muscle in a few months. I'm not sure if that's possible, especially eating at a deficit.

http://www.builtlean.com/2013/04/16/muscle-burn-calories/

What I mean is that there would be a difference between me with 150 lbs of LBM and walking 5 miles a day, versus me with 160 lbs of LBM and walking 5 miles a day. It takes more energy (on the BMR side) to maintain muscle mass, and it also takes more energy to do stuff with it. IOW you wouldn't feel any difference between walking 5 miles from one scenario to the other and wouldn't need to change habits or anything, but you would end up using more calories to do it.

(Not sure that it would account for an additional 200 a day though.)

Ok, thanks, I get it. You'd have to gain almost 75 lbs. to burn 200 calories more over 5 miles walked.

200 calories more over 5 miles walked <> 200 calories more during whole day (including 5 mile walk)

MelodyandBarbells

Holy 2406! That's a good number to have. I did assume a 1 lb loss over the last month because although I weigh maybe monthly-ish, I do not necessarily record what day I weighed what.

heybales

that was pretty interesting.... I didn't read the whole thread tho.. only the first few posts where OP explains everything. Did I miss where he says how long you have to be eating VLCD for this to occur?? It is interesting how an obese person who loses weight will likely have a lower TDEE then a person of the same weight and body comp who has never been obese.

The time taken, and likely the repair time too, depends on genetics, your body's ability to recover, or in this case you might say get more inefficient using calories, what other stresses are you putting it under, ect.

Folks with a disease will have a harder time. Like diabetes, even with meds it can be stressful, still more fluctuations with blood sugar usually the body would rather not have to deal with.

Start at the last pages in that topic, it was actually a link to youtube video for a HBO documentary Health of the Nation. Page 14 near the bottom is link. Very interesting. Dr went to 800 calorie diet to speed up the effect. But other studies have seen similar on 1200 calorie diets when that was too low too for person and their activity. And this is gross, not NET like MFP tries to do if people followed it. Then again, the 800 cal study had no exercise.

norcal_yogi

bump

WalkingAlong

200 calories more over 5 miles walked <> 200 calories more during whole day (including 5 mile walk)

But we're talking about increasing NEAT by 200 calories, not BMR and not exercise.

heybales

200 calories more over 5 miles walked <> 200 calories more during whole day (including 5 mile walk)

But we're talking about increasing NEAT by 200 calories, not BMR and not exercise.

Agreed, that scenario still wasn't right.

Walking 5 miles with increased LBM but the same weight doesn't change the calorie burn of needing to move that mass at same pace/distance/time.
And the increased LBM doesn't change the BMR/RMR that much higher for base calories, not all day even.

About the only way to get 200 more NEAT would be to in general be more active daily - or gain a lot of weight! But that defeats the purpose unless it is LBM that is gained causing the weight increase.

Mr_Knight

NEAT is non-exercise activity thermogenesis, or what you burn from normal movement (not exercise, not BMR). How could your NEAT be 2800? If your total burn is 3550, of which exercise is 750 and BMR is 2050, your NEAT would be 750. And how could it be 200 calories higher now than before without any change in non-exercise activity?

Yes, sorry, my bad on the terminology - by NEAT I meant "TDEE - Exercise".

"TDEE-Exercise" (or NEAT + BMR) went up ~200 calories over a 4 month period.

WalkingAlong

If your activity didn't increase, that leaves BMR. I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just doesn't make sense to me. At 6-10 calories burned per pound of muscle, that'd mean you added 20-33 lbs. of muscle without a calorie surplus (I assume) or a weight gain (I assume).

snakebites94

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?

what happens if you use this method but instead of the amount of calories you ate, you use the NET calories you ate...is that TDEE accurate as a net goal or not?

DebbieLyn63

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?

what happens if you use this method but instead of the amount of calories you ate, you use the NET calories you ate...is that TDEE accurate as a net goal or not?

That would throw it completely off. This method is a simple calculation of calories in calories out. If you averaged 2000 cals per day eaten, and maintained your weight for a month, then your actual TDEE is 2000. It doesn't matter if you exercised or not, so net calories doesn't matter.
Adding or subtracting the 3500 per pound gained or lost is simply bringing you to maintenance for the purpose of calculating your average intake.

It is not nearly as complicated as some people are trying to make it out to be.

Many of us have quite different actual TDEEs than the Scooby, or MFP calculators say we should have. My actual TDEE is only around 1600, whereas the online calculators try to put it well over 2000.

AsianSuperfly

Bumping for the read.

mrsamanda86

Thank you SO much for posting this liftallthepizzas!!! I just went back 60 days and did an average for each 30-day period and figured out my TDEE.
11/09-12/08= 2156
10/09-11/08=2192
Which pretty much makes perfect sense to me seeing how I lost weight during that time which I would think would bring my TDEE down a bit in the process. So now I know, as long as my average is about 1600 cals/day I should keep losing roughly 1lb/week for now! I've been using MFP's way of counting and then eating back my exercise, mainly just because I like the whole "earning your exercise cals" but I think I might finally make the switch to just setting it at 1600 and doing like 1 calorie for logging my exercise(just so I can tell how many days I worked out when I look back). THANKS!

heybales

Thank you SO much for posting this liftallthepizzas!!! I just went back 60 days and did an average for each 30-day period and figured out my TDEE.
11/09-12/08= 2156
10/09-11/08=2192
Which pretty much makes perfect sense to me seeing how I lost weight during that time which I would think would bring my TDEE down a bit in the process. So now I know, as long as my average is about 1600 cals/day I should keep losing roughly 1lb/week for now! I've been using MFP's way of counting and then eating back my exercise, mainly just because I like the whole "earning your exercise cals" but I think I might finally make the switch to just setting it at 1600 and doing like 1 calorie for logging my exercise(just so I can tell how many days I worked out when I look back). THANKS!

If you go to that method, with only 20 lbs to go, that makes the deficit almost 30% - rather a lot for so little left to lose.

Be better at 20-15% deficit off TDEE.

If you keep doing the MFP method, sounds like already at the 1 lb weekly loss goal, at 10 lbs left, best for change to 1/2 lb loss weekly.

Less to lose, slower you should try to go, or just setting your self up for a fight against your body and benefiting from exercise done.

mrsamanda86

Thank you SO much for posting this liftallthepizzas!!! I just went back 60 days and did an average for each 30-day period and figured out my TDEE.
11/09-12/08= 2156
10/09-11/08=2192
Which pretty much makes perfect sense to me seeing how I lost weight during that time which I would think would bring my TDEE down a bit in the process. So now I know, as long as my average is about 1600 cals/day I should keep losing roughly 1lb/week for now! I've been using MFP's way of counting and then eating back my exercise, mainly just because I like the whole "earning your exercise cals" but I think I might finally make the switch to just setting it at 1600 and doing like 1 calorie for logging my exercise(just so I can tell how many days I worked out when I look back). THANKS!

If you go to that method, with only 20 lbs to go, that makes the deficit almost 30% - rather a lot for so little left to lose.

Be better at 20-15% deficit off TDEE.

If you keep doing the MFP method, sounds like already at the 1 lb weekly loss goal, at 10 lbs left, best for change to 1/2 lb loss weekly.

Less to lose, slower you should try to go, or just setting your self up for a fight against your body and benefiting from exercise done.

Did I somehow do the math wrong(very possible)?
2100/10=210 210*8=1680 Wouldn't 1680 be 20%?

I wanted to stick to losing 1 pound a week until I get down to 130(I'm 140 right now) and then just do half a pound a week for the last 10.

melaniecheeks

I think this expects a degree of accuracy which just isn't possible. Your scales aren't that accurate, your calories eaten will not be exact, the 3500 is an approximation.

heybales

Thank you SO much for posting this liftallthepizzas!!! I just went back 60 days and did an average for each 30-day period and figured out my TDEE.
11/09-12/08= 2156
10/09-11/08=2192
Which pretty much makes perfect sense to me seeing how I lost weight during that time which I would think would bring my TDEE down a bit in the process. So now I know, as long as my average is about 1600 cals/day I should keep losing roughly 1lb/week for now! I've been using MFP's way of counting and then eating back my exercise, mainly just because I like the whole "earning your exercise cals" but I think I might finally make the switch to just setting it at 1600 and doing like 1 calorie for logging my exercise(just so I can tell how many days I worked out when I look back). THANKS!

If you go to that method, with only 20 lbs to go, that makes the deficit almost 30% - rather a lot for so little left to lose.

Be better at 20-15% deficit off TDEE.

If you keep doing the MFP method, sounds like already at the 1 lb weekly loss goal, at 10 lbs left, best for change to 1/2 lb loss weekly.

Less to lose, slower you should try to go, or just setting your self up for a fight against your body and benefiting from exercise done.

Did I somehow do the math wrong(very possible)?
2100/10=210 210*8=1680 Wouldn't 1680 be 20%?

I wanted to stick to losing 1 pound a week until I get down to 130(I'm 140 right now) and then just do half a pound a week for the last 10.

I used what you gave rounded - 1600 / 2200 = 73% of TDEE eaten, meaning deficit is 27%.

Yes, rounding down to 2100 and up to 1680 makes 20%.

Easier way - TDEE x 0.8 = eaten (that's 20%, or 0.2 off 100%, or 1)

mrsamanda86

Thank you SO much for posting this liftallthepizzas!!! I just went back 60 days and did an average for each 30-day period and figured out my TDEE.
11/09-12/08= 2156
10/09-11/08=2192
Which pretty much makes perfect sense to me seeing how I lost weight during that time which I would think would bring my TDEE down a bit in the process. So now I know, as long as my average is about 1600 cals/day I should keep losing roughly 1lb/week for now! I've been using MFP's way of counting and then eating back my exercise, mainly just because I like the whole "earning your exercise cals" but I think I might finally make the switch to just setting it at 1600 and doing like 1 calorie for logging my exercise(just so I can tell how many days I worked out when I look back). THANKS!

If you go to that method, with only 20 lbs to go, that makes the deficit almost 30% - rather a lot for so little left to lose.

Be better at 20-15% deficit off TDEE.

If you keep doing the MFP method, sounds like already at the 1 lb weekly loss goal, at 10 lbs left, best for change to 1/2 lb loss weekly.

Less to lose, slower you should try to go, or just setting your self up for a fight against your body and benefiting from exercise done.

Did I somehow do the math wrong(very possible)?
2100/10=210 210*8=1680 Wouldn't 1680 be 20%?

I wanted to stick to losing 1 pound a week until I get down to 130(I'm 140 right now) and then just do half a pound a week for the last 10.

I used what you gave rounded - 1600 / 2200 = 73% of TDEE eaten, meaning deficit is 27%.

Yes, rounding down to 2100 and up to 1680 makes 20%.

Easier way - TDEE x 0.8 = eaten (that's 20%, or 0.2 off 100%, or 1)

Thank you for taking the time to respond! I rounded down to 2100 mainly just because I figure it'll drop again by the end of the month.
I also went back to check what my overall averages on intake were for the past two months, and the first month I lost 5.8 pounds with an intake of 1516. The second month I lost exactly 6 pounds with an intake of 1456 a day. I upped my daily goal to 1600 for now, and so I'm thinking that should slow down the loss a bit right there and then, as long as this all goes well, next month I'll up it a bit more to slow down the loss.

PixieAdele

Bump for future ref. thanks