TDEE exercise level question..??
Allup2Me78
Posts: 589 Member
I have a question for those who do the Tdee-20% method...I understand that your exercise is calculated in the settings so for instance I would be back working out 4 times a week for 30-40 min each time so that's considered 1-3 hours a week...is there no option for the level like as in lightly active, moderate etc..?? How can they determine what's needed without knowing your level. Just the hours wouldn't seem to be enough...??
0
Replies
-
The whole thing is an estimation anyway, but unless you have a moderately active job you should set it as lightly active.0
-
Thanks for your reply. I have a sit down desk job. I am thinking about reverting to this method as I hear alot of good about it.
quote]
The whole thing is an estimation anyway, but unless you have a moderately active job you should set it as lightly active.
[/quote]0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I have a question for those who do the Tdee-20% method...I understand that your exercise is calculated in the settings so for instance I would be back working out 4 times a week for 30-40 min each time so that's considered 1-3 hours a week...is there no option for the level like as in lightly active, moderate etc..?? How can they determine what's needed without knowing your level. Just the hours wouldn't seem to be enough...??
Great observation... It's not enough no. It's a really rough estimate that could be less than 50% of what's predicted.
Want the surefire way to prove it's inaccuracy? If person A has calculated a 2,000 calorie BMR and person B has a calculated 1,000 calorie BMR and they both lift the exact same weights they are generating the same amount of force therefore roughly burning the same amount of energy; however, if the activity factor is 1.5 then apparently person A is burning 1,000 calories in activity and person B is burning 500. That's a 500 calorie discrepancy which enough to halt weight loss and now you have another MFP member asking why they aren't losing weight.
Energy expenditure is incredibly difficult to assess with any degree of accuracy. Even the fitbit and heart rate monitors are grossly inaccurate (and by that I mean by 100's of calories which is enough to severely damper predicted weight loss). The only way calories burned are accurately assessed is by indirect calorimetry (a.k.a. tube hooked up to the mouth/nose measuring air properties).
There are so many factors determining expenditure it's impossible to accurately calculate. There's a plethora of other reasons why so if that isn't sufficient enough evidence I can continue...
You are trying to make it far too complicated for her.
Allup2Me: Figuring out your TDEE is going to take some experimenting. That method worked great for me. I picked a few calculators and took the middle number from them. I saw steady weight loss at that number for a long time. If you are accurate with logging you'll see the trend and decide if you should increase or decrease your calories.0 -
Thanks.I am really thinking about trying it..Just terried as I am stuck on this "shorties need less" mindset.I have a question for those who do the Tdee-20% method...I understand that your exercise is calculated in the settings so for instance I would be back working out 4 times a week for 30-40 min each time so that's considered 1-3 hours a week...is there no option for the level like as in lightly active, moderate etc..?? How can they determine what's needed without knowing your level. Just the hours wouldn't seem to be enough...??
Great observation... It's not enough no. It's a really rough estimate that could be less than 50% of what's predicted.
Want the surefire way to prove it's inaccuracy? If person A has calculated a 2,000 calorie BMR and person B has a calculated 1,000 calorie BMR and they both lift the exact same weights they are generating the same amount of force therefore roughly burning the same amount of energy; however, if the activity factor is 1.5 then apparently person A is burning 1,000 calories in activity and person B is burning 500. That's a 500 calorie discrepancy which enough to halt weight loss and now you have another MFP member asking why they aren't losing weight.
Energy expenditure is incredibly difficult to assess with any degree of accuracy. Even the fitbit and heart rate monitors are grossly inaccurate (and by that I mean by 100's of calories which is enough to severely damper predicted weight loss). The only way calories burned are accurately assessed is by indirect calorimetry (a.k.a. tube hooked up to the mouth/nose measuring air properties).
There are so many factors determining expenditure it's impossible to accurately calculate. There's a plethora of other reasons why so if that isn't sufficient enough evidence I can continue...
You are trying to make it far too complicated for her.
Allup2Me: Figuring out your TDEE is going to take some experimenting. That method worked great for me. I picked a few calculators and took the middle number from them. I saw steady weight loss at that number for a long time. If you are accurate with logging you'll see the trend and decide if you should increase or decrease your calories.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You are trying to make it far too complicated for her.
Either that or trying to explain the actual science behind it like a grown adult. We aren't children and I'm not going to treat adults as such. The clouds aren't big marshmallows in the sky you know...
The whole thing is an estimation from BMR, NEAT and exercise. Although you may have explained why exercise calories may not be accurate you didn't give her any advice on how to move forward with the information. That's great that you wanted to help by explaining, but she still wanted advice on what to do to help her determine her approximate TDEE.
You used the example of two different people, but the calorie burn for just me or just her is going to vary based on what the individual does for their workout and how intense they do it and how efficient their body has become at doing it.
The best way to determine what our bodies need is simply accurate logging (weighing everything). Although calorie and macro counts aren't 100% correct, it gives us the best idea of how much our bodies need.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I love how you were able to make your explanation both incomprehensibly complicated and completely wrong.
That takes talent.
OP: you have a sit down desk job, so my suggestion is to set activity level to sedentary. Eat back exercise calories. Stick with it every day for two months. Reevaluate then.0 -
The whole thing is an estimation from BMR, NEAT and exercise. Although you may have explained why exercise calories may not be accurate you didn't give her any advice on how to move forward with the information. That's great that you wanted to help by explaining, but she still wanted advice on what to do to help her determine her approximate TDEE.
She asked how it could be accurate, not what hers should be. How in the world could I give her information on her TDEE without any of the variables?You used the example of two different people, but the calorie burn for just me or just her is going to vary based on what the individual does for their workout and how intense they do it and how efficient their body has become at doing it.
Which is why I said two people moving the exact same weight, and for someone who says I'm over complicating things talking about energy substrate usage and individual adaption makes it much worse. This is also why I ended the conversation and specifically mentioned there's more too it that makes the accuracy even worse...The best way to determine what our bodies need is simply accurate logging (weighing everything). Although calorie and macro counts aren't 100% correct, it gives us the best idea of how much our bodies need.
How in the world does logging accurately tell me what my body needs? I could measure the results but results, particularly short term, are also very error prone to weight fluctuations from water and glycogen stores. Without verification from DXA scans or other highly accurate body composition you have no clue how much fat is actually being lost. Additionally fat itself is 60% - 85% adipose tissue making every pound of fat potentially have a different caloric value.
That's a lot of response, especially since the OP got her question answered from someone else in fewer words and in terms she can understand.0 -
How in the world does logging accurately tell me what my body needs? I could measure the results but results, particularly short term, are also very error prone to weight fluctuations from water and glycogen stores. Without verification from DXA scans or other highly accurate body composition you have no clue how much fat is actually being lost. Additionally fat itself is 60% - 85% adipose tissue making every pound of fat potentially have a different caloric value.
Someone starting out with higher body fat doesn't have to worry about the tiny details like exactly how much fat they are losing because a common long-term downward weight trend is enough to show they are losing fat. You are trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be for the general population. Most people are not trying to get to competition leanness and accurate logging over the long-term will show that they are either eating below their TDEE (and losing fat) or eating at TDEE (and maintaining) or eating above their TDEE (and gaining). You are talking short term, but I'm pretty sure most fat loss goals are measured in long-term.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-detail-oriented-do-you-need-to-be.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/fundamental-principles-versus-minor-details.html0 -
You are trying to make it far too complicated for her.
Either that or trying to explain the actual science behind it like a grown adult. We aren't children and I'm not going to treat adults as such. The clouds aren't big marshmallows in the sky you know...
You mean my dream of taking a ship.to the sky for the best smores around was a lie?
You're all smarticle. Could you explain to me in the most complicated way possible why you're an assh*le?0 -
I love how you were able to make your explanation both incomprehensibly complicated and completely wrong.
That takes talent.
OP: you have a sit down desk job, so my suggestion is to set activity level to sedentary. Eat back exercise calories. Stick with it every day for two months. Reevaluate then.
This is a great answer. I, too, have a desk job, sitting here for 9 hours, including lunch. I get up at 5am, leave at 6, start work at 7. Hour drive home. I'm basically inactive for a solid 12 hours, so I set mine to sedentary, and ate back exercise calories if I had a workout that day. It totaly worked.0 -
This is a great answer. I, too, have a desk job, sitting here for 9 hours, including lunch. I get up at 5am, leave at 6, start work at 7. Hour drive home. I'm basically inactive for a solid 12 hours, so I set mine to sedentary, and ate back exercise calories if I had a workout that day. It totaly worked.
But if you don't divide the gravity redirection field by the billy-goat gruff, another person might calculate 27 gold coins for the dragon's basket! Now subtract the vanilla wafers and all of a sudden the deflector dish has reversed polarity and you're off by 10 million calories!
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE! YOU'LL NEVER BE CLOSE!
(apologies to Penny Arcade)0 -
I love how you were able to make your explanation both incomprehensibly complicated and completely wrong.
That takes talent.
OP: you have a sit down desk job, so my suggestion is to set activity level to sedentary. Eat back exercise calories. Stick with it every day for two months. Reevaluate then.
This is a great answer. I, too, have a desk job, sitting here for 9 hours, including lunch. I get up at 5am, leave at 6, start work at 7. Hour drive home. I'm basically inactive for a solid 12 hours, so I set mine to sedentary, and ate back exercise calories if I had a workout that day. It totaly worked.
I have a similar situation. I sit for 8-10 hours a day. I do a 45-60 minute heavy lifting workout 4 times a week (almost no cardio). I use the TDEE-15% method, so I set my activity level on the calculators to lightly active. I do try to be a bit more active on weekends and not just lay around the house to make up for not being active during the week.0 -
Btente "conducts experiments", forms "theories", and "is looking for a publisher."
Translated to real-world terms, this means that Btente is trying to find an angle in the diet/fitness industry he can use to catch the attention of a publisher. One of his techniques appears to be trying to scare people away from calorie counting.
The big problem is that he doesn't seem to have figured out his angle yet, so he doesn't really have a system ready to sell.0 -
This is a great answer. I, too, have a desk job, sitting here for 9 hours, including lunch. I get up at 5am, leave at 6, start work at 7. Hour drive home. I'm basically inactive for a solid 12 hours, so I set mine to sedentary, and ate back exercise calories if I had a workout that day. It totaly worked.
But if you don't divide the gravity redirection field by the billy-goat gruff, another person might calculate 27 gold coins for the dragon's basket! Now subtract the vanilla wafers and all of a sudden the deflector dish has reversed polarity and you're off by 10 million calories!
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE! YOU'LL NEVER BE CLOSE!
(apologies to Penny Arcade)
And...now my coworkers are wondering why I'm laughing over here. :laugh::laugh::laugh::drinker:0 -
Quick tip for Btente when forming his "theories" that he'strying to publish:
Make it simple, and put the blame on other people or organizations. If you can form your theory so that fat people can think they're fat because of the government or Monsanto - bonus points for blaming both - and that the solution is simple and obvious, you'll sell a million copies.
Putting down old school, proven techniques is just a given. It's expected. That's what you add in as filler; as an afterthought. It shouldn't be what you lead in with.0 -
WRONG! The answer is purple! Because aliens don't wear hats!!! Duh. :noway:This is a great answer. I, too, have a desk job, sitting here for 9 hours, including lunch. I get up at 5am, leave at 6, start work at 7. Hour drive home. I'm basically inactive for a solid 12 hours, so I set mine to sedentary, and ate back exercise calories if I had a workout that day. It totaly worked.
But if you don't divide the gravity redirection field by the billy-goat gruff, another person might calculate 27 gold coins for the dragon's basket! Now subtract the vanilla wafers and all of a sudden the deflector dish has reversed polarity and you're off by 10 million calories!
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE! YOU'LL NEVER BE CLOSE!
(apologies to Penny Arcade)0 -
I love how you were able to make your explanation both incomprehensibly complicated and completely wrong.
That takes talent.
OP: you have a sit down desk job, so my suggestion is to set activity level to sedentary. Eat back exercise calories. Stick with it every day for two months. Reevaluate then.
This is a great answer. I, too, have a desk job, sitting here for 9 hours, including lunch. I get up at 5am, leave at 6, start work at 7. Hour drive home. I'm basically inactive for a solid 12 hours, so I set mine to sedentary, and ate back exercise calories if I had a workout that day. It totaly worked.
exactly the advice I followed as well...
worked like a charm...re-evaluated in 2months...have done TDEE-15% with gained knowledge of my activity level (consistent), knew my intake was 98% accurate because I was weighing my food...bam lost 3/4lb on average a week.
No need to complicate this process with too many numbers when MFP makes it very very very easy.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Putting down old school, proven techniques is just a given. It's expected. That's what you add in as filler; as an afterthought. It shouldn't be what you lead in with.
You do know that 60% - 70% of all weight lost by the most successful of dieters is regained after 5 years right? You do know that around 30% of the population is on a diet at all times and obesity is still growing right? You do know that there is no single weight loss study ever showing more than a 7% average body weight loss over 5 years right?
The old school techniques are very far from proven. I'm explaining the science behind why old school techniques are wrong not putting them down for s***s and grins.
Are you just spouting numbers or do you have an actual study to go with those stats? And how many of those dieters were counting calories?0 -
Thanks for your reply. I have a sit down desk job. I am thinking about reverting to this method as I hear alot of good about it.
It is a good method...and so is MFP's method. If you're doing them correctly, they come out about 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. If you are having issues losing with the MFP method it is likely you will have issues losing with the TDEE method...because the issue does not arise from the method...the issue is generally user error...if not, it is generally related to some kind of nutrient deficiency or hormonal issue that is impacting the effecting the metabolism.
TDEE is a great method for people who regularly exercise and basically are pretty darned consistent in their workouts day in and day out....MFP's methodology can be very beneficial to those new to exercise and/or who may be less consistent and/or their workouts have them all over the map. One is not inherently better than the other...but there seems to be this prevalent thought that somehow TDEE - 20% is magic or something.
Like I said, if you're comparing apples to apples it's all pretty much 6 of 1. My MFP calorie goal to lose 1 Lb per week was 1,850 calories. With exercise I was grossing around 2,150 - 2,350 calories per day depending on the workout that day. My TDEE is around 2,800 calories per day (but really it is a range, not an exact number)...my TDEE - 20% was 2,240 calories per day which falls right into MFP's target window of 2,150 - 2,350 per day...so as you can see, basically 6 of 1 with MFP's being maybe a little more exact day to day and TDEE being averaged out over the course of numerous days.0 -
Putting down old school, proven techniques is just a given. It's expected. That's what you add in as filler; as an afterthought. It shouldn't be what you lead in with.
You do know that 60% - 70% of all weight lost by the most successful of dieters is regained after 5 years right? You do know that around 30% of the population is on a diet at all times and obesity is still growing right? You do know that there is no single weight loss study ever showing more than a 7% average body weight loss over 5 years right?
The old school techniques are very far from proven. I'm explaining the science behind why old school techniques are wrong not putting them down for s***s and grins.
So because most people can't stick to eating less and moving more long-term that means all weight loss is futile? Just because people revert to old habits doesn't make the science of losing weight wrong. It means people didn't adopt new healthy habits. The old school techniques work if they are continually used, not abandoned when people reach their goal or get frustrated or become complacent.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
So because most people can't stick to eating less and moving more long-term that means all weight loss is futile? Just because people revert to old habits doesn't make the science of losing weight wrong. It means people didn't adopt new healthy habits. The old school techniques work if they are continually used, not abandoned when people reach their goal or get frustrated or become complacent.
That's a really narrow minded view of the matter based on your own success and experiences. If you do the research you may find out about how obesity permanently alters physiology which makes weight loss completely different for formerly obese people. There are a multitude of other non-calorie conditions that can interfere with weight loss such as epigenetics, angiogenesis, and leptin.
There isn't a single mathematical model yet that explains weight loss by calorie and recently the NIH funded a team to try to figure it out because the whole 3,500 thing is a complete myth. Partially for the reasons I just listed...
References:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23555620
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_5Z31mUmtc (A TED talks on angiogenesis)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60812-X/abstract
http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(13)01276-2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900445
Some people will always have to be aware of their food intake compared to their activity level. That doesn't mean that they are doomed to be fat forever. Most people who have dieted don't have "normal" levels of hormones such as leptin and ghrelin and testosterone and neuropeptide Y and on and on. Partially because being overweight impacted those levels long before they started a diet. Diet isn't the only thing that impacts those levels.
For leptin alone in individuals who have never been overweight:
Fasting can lower leptin levels.
Sleep deprivation can reduce leptin levels.
Stress can reduce leptin levels.
High or low testosterone or estrogen can reduce leptin levels.
Exercise can reduce leptin levels.
None of your links proved it was impossible to keep weight off, they showed some reasons why people may struggle. Once again, if they continue to monitor intake and make adjustments they can keep the weight off long term. I'm one of those who will always have to be aware of my intake. My entire family is obese and I don't plan on going back to that.0 -
Putting down old school, proven techniques is just a given. It's expected. That's what you add in as filler; as an afterthought. It shouldn't be what you lead in with.
You do know that 60% - 70% of all weight lost by the most successful of dieters is regained after 5 years right? You do know that around 30% of the population is on a diet at all times and obesity is still growing right? You do know that there is no single weight loss study ever showing more than a 7% average body weight loss over 5 years right?
The old school techniques are very far from proven. I'm explaining the science behind why old school techniques are wrong not putting them down for s***s and grins.
And that has what, exactly, to do with whether it's impossible to estimate calorie expenditure...?0 -
Putting down old school, proven techniques is just a given. It's expected. That's what you add in as filler; as an afterthought. It shouldn't be what you lead in with.
You do know that 60% - 70% of all weight lost by the most successful of dieters is regained after 5 years right? You do know that around 30% of the population is on a diet at all times and obesity is still growing right? You do know that there is no single weight loss study ever showing more than a 7% average body weight loss over 5 years right?
The old school techniques are very far from proven. I'm explaining the science behind why old school techniques are wrong not putting them down for s***s and grins.
And that has what, exactly, to do with whether it's impossible to estimate calorie expenditure...?
Because he wants to worry about hormones and move the goal posts.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions