TDEE is everything

heybales

I checked the papers and yes, it was RMR they tested and not BMR.

So they did not do conversion yet, good. Here comes the math, which uses Lean Body Mass in kg.
But since you already looked at MFP estimated healthy BMR right at the same, that means your real BMR is actually lower.
How much?

39y - ht 65" - wt 178 (working backwards from your stated MFP BMR calc of 1481, correct if wrong) -
Measured RMR - 1480

Cunningham RMR formula:
1480 = 500 + (22 * LBM)
LBM = 44.5 kg = 98.1 lbs

Now, if you know your bodyfat %, you can get your current real LBM.

But you have the RMR of someone with LBM of 98.1 lbs. If that is lower than yours, then you have slower metabolism.

So now, the BMR calc using Katch-McArdle formula:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 * 44.5)
BMR = 1331

So that is best estimate of actual BMR - 1331.

Healthy estimated BMR is 1480.

Yep, slightly suppressed. With slower metabolism, only getting about 90% of potential burn out of ALL calories burned, daily and exercise and BMR.

Might try this if your routine is simple, and you want to spread the exercise calories out.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method

pinkita

I checked the papers and yes, it was RMR they tested and not BMR.

So they did not do conversion yet, good. Here comes the math, which uses Lean Body Mass in kg.
But since you already looked at MFP estimated healthy BMR right at the same, that means your real BMR is actually lower.
How much?

39y - ht 65" - wt 178 (working backwards from your stated MFP BMR calc of 1481, correct if wrong) -
Measured RMR - 1480

Cunningham RMR formula:
1480 = 500 + (22 * LBM)
LBM = 44.5 kg = 98.1 lbs

Now, if you know your bodyfat %, you can get your current real LBM.

But you have the RMR of someone with LBM of 98.1 lbs. If that is lower than yours, then you have slower metabolism.

So now, the BMR calc using Katch-McArdle formula:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 * 44.5)
BMR = 1331

So that is best estimate of actual BMR - 1331.

Healthy estimated BMR is 1480.

Yep, slightly suppressed. With slower metabolism, only getting about 90% of potential burn out of ALL calories burned, daily and exercise and BMR.

Might try this if your routine is simple, and you want to spread the exercise calories out.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method

Thanks for doing the math! On the Fat 2 Fit site using one of the calculators it said my BF percentage was 41.2% and LBM = 104.

candicejn

BUMPing to read later in more detail. Because I've been at 1290 net for about 3 weeks now (with the exception of 2 days I went over), working out 5X per week for 30mins since January 1st and though that was right - I've lost 8lbs in those 3 weeks. BUT, based on my BMR/TDEE and all that stuff (doing the manual calculations even by subtracting 7000 to lose 2lbs/wk, etc), it looks like I'm eating roughly 600 calories under my BMR on non-exercise days, and about 400 under on exercise days (although I guess I'm still 600 under since I burned more...).

I just really want to do this right. I don't want to be unhealthy and miserable at goal. I want to be happy and look good. And of course I'd love to be able to eat a little more I have a LONG way to go and I want to figure it out now, before I do major damage to my already unhappy metabolism (I have thyroid issues).

Thank you for the post!!

tchrmom04

Ok - I have been reading on this for a week now and decided (very hesitantly) to increase calories up by a bit. I was keeping at 1200 per week and only eating exercise cals back for special occasions. And I increased cals starting this past Friday up to 1350. Then I started using my HRM to accurately track exercise. I posted every little thing to be accountable. My weigh in is today (Weds) and the good news is that I lost 5 lbs this week! For the last two weeks I have gained (1 lb total - but still a gain). So for this week I increased cals again up to 1400. I want to go slow with the increase.

I used the fitness frog calculators and my TDEE was estimated at 1962 and my BMR at 1635.

heybales

Ok - I have been reading on this for a week now and decided (very hesitantly) to increase calories up by a bit. I was keeping at 1200 per week and only eating exercise cals back for special occasions. And I increased cals starting this past Friday up to 1350. Then I started using my HRM to accurately track exercise. I posted every little thing to be accountable. My weigh in is today (Weds) and the good news is that I lost 5 lbs this week! For the last two weeks I have gained (1 lb total - but still a gain). So for this week I increased cals again up to 1400. I want to go slow with the increase.

I used the fitness frog calculators and my TDEE was estimated at 1962 and my BMR at 1635.

When you say posted every little thing, I hope you mean in the way of true exercise.

Because wearing a HRM for anything outside aerobic exercise (including sprint intervals or weight lifting) of 90-150 bpm about, will yield very incorrect calorie count.

Good idea going slow, about 200 per day for a week, then 200 more, ect.

If you want MFP to still track for you, and lower the daily net goal as required, setup the following:

Settings - Diet/Fitness profile
activity level - Lightly Active
Loss goal - 1 lb weekly

That should cause a daily net goal of 1707, slightly above BMR.

So leave 300 in the green this week, then 100, then goal.
And keep feeding that workout.

debtfre12

Just purchased the Fitbit 2 days ago to help me compute my TDEE. I'll let you know how it goes .....:bigsmile:

chadbobby

Awesome post..thanks!!!

michguag

Bump

zoeluiisa

sdf

zoeluiisa

1. BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate): This is the amount of calories you need to consume to maintain your body if you were comatose (base level).
2. NEAT (Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie of daily activity that is NOT exercise (eg: washing, walking, talking, shopping, working). ie: INCIDENTAL EXERCISE! It is something that everyone has a good amount of control over & it is the MOST important factor in your energy expenditure. It is what helps keep 'constitutionally lean' people LEAN (they fidget)!
3. EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie requirements associated with planned exercise. Unless someone is doing a whole heap of exercise (eg: two or more hrs training a day) it usually doesn't add a stack of calories to your requirements (30 minutes of 'elliptical training isn't going to do it')
4. TEF (Thermic effect of feeding): The calorie expenditure associated with eating. REGARDLESS of what myths you have been told - this is NOT dependent on MEAL FREQUENCY. It is a % of TOTAL CALORIES CONSUMED (and 15% of 3 x 600 cal meals is the same as 15% of 6 x 300 cal meals). It varies according to MACRONUTRIENT content and FIBER content. For most mixed diets, it is something around 15%. Protein is higher (up to 25%), carbs are variable (between 5-25%), and fats are low (usually less than 5%). So -> More protein and more carbs and more fiber = HIGHER TEF. More FAT = LOWER TEF.

5. TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expedenture): Total calories burned. BMR + NEAT + EAT + TEF = TDEE

Technically speaking.

That might be the most helpful thing I've read on this forum - bookmarking for later!

Healthy_4_Life2

bump - thanks

nataliefallbach

bump!

Justacoffeenut

Bump

UntinyDancer

Bump

Dawna954

Thanks for the post. Now to figure out the heavy weight program part.... halfway there!

sar123bear

Great info! Bumping for my topics. :-) It's what I've basically been doing and getting great results!

joejccva71

People are still bumping this thread. Awesome.

beachdiva2010

Thanks for the info!

StartingAnewDay

I've asked this a million times and still never found a satisfactory answer, so here goes nothing again. If your exercise program is heavy on lifting, how do you accurately calculate the calories for that?

I sometimes see people with numbers under weightlifting for burning over 1000 calories but when I'm lifting, My HR (according the moniter) barely ever breaks 100.. unless I'm doing low weights, many reps, small to no rest inbetween sets and STILL no way my HR is getting to the range of burning over 1000 cals in an hour or a little over an hour. Do you just iggnore strength training alltogether in terms of exercise calories?

Lyra89

Am I right to basically stay BETWEEN my BMR and my TDEE? For me that is 1600 - 1800 calories

Someone please let me know! x

amysj303

Am I right to basically stay BETWEEN my BMR and my TDEE? For me that is 1600 - 1800 calories

Someone please let me know! x

Yes, I think if you want to lose you can reduce your TDEE 15-20%

amysj303

I've asked this a million times and still never found a satisfactory answer, so here goes nothing again. If your exercise program is heavy on lifting, how do you accurately calculate the calories for that?

I sometimes see people with numbers under weightlifting for burning over 1000 calories but when I'm lifting, My HR (according the moniter) barely ever breaks 100.. unless I'm doing low weights, many reps, small to no rest inbetween sets and STILL no way my HR is getting to the range of burning over 1000 cals in an hour or a little over an hour. Do you just iggnore strength training alltogether in terms of exercise calories?

I think HRMs cannot measure calorie burn on weight-lifting very well, but I have seen people with the Body Media Fit and they can get more accurate data, I think. I follow the calorie requirements in New Rules of Lifting for Women, someone posted it here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538943-how-to-calculate-calorie-goals-according-to-nrolfw

heybales

Am I right to basically stay BETWEEN my BMR and my TDEE? For me that is 1600 - 1800 calories

Someone please let me know! x

Yes, I think if you want to lose you can reduce your TDEE 15-20%

Correct. And depending on how close to goal weight you are, if you are going for this method, you may have to get to 10% even.

Because what you want to happen on daily avg is, if you took eating level and took out known workout calorie burns, you should still be above BMR by 100-200.

And less you have to lose, smaller range you have to play with. Unless you just have a massive amount of low-key daily activity outside exercise, which is where you want your real deficit coming from.

trysha1231

Am I right to basically stay BETWEEN my BMR and my TDEE? For me that is 1600 - 1800 calories

Someone please let me know! x

Yes, I think if you want to lose you can reduce your TDEE 15-20%

Correct. And depending on how close to goal weight you are, if you are going for this method, you may have to get to 10% even.

Because what you want to happen on daily avg is, if you took eating level and took out known workout calorie burns, you should still be above BMR by 100-200.

And less you have to lose, smaller range you have to play with. Unless you just have a massive amount of low-key daily activity outside exercise, which is where you want your real deficit coming from.

And the amount above the BMR, should that be for the week or on a daily basis?

heybales

I've asked this a million times and still never found a satisfactory answer, so here goes nothing again. If your exercise program is heavy on lifting, how do you accurately calculate the calories for that?

I sometimes see people with numbers under weightlifting for burning over 1000 calories but when I'm lifting, My HR (according the moniter) barely ever breaks 100.. unless I'm doing low weights, many reps, small to no rest inbetween sets and STILL no way my HR is getting to the range of burning over 1000 cals in an hour or a little over an hour. Do you just iggnore strength training alltogether in terms of exercise calories?

Asjerven is correct, HRM's are only valid for aerobic type activities, and bpm within that range, so maybe 90-170.

You can't accurately get calorie counts. Some weight lifting sites I've seen do have calc's where you put in how many reps you do, recover time in-between sets, time inbetween different lifts, ect. That's about the best I'd seen.
So you pay attention a couple times how much time you spend, and then you got a single figure you use until your weight changes.

And even that would be estimate - as someone may not really be pushing themselves as much as the calculator is assuming.

The thing with weight lifting though, you are using muscle stored glucose, so you do want to eat enough to feed/replace that. But the after effects of anaerobic (including true HIIT) is the fat usage later as body recovers. That of course you don't want to feed.

I know Polar has a more expensive model that says it is better for weight lifting, I'll bet what they do is when in that mode, it just doesn't do any calorie calc's for any HR it guesses is in anaerobic zone. So they estimate even on cheaper ones the "Fat burning" and "Fitness" zones, based on who knows what, mine moves around. They probably just don't do the calorie count for "Lifting" zone.

Because you are correct, even if your HR does get up there, mine can get up to 160 on the 3rd set with only 1 min recovery. That calorie burn for that 160 dropping back to 120 based on anaerobic is much smaller compared to doing say spin bike at 160 and dropping back to 120 while aerobic.

The only good thing is that perhaps, your total burn during the workout, and post-workout for recovery, is around the value given on the HRM for during the workout.
Problem being, you don't have to feed that entire amount, probably 25% of it, with good carb/protein mix within 30 min.

So either log the whole thing and only eat back 25% of those cal's, or manually adjust the estimate to 25%.
And wear a HRM just a couple times on different workout style days to see what the avg cal per hr is, and just do the math for future workouts. Likely won't change enough to matter.

heybales

Correct. And depending on how close to goal weight you are, if you are going for this method, you may have to get to 10% even.

Because what you want to happen on daily avg is, if you took eating level and took out known workout calorie burns, you should still be above BMR by 100-200.

And less you have to lose, smaller range you have to play with. Unless you just have a massive amount of low-key daily activity outside exercise, which is where you want your real deficit coming from.

And the amount above the BMR, should that be for the week or on a daily basis?

Weekly is fine depending on the workout schedule. You could still use that Future You spreadsheet to keep doing a spot check on a weeks worth of activity, enter in each day eat, each day HRM calorie burn, current weight at start/end of week, and see how you NET above BMR for daily avg. Should be 100-200, bigger gap more intense the workouts.

If you have very intense workouts every day and only 1 rest day, that ends up being a spike day as far as NET calories is concerned, because you went below BMR probably every other day.

Now, only concern to that scenario is, you could easily run out of glucose stores by day 4 if well under BMR and low calorie or low carb. And for workouts on 5 and 6, you would be tearing down muscle for conversion to glucose - not a good result.

In that kind of workout case, I'd say you'd want to NET right at BMR, not under, daily, no matter what. Then your rest day gives recovery to BMR to not lower.

If workout case was a couple spaced workout days, or you did very light cardio day after heavy lifting, then some days dipping below BMR a little, some days higher, rest day good recover, is right on.

trysha1231

Excellent, thank you!

annalistic

bump for later reading.

SOOZIE429

Bumpity. Love this stuff.

Jessies_journey

*Bump*