TDEE is everything

Options
1…1112141617…19

Replies

  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    I've had a BodyBugg since Dec. 2011, and I just reviewed my data from 3/10-3/17

    - I burned 15,556 cals, and to have lost 1# I would've had to consume 12,056 cals
    - My actual calorie consumption was 10,421 (a 5135 deficit)
    - I gained 0.6# (because I ate less than 12,056)?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I've had a BodyBugg since Dec. 2011, and I just reviewed my data from 3/10-3/17

    - I burned 15,556 cals, and to have lost 1# I would've had to consume 12,056 cals
    - My actual calorie consumption was 10,421 (a 5135 deficit)
    - I gained 0.6# (because I ate less than 12,056)?

    Since daily seems to be the normal way of looking at that, though avg daily from a week is a great way of looking at it. Well, 8 days.

    TDEE - 1945
    Ate - 1303

    Deficit - 642

    Yep, should have been a 1.3 lb loss.

    Wanna know why no or little loss?

    Don't know your height, but going off 5'6", your estimated healthy BMR could be 1515. You can run through this with real BMR figure too - MFP Tools - BMR calc.

    That is what the BodyBugg site is also estimating as your BMR, with slight tweaks to body heat, and that is the basis for ALL other calorie burn estimates.

    If you normally net at 1300 or lower, and are not hungry, meaning your body has gotten used to eating that much less, then your BMR is NOT actually 1500, it is 200 less, or 1300, slightly below actually.
    You have suppressed your metabolism, it is running slower than possible.

    All calorie estimates by BodyBugg site are inflated too. So you really don't have a deficit that high.

    So the activity multiplier from healthy BMR estimate they are using too is 1945 / 1515 = 1.28
    But you only have a BMR of 1300 or less, so 1300 * 1.28 = 1664 TDEE that is truly happening.

    So you actually only have a deficit of 361, or possible 0.7 lb loss a week. Wow, almost half the deficit gone because of not eating 200 cal on avg daily.

    So you need to get your BMR calc from MFP to replace the 1515 in the math above. If you are shorter, your potential BMR is less, the multiplier is more, the true TDEE is higher, the potential weight loss is more.
    But still less than it could be if the metabolism was flying high.

    Recommend setting weight loss goal so the end daily goal is above your true BMR potential, and then NET that every day.

    The BodyBugg will then be telling you your true potential weight loss based on non-exercise daily activity.

    So why weight gain? With eating below BMR and exercising, you run down your glucose stores and they just can't be built up. They probably just got the chance, and glucose comes with water, so mainly water weight you need for energy.
    Last weigh in may have been real low on them - so just a false reading difference.

    May also be the same thing with sodium levels that retain water - lower last time, higher this time.
    All just water weight.
  • blynnblair
    blynnblair Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    bump
  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    I've had a BodyBugg since Dec. 2011, and I just reviewed my data from 3/10-3/17

    - I burned 15,556 cals, and to have lost 1# I would've had to consume 12,056 cals
    - My actual calorie consumption was 10,421 (a 5135 deficit)
    - I gained 0.6# (because I ate less than 12,056)?

    Since daily seems to be the normal way of looking at that, though avg daily from a week is a great way of looking at it. Well, 8 days.

    TDEE - 1945
    Ate - 1303

    Deficit - 642

    Yep, should have been a 1.3 lb loss.

    Wanna know why no or little loss?

    Don't know your height, but going off 5'6", your estimated healthy BMR could be 1515. You can run through this with real BMR figure too - MFP Tools - BMR calc.

    That is what the BodyBugg site is also estimating as your BMR, with slight tweaks to body heat, and that is the basis for ALL other calorie burn estimates.

    If you normally net at 1300 or lower, and are not hungry, meaning your body has gotten used to eating that much less, then your BMR is NOT actually 1500, it is 200 less, or 1300, slightly below actually.
    You have suppressed your metabolism, it is running slower than possible.

    All calorie estimates by BodyBugg site are inflated too. So you really don't have a deficit that high.

    So the activity multiplier from healthy BMR estimate they are using too is 1945 / 1515 = 1.28
    But you only have a BMR of 1300 or less, so 1300 * 1.28 = 1664 TDEE that is truly happening.

    So you actually only have a deficit of 361, or possible 0.7 lb loss a week. Wow, almost half the deficit gone because of not eating 200 cal on avg daily.

    So you need to get your BMR calc from MFP to replace the 1515 in the math above. If you are shorter, your potential BMR is less, the multiplier is more, the true TDEE is higher, the potential weight loss is more.
    But still less than it could be if the metabolism was flying high.

    Recommend setting weight loss goal so the end daily goal is above your true BMR potential, and then NET that every day.

    The BodyBugg will then be telling you your true potential weight loss based on non-exercise daily activity.

    So why weight gain? With eating below BMR and exercising, you run down your glucose stores and they just can't be built up. They probably just got the chance, and glucose comes with water, so mainly water weight you need for energy.
    Last weigh in may have been real low on them - so just a false reading difference.

    May also be the same thing with sodium levels that retain water - lower last time, higher this time.
    All just water weight.

    Thanks for the feedback.

    My height is 5'5". I had my BMR tested at Kaiser on 3/2/12, and they said it was 1480.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Don't know your height, but going off 5'6", your estimated healthy BMR could be 1515. You can run through this with real BMR figure too - MFP Tools - BMR calc.
    Thanks for the feedback.

    My height is 5'5". I had my BMR tested at Kaiser on 3/2/12, and they said it was 1480.

    Unless you were sleeping for several hours, they tested your Resting MR, not Basal MR.
    Now, they may have gotten an RMR, did the calc, and told you the estimated BMR, which was 1480. Or like several techs that's don't truly understand what they are doing, they gave you the RMR without conversion. I'd ask.

    Because it is low either way, but if RMR, then 1300 would be about right.
    If BMR, then just a little low.

    So if you have not been netting constantly below 1300, you have a chance to not have it lower anymore than it could be.
  • Jess5825
    Jess5825 Posts: 228
    Options
    I've been plateaued (on and off) for the last 6 months. I lose a couple pounds (or like last time I lost in January, one pound) I am beyond frustrated. I do have a body media fit and I do burn 3000-3200 calories on workout days (6 days a week) and 2500-2700 on my off day. I was trying to do a minimum of 2000 a day (did it for about 2 months and nothing). Do I need to go higher and have less of a deficit? I still have over 40 pounds to go. I have recently dropped back down to 1700 per day. I have since stayed off the scale (my trainer told me to stay off for 5 weeks, though she doesn't know about my calories, she's really no help with that, as she says she doesn't count calories)
  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    Don't know your height, but going off 5'6", your estimated healthy BMR could be 1515. You can run through this with real BMR figure too - MFP Tools - BMR calc.
    Thanks for the feedback.

    My height is 5'5". I had my BMR tested at Kaiser on 3/2/12, and they said it was 1480.

    Unless you were sleeping for several hours, they tested your Resting MR, not Basal MR.
    Now, they may have gotten an RMR, did the calc, and told you the estimated BMR, which was 1480. Or like several techs that's don't truly understand what they are doing, they gave you the RMR without conversion. I'd ask.

    Because it is low either way, but if RMR, then 1300 would be about right.
    If BMR, then just a little low.

    So if you have not been netting constantly below 1300, you have a chance to not have it lower anymore than it could be.

    MFP's BMR calc says 1481--I'll check the papers Kaiser gave me to see if it was RMR or BMR. Thanks!
  • Mom2M_and_O
    Mom2M_and_O Posts: 214
    Options
    Trying to break my own plateau here.... and looking at this calculator linked on a recent page: http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

    I think trying to honestly answer the activity factor part of these calculators is the hardest part for me because I know there are people out there who exercise way harder or more often than I do. So I always call into question what my personal activity factor should be, and maybe I've been underestimating it.

    My main exercise for the last month has been 30 Day Shred approx 5 days a week. It kicks my butt. I sweat up a storm and my heart feels like it's going to be beat out of my chest for most of it. I can't talk during the workout -- can't even think -- have to shoo my kids away if they come in to ask me a question during it. I have a suspicion that since my weight loss stalled once I started this routine then I may not have been eating close enough to my TDEE (granted other things have changed -- stamina, flexibility, etc).

    So, looking at this calculator, do I consider the exercise I've been doing as moderate or intense? It feels intense to me but I don't want to overestimate anything. My HRM puts my calorie burn around 220 each time. Or maybe I should do a combination of intense and moderate?
  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    I checked the papers and yes, it was RMR they tested and not BMR.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I think trying to honestly answer the activity factor part of these calculators is the hardest part for me because I know there are people out there who exercise way harder or more often than I do. So I always call into question what my personal activity factor should be, and maybe I've been underestimating it.

    My main exercise for the last month has been 30 Day Shred approx 5 days a week. It kicks my butt. I sweat up a storm and my heart feels like it's going to be beat out of my chest for most of it. I can't talk during the workout -- can't even think -- have to shoo my kids away if they come in to ask me a question during it. I have a suspicion that since my weight loss stalled once I started this routine then I may not have been eating close enough to my TDEE (granted other things have changed -- stamina, flexibility, etc).

    So, looking at this calculator, do I consider the exercise I've been doing as moderate or intense? It feels intense to me but I don't want to overestimate anything. My HRM puts my calorie burn around 220 each time. Or maybe I should do a combination of intense and moderate?

    Try this spreadsheet for nailing that daily activity. Tips above the activity calculator.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGZlcmNCNmhJWFhtUGl0ZEk1RFd1c0E

    Much easier to divide up the day and weekly activity, and get daily avg. It describes the comparative walking speeds, might make it easier to figure out what a workout level is equal to.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    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
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    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
    candicejn Posts: 458 Member
    Options
    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 :D 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
    tchrmom04 Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    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
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    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
    debtfre12 Posts: 203
    Options
    Just purchased the Fitbit 2 days ago to help me compute my TDEE. I'll let you know how it goes .....:bigsmile:
  • chadbobby
    chadbobby Posts: 11
    Options
    Awesome post..thanks!!!
  • michguag
    michguag Posts: 6
    Options
    Bump
  • zoeluiisa
    zoeluiisa Posts: 392
    Options
    sdf
  • zoeluiisa
    zoeluiisa Posts: 392
    Options
    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!

Categories