Confused!

oh_resilience

This question may be pretty dumb, but I'm confused!

I just calculated my BMR, and it is 1,295. Therefore, I need to eat 1,295 calories per day. If I exercise and generally don't feel hungry for more food, will my body go into starvation mode if I net under 1,200 calories?

Thank you for any help!

omarasheikh

That's actually a very good question that I'd like answered too! - thanks for asking - would be interesting to see what the answer is

3dogsrunning

This question may be pretty dumb, but I'm confused!

I just calculated my BMR, and it is 1,295. Therefore, I need to eat 1,295 calories per day. If I exercise and generally don't feel hungry for more food, will my body go into starvation mode if I net under 1,200 calories?

Thank you for any help!

No, your BMR is what your body needs just to survive, like if you laid in bed all day, this is what you would burn. On top of that, you burn calories just by doing everyday things, moving around, your job, etc. You should not eat below your BMR, however, that is not your calorie goal.
To figure your calorie goal, you take your BMR and multiply it by these factors -
Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
Extr. active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.)

That gives you your TDEE. Then you subtract a calorie deficit from that number. How much depends on how much you have to lose. 500 calories per pound per week. If you have less than 20 lbs, your goal should be no more than .5-1 lb a week, so you would have a deficit of 250 -500 calories per day off of your TDEE.

Or you can just let MFP do the figuring for you. It is set up to do that automatically.

sacrat

This question may be pretty dumb, but I'm confused!

I just calculated my BMR, and it is 1,295. Therefore, I need to eat 1,295 calories per day. If I exercise and generally don't feel hungry for more food, will my body go into starvation mode if I net under 1,200 calories?

Thank you for any help!

No, your BMR is what your body needs just to survive, like if you laid in bed all day, this is what you would burn. On top of that, you burn calories just by doing everyday things, moving around, your job, etc. You should not eat below your BMR, however, that is not your calorie goal.
To figure your calorie goal, you take your BMR and multiply it by these factors -
Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
Extr. active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.)

That gives you your TDEE. Then you subtract a calorie deficit from that number. How much depends on how much you have to lose. 500 calories per pound per week. If you have less than 20 lbs, your goal should be no more than .5-1 lb a week, so you would have a deficit of 250 -500 calories per day off of your TDEE.

Or you can just let MFP do the figuring for you. It is set up to do that automatically.

Sorry, just joined today and I'm also confused by some entries. For example, it gave me credit for 230 calories on Elliptical but 0 calories for the 5-6 strength training exercises I did. They must burn some calories at 3 sets each. Also the 1490 calories per day on non exercise days ( I put three times a week) seems a couple of hundred low for a 240 pound guy (5'9") to lose average 2 pounds a week. Any thoughts...?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

3dogsrunning

This question may be pretty dumb, but I'm confused!

I just calculated my BMR, and it is 1,295. Therefore, I need to eat 1,295 calories per day. If I exercise and generally don't feel hungry for more food, will my body go into starvation mode if I net under 1,200 calories?

Thank you for any help!

No, your BMR is what your body needs just to survive, like if you laid in bed all day, this is what you would burn. On top of that, you burn calories just by doing everyday things, moving around, your job, etc. You should not eat below your BMR, however, that is not your calorie goal.
To figure your calorie goal, you take your BMR and multiply it by these factors -
Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
Extr. active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.)

That gives you your TDEE. Then you subtract a calorie deficit from that number. How much depends on how much you have to lose. 500 calories per pound per week. If you have less than 20 lbs, your goal should be no more than .5-1 lb a week, so you would have a deficit of 250 -500 calories per day off of your TDEE.

Or you can just let MFP do the figuring for you. It is set up to do that automatically.

Sorry, just joined today and I'm also confused by some entries. For example, it gave me credit for 230 calories on Elliptical but 0 calories for the 5-6 strength training exercises I did. They must burn some calories at 3 sets each. Also the 1490 per day on non exercise days ( I put three times a week) seems a couple of hundred low for a 240 pound guy (5'9") to lose average 2 pounds a week. Any thoughts...?

First, you need to understand that MFP uses a slightly different formula from above. MFP does not factor in exercise when creating a calorie goal. The above table does. That is why there is often a lot of confusion over "eating back" exercise calories or not. So if you follow MFP's suggestions, you should eat them or at least some of them.

As for the strenght training - if you search for "weight training" or "strength training" under the cardio seciton, you will find an entry for it that will give you calorie credit. It is pretty low. It is hard to make an accurate entry for strength training since programs vary so much.
1490 is low for a male. How much are you looking to lose? 2lbs a week may be too high of a goal. You can change it to 1.5 lbs a week.

3dogsrunning

Here is the suggested calorie deficit based on how much you are looking to lose -

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/506979-correct-calorie-deficit
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.

oh_resilience

Here is the suggested calorie deficit based on how much you are looking to lose -

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/506979-correct-calorie-deficit
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.

Thank you so much for all your help! I truly appreciate it

sacrat

Sorry, just joined today and I'm also confused by some entries. For example, it gave me credit for 230 calories on Elliptical but 0 calories for the 5-6 strength training exercises I did. They must burn some calories at 3 sets each. Also the 1490 per day on non exercise days ( I put three times a week) seems a couple of hundred low for a 240 pound guy (5'9") to lose average 2 pounds a week. Any thoughts...?

First, you need to understand that MFP uses a slightly different formula from above. MFP does not factor in exercise when creating a calorie goal. The above table does. That is why there is often a lot of confusion over "eating back" exercise calories or not. So if you follow MFP's suggestions, you should eat them or at least some of them.

As for the strenght training - if you search for "weight training" or "strength training" under the cardio seciton, you will find an entry for it that will give you calorie credit. It is pretty low. It is hard to make an accurate entry for strength training since programs vary so much.
1490 is low for a male. How much are you looking to lose? 2lbs a week may be too high of a goal. You can change it to 1.5 lbs a week.
[/quote]

I'm actually losing more than 2 pounds a week on Weight watchers (11.5 in 4 weeks). I've added this site because the tracking is much easier including the exercise component. The tracking will be my ultimate downfall at Weight watchers because their system is far more cumbersome. If all goes well here, I'll drop Weight watchers after another 4 weeks I've already paid for. Their Points plus system is really just a different way of tracking calories without calling it that. I should be able to tell soon if 2 pounds/week is realistic going forward. Thanks for the quick response. I love this site so far...

3dogsrunning

I'm actually losing more than 2 pounds a week on Weight watchers (11.5 in 4 weeks). I've added this site because the tracking is much easier including the exercise component. The tracking will be my ultimate downfall at Weight watchers because their system is far more cumbersome. If all goes well here, I'll drop Weight watchers after another 4 weeks I've already paid for. Their Points plus system is really just a different way of tracking calories without calling it that. I should be able to tell soon if 2 pounds/week is realistic going forward. Thanks for the quick response. I love this site so far...

I am not saying you cant lose more than 2lbs a week, but when figuring out your calorie intake goal, those suggestions are ideal. You may lose more weigh following that number initally. In the end, it is really about getting enough calories than actual scale weight loss.

DuChene2012

The BMR calculation is not as accurate as one would hope. It can easily over-estimate or under-estimate caloric needs because it does not take a person's lifestyle, metabolic rate, or medical condition(s), if any, into consideration! The BMR typically WAY over-estimates my caloric needs and I therefore never use it. Indirect calorimetry is by far superior to the BMR because it measures CO2 expired versus O2 inspired, meaning that it records what your body is using based on the number of breaths you exhale relative to what you've inhaled. It also tells you which substrate (carbohydrate, fat, protein, or a mix) you are primarily expending in your breath.
I said all of that to let you know how incompetent the BMR calculation is. A body-builder like Dwayne Johnson and an overweight man of the same weight/height may have very similar BMR because it does not measure LBM (Lean Body Mass) or fat. Same thing for BMI. The real "math" lies in your current body weight. If you are a heavy person, you will burn calories at a higher rate because you have more lean tissue to support your skeleton.

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

oh_resilience

The BMR calculation is not as accurate as one would hope. It can easily over-estimate or under-estimate caloric needs because it does not take a person's lifestyle, metabolic rate, or medical condition(s), if any, into consideration! The BMR typically WAY over-estimates my caloric needs and I therefore never use it. Indirect calorimetry is by far superior to the BMR because it measures CO2 expired versus O2 inspired, meaning that it records what your body is using based on the number of breaths you exhale relative to what you've inhaled. It also tells you which substrate (carbohydrate, fat, protein, or a mix) you are primarily expending in your breath.
I said all of that to let you know how incompetent the BMR calculation is. A body-builder like Dwayne Johnson and an overweight man of the same weight/height may have very similar BMR because it does not measure LBM (Lean Body Mass) or fat. Same thing for BMI. The real "math" lies in your current body weight. If you are a heavy person, you will burn calories at a higher rate because you have more lean tissue to support your skeleton.

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

Interesting how much lower it is! Thank you

ladyraven68

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

That is so funny, you say BMR isn't accurate as it doesn't take many factors, such as Lean Body Mass into consideration, and then you come up with a standard one-size-fits-all calorie equation.

our weightlifting ladies who weigh around 130lbs would never survive on this - it would give them less than 1200 calories a day!

3dogsrunning

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

That is so funny, you say BMR isn't accurate as it doesn't take many factors, such as Lean Body Mass into consideration, and then you come up with a standard one-size-fits-all calorie equation.

our weightlifting ladies who weigh around 130lbs would never survive on this - it would give them less than 1200 calories a day!

There are calculators that you can find that take into account body fat and lean body mass.

Nothing is going to be perfectly accurate unless you have the ability to actually be tested. That usually costs money and is not available to everyone. The best we can do is general equations that apply to *most* people, not everyone.

ladyraven68

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

That is so funny, you say BMR isn't accurate as it doesn't take many factors, such as Lean Body Mass into consideration, and then you come up with a standard one-size-fits-all calorie equation.

our weightlifting ladies who weigh around 130lbs would never survive on this - it would give them less than 1200 calories a day!

There are calculators that you can find that take into account body fat and lean body mass.

Nothing is going to be perfectly accurate unless you have the ability to actually be tested. That usually costs money and is not available to everyone. The best we can do is general equations that apply to *most* people, not everyone.

yes, and this one is hardly any different to the *multiply your weight in lbs by 10*.

These have to be the most innaccurate as they ignore activity levels completely.

Purple_Orchid_87

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

i weigh 292lbs / 2.2 = 132.7 * 20 = 2654 - 1000 (2lb loss) = 1654
MFP set my goal to 1650 and I manually set it to 1600 (I hate odd looking number)
for me, MFP BMR has been accurate in comparison to the method explained by you above

mdebbie1026

bump


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

lsapphire

your bmr is basic needs, exercise doesn't figure in, just subtracts for weight loss from what I understand. So shouldn't do starvation mode unless our intake falls below your bmr

3dogsrunning

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

That is so funny, you say BMR isn't accurate as it doesn't take many factors, such as Lean Body Mass into consideration, and then you come up with a standard one-size-fits-all calorie equation.

our weightlifting ladies who weigh around 130lbs would never survive on this - it would give them less than 1200 calories a day!

There are calculators that you can find that take into account body fat and lean body mass.

Nothing is going to be perfectly accurate unless you have the ability to actually be tested. That usually costs money and is not available to everyone. The best we can do is general equations that apply to *most* people, not everyone.

yes, and this one is hardly any different to the *multiply your weight in lbs by 10*.

These have to be the most innaccurate as they ignore activity levels completely.

BMR calculators are not supposed to account for activity levels. BMR is your basal metabolic rate, the basic amount of calories your body burns to survive, with no activity included.
A TDEE, total daily energy expenditure calculator accounts for your daily activity.

ladyraven68

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

That is so funny, you say BMR isn't accurate as it doesn't take many factors, such as Lean Body Mass into consideration, and then you come up with a standard one-size-fits-all calorie equation.

our weightlifting ladies who weigh around 130lbs would never survive on this - it would give them less than 1200 calories a day!

There are calculators that you can find that take into account body fat and lean body mass.

Nothing is going to be perfectly accurate unless you have the ability to actually be tested. That usually costs money and is not available to everyone. The best we can do is general equations that apply to *most* people, not everyone.

yes, and this one is hardly any different to the *multiply your weight in lbs by 10*.

These have to be the most innaccurate as they ignore activity levels completely.

BMR calculators are not supposed to account for activity levels. BMR is your basal metabolic rate, the basic amount of calories your body burns to survive, with no activity included.
A TDEE, total daily energy expenditure calculator accounts for your daily activity.

I didn't read it as a BMR calculation. It was stated that it was your daily requirement, then use exercise to create a deficit - there was no mention of applying a daily activity multiplier.

Maybe the original poster could clarify it for us.

tigersword

The BMR calculation is not as accurate as one would hope. It can easily over-estimate or under-estimate caloric needs because it does not take a person's lifestyle, metabolic rate, or medical condition(s), if any, into consideration! The BMR typically WAY over-estimates my caloric needs and I therefore never use it. Indirect calorimetry is by far superior to the BMR because it measures CO2 expired versus O2 inspired, meaning that it records what your body is using based on the number of breaths you exhale relative to what you've inhaled. It also tells you which substrate (carbohydrate, fat, protein, or a mix) you are primarily expending in your breath.
I said all of that to let you know how incompetent the BMR calculation is. A body-builder like Dwayne Johnson and an overweight man of the same weight/height may have very similar BMR because it does not measure LBM (Lean Body Mass) or fat. Same thing for BMI. The real "math" lies in your current body weight. If you are a heavy person, you will burn calories at a higher rate because you have more lean tissue to support your skeleton.

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

What? So you go through this whole speech about indirect calorimetry, and how accurate it is compared to "The BMR Calculation," (which one? Mifflin St Jeor? Katch-McArdle? Harris-Benedict? There are many different formulas.) Ands then you tell people to just multiply their weight in KG's by 20? That doesn't make any sense what so ever, and it majorly underestimates the caloric need for the average person. Using your formula would put me at about 300 calories under my actual BMR, and about 1000 calories under my maintenance needs.

tigersword

If you truly want to know how many calories to eat, take your current weight, divide it by 2.2 kilograms (kg). Take your kg and multiply it by 20. That is your caloric need, leaving exercise out of the equation. If you never exercised, this calculation is what you need to get you through the day. Add exercise on top of this and you go into calorie deficit...ergo, weight loss. Easy as pie.

That is so funny, you say BMR isn't accurate as it doesn't take many factors, such as Lean Body Mass into consideration, and then you come up with a standard one-size-fits-all calorie equation.

our weightlifting ladies who weigh around 130lbs would never survive on this - it would give them less than 1200 calories a day!

There are calculators that you can find that take into account body fat and lean body mass.

Nothing is going to be perfectly accurate unless you have the ability to actually be tested. That usually costs money and is not available to everyone. The best we can do is general equations that apply to *most* people, not everyone.

yes, and this one is hardly any different to the *multiply your weight in lbs by 10*.

These have to be the most innaccurate as they ignore activity levels completely.

BMR calculators are not supposed to account for activity levels. BMR is your basal metabolic rate, the basic amount of calories your body burns to survive, with no activity included.
A TDEE, total daily energy expenditure calculator accounts for your daily activity.

The original poster stated the "multiply your weight in KG by 20" formula was for TDEE, not BMR.

3dogsrunning

I didn't read it as a BMR calculation. It was stated that it was your daily requirement, then use exercise to create a deficit - there was no mention of applying a daily activity multiplier.

Maybe the original poster could clarify it for us.

I was referring to your quote when you said

That is so funny, you say BMR isn't accurate as it doesn't take many factors, such as Lean Body Mass into consideration, and then you come up with a standard one-size-fits-all calorie equation.

our weightlifting ladies who weigh around 130lbs would never survive on this - it would give them less than 1200 calories a day!

and

yes, and this one is hardly any different to the *multiply your weight in lbs by 10*.

These have to be the most innaccurate as they ignore activity levels completely.

3dogsrunning

The original poster stated the "multiply your weight in KG by 20" formula was for TDEE, not BMR.

Ok, I see where I got confused now. Sorry.

DuChene2012

Right, because as I said it does not figure exercise into the equation.

DuChene2012

Right. As I said, BMR can over-estimate or under-estimate caloric needs. It is not the best measuring tool available. Having VO2max is really the best tool to use, but it is quite pricey. We never use BMR alone or BMI alone or any calculation alone as it is not a true measurement in and of itself. The notion of "less than 1200 calories places the body into starvation mode" is a standardized quote for the average-height woman of 5'7". In this respect, that standardization is accurate. I am 5'8", and anything less than 1200 calories will be counterproductive for me. If your weight partners weigh 130 pounds, the notion of kg multiplied by 20 still stands, though it does not factor in for exercise, as I have said.

DuChene2012

BMR calculators are not supposed to account for activity levels. BMR is your basal metabolic rate, the basic amount of calories your body burns to survive, with no activity included.
A TDEE, total daily energy expenditure calculator accounts for your daily activity.


Precisely.

tigersword

Right. As I said, BMR can over-estimate or under-estimate caloric needs. It is not the best measuring tool available. Having VO2max is really the best tool to use, but it is quite pricey. We never use BMR alone or BMI alone or any calculation alone as it is not a true measurement in and of itself. The notion of "less than 1200 calories places the body into starvation mode" is a standardized quote for the average-height woman of 5'7". In this respect, that standardization is accurate. I am 5'8", and anything less than 1200 calories will be counterproductive for me. If your weight partners weigh 130 pounds, the notion of kg multiplied by 20 still stands, though it does not factor in for exercise, as I have said.

No. A 130 pound woman would not maintain weight at 1160 calories a day, like you stated in your first post.

130 pounds = 58kg 58*20=1160

That might be a very rough BMR estimate, but you stated they should eat that, and then would need to exercise to lose weight.

DuChene2012

Right. As I said, BMR can over-estimate or under-estimate caloric needs. It is not the best measuring tool available. Having VO2max is really the best tool to use, but it is quite pricey. We never use BMR alone or BMI alone or any calculation alone as it is not a true measurement in and of itself. The notion of "less than 1200 calories places the body into starvation mode" is a standardized quote for the average-height woman of 5'7". In this respect, that standardization is accurate. I am 5'8", and anything less than 1200 calories will be counterproductive for me. If your weight partners weigh 130 pounds, the notion of kg multiplied by 20 still stands, though it does not factor in for exercise, as I have said.

No. A 130 pound woman would not maintain weight at 1160 calories a day, like you stated in your first post.

130 pounds = 58kg 58*20=1160

That might be a very rough BMR estimate, but you stated they should eat that, and then would need to exercise to lose weight.

No, no. You are not understanding me. I said that her (3dogsrunning) calories would get her through the day. I then said that the calculation did not factor in exercise. If she were to exercise WHILE ON THAT CALORIC LEVEL she would lose weight. You forget that weight loss must be a combination of reduced calories AND exercise. It can't be one OR the other. Harris-Benedict equations will typically over-estimate caloric needs when compared to M-SJ. Mifflin-St. Jeor may be possibly the MOST accurate caloric calculation for obese people, but it is still JUST a guesstimate. M-SJ calculates my BMR at 1359, though I am not obese, while Harris-Benedict calculates my BEE at 1537. Ireton-Jones is for ventilator-dependent patients in ICU so that equation should be thrown out. If I took my kilograms multiplied by 20 it brings me to 1320 calories - lower even than M-SJ but a bit more accurate I would imagine. BMR is only intended to calculate energy needs while the person is in a conscious, resting state, NOT while the subject is up and moving around (hence the B for basal). It is the calculation that states "this is what the body needs MINIMALLY in order to keep itself alive with absolutely no activity involved." Activity was never part of the equation. Not one of the above equations makes room for LBM or activity level, as neither of them are designed this way. If I were to have a low-functioning thyroid, then all of these calculations would over-estimate my needs. If I were a triathalon trainer with 17% body fat then all of these calculations would grossly under-estimate my needs. None of these formulas take Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) into consideration either. If we calculated TEF with BMR we'd need to provide an additional 5-30% more calories -- quite a range! Even the standard 10% increase that is commonly used is STILL just a guesstimate. But one thing I have found is the kilograms multiplied by 20 seems to work the best...NOT factoring in exercise. For weight loss, obviously you'd need to exercise, as we ALL would, and that formula would be a caloric ceiling. For weight gain, such as the weight-lifting group of women, that calculation would estimate your MINIMUM calories needed. Even calories-burned-during-exercise calculations are guesstimates. Any other method (direct vs. indirect calorimetry) is used primarily for experimentation on athletes to measure performance levels and substrate utilization.

No calculation is ever going to be 100% accurate. I like the (kg)x(20) because it is very simple. BMR may get you the closest if you are obese (BMI of 30-39) but for the woman who took her BMR of 1640 (?) and still lowered it to 1600, you are perhaps even more accurate than the BMR calculation...and is possibly even closer to the (kg)(20) formula! I was merely trying to give 3dogsrunning a way out of her confusion - a shorter route through the forest, if you will, by offering her a more simplistic computation. In the end, she understood it to be what is is...EEN (or TDEE) and NOT a BMR.

tigersword

You're contradicting yourself. Are you saying the KG*20 formula is BMR, sedentary TDEE, or what? You keep saying that KG*20 would "get you through the day" without exercise, so are you trying to say that you would maintain weight without exercise using that formula? Because that grossly underestimates my maintenance needs by almost 1000 calories without factoring exercise into the equation.

Also, the Harris-Benedict equation is not a BMR calculator, it's a TDEE calculator, you need to know your BMR to use it. The Harris-Benedict equation is BMR * Activity Factor = TDEE. Personally I use the Katch-McArdle formula to calculate BMR, as it uses lean mass, and accounts for body fat. Using your estimate gets me somewhat close to my BMR based on the Mifflin-St Jeor formula, but that certainly wouldn't "get me through the day," even without exercising. Also, TEF is included in the Harris-Benedict equation, it's already factored in, and it isn't even close to factored into the formula you gave.

It's not that I don't understand, it's just that you aren't really making much sense. I guess the part I have a problem with is you trying to say your formula is more accurate than these other formulas, when it's not even close.

DuChene2012

You're contradicting yourself. Are you saying the KG*20 formula is BMR, sedentary TDEE, or what? You keep saying that KG*20 would "get you through the day" without exercise, so are you trying to say that you would maintain weight without exercise using that formula? Because that grossly underestimates my maintenance needs by almost 1000 calories without factoring exercise into the equation.

Also, the Harris-Benedict equation is not a BMR calculator, it's a TDEE calculator, you need to know your BMR to use it. The Harris-Benedict equation is BMR * Activity Factor = TDEE. Personally I use the Katch-McArdle formula to calculate BMR, as it uses lean mass, and accounts for body fat. Using your estimate gets me somewhat close to my BMR based on the Mifflin-St Jeor formula, but that certainly wouldn't "get me through the day," even without exercising. Also, TEF is included in the Harris-Benedict equation, it's already factored in, and it isn't even close to factored into the formula you gave.

It's not that I don't understand, it's just that you aren't really making much sense. I guess the part I have a problem with is you trying to say your formula is more accurate than these other formulas, when it's not even close.

No, I am not contradicting myself, and no. Harris-Benedict does not - in ANY way - include TEF in its formula. TEF is a completely separate equation from Harris-Benedict or any other equation! The (kg)(20) is, I'll say it again, NOT a BMR calculation. If you are using M-SJ then you are using a formula for an obese person. Are you obese? If your BMI is between 30-39, then yes you are, and the calculations you are using may be somewhat correct for your size. You said my calculation grossly underestimates your needs by a whopping 1000 calories. Wow. Really? 1000?? How many calories did the BMR or M-SJ or H-B formulations put you on for MAINTENANCE that mine underestimated by nearly A THOUSAND CALORIES??

You keep telling me that H-B is not a BMR calculator. In fact, both Harris-Benedict and Mifflin-St Jeor computations are for BMR. The goal is to calculate your energy needs ABOVE that in order to get an idea of the KINETIC kcals needed to get you through a full day. For either equation, you are required to plug-in your stress level and activity level in order to get the calories needed for an entire 24-hour period. 24 hours include sleep (rest), so yes, it calculates BMR.

My BMR calculates to 1390. According to M-SJ, my REE (BMR) is 1359 and my energy needs are a whopping 2174 (keeping in mind that M-SJ is used for obese people, which I am not). H-B calculates my BEE (BMR) at 1397 and calorie needs as an astounding 2236! If I ate that many kcals in a day I'd weigh over 300 pounds! However, my (kg)(20) calories/kg gives me 1320 calories, though I eat more like 1400. Hardly a near-1000 calorie deficit from either BMR estimate!

My averaged BMR is 1382. I ingest 1400 kcals on days I work out, so I am utilizing a total of 2782 kcals in a full 24-hour period. Add about 500 kcals burned from my daily exercise routines and I have utilized 3282 kcals in total. Viola! Negative energy balance and weight loss of 1 pound per week! Not bad.

Not to sound rude but you appear to be a large woman if your kcals needs are estimated as high as you claim in order for my calculation to give you such a deficit! Excessively heavy people will naturally have a much greater BMR because the body requires much greater effort and velocity to move blood and oxygen through that pressing weight while at rest. That uses far more energy than someone with a smaller frame. So if you are a much heavier person than me you should be utilizing far more kcals than me! You should be seeing 2 pounds less of yourself per week on the scale for awhile. If you are not seeing this then your energy need calculations are wrong. If you are seeing more than this, then kudos! You are a Workout Queen! :flowerforyou: Take care, though, to eat enough protein in order to support that rapid rate of loss. Metabolism thrives in muscle tissue. If your protein intake is too little you will lose a lot of muscle to feed your tissues, and your metabolic rate will decrease as you lose mitochondria.