Two very different BMRs!

neilegni
neilegni Posts: 36
in Health and Weight Loss
I just ran my numbers on the fat2fit site and received the following result:


Entered information: 22 year old female, 63 inches tall, weighing 195 pounds.

Harris-Benedict Formula
There are a few different methods to calculating your basal metabolic rate (BMR). One of the most popular, developed in the early 1900's is called the Harris-Benedict formula. Based on this formula, your current BMR is 1696 calories.

Katch-McArdle Forumla
The numbers above are fairly accurate, however they don't take into account your lean body mass. A more accurate formula that does take your lean body mass into account is the Katch-McArdle formula. Since many of us have scales that will tell us our current body fat, this formula may yield more accurate results. Based on the information you provided, body fat percentage of 48%%, you have a lean body mass of 101 lbs., and your BMR is 1362 calories.

Which one should I go by? I've been going by the first (1696), but am now worried that I've been using the wrong numbers. I know it doesn't matter either way, as long as I eat below TDEE, but I'm confused. Which number is "right"?

Replies

  • SomeoneSomeplace
    SomeoneSomeplace Posts: 1,094 Member
    The first one seems A LOT more accurate to me. If you're losing eating 1600 then I'd say continue to do that if you stop losing you can always lower to 1500 and so on.

    I'm 23, 5'3 and 115 and my BMR is 1350ish so I'd assume your BMR would be closer to the first number.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    The first one definitely seems more accurate.
  • minizebu
    minizebu Posts: 2,716 Member
    I actually believe that the Katch Mcardle calculation is more accurate.

    The Harris Benedict formula was created around the time of the first world war and the subject group did not include obese individuals.
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    I use the Katch McCardle because it takes lean body mass into consideration.
  • akjmart2002
    akjmart2002 Posts: 263 Member
    Only one way to be sure - go get your BMR clinically tested. I was using the formula estimates for a while and didn't see the results I was expecting given the deficit I had calculated. When I had my metabolism tested, I discovered that my BMR was actually 300 calories less than the Katch-McCardle formula, and thus I had effectively only been eating at a 200 calorie deficit!

    Simply put, all formulas are estimates. If you want accuracy, it can be had. Otherwise, just pick a formula and try it for a while.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    Yep, get your Resting Metabolic Rate tested to know what it is instead of using prediction formulas.

Categories