No More TDEE posts

mpf1

sounds like a sound strategy

Sarauk2sf

TDEE is not something you can gather from a simple Online calculator. It's something that took me months to learn by trial and error, when I hit maintenance.

Eating at a deficit was easy for me, when I didn't have an exact number to hit. If I lost weight, I knew I was eating at a defiicit - I just didn't know how much.

When I no longer needed to lose any more, I had to increase my calories. As I did this, I lost another 10 lbs because I wasn't eating enough. When I finally increased them to 2000 per day, that's when the weight loss stopped, so I knew I had hit my TDEE.

Everybody's TDEE is different, and it's not something you can calculate by height, weight and gender.

TDEE is also not static. Not only does daily activity come into play, but dieting suppresses it. When you start to eat more, it increases.

Admiral_Derp

I am absolutely not doing that. I say do TDEE-20% every day. And it's OK if that's below BMR on days you're not very active.

/THREAD

jonnythan

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

Sarauk2sf

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

I cannot be arsed to read through the whole thread to be honest, so to start from scratch so to speak...are you saying that, using the TDEE - 20%, you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above? Just trying to confirm.

sixout

sixout

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

I cannot be arsed to read through the whole thread to be honest, so to start from scratch so to speak...are you saying that, using the TDEE - 20%, you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above? Just trying to confirm.

No, early on in the thread he argued that you should eat below your brm.

jonnythan

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

I cannot be arsed to read through the whole thread to be honest, so to start from scratch so to speak...are you saying that, using the TDEE - 20%, you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above? Just trying to confirm.

No, early on in the thread he argued that you should eat below your brm.

No, I absolutely did not.

This is what I said:

FYI, I've long used TDEE - 500 to lose weight. That number is occasionally below BMR when I have a rather sedentary day. It happens, and it's fine.

jonnythan

You brought 70 pounds into this with your words.

I'm really, really hoping you're a troll account. Otherwise, holy **** we need to pay teachers more.

. My thoughts exactly!! I say troll! It's not possible someone could be so stupid!

"Well say you have 30 lbs of fat mass. That's 105,00 calories.

If your BMR is 1500, you could lay in bed all day and eat no food for 70 days, living off the fat mass alone.

Obviously, you can't last that long as you need other nutrients, but that's how large the "fuel tank" is yes."

A person with a BMR of 1500 that has 30 lbs of fat mass has enough stored energy to account for 70 days of BMR. More, if you factor in the fact that their BMR will decrease with time.

That's a simple fact.

sixout

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

I cannot be arsed to read through the whole thread to be honest, so to start from scratch so to speak...are you saying that, using the TDEE - 20%, you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above? Just trying to confirm.

No, early on in the thread he argued that you should eat below your brm.

No, I absolutely did not.

This is what I said:

FYI, I've long used TDEE - 500 to lose weight. That number is occasionally below BMR when I have a rather sedentary day. It happens, and it's fine.

No?

What's wrong with eating under your BMR? If you don't burn 500 calories over your BMR, eating less than your BMR is fine.

My BMR is just over 1700, but most days I eat between 1550 and 1650. There's nothing wrong with that; I'm just not very active those days.

This is completely incorrect.

BMR is the number of calories that your body takes merely to exist without doing additional work. Work does not mean exercise here, it means things as simple as walking around.

Always eat above BMR. ALWAYS.

... What? Why? You want a calorie deficit. You have to eat fewer calories than you use in a day to lose weight.

So what happens when your TDEE is only 300 calories over your BMR? My BMR is about 1728. What do I do when my TDEE is 2050? Eat 1728 anyway, instead of TDEE - 20% = 1640 (or, alternatively, TDEE - 500 = 1550)?

Why would I want to do that?

You're promoting unhealthy habits.

bpotts44

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

I cannot be arsed to read through the whole thread to be honest, so to start from scratch so to speak...are you saying that, using the TDEE - 20%, you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above? Just trying to confirm.

No, early on in the thread he argued that you should eat below your brm.

No, I absolutely did not.

This is what I said:

FYI, I've long used TDEE - 500 to lose weight. That number is occasionally below BMR when I have a rather sedentary day. It happens, and it's fine.

No?

What's wrong with eating under your BMR? If you don't burn 500 calories over your BMR, eating less than your BMR is fine.

My BMR is just over 1700, but most days I eat between 1550 and 1650. There's nothing wrong with that; I'm just not very active those days.

This is completely incorrect.

BMR is the number of calories that your body takes merely to exist without doing additional work. Work does not mean exercise here, it means things as simple as walking around.

Always eat above BMR. ALWAYS.

... What? Why? You want a calorie deficit. You have to eat fewer calories than you use in a day to lose weight.

So what happens when your TDEE is only 300 calories over your BMR? My BMR is about 1728. What do I do when my TDEE is 2050? Eat 1728 anyway, instead of TDEE - 20% = 1640 (or, alternatively, TDEE - 500 = 1550)?

Why would I want to do that?

You're promoting unhealthy habits.

When MFP puts someone's calories at 1200 and its below BMR are they promoting unhealthy habits or creating an appropriate caloric deficit? People's situations are different.

sixout

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

I cannot be arsed to read through the whole thread to be honest, so to start from scratch so to speak...are you saying that, using the TDEE - 20%, you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above? Just trying to confirm.

No, early on in the thread he argued that you should eat below your brm.

No, I absolutely did not.

This is what I said:

FYI, I've long used TDEE - 500 to lose weight. That number is occasionally below BMR when I have a rather sedentary day. It happens, and it's fine.

No?

What's wrong with eating under your BMR? If you don't burn 500 calories over your BMR, eating less than your BMR is fine.

My BMR is just over 1700, but most days I eat between 1550 and 1650. There's nothing wrong with that; I'm just not very active those days.

This is completely incorrect.

BMR is the number of calories that your body takes merely to exist without doing additional work. Work does not mean exercise here, it means things as simple as walking around.

Always eat above BMR. ALWAYS.

... What? Why? You want a calorie deficit. You have to eat fewer calories than you use in a day to lose weight.

So what happens when your TDEE is only 300 calories over your BMR? My BMR is about 1728. What do I do when my TDEE is 2050? Eat 1728 anyway, instead of TDEE - 20% = 1640 (or, alternatively, TDEE - 500 = 1550)?

Why would I want to do that?

You're promoting unhealthy habits.

When MFP puts someone's calories at 1200 and its below BMR are they promoting unhealthy habits or creating an appropriate caloric deficit? People's situations are different.

Yes, MFP does promote unhealthy eating habits, that's why people always tell everyone to change their settings.

Sarauk2sf

Takes a mature group of people to start making fun of someone because he said it's OK to ho a bit below BMR on sedentary days when TDEE -20% is below BMR. Wow.

I cannot be arsed to read through the whole thread to be honest, so to start from scratch so to speak...are you saying that, using the TDEE - 20%, you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above? Just trying to confirm.

No, early on in the thread he argued that you should eat below your brm.

No, I absolutely did not.

This is what I said:

FYI, I've long used TDEE - 500 to lose weight. That number is occasionally below BMR when I have a rather sedentary day. It happens, and it's fine.

No?

What's wrong with eating under your BMR? If you don't burn 500 calories over your BMR, eating less than your BMR is fine.

My BMR is just over 1700, but most days I eat between 1550 and 1650. There's nothing wrong with that; I'm just not very active those days.

This is completely incorrect.

BMR is the number of calories that your body takes merely to exist without doing additional work. Work does not mean exercise here, it means things as simple as walking around.

Always eat above BMR. ALWAYS.

... What? Why? You want a calorie deficit. You have to eat fewer calories than you use in a day to lose weight.

So what happens when your TDEE is only 300 calories over your BMR? My BMR is about 1728. What do I do when my TDEE is 2050? Eat 1728 anyway, instead of TDEE - 20% = 1640 (or, alternatively, TDEE - 500 = 1550)?

Why would I want to do that?

You're promoting unhealthy habits.

I wasn't trying to re-ignite anything here...at the end of the day, I hope everyone can agree that "you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above for the week"...which it should using TDEE - 20% unless you are completely sedentary on average or have done your calculations wrong.

danasings

Quoting because Colin is HOT.

In because Naomi used the word "pertinacious" and that made me giggle with glee.

jonnythan

I wasn't trying to re-ignite anything here...at the end of the day, I hope everyone can agree that "you should eat at least your BMR on average for the week, but some days you will be under it...as long as it averages out to above"...which it should using TDEE - 20% unless you are completely sedentary on average or have done your calculations wrong.

Absolutely. If your TDEE - 20% over the course of a week is below your BMR, you're clearly not getting enough exercise. It means you're basically sedentary every day.

However, if you're sedentary 2 days a week and active 5 days a week, it's OK to go 100-200 below BMR on the sedentary days and well above BMR on the active days if that's how your TDEE - 20% works out.

mockchoc

bump

jonnythan

You're promoting unhealthy habits.

Let's be completely clear, since my previous posts appear to confuse you:

For weight loss, I advocate eating TDEE - 20% (or TDEE - 500) every day, whatever that number happens to be. If it goes below BMR sometimes, that's fine
I further advocate, for the vast majority of people, a heavy freeweight lifting program.
I further advocate, for the vast majority of people, a moderate amount of cardio of 2-5 hours per week.

Is that clear? Is that unhealthy?

ShellyBell999

bump

strikerjb007

Does anyone know what the average loss would be if you aim for TDEE-20%? How about if you aim for 2 lbs. a week? Wouldn't you be under BMR? I've seen people losing that much so I'm curious.

drj1955

Bump