Spreadsheet for bodyfat, BMR, TDEE, progress tracker
Replies
-
Bump
0 -
Heybales, when you do the wrist measurement on the sheet, it says to use the smallest part of the wrist, but should that be taken above (towards the elbow) or below (towards the fingers) the the ulnar styloid process (bony round thing on the back of the wrist)?0
-
Heybales, can I ask a quick question about the BMF adjustment?
I am 65",160lbs, 28% BF
Doing the BodyMedia calculations as you mentioned in another thread I came up with:
My average number of cals burned while sleeping was 1.17 cals/min X 1440 = 1685
While sitting at rest was 1.18 cals/min X 1440 = 1699
I entered my info into the BodyMedia tab. The calculations came out to:
Katch BMR: 1504
Mifflin: 1455
Cunningham RMR:1655
The height adjustment suggested was to adjust to 70". That's a 5" increase. Is this correct? It seems it would actually skew the data the wrong way, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the adjustment.
Thank you0 -
bump0
-
Heybales, when you do the wrist measurement on the sheet, it says to use the smallest part of the wrist, but should that be taken above (towards the elbow) or below (towards the fingers) the the ulnar styloid process (bony round thing on the back of the wrist)?
Hand side, though I guess bad inflammation could skew it. But trying to get just bone aspect, usually little fat there, though it can lower slightly.0 -
Heybales, can I ask a quick question about the BMF adjustment?
I am 65",160lbs, 28% BF
Doing the BodyMedia calculations as you mentioned in another thread I came up with:
My average number of cals burned while sleeping was 1.17 cals/min X 1440 = 1685
While sitting at rest was 1.18 cals/min X 1440 = 1699
I entered my info into the BodyMedia tab. The calculations came out to:
Katch BMR: 1504
Mifflin: 1455
Cunningham RMR:1655
The height adjustment suggested was to adjust to 70". That's a 5" increase. Is this correct? It seems it would actually skew the data the wrong way, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the adjustment.
Thank you
So those 2 reading averages are so close it tells me the sensors really aren't working well for the heat related reading, there should be difference between BMR and RMR, as the Katch and Cunningham show a spread.
And the BMF has not lowered closer to the Katch BMR with it's adjusted value, if it is much.
Because it in general would need to come up, from around Mifflin to a higher Katch value (great news, more LBM than expected for your age, weight, height).
The formula actually averages BMR with RMR, from calculated values.
Sounds like your device is not only bad with sensors for you, but wrong direction. Or you sleep really warm, more than expected.0 -
Heybales, can I ask a quick question about the BMF adjustment?
I am 65",160lbs, 28% BF
Doing the BodyMedia calculations as you mentioned in another thread I came up with:
My average number of cals burned while sleeping was 1.17 cals/min X 1440 = 1685
While sitting at rest was 1.18 cals/min X 1440 = 1699
I entered my info into the BodyMedia tab. The calculations came out to:
Katch BMR: 1504
Mifflin: 1455
Cunningham RMR:1655
The height adjustment suggested was to adjust to 70". That's a 5" increase. Is this correct? It seems it would actually skew the data the wrong way, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the adjustment.
Thank you
So those 2 reading averages are so close it tells me the sensors really aren't working well for the heat related reading, there should be difference between BMR and RMR, as the Katch and Cunningham show a spread.
And the BMF has not lowered closer to the Katch BMR with it's adjusted value, if it is much.
Because it in general would need to come up, from around Mifflin to a higher Katch value (great news, more LBM than expected for your age, weight, height).
The formula actually averages BMR with RMR, from calculated values.
Sounds like your device is not only bad with sensors for you, but wrong direction. Or you sleep really warm, more than expected.
Thank for taking the time to answer. It's interesting because I've had this for about 9 months and I lose .8 lbs a week when I have a 500 cal deficit (18% of my TDEE). So I assumed that was well within the margin of error. I am going to maintenance for a few weeks (or more) and wanted to make it as accurate as possible.0 -
Thank for taking the time to answer. It's interesting because I've had this for about 9 months and I lose .8 lbs a week when I have a 500 cal deficit (18% of my TDEE). So I assumed that was well within the margin of error. I am going to maintenance for a few weeks (or more) and wanted to make it as accurate as possible.
How close are the bodyfat calcs to each other - within 5%?0 -
Bump0
-
Thank for taking the time to answer. It's interesting because I've had this for about 9 months and I lose .8 lbs a week when I have a 500 cal deficit (18% of my TDEE). So I assumed that was well within the margin of error. I am going to maintenance for a few weeks (or more) and wanted to make it as accurate as possible.
How close are the bodyfat calcs to each other - within 5%?
No. Actually the Navy method has me at 30%, the Covert Bailey has me at 21%(I wish!!!!). I had a visual estimation done by Sarauk and SideSteel and they put me around 28% so I'm using that value. Very well could be that I am 30+%, but that was the best guesstimate.0 -
Bump 0
-
bump0
-
Improvement on the spreadsheet if you have it.
On Simple Setup tab, added a field for Tested RMR in case you had that done.
It calculates the BMR that would go with that tested RMR, and uses that as basis for the math.
If you have no tested RMR, then you don't need this improved sheet yet.
If you do get it, and want to retain your current Progress tab, look in the new sheet Progress tab at the top as to instructions for moving those stats over.0 -
hiccup!0
-
Bump:)0
-
Updated the spreadsheet on 5/5.
Visual change only.
The Simple Setup tab and MFP Tweak tab, where it shows the macro % to change MFP to, now shows what that is in grams.
Had some requests to see if indeed protein was hitting close to that 1g / lb / LBM.
Of course when making the change in MFP, it shows the grams anyway, but this way a tad bit of visual reassurance that the macros aren't totally off-base, because with bigger TDEG's it might seem like it, like not enough protein.0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
Bumping for later0
-
Thanks for the spreadsheet heybales.
Quick question - on the Simple Setup page, when I enter in minutes of a "weight lifting" activity, it actually reduces my TDEG.
I would think that any activity would increase the TDEG. When I take away the weightlifting completely, my TDEG is actually higher than it is when I include any weightlifting.
Curious about that.0 -
I have the same question! Thanks for asking it.0
-
Weight lifting, as that line is talking about, not circuit training or cardio with strength focus, helps maintain muscle mass. Even in the face of a deficit.
In fact the studies of 800 cal diets have shown no reduction in RMR or LBM when lifting is done.
Of course when the studies are over and the participants aren't under direct observation and try to finish the weight loss on their own they mess up bad and then the problems start.
And on the TDEE Deficit tab, under the bottom section for deficit being 0.7% of CW, you'll find the study where they actually gained LBM with that much of a deficit.
But since people using the spreadsheet aren't under study direct observation and have other stresses in life, I stop at the BMR as lowest, even with lifting.
So lifting just allows bigger deficit without any concern of losing muscle mass.
It's a safe minimum of course. You'll reach the point faster where you can't make improvements with that much deficit, and you may prefer lifting improvements over weight loss. Your call, just eat more.0 -
bump0
-
I just got a new fitbit one and have been making adjustments to it per Heybales instructions. I had a podbod test and my BMR is 30% and I did the oxygen test and my RMR was 1550. I am 5'4" and 135 pounds. According to the instructions I adjusted my height to 80.82 inches to hopefully get a more appropriate BMR in fitbit.
My question is - does it seem reasonable to have burned 400 calories while sleeping from midnight to 6am? It seems like a lot to me and maybe I should readjust the fitbit parameters.0 -
I just got a new fitbit one and have been making adjustments to it per Heybales instructions. I had a podbod test and my BMR is 30% and I did the oxygen test and my RMR was 1550. I am 5'4" and 135 pounds. According to the instructions I adjusted my height to 80.82 inches to hopefully get a more appropriate BMR in fitbit.
My question is - does it seem reasonable to have burned 400 calories while sleeping from midnight to 6am? It seems like a lot to me and maybe I should readjust the fitbit parameters.
1550 / 24 * 6 = 387.
Depending on only 6 hrs, so very correct. See, you actually burn more than you think.0 -
Bump0
-
Whoops - said BMR when I meant my bodyfat was 30%.
Thanks Heybales for the quick reply. I am such a numbers nerd that I am salivating over your worksheets!!!0 -
Question about the spreadsheet (sorry if this has been asked before!)
Using the Simple Setup tab, the TDEG equalled my BMR. Is this normal, and okay? I do an hour of walking each day, but that is my only real exercise at this point. Still, I've heard I should be -netting- my BMR at minimum, not -eating- it.
Just wanted to make sure I was on the right track here. =]0 -
Question about the spreadsheet (sorry if this has been asked before!)
Using the Simple Setup tab, the TDEG equalled my BMR. Is this normal, and okay? I do an hour of walking each day, but that is my only real exercise at this point. Still, I've heard I should be -netting- my BMR at minimum, not -eating- it.
Just wanted to make sure I was on the right track here. =]
For the TDEG to be at your BMR, that means you have a lot to lose and not a very high TDEE, and in those cases studies have found no problem with muscle mass loss when eating low - as long as protein is kept high enough. With enough fat the body doesn't feel threatened.
So confirm you follow the recommendation, in addition you probably noted that if the TDEG is close to BMR, you take 1 day of diet break a week.
Now if that makes you feel uncomfortable, you could take what that TDEE days gives you as extra, and spread it over the whole week.
So TDEE - TDEG = deficit (which is shown in spreadsheet results too)
Deficit / 7 = extra to add to TDEG daily. Usually it's not much, the amount of inaccuracy in a food label almost.
That's why it's better to just take the deficit as given, but give your hormones a reset weekly.
Usually I've seen that last about a month, by then inches have move enough, BF number has dropped enough, that BMR, TDEE, and TDEG have all gone up.
If you were eating well below that number for a decent amount of time though, still beneficial to eat at TDEE for a bit. Like eat at the BMR for couple weeks, then half way to TDEE, then at TDEE.
Also consider the idea of netting your BMR. You calories burnt walking includes what you would have burned anyway, and in a diet, it includes what you were expected to burn anyway.
What are you expected to burn each hr of the day on avg? TDEE / 24.
So now take the calories reported for being burned, subtract that TDEE / 24, and that's how many you burned really above and beyond what was expected?
For walking, was it really that much extra?0 -
Looks great. I love spreadsheets. Can't wait to give it a go.0
