TDEE BMR

Learn what you need to know through the link below. It is awesome information and will change your life. :flowerforyou:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Learn what you need to know through the link below. It is awesome information and will change your life. :flowerforyou:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Very helpful! Thanks for sharing.

You are welcome. There is also a MFP group by the same name for questions/support as well.

The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't' any authoritative source for this information. You can read about it and use calculators on 10 different sites and get 10 different explanations for calculations and how it all works. Also, you can't count on U.S. government nutrition information either. So where do you go? We need a source for information that is unbiased, factual, based on real science, and backed by real world studies, and also isn't trying to sell you anything.

The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't' any authoritative source for this information. You can read about it and use calculators on 10 different sites and get 10 different explanations for calculations and how it all works. Also, you can't count on U.S. government nutrition information either. So where do you go? We need a source for information that is unbiased, factual, based on real science, and backed by real world studies, and also isn't trying to sell you anything.

Lol. When you find rainbow farting unicorns, lemme know.

The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't' any authoritative source for this information. You can read about it and use calculators on 10 different sites and get 10 different explanations for calculations and how it all works. Also, you can't count on U.S. government nutrition information either. So where do you go? We need a source for information that is unbiased, factual, based on real science, and backed by real world studies, and also isn't trying to sell you anything.

Take an average of what the various sites say, maybe? I followed MFP guidelines for awhile and then started seeing what other people are doing. I started incorporating what would work for me and that's turned out well. The massive amounts of information out there can be overwhelming (it's always stymied me before), so keeping it really simple - calories in, calories out - has given me the confidence to wade through it all. It also gives me the breathing room to try new things and the pressure to have be ON IT ALL THE TIME 100% RAAARRRR has faded. That helps, too.

The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't' any authoritative source for this information. You can read about it and use calculators on 10 different sites and get 10 different explanations for calculations and how it all works. Also, you can't count on U.S. government nutrition information either. So where do you go? We need a source for information that is unbiased, factual, based on real science, and backed by real world studies, and also isn't trying to sell you anything.

Lol. When you find rainbow farting unicorns, lemme know.

The pithy attitude of your response is a big part of why I don't want to live on this planet anymore. You act as though I'm being completely unreasonable but, in fact, this is something that any population should expect, no demand, from their government but it is because of this attitude that we just have to take what we can find online, at our own risk.

I don't need it much at this point but these guidelines should be available to anyone who needs them. Human nutrition and how to gather objective metrics, in a way that is accurate and consistent for anyone within an insignificant margin of error, has been known for a long time but that information doesn't usually make it down to laymen in a way they can use to control their weight and optimize their health through nutrition, mostly because of politics, lobbyists, corporate interests, etc. Your attitude only serves to perpetuate this state. Take a look at U.S. Nutritional Guidelines to see what I mean.

I respect @Helloitsdan and like his road map, I mean at least he is trying. However, ultimately you can't say his information is any more accurate or official than the next guy who posts something on a forum. It has no authoritative weight. You can't expect people to put their health in the hands of some guy online. There needs to be accountability for such things, and that is probably why MFP doesn't get involved. His is the best advice I've seen on MFP boards, but then that bar is kind of low.

If it helps, think of it like a Scrabble dictionary. If there were a disagreement, how would one settle it? That is all I'm asking for and I don't think it is too much to ask. The reason that works is because all of the parties involved trust the source above all.

I just switched from 1500 cals a day to 1800 cals a day. Last week I ate at that number, with 2 whoops 3000 cals days (stress/birthday) and lost 2 pounds! I can eat so much, it's awesome and I lose weight!

The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't' any authoritative source for this information. You can read about it and use calculators on 10 different sites and get 10 different explanations for calculations and how it all works. Also, you can't count on U.S. government nutrition information either. So where do you go? We need a source for information that is unbiased, factual, based on real science, and backed by real world studies, and also isn't trying to sell you anything.

Lol. When you find rainbow farting unicorns, lemme know.

The pithy attitude of your response is a big part of why I don't want to live on this planet anymore. You act as though I'm being completely unreasonable but, in fact, this is something that any population should expect, no demand, from their government but it is because of this attitude that we just have to take what we can find online, at our own risk.

I don't need it much at this point but these guidelines should be available to anyone who needs them. Human nutrition and how to gather objective metrics, in a way that is accurate and consistent for anyone within an insignificant margin of error, has been known for a long time but that information doesn't usually make it down to laymen in a way they can use to control their weight and optimize their health through nutrition, mostly because of politics, lobbyists, corporate interests, etc. Your attitude only serves to perpetuate this state. Take a look at U.S. Nutritional Guidelines to see what I mean.

I respect @Helloitsdan and like his road map, I mean at least he is trying. However, ultimately you can't say his information is any more accurate or official than the next guy who posts something on a forum. It has no authoritative weight. You can't expect people to put their health in the hands of some guy online. There needs to be accountability for such things, and that is probably why MFP doesn't get involved. His is the best advice I've seen on MFP boards, but then that bar is kind of low.

If it helps, think of it like a Scrabble dictionary. If there were a disagreement, how would one settle it? That is all I'm asking for and I don't think it is too much to ask. The reason that works is because all of the parties involved trust the source above all.

I think that the Road Map works for most of the parties involved in using it, because we understand that the figures are 'best' estimates. The information on the Map itself tells users to re-assess the numbers after losing each 5 lb as lower/higher weight will then alter all the data.

None of us are a 'special snowflake', but then again we are not all the same. It would be impossible for any government to come up with an 'off the peg' calculation that fitted everybody, let alone a global calculator. BMR, TDEG, and TDEE numbers are rapidly moving targets and at best you will only ever get an estimate.

Even if there isn't any science or facts that someone can post about tdee and bmr, I don't get what could be bad about eating as much food as you can while still losing weight? I would much rather eat 1800 calories a day and lose weight than eat 1000 calories a day.

Totally agree. Also when we get to target weight and need to maintain, how much more frightening will it be to increase from 1000 cals to 2000 cals. It will involve another total change in eating pattern. Whereas just increasing by up to 500 cals maximum will be no sweat - a small increase in portion size and we're there.

The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't' any authoritative source for this information. You can read about it and use calculators on 10 different sites and get 10 different explanations for calculations and how it all works. Also, you can't count on U.S. government nutrition information either. So where do you go? We need a source for information that is unbiased, factual, based on real science, and backed by real world studies, and also isn't trying to sell you anything.

Lol. When you find rainbow farting unicorns, lemme know.

Love this^^^^^
Also the link to the road map works and is certainly not trying to get you to buy anything. As Beachlover says there is a group by the same name where you can see how many people have found this very successful.

What is the link to the group?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

SOME SCIENCE FOR YOU!



BMR estimation formulas

Several prediction equations exist. Historically most notable one was Harris-Benedict equation, which was created in 1919.

The Original Harris-Benedict Equation:

for men,

for women,

where P is total heat production at complete rest, m is the weight, h is the height, and a is the age, and with the difference in BMR for men and women being mainly due to differences in body weight. For example, a 55 year old woman weighing 130 lb (59 kg) and 5 feet 6 inches (168 cm) tall would have a BMR of 1272 kcal per day or 53 kcal/h (61.3 watts).

In 1984, the original Harris-Benedict equations were revised using new data. In comparisons with actual expenditure, the revised equations were found to be more accurate.

The Revised Harris-Benedict Equation:

for men,

for women,

The Mifflin St Jeor Equation:

It was the best prediction equation until 1990, when Mifflin et al introduced the equation:

, where s is +5 for males and −161 for females.

According to this formula, the woman in the example above has a BMR of 1204 kcal per day. During the last 100 years, lifestyles have changed and Frankenfield et al showed it to be about 5% more accurate.

These formulas are based on body weight, which does not take into account the difference in metabolic activity between lean body mass and body fat. Other formulas exist which take into account lean body mass, two of which are the Katch-McArdle formula, and Cunningham formula. However, the Cunningham formula is used to predict RMR instead of BMR.

The Katch-McArdle Formula (BMR):

, where LBM is the lean body mass in kg.

According to this formula, if the woman in the example has a body fat percentage of 30%, her BMR would be 1263 kcal per day.

The Cunningham Formula (RMR):

, where LBM is the lean body mass in kg.

Since lean body mass is metabolically active vs. fat cells which need very few calories to be sustained, these formula tend to be more accurate, especially with athletes who have above average lean mass and little body fat.

To calculate daily calorie needs, the BMR value is multiplied by a factor with a value between 1.2 and 1.9, depending on the person's physical activity level.

Causes of individual differences in BMR
The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal (6279 kJ). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass. Other factors explaining the variation included fat mass (6.7%), age (1.7%), and experimental error including within-subject difference (2%). The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. This remaining difference was not explained by sex nor by differing tissue sized of highly energetic organs such as the brain.

Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR. For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ). This difference of 715 kcal (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.


There is science behind BMR and therefore TDEE, just some people don't do the research.

Katch-McArdle formula below;

-For Men to calculate BMR = 66 + (13.7 x weight in kg) + (5 x height in cm) – (6.8 x age in years)

-For Women to calculate BMR = 655 + (9.6 x weight in kg) + (1.8 x height in cm) – (4.7 x age in years)

...For your weight, 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds

...For your height, 1 inch = 2.54 cm

Example #1: You are a male, 35 years old, 6 foot tall (182.88 cm), you weigh 200 pounds (91 kg). Your basal metabolic rate (BMR) will be 66 + 1246.7 + 914.4 – 238 = 1989.1 calorie intake per day!

Example #2: You are a female, 35 years old, 5 feet 6 inches tall (170.69 cm), you weigh 132 pounds (60 kg). Your basal metabolic rate (BMR) will be 655 + 576 + 307.24 – 164.5 = 1373.74 calorie intake per day!

Once you know your BMR (basal metabolic rate) then use your daily activity factor to get your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE):

-Sedentary................BMR x 1.2 (little exercise)

-Lightly active...........BMR x 1.375 (light exercise)

-Moderately active.....BMR x 1.55 (moderate exercise)

-Very active.............BMR x 1.725 (hard exercise)

-Extremely active......BMR x 1.9 (hard exercise daily)

For example #1... if you are a moderately active male…your TDEE will be 1989.1 calories times your activity level of 1.55 which equals 3083 calories per day.

For example #2... if you are a moderately active female, your TDEE will be 1373.74 calories times your activity level of 1.55 which equals 2129.30 calories per day.

The Harris-Benedict equation has a separate formula for men and women and is not as accurate as the one shown above.

Sycthrex - your math is intimidating. It is, in fact, terrifying. :embarassed: