Spreadsheet for bodyfat, BMR, TDEE, progress tracker
Options
Replies
-
bump for later0
-
Bump0
-
So I retested with my average heart rate for an half hour spin. Average heart rate was 157 which was pretty hard to do not going over the speed which I think you said was about 6.4km(I could be wrong as I cant for the life of me find the original thread) So I walked at 6kmph at 12 incline.
HRM 190
Calc 221
fitbit 145
So this time compared to the walk/run link it was close to 20% under. One weird thing was that the fitbit registered me walking at 6.6km.
I wondered if the high incline may have put it out too much? Would you suggest I retest at a higher speed and lower incline. But I only have little short legs so it will end up a jog.
Thanks0 -
So I retested with my average heart rate for an half hour spin. Average heart rate was 157 which was pretty hard to do not going over the speed which I think you said was about 6.4km(I could be wrong as I cant for the life of me find the original thread) So I walked at 6kmph at 12 incline.
HRM 190
Calc 221
fitbit 145
So this time compared to the walk/run link it was close to 20% under. One weird thing was that the fitbit registered me walking at 6.6km.
I wondered if the high incline may have put it out too much? Would you suggest I retest at a higher speed and lower incline. But I only have little short legs so it will end up a jog.
Thanks
Very interesting. Good memory too.
Max was 6.3 mph actually jogging flat, so 10 Kmph.
Walking is max 4 mph, so 6.4 Kmph.
12% incline probably too steep, as personal efficiency starts making a big difference. You can walk steep emphasizing the glutes or the quads, or balance between them. Or very inefficient with big steps, or way too small steps.
Probably 5% is max incline.
But jogging up to 10 Kmph should probably allow getting your HR up to matching 157. Just need a longer warmup then.
And in the studies, up to that speed the calculations were still within 15 calories of tested.0 -
wow thanks for listing that s/s! This is exciting.0
-
Is this bf calc more accurate?0
-
Is this bf calc more accurate?
If you dig around studies on those 2 calcs, those are usually considered the two best. What's also nice is they mainly use different body parts. So out of proportion in one area can have some balance by the other formula at least.
Though, say even at goal weight in years past, if you have small wrists compared to say forearms bigger, or big thighs compared to smaller hips - your body can throw them off badly in mainly 1 direction.
Usually they get throw off in opposite directions, so the avg still is within 5% of reality. Especially as inches are lost and accuracy improves.0 -
So I retested with my average heart rate for an half hour spin. Average heart rate was 157 which was pretty hard to do not going over the speed which I think you said was about 6.4km(I could be wrong as I cant for the life of me find the original thread) So I walked at 6kmph at 12 incline.
HRM 190
Calc 221
fitbit 145
So this time compared to the walk/run link it was close to 20% under. One weird thing was that the fitbit registered me walking at 6.6km.
I wondered if the high incline may have put it out too much? Would you suggest I retest at a higher speed and lower incline. But I only have little short legs so it will end up a jog.
Thanks
Very interesting. Good memory too.
Max was 6.3 mph actually jogging flat, so 10 Kmph.
Walking is max 4 mph, so 6.4 Kmph.
12% incline probably too steep, as personal efficiency starts making a big difference. You can walk steep emphasizing the glutes or the quads, or balance between them. Or very inefficient with big steps, or way too small steps.
Probably 5% is max incline.
But jogging up to 10 Kmph should probably allow getting your HR up to matching 157. Just need a longer warmup then.
And in the studies, up to that speed the calculations were still within 15 calories of tested.
So the guinea pig is back again.
Did it this time at 8kmphr incline 3... It was bang on for my 157 average hr
Results
Exrx 212
Hrm 184 (202 if I take into the 13.5% from previous test.
Fitbit 231
So pretty close to the 15 cal difference you mentioned earlier.
Thanks for the information. I've been going through your spreadsheet and it seems the only real change I need to make is change active activity to very active. I average 15,000 steps a day and at least once a week 20,000. I wish more mums would realise that it is not sedentary activity being at home a lot. So I'm eating at active tdee for a month then will go from there. Bump to small cut at very active will probably equate to similar daily cals....maybe 100 more.
Thank you for your time0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
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
