Warning - The TDEE or BMR calc you use might be wrong

Options
EvgeniZyntx
EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
edited February 23 in Health and Weight Loss
A lot of online calculators use the Wikipedia page for Basal Metabolic Rate as a reference.

The entry for the Katch McArdle equation was incorrect and previously proposed an equation and stated this was for BMR.
Actually, the equation is for Resting Daily Energy Expenditure (RDEE) and not BMR.

This can be correctly seen here, the reference book:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=L4aZIDbmV3oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=katch+mcArdle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vLKJU9WiC8WY1AXV-oHoAQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bmr&f=false

I've edited the Wikipedia page to correct this error.
This does not affect the MFP calculation, as they use another equation.

Check your sources. :wink:

Replies

  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    Glad I don't rely on a website to do this for me...good to know tho...

    I am gonna go check tho and see if scooby is more in line now...
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Branstin
    Branstin Posts: 2,320 Member
    This is the reason I check several sources for the same information. I am using MFP, anyway.
  • Eleonora91
    Eleonora91 Posts: 702 Member
    I've edited the Wikipedia page to correct this error.
    This does not affect the MFP calculation, as they use another equation.

    May I ask you if this means that MFP equations are more accurate?
    I've personally found they aren't 100% accurate for my manteinance level - but it might just be me, just checking
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    I've edited the Wikipedia page to correct this error.
    This does not affect the MFP calculation, as they use another equation.

    May I ask you if this means that MFP equations are more accurate?
    I've personally found they aren't 100% accurate for my manteinance level - but it might just be me, just checking

    MFP apparently uses the Mifflin St Jeor equations. In any case, no equation is a 100% accurate as it is an estimator based on populations. You should use the equations only to create a baseline idea and then adjust your actual settings on what you are seeing based on expectation and activity.

    If you've found that they are a little off for you, go by what you find accurate for you. The estimates will get you there 90% of the way, the rest is your own fine adjustments.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Glad I don't rely on a website to do this for me...good to know tho...

    I am gonna go check tho and see if scooby is more in line now...

    I believe that the Scooby calculator uses the KM equation incorrectly, but is correct for the other equations. This might be a reason why people are seeing 200-400 cal discrepancy on the calculations.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Glad I don't rely on a website to do this for me...good to know tho...

    I am gonna go check tho and see if scooby is more in line now...

    I believe that the Scooby calculator uses the KM equation incorrectly, but is correct for the other equations. This might be a reason why people are seeing 200-400 cal discrepancy on the calculations.

    Scooby sucks. I don't know why everyone refers to him. He's kind if a *kitten*, and his calculations are high.

    IIFYM.com seems to be pretty right on for me.

    Not the biggest fan here, but he is rather complete in his tools. I honestly haven't checked the IIFYM tool - I use my own Excel sheets mostly.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Glad I don't rely on a website to do this for me...good to know tho...

    I am gonna go check tho and see if scooby is more in line now...

    I believe that the Scooby calculator uses the KM equation incorrectly, but is correct for the other equations. This might be a reason why people are seeing 200-400 cal discrepancy on the calculations.

    Scooby sucks. I don't know why everyone refers to him. He's kind if a *kitten*, and his calculations are high.

    IIFYM.com seems to be pretty right on for me.

    Not the biggest fan here, but he is rather complete in his tools. I honestly haven't checked the IIFYM tool - I use my own Excel sheets mostly.

    I know exactly my maintenance. I no need no tools. Just saying, IIFYM is right on.

    Then you probably don't need any equation -- which is really the goal of using any of the tools - to get to the point where one's routine is self-sustained and the numbers just allow you to cruise along.

    So, congrats! (I'm now intrigued to go and check out IIFYM...)
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    In....

    ...and yeah, I've arrived at my own numbers after years of calorie/activity tracking. I'm pretty sure there isn't an online calculator out there that would have given me the numbers I've arrived at.
  • Onederchic
    Onederchic Posts: 128 Member
    bump
  • johnwhitent
    johnwhitent Posts: 648 Member
    I started with Scooby, and checked several others, all seemed a little high for me. I personally prefer heybales spreadsheet here at MFP since it offers much more information and alternative methods, but to me, it's all still just a starting point. Personal trial and error reigns supreme! I've been on MFP over three years now and have been using the TDEE method for some time, and now I know exactly what level of intake/outgo will give me a slow, steady loss, and what will lead to a gain. The calculators served their purpose, but with patience, consistency, and dedication anyone can find their own personal maintenance level and adjust from there to meet their goals.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories