NEAT underestimated
shmoony
Posts: 237 Member
In all of these posts from people asking how many calories they need to bulk (or lose depending which forum), NEAT is often undervalued or under mentioned as the main factor in determining how many calories necessary. The reality is that someone who works an office job needs FAR fewer calories / day than someone who moves around for 14 hours a day. I maintain at 2800 calories at 163 lbs., but an accountant of similar weight and body comp might only need 2200-2300. That's a difference if 52 lbs / year. My point is, it's impossible to accurately give suggestions on caloric intake without fully understanding ones level of general activity, not just there weight and workout schedule. I burn far more calories/ week above my BMR outside the gym than I do inside.
0
Replies
-
Well yeah... that's why you select an activity level appropriate for your non-exercise activity levels, or use a proper website like exrx.net or health-calc.com to calculate while adjusting for personal differences (can enter in time spent at different activity levels).0
-
What you're calling NEAT, most people on here are calling TDEE. So yeah - it's not underestimated at all, IMO.0
-
NEAT and TDEE are different. Look it up.0
-
And most (all) calculators give you like 5 different levels of approximate activity. Considering there are a million shades of gray between sedentary and Olympic athlete, I don't think 5 categories covers it.0
-
Most0
-
These calculators are not accurate. Everyone's metabolism is different, I was maintaining at 4000 calories at a weight of 170lb at one point. Tdee calcs put me at 25000
-
This content has been removed.
-
I think it's actually more when people put active/very active, and then ALSO log exercise and eat that back. Then they are basically combining NEAT and TDEE... and doing it all wrong.Getting somewhat of an accurate figure on NEAT is nice and all but in reality most don't need to go that far. I'd suspect most people don't really even bother to consider lifestyle outside of sleeping and the gym into their equation. I'd think most say they are very active solely based on training and that's where they go wrong.
So if wanting to do neat, choose whichever activity level fits with your non-exercise activity (e.g. I need to choose moderately active for it to be close to my neat needs, and I'm just a student) and then log exercise. If wanting to do TDEE, either enter your custom intake from a TDEE website or use the activity level that you think best corresponds to both your gym AND non-gym life. For me I guess that'd be active now lol.
0 -
TDEE isn't very accurate. Mine is suppose to be 2200 but if I eat less then 2500 I loose...0
-
This is exactly why I got a fitness tracker. Even if it's not 100% accurate, it's still more accurate than guessing through TDEE, especially if you're like me and have varying activity levels depending on whether it's a work day, gym day, whatever.0
-
AshleyECook wrote: »TDEE isn't very accurate. Mine is suppose to be 2200 but if I eat less then 2500 I loose...
That means that your estimation of your TDEE isn't very accurate. If you maintain at 2500 and lose below 2500 then your TDEE is roughly 2500.
Granted, TDEE is a moving target.
For what it's worth I agree with the original poster, but accurate logging and observation of results can lead people to the correct approximation for TDEE provided that activity levels don't wildly fluctuate from week to week.0 -
AshleyECook wrote: »TDEE isn't very accurate. Mine is suppose to be 2200 but if I eat less then 2500 I loose...
That means that your estimation of your TDEE isn't very accurate. If you maintain at 2500 and lose below 2500 then your TDEE is roughly 2500.
Granted, TDEE is a moving target.
For what it's worth I agree with the original poster, but accurate logging and observation of results can lead people to the correct approximation for TDEE provided that activity levels don't wildly fluctuate from week to week.
agreed.
I'm not sure why this is a thing. It's an estimate- and some trial and error is to be expected.
And I don't know a single solitary person who HONESTLY thinks a desk job person burns remotely close to anyone who walks daily for their job- or moves heavy things. That's just. Nonsensical.0 -
I think some people do vary in caloric requirements due to NEAT, and not just the real exercise/movement component of TDEE. My activity level (not counting exercise) is sedentary. Even after factoring in calories burned through exercise, according to MFP my calorie needs are a little less than 2000 to maintain. A lot of other calculators have my TDEE being at or below 2000 as well. However, I think my real maintenance is closer to 2200, which I think could be partly explained through NEAT.0
-
I guess the reason I brought this up is because there are a lot of people who insist that they eat the same as their skinny friend and don't understand why they can't lose any weight,or people who try to bulk unsuccessfully with a given number of calories. We talk about "metabolism" as a basic body function that is out of our control as opposed to the result of its' needs. From what I have read, BMR from person to person varies very little (between people of similar size). It is really one's daily activity level that dictates our metabolism. You can't just sit at a desk all day, go to the gym 7 days a week, and then go sit in front of the TV and think you're active. Just like you can't work a construction job and chase kids around the house all night and gain muscle without accounting for the extra demand. It sounds simple, I know, but a lot of people who are new here often ask the question of how many calories they should eat for a specific purpose, and the answer is really that there is no answer that we could possibly give without a thorough examination of their lifestyle, because as I stated before, one lifestyle to another can account for a plus minus of many many pounds a year.0
-
I think one thing even office people don't always consider is how much getting up and moving around burns. I have an office job, but I'm pretty fidgety. Days that I sit all day burn a good 100-200 calories less than days I walk back and forth to the break room/bathroom frequently and hit Target for lunch.
That non-exercise activity really adds up, but it took a fitness tracker for me to realize exactly how much. So there is a pretty decent difference between sitting all day at a desk and then sitting for lunch vs. making sure you get up and move around, or run errands during lunch, etc.
0 -
Well said! Even though I spend so much of my time sitting, a lot of times I am tapping my toes or changing my body position some. Over the course of weeks and months, I'm sure that effect does add up, which I think is part of the point the OP was making.I think one thing even office people don't always consider is how much getting up and moving around burns. I have an office job, but I'm pretty fidgety. Days that I sit all day burn a good 100-200 calories less than days I walk back and forth to the break room/bathroom frequently and hit Target for lunch.
That non-exercise activity really adds up, but it took a fitness tracker for me to realize exactly how much. So there is a pretty decent difference between sitting all day at a desk and then sitting for lunch vs. making sure you get up and move around, or run errands during lunch, etc.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions