So this TDEE-20%, does it work?

Options
I've just been reading the stickied thread about calculating a more manageable goal than MFP's standard 1200 calories.

Based on the calculations in that thread, I need to eat around 1700 calories per day, which seems a lot to me!

I am 5"7 (170cm) and 217lbs, with a goal weight of 150lbs. I have a sedentary/light exercise lifestyle. Does this sound right? I just can't wrap my head around actively losing weight eating that much per day.
«1

Replies

  • KylaDenay
    KylaDenay Posts: 1,585 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    Yes TDEE method does work. With the tdee method your exercise calories are already including in your daily deficit. Therefore you would not eat back exercise calories. The reason why the daily caloric intake is higher. Unlike the MFP method, exercise calories are not including, therefore you eat back exercise calories.

    It averages out to be the same amount usually between the two methods. However with TDEE you eat the same amount everyday.

    ETA: For your height and weight....yes that is about right IF you are not working out. If you are exercising your TDEE would be higher than that.
  • libbydoodle11
    libbydoodle11 Posts: 1,351 Member
    Options
    Try it, yes it works.
  • harrietm127
    harrietm127 Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Ok, thanks guys! Sounds good (and I'm not complaining about an additional 500 calories).

    My level of exercise can vary drastically week to week, so maybe I will put it in as 'light' (the figures I gave above are 'sedentary'...Mon-Fri I walk a cumulative 30+mins just from commuting, so I guess that's not exactly sedentary).
  • KylaDenay
    KylaDenay Posts: 1,585 Member
    Options
    The TDEE method works best with consistency in activity. If it is not so consistent maybe stick with MFP method.
  • ybodwen
    ybodwen Posts: 342 Member
    Options
    What about calculating the number of calories as sedentary and then using exercise cals from MFP? Sorta like a hybrid?
  • BigGuy47
    BigGuy47 Posts: 1,768 Member
    Options
    KylaDenay wrote: »
    The TDEE method works best with consistency in activity. If it is not so consistent maybe stick with MFP method.
    This ^

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    It works. As long as you eat less than your TDEE and count accurately, you should lose, although you may need to experiment a bit to get your TDEE, as the calculators are just estimates.

    You should know that there are two reasons it differs from the MFP recommendation. The first is that it includes exercise calories, whereas MFP expects you to eat back exercise. The difference is much less once you factor that in. The second is that if you ask MFP for a 2 lb loss/week, it will deduct 1000 calories or as close to that as it can without going below 1200. If you deduct 20% from the TDEE of a typical woman, especially one who is not that active, you won't be deducting anywhere near 1000 calories. For example, if your TDEE is 2000 and you deduct 400 for a total of 1600, you are aiming for a loss of just under 1 lb/week. It might end up being higher--IME, more calories can result in bumping up activity and thus overall TDEE--but the weekly goal you are seeking is less than when you ask for 2 lbs/week, the usual reason people get the 1200 recommendation from MFP.
  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    Options
    To maintain, depending on all activity/exercise you'd need 2200-2500 so yes, eating 1700 should allow you to lose weight.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    I think TDEE works best when you're consistent AND realistic about your exercise.

    If you put a higher activity level into the calculator because you really-totally-definitely plan to get to the gym 5 times a week, and then you don't go more than once or twice, then you're definitely going to be overeating with the TDEE method. Whereas the MFP method will give you the extra calories to eat back on the days you actually do work out, and not on the days you don't.

    So yeah. Be realistic, not aspirational.

    On the other hand, TDEE, when used correctly, does allow you to eat a more consistent calorie level each day, rather than yo-yoing from low to high based on workouts.

    Also, this isn't inherent to the TDEE method, but the calculators most commonly used by people on this forum tend to give you a calorie count based on a 15-20% deficit, which is probably more realistic and healthier than the 1-2 pound/week pace that most people target in the MFP calculator. Sure, I'd *like* to lose 2 pounds per week... but realistically, that ain't gonna happen at my height, weight and size. The TDEE calculator tells me I can probably manage to lose about 0.7-0.8/week on average if I stick with it, so that sets up my expectations for a slower, more sustainable pace.

    One thing: Recalculate your TDEE calorie goals after every 5 pounds lost. Since it's calculating deficit as percentage of caloric intake, if you want to keep up a 20% deficit, for instance, then you have to reduce caloric intake as you go along.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    KylaDenay wrote: »
    The TDEE method works best with consistency in activity. If it is not so consistent maybe stick with MFP method.


    this. I used to use TDEE, then I became less consistent with exercise... so then I switched to NEAT and it works better for me.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    ybodwen wrote: »
    What about calculating the number of calories as sedentary and then using exercise cals from MFP? Sorta like a hybrid?


    You are basically describing NEAT method. Which MFP already does. So if you want to do this method, then either use MFP lgihtly active (or more if you have an active job) and then log exercise cals and set your goal to 1lb/week or 0.5lb/week.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    I've just been reading the stickied thread about calculating a more manageable goal than MFP's standard 1200 calories.

    Based on the calculations in that thread, I need to eat around 1700 calories per day, which seems a lot to me!

    I am 5"7 (170cm) and 217lbs, with a goal weight of 150lbs. I have a sedentary/light exercise lifestyle. Does this sound right? I just can't wrap my head around actively losing weight eating that much per day.

    Well let's start with the fact MFP does not give 1200 out as standard....that is the lowest it will go based on what you entered...

    When I joined I was 178lbs, chose sedentary and 1lb a week (at 5 ft 7) it gave me 1360 calories+exercise calories which ended up being about 1600.

    1600 Calories was my TDEE-20%....TDEE is not any different as far as the number of gross calories eaten if you are using MFP correctly....and remember TDEE-20% is probably 1lb a week not 2lbs a week.

    Currently I am 146.5lbs exercise 4-5x a week (lifting/HIIT) and my TDEE is 2267 to lose I eat 2k a day and manage to lose about 1/3lb a week...
    ybodwen wrote: »
    What about calculating the number of calories as sedentary and then using exercise cals from MFP? Sorta like a hybrid?

    and this is what MFP does...it's not a hybrid it's called NEAT.
  • ybodwen
    ybodwen Posts: 342 Member
    Options
    Oh cool :) thanks for clarifying!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    I've just been reading the stickied thread about calculating a more manageable goal than MFP's standard 1200 calories.

    Based on the calculations in that thread, I need to eat around 1700 calories per day, which seems a lot to me!

    I am 5"7 (170cm) and 217lbs, with a goal weight of 150lbs. I have a sedentary/light exercise lifestyle. Does this sound right? I just can't wrap my head around actively losing weight eating that much per day.

    First of all, 1200 isn't "standard"...you get 1200 calories because you are probably putting sedentary and you probably picked 2 Lbs per week...and basically that's as low as MFP will go. To boot, that 1200 does not include any estimate of your exercise activity ...so you log exercise after the fact and get those calories to "eat back."

    TDEE includes and estimate of exercise activity up front in the equation...and TDEE - 20% is generally a slower rate of loss than what most people tend to pick with MFP.

    If you're doing them right and comparing apples to apples loss rate goals, the two methods are pretty much 6 of 1, half dozen of the other...they're simply two different methods that result in exactly the same thing. Take a look at what my numbers were just as an example.

    MFP net goals was 1,850 calories to lose 1 Lb per week. With regular exercise I was grossing around 2200 - 2300 calories per day.

    My TDEE is right around 2,800 calories (that includes an estimate of my exercise in it)...my TDEE - 20% is 2,240 calories per day and resulted in about a 1 Lb per week rate of loss.

    As you can see, I was consuming roughly the same total calories with each method to achieve the same goals...the only difference was where I was accounting for my exercise. On the *kitten* end with MFP and on the front end of the equation with TDEE....that's the only real difference.



  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    Also, the 1200 floor that MFP gives you won't generally amount to 2 pounds per week. If you've input 2 pounds per week, but eating 1200 calories only gives you a ~250/day calorie deficit, then it will tell you that this adds up to more like 0.5 pounds per week.

    Sure, you could eat less than that to attempt a 2 pound/week loss, but it probably means that you're a fairly small person, and 2 pounds per week simply isn't realistic given percentage of body weight. But that means that when you 'eat back' your exercise calories, you have to be pretty careful not to overestimate calories burned or underestimate calories consumed, lest you wipe out that pretty small deficit.
  • harrietm127
    harrietm127 Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    segacs wrote: »
    I think TDEE works best when you're consistent AND realistic about your exercise.

    If you put a higher activity level into the calculator because you really-totally-definitely plan to get to the gym 5 times a week, and then you don't go more than once or twice, then you're definitely going to be overeating with the TDEE method. Whereas the MFP method will give you the extra calories to eat back on the days you actually do work out, and not on the days you don't.

    So yeah. Be realistic, not aspirational.

    Thanks - this makes a lot of sense. I have always felt fine on a net 1200 calories, but I see a lot of people on here who think it's too little, which is why I was getting a bit confused!
  • davert123
    davert123 Posts: 1,568 Member
    Options
    by definition it will work. The only problem you may have is accurately predicting your TDEE Practice makes perfect though :-)
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    It makes sense to start as high as you can on calories.

    a) it's less of a drastic change from before, therefore more manageable
    b) you will get more nutrition
    c) you have somewhere to go if your weight loss stalls and you want to cut back
    d) you can most easily find out for you where your optimal calories are... after a couple weeks, have you stayed stable? Then cut down by 250 calories... if you've lost 1-2 lbs you are in a good range. If you have lost more than that then up your calories.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    I am 5'7" and started here at 245 and have been losing about 1.8 lbs/week on 1500-2300 per day (averaging in the 1800-1900 range).
  • harrietm127
    harrietm127 Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Can I ask what exercise you do girlviernes? And congrats on your progress!