TDEE -20%

rhileyschubbygranny
rhileyschubbygranny Posts: 145 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have looked at several TDEE calculators on line and have gotten several different equations, ranging 200-300 calories in difference. I am totally confused on which one to use. Any suggestions? Thanks!

Replies

  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    They are all estimations. Assuming that your 20% deficit is significantly greater than the various of 200-300 calories, you should have a deficit and see results with any. So pick a method, monitor your results and adjust after 6-8 weeks if you think you should.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    The difference is because there are a few different methods for calculating BMR. Mifflin St. Jeor and Harris Benedict go by body weight. Mifflin is the newer (and supposedly more accurate). A couple of other methods take into account the variable of lean body mass versus body fat. These are said to be more accurate for people with lower body fat percentages.

    Staci is right, pick one and try it for awhile (making sure you log accurately), and then you can adjust your calories up or down a little from there if you are not seeing the expected results.
  • rhileyschubbygranny
    rhileyschubbygranny Posts: 145 Member
    Thank you ladies!
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Pick the one that gives you the lowest number.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Pick the one that gives you the lowest number.

    Unless you don't want to eat less than you have to. No reason to be hungry.

  • icrushit
    icrushit Posts: 773 Member
    They'll all just give you a starting point. My favourite method is the simplest - multiply your bodyweight in lbs by either 15 for a woman, or 16 for a man, to give you an estimate to start with. I'm a typical height guy, so find it works quite well for me, but maybe that is or is not the case for others :smile:
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    iloseityes wrote: »
    They'll all just give you a starting point. My favourite method is the simplest - multiply your bodyweight in lbs by either 15 for a woman, or 16 for a man, to give you an estimate to start with. I'm a typical height guy, so find it works quite well for me, but maybe that is or is not the case for others :smile:

    It's not just height you have to consider. Age and activity level puts that simple method above TDEE for many.

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    deksgrl wrote: »
    iloseityes wrote: »
    They'll all just give you a starting point. My favourite method is the simplest - multiply your bodyweight in lbs by either 15 for a woman, or 16 for a man, to give you an estimate to start with. I'm a typical height guy, so find it works quite well for me, but maybe that is or is not the case for others :smile:

    It's not just height you have to consider. Age and activity level puts that simple method above TDEE for many.

    And that's why it's a starting point. As has been stated, all TDEE calculator results are estimates, not written in stone facts. The method outlined above is a quick and easy calculation method. Lyle McDonald writes about it here.
  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    iloseityes wrote: »
    They'll all just give you a starting point. My favourite method is the simplest - multiply your bodyweight in lbs by either 15 for a woman, or 16 for a man, to give you an estimate to start with. I'm a typical height guy, so find it works quite well for me, but maybe that is or is not the case for others :smile:

    What?? My body weight is 200lbs x15=3000?? That's higher than my TDEE by a long shot...
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
  • ephphy
    ephphy Posts: 20 Member
    I'm firmly in the pick one and try it and monitor it camp.
    In my monitoring to determine a workable calorie goal, I track 11 different formulas such as the Harris Benedict and Mifflin St Jeor (some take into account lean mass and some don't). The BMR figures for me today range from 1109 to 2239, on all these published "correct" formulas. And that's before you figure in an activity multiplier.
    It's the same with lean body mass calculators that use measurements or at home BIA (rather than the expensive more accurate methods such as displacement and clinical BIA). Again I track a bunch of these methods and the range is huge - 38% to 87% fat. Is 87% fat even alive?
    No one formula is going to match everyone, so it's all about you and monitoring what works for you best. Good luck :)
  • icrushit
    icrushit Posts: 773 Member
    edited November 2014
    iloseityes wrote: »
    They'll all just give you a starting point. My favourite method is the simplest - multiply your bodyweight in lbs by either 15 for a woman, or 16 for a man, to give you an estimate to start with. I'm a typical height guy, so find it works quite well for me, but maybe that is or is not the case for others :smile:

    The above 'method' I drew from two sources, and in my sample size of one (i.e. me), it seems to work well enough.

    I can't remember the first of the sources, as I tend to read a lot, with little regard for sources as much as the absorption of a wide variety of information for later processing and internal cross-referencing.

    The second source is a harvard article (http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/HB_web/calorie-counting-made-easy.htm), which uses 15 as a multiplier, and presupposes 'moderate activity', which it defines as 30 mins of exercise a day in the article.

    This is mostly similar to the first source where I saw it, which used a number closer to 15 for women, and closer to 16 for men, with no presupposition for activity, but given the source was a fitness one as I seem to vaguely remember, activity was perhaps presumed.

    Given BMR runs to about 10 calories per lb of bodyweight if you take apart any of those calculators, I don't think its such a leap that over the course of a typical day you burn an extra 5 calories per lb of body mass overall, when all activity is factored in.

    Like all things, take it with a pinch of salt/ do your own research/ self-experiment/ see what works for you. In my own case, 15.8 calories per lb of bodyweight seems to be the magic number.

    In any event, I would just like to give a shout out and thanks to the peanut gallery, and to LiveLaughLoveEat1 who seemed to feel so moved by my previous post that they felt a personal compulsion to extend the ridicule to a personal message. Stay classy MFP!
  • indianwin2001
    indianwin2001 Posts: 296 Member
    I think the closest I have seen to MFP numbers(with all the eating back exercise stuff) is IIFYM--To me they have the closest to a true TDEE.

Categories