returning to basic rules of TDDE and CD
Replies
-
It might give a warning about undereating if men complete below 1500 but it doesn't seem to affect the goal setting algorithm. The link was a year ago "To help you best achieve your health and fitness goals in 2014...."0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm going to get on a 2000 minimum + 50% of additional motion. I'm currently 500 short of that but that will be easy to make up. The Bodymedia device seems to be monitoring my output calories pretty well.0
-
MrM27: I'm not saying I am. I know how out the BF% scale can be. It's a relative number can use because I've had the scale a long time. I'm going to go by inches lost in the long run.0
-
-
I'm going to get on a 2000 minimum + 50% of additional motion. I'm currently 500 short of that but that will be easy to make up. The Bodymedia device seems to be monitoring my output calories pretty well.
Good plan
Good luck
Don't get freaked by initial weight gain..in fact don't weigh yourself for a month0 -
I won't, I'm not going to like eating so much but that's a different story. It hasn't bothered me to eat the way I have but I've heard the warnings. thanks everyone (esp rabbitjb)0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Well it's a super flawed algorithm/design anyways (just arbitrarily subtracting the same cals instead of using %, from 10-25%) so I'm not shocked.
I disagree there, it's based on NEAT not an estimation of TDEE hence it shouldn't take a percentage discount.. I quite like the simple maths and am just surprised the floor for men hasn't worked
I don't see why using NEAT would mean not using %. Lots of people use generic subtractions even when doing TDEE, but not everyone will react the same way to 500 calorie subtraction.0 -
Well it's a super flawed algorithm/design anyways (just arbitrarily subtracting the same cals instead of using %, from 10-25%) so I'm not shocked.
I disagree there, it's based on NEAT not an estimation of TDEE hence it shouldn't take a percentage discount.. I quite like the simple maths and am just surprised the floor for men hasn't worked
I don't see why using NEAT would mean not using %. Lots of people use generic subtractions even when doing TDEE, but not everyone will react the same way to 500 calorie subtraction.
Interesting, there must be something I'm not getting here ...how is a percentage cut superior to a calorie number cut when it's the bald maths of roughly 3500 = a pound. What's the benefit of a percentage difference?
Let's take me my TDEE is about 2200, at a 20% cut I'd drop 440 calories a day and then roughly lose 1lb in 8 days by eating 1760. If I set MFP to lose 1lb a week at sedentary I'd get a base calorie of 1300 plus my exercise which would average 460 ...where's the difference, how would I react differently apart from not eating as much on days I don't exercise0 -
herrspoons wrote: »So... how many topics asking essentially the same thing is that now?
In general or specifically with this OP?
Cos I reckon there's only about 8 different threads on this board
0 -
rabbitjb: sorry if I sound pendantic, MFP tells me I should be eating 1200 calories and burn 2300 calories.
Nonsense. MFP is a simple calculator and you input the numbers. If you chose an inappropriate deficit it's on you and not the calculator.
It also doesn't tell you to burn any exercise calories at all.
It's not as complex as you are making it.
0 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »at .5 1920 in and 2370 out.
OP, just to clarify, sorry if you already know this but you seem confused and this is very important:
The 2370 out it gives you includes your daily normal life, that's not an exercise goal. That means you maintain the level of activity you put it at, lead your normal life, eat 1920 AND eat say 50% of your exercise calories.
PS I see folks have been saying this while I was typing but it can't be made too clear so I'll leave it.
Also, after a crash diet you totally will see a few pounds initial weight gain from water weight etc when you up your calories, leave it alone for a few days, just follow the guidelines and it will go down.
No. The 2370 is his exercise calories for the week. Check the photo. He told it how much he plans to work out, it tells him that is his estimated burn for the week.0 -
Sabine_Stoehm: the 1800 was an example, when I do no exercise at all it's 2013, when I do exercise it can range from 2700-3300. It's not the same thing every day since I don't stick to a particular set of activities. How accurate it is who knows I use a bodymedia device and only estimate when I'm in the water swimming.
Burning 1300 calories a day in exercise requires an elite level of fitness. It's equivalent to a 150 pound man running 14 miles a day.
It is most likely that your bodymedia is lying to you.
0 -
Well it's a super flawed algorithm/design anyways (just arbitrarily subtracting the same cals instead of using %, from 10-25%) so I'm not shocked.
I disagree there, it's based on NEAT not an estimation of TDEE hence it shouldn't take a percentage discount.. I quite like the simple maths and am just surprised the floor for men hasn't worked
I don't see why using NEAT would mean not using %. Lots of people use generic subtractions even when doing TDEE, but not everyone will react the same way to 500 calorie subtraction.
Interesting, there must be something I'm not getting here ...how is a percentage cut superior to a calorie number cut when it's the bald maths of roughly 3500 = a pound. What's the benefit of a percentage difference?
Let's take me my TDEE is about 2200, at a 20% cut I'd drop 440 calories a day and then roughly lose 1lb in 8 days by eating 1760. If I set MFP to lose 1lb a week at sedentary I'd get a base calorie of 1300 plus my exercise which would average 460 ...where's the difference, how would I react differently apart from not eating as much on days I don't exercise
I don't get it either. Both methods work. While I found it very helpful to learn about the TDEE method, I actually preferred the MFP way. It was very straightforward for me. I don't see how I would have reacted different to the TDEE method. I think it is mainly a preference thing on how you want to create your deficit.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
blankiefinder wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »at .5 1920 in and 2370 out.
OP, just to clarify, sorry if you already know this but you seem confused and this is very important:
The 2370 out it gives you includes your daily normal life, that's not an exercise goal. That means you maintain the level of activity you put it at, lead your normal life, eat 1920 AND eat say 50% of your exercise calories.
PS I see folks have been saying this while I was typing but it can't be made too clear so I'll leave it.
Also, after a crash diet you totally will see a few pounds initial weight gain from water weight etc when you up your calories, leave it alone for a few days, just follow the guidelines and it will go down.
No. The 2370 is his exercise calories for the week. Check the photo. He told it how much he plans to work out, it tells him that is his estimated burn for the week.
No, really, no. That's not how MFP works, it bases that number on the activity level you input *regardless* how many workouts you put in, please play around with it on your opwn profile and verify.
I just double-checked it again, you can say you plan to burn 2000 cals from your workouts, it will keep that info in your fitness goals so you can track it in "reports" but these are NOT included in the "daily calories burned' in your profile.
really, just check it, don't change anything else just your planned workouts, you'll see MFP's projection for how much you burn will not change.
ETA: I can see he's using a different app than me, I can also post pictures from the site and the app, I really doubt that such essential part of MFP changes from platform to platform though. really, it's eas to check just by plugging in different workout numbers if that number changes or not.
0 -
Interesting, there must be something I'm not getting here ...how is a percentage cut superior to a calorie number cut when it's the bald maths of roughly 3500 = a pound. What's the benefit of a percentage difference?
500 cals is 20% of 2500 or 25% of 2000 - if you would see the latter as more aggressive than the former you might prefer percentage.
Apart from flaws in MFP maths at low calorie goals you can indeed arrive at exactly the same point by either route.0 -
Mostly just that the math doesn't just automatically apply the same way for every person. I've never done a 500 calorie cut for instance ,but when I'd do 20% I'd still lose ~4lbs/month.
Well it's a super flawed algorithm/design anyways (just arbitrarily subtracting the same cals instead of using %, from 10-25%) so I'm not shocked.
I disagree there, it's based on NEAT not an estimation of TDEE hence it shouldn't take a percentage discount.. I quite like the simple maths and am just surprised the floor for men hasn't worked
I don't see why using NEAT would mean not using %. Lots of people use generic subtractions even when doing TDEE, but not everyone will react the same way to 500 calorie subtraction.
Interesting, there must be something I'm not getting here ...how is a percentage cut superior to a calorie number cut when it's the bald maths of roughly 3500 = a pound. What's the benefit of a percentage difference?
Let's take me my TDEE is about 2200, at a 20% cut I'd drop 440 calories a day and then roughly lose 1lb in 8 days by eating 1760. If I set MFP to lose 1lb a week at sedentary I'd get a base calorie of 1300 plus my exercise which would average 460 ...where's the difference, how would I react differently apart from not eating as much on days I don't exercise
how much exercise are you doing that you average 460 calories? That's a lot of calories for a single workout, or is this over the course of a few days? Or are you eating 100% of your calories to make up for the really low net goal?
I don't have a significant amount of experience with NEAT though, so unless there is some reason that the % math doesn't work when adding in exercise calories, I believe it's just a better way to tailor the calorie amount to each individual? So if I averaged 2600 to maintain and wanted to lose 1lb/week, that'd give me a 520 deficit. But if I instead actually averaged 2100 to maintain then to lose 1lb/week that'd give me a 420 deficit.
As a side, I've also read that 3400 cals = 1lb, as opposed to 3500. So none of these numbers are really fixed in stone anyways. All I can say is that I'm really not a fan of how MFP calculates caloric needs because it doesn't make it obvious enough that people need to eat back their exercise calories and it just arbitrarily gets everyone's goal to be like 1200 calories when they want to lose 2lb/week. Just seems to be very much lacking in proper customization for each individual's numbers.
0 -
Honestly I think where people over-complicate both methods is when they try so hard to make optimal estimates at the outset and get frustrated if it doesn't work out the way the imagined it should have.
In my case, I prefer eating the same-ish amount of calories or rather, vary my daily amount of calories according to my whims and desires and not according to "earning" them, so obviously a TDEE-type approach was the way to go. Pick a comfortably high number to start with that eliminates hunger (1700 cals for me which upped to ~1800 in a few days - just a random example), stay there or threreabouts for at least 4 weeks, calculate your actual consumption + your loss at the end of that period, re-evaluate and if necessary adjust up/down, rinse, repeat. Simple as that.
The only caveat is that this assumes no big changes in your level of activity/sport, otherwise just restart the evaluation process after any big change (added exercise, dropped exercise). Works for me.0 -
Mostly just that the math doesn't just automatically apply the same way for every person. I've never done a 500 calorie cut for instance ,but when I'd do 20% I'd still lose ~4lbs/month.
Well it's a super flawed algorithm/design anyways (just arbitrarily subtracting the same cals instead of using %, from 10-25%) so I'm not shocked.
I disagree there, it's based on NEAT not an estimation of TDEE hence it shouldn't take a percentage discount.. I quite like the simple maths and am just surprised the floor for men hasn't worked
I don't see why using NEAT would mean not using %. Lots of people use generic subtractions even when doing TDEE, but not everyone will react the same way to 500 calorie subtraction.
Interesting, there must be something I'm not getting here ...how is a percentage cut superior to a calorie number cut when it's the bald maths of roughly 3500 = a pound. What's the benefit of a percentage difference?
Let's take me my TDEE is about 2200, at a 20% cut I'd drop 440 calories a day and then roughly lose 1lb in 8 days by eating 1760. If I set MFP to lose 1lb a week at sedentary I'd get a base calorie of 1300 plus my exercise which would average 460 ...where's the difference, how would I react differently apart from not eating as much on days I don't exercise
how much exercise are you doing that you average 460 calories? That's a lot of calories for a single workout, or is this over the course of a few days? Or are you eating 100% of your calories to make up for the really low net goal?
I don't have a significant amount of experience with NEAT though, so unless there is some reason that the % math doesn't work when adding in exercise calories, I believe it's just a better way to tailor the calorie amount to each individual? So if I averaged 2600 to maintain and wanted to lose 1lb/week, that'd give me a 520 deficit. But if I instead actually averaged 2100 to maintain then to lose 1lb/week that'd give me a 420 deficit.
As a side, I've also read that 3400 cals = 1lb, as opposed to 3500. So none of these numbers are really fixed in stone anyways. All I can say is that I'm really not a fan of how MFP calculates caloric needs because it doesn't make it obvious enough that people need to eat back their exercise calories and it just arbitrarily gets everyone's goal to be like 1200 calories when they want to lose 2lb/week. Just seems to be very much lacking in proper customization for each individual's numbers.
Oh I believe you should find the way that works for you ...in my own experience the MFP NEAT method worked just fine (I hit my goal a couple of days ago)
I have bolded your exercise question not because I have the answer for everyone but because I found what worked for me. I always found it fairly straight forward TBH
I set to sedentary and used a fitbit and I generally burn 3-400 over sedentary on my just walking days. For my 3 workouts a week I use my HRM .... And when I workout I burn around 400 without a trainer and more like 6-700 with my trainer (which end up being 80-90 minutes). Over each week I will generally eat all my net calories (on average come in around 500 under my weekly net goal)
I found it interesting that 10K steps is roughly the same calorie burn as a 40 minute gym session alone for me.
The proof for me was over the months I lost roughly what I expected to lose (not in a straight line but over time). Now I'm trying to find my maintenance level over the next month or so, to confirm my TDEE before considering dropping more BF / weight on scale.0 -
-
In theory they would both work but the major issue comes in when you try and calculate the calories burnt during exercise it's easy to over estimate that number. You do that then you got and eat some of those calories back and you end up eating back more than you should have. Then with strength training it's almost impossible to calculate the number of calories burnt accurately. If you use sedentary on your non training days you eat fewer calories and might be hungry. If you keep it a consistent number day in and day out it might be more sustainable.
Well it's a super flawed algorithm/design anyways (just arbitrarily subtracting the same cals instead of using %, from 10-25%) so I'm not shocked.
I disagree there, it's based on NEAT not an estimation of TDEE hence it shouldn't take a percentage discount.. I quite like the simple maths and am just surprised the floor for men hasn't worked
I don't see why using NEAT would mean not using %. Lots of people use generic subtractions even when doing TDEE, but not everyone will react the same way to 500 calorie subtraction.
Interesting, there must be something I'm not getting here ...how is a percentage cut superior to a calorie number cut when it's the bald maths of roughly 3500 = a pound. What's the benefit of a percentage difference?
Let's take me my TDEE is about 2200, at a 20% cut I'd drop 440 calories a day and then roughly lose 1lb in 8 days by eating 1760. If I set MFP to lose 1lb a week at sedentary I'd get a base calorie of 1300 plus my exercise which would average 460 ...where's the difference, how would I react differently apart from not eating as much on days I don't exercise
I don't get it either. Both methods work. While I found it very helpful to learn about the TDEE method, I actually preferred the MFP way. It was very straightforward for me. I don't see how I would have reacted different to the TDEE method. I think it is mainly a preference thing on how you want to create your deficit.
Another big factor is people want to eat less on training days but those are the days when your body is at its most anabolic state. Why run the possibility of depriving It of nutrients it might benefit from.
These are all good points, but I still say it is more of a preference thing. I completely researched both method, and I found I was reaching the same results with both. I preferred MFP. As far as strength training, I mainly did Bodypump, which was more endurance/cardio, so I just logged calorie burns as cardio. All other exercise was steady state walking or jogging. And I made it to goal (didn't stay there, but that is a different story).
Again, I think the key is that I researched and understood both methods. TDEE taught me that I didn't need to try to keep to a low calorie goal, and that I should eat to fuel my body properly. The forums also taught me to be careful about overestimating burns. But I ate back 90 percent of my exercise calories and still lost. I also liked being able to eat more on some days than others, but that again is a preference thing.
I'm not saying I disagree with the TDEE method, but the MFP method works as well. And can be simpler for some. The key for both is to log everything accurately and tweak as necessary.
0 -
Mostly just that the math doesn't just automatically apply the same way for every person. I've never done a 500 calorie cut for instance ,but when I'd do 20% I'd still lose ~4lbs/month.
Well it's a super flawed algorithm/design anyways (just arbitrarily subtracting the same cals instead of using %, from 10-25%) so I'm not shocked.
I disagree there, it's based on NEAT not an estimation of TDEE hence it shouldn't take a percentage discount.. I quite like the simple maths and am just surprised the floor for men hasn't worked
I don't see why using NEAT would mean not using %. Lots of people use generic subtractions even when doing TDEE, but not everyone will react the same way to 500 calorie subtraction.
Interesting, there must be something I'm not getting here ...how is a percentage cut superior to a calorie number cut when it's the bald maths of roughly 3500 = a pound. What's the benefit of a percentage difference?
Let's take me my TDEE is about 2200, at a 20% cut I'd drop 440 calories a day and then roughly lose 1lb in 8 days by eating 1760. If I set MFP to lose 1lb a week at sedentary I'd get a base calorie of 1300 plus my exercise which would average 460 ...where's the difference, how would I react differently apart from not eating as much on days I don't exercise
how much exercise are you doing that you average 460 calories? That's a lot of calories for a single workout, or is this over the course of a few days? Or are you eating 100% of your calories to make up for the really low net goal?
I don't have a significant amount of experience with NEAT though, so unless there is some reason that the % math doesn't work when adding in exercise calories, I believe it's just a better way to tailor the calorie amount to each individual? So if I averaged 2600 to maintain and wanted to lose 1lb/week, that'd give me a 520 deficit. But if I instead actually averaged 2100 to maintain then to lose 1lb/week that'd give me a 420 deficit.
As a side, I've also read that 3400 cals = 1lb, as opposed to 3500. So none of these numbers are really fixed in stone anyways. All I can say is that I'm really not a fan of how MFP calculates caloric needs because it doesn't make it obvious enough that people need to eat back their exercise calories and it just arbitrarily gets everyone's goal to be like 1200 calories when they want to lose 2lb/week. Just seems to be very much lacking in proper customization for each individual's numbers.
Oh I believe you should find the way that works for you ...in my own experience the MFP NEAT method worked just fine (I hit my goal a couple of days ago)
I have bolded your exercise question not because I have the answer for everyone but because I found what worked for me. I always found it fairly straight forward TBH
I set to sedentary and used a fitbit and I generally burn 3-400 over sedentary on my just walking days. For my 3 workouts a week I use my HRM .... And when I workout I burn around 400 without a trainer and more like 6-700 with my trainer (which end up being 80-90 minutes). Over each week I will generally eat all my net calories (on average come in around 500 under my weekly net goal)
I found it interesting that 10K steps is roughly the same calorie burn as a 40 minute gym session alone for me.
The proof for me was over the months I lost roughly what I expected to lose (not in a straight line but over time). Now I'm trying to find my maintenance level over the next month or so, to confirm my TDEE before considering dropping more BF / weight on scale.
I was never actually talking about NEAT vs TDEE though originally, just about using generic 500 calories vs using 20% from your maintenance needs haha. TDEE just includes exercise into the equation, NEAT doesn't, but both end up estimating your maintenance needs based on the activity levels you are choosing. So THAT'S where I"m saying that I would think it'd be better to use % to determine deficits than generic subtractions. But I don't know exactly how that works out with adding in exercise calories again... but when I did do the NEAT method, I did use % and I still lost faster than I wanted. This was with me using a NEAT number derived from an external calculator that I use to calculate my TDEE numbers, and which gave me a number higher than did MFP for the lightly active setting for maintenance!
The part you bolded though I was just asking what exercise you're doing that burns that many calories. Even if I log my normal routine it's no more than like 300 calories, and that's if I entered in vigorous lifting haha. Do you eat back 100% of the logged calories for exercise to get that high of a number? I ended up having to do that myself but then I also wound up using the vigorous for weight lifting (derived from another source) and I wasn't actually lifting vigorously. So I lost a bit slower than expected in that second month by doing this. THat plus I think there were some days like Thanksgiving and Halloween where I ate more than I logged calorie-wise due to estimating
I can easily see burning a few hundred easily though just from daily life. A lot of people don't seem to understand that energy isn't just burned at the gym but just from like.. being alive!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Wiseandcurious wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »at .5 1920 in and 2370 out.
OP, just to clarify, sorry if you already know this but you seem confused and this is very important:
The 2370 out it gives you includes your daily normal life, that's not an exercise goal. That means you maintain the level of activity you put it at, lead your normal life, eat 1920 AND eat say 50% of your exercise calories.
PS I see folks have been saying this while I was typing but it can't be made too clear so I'll leave it.
Also, after a crash diet you totally will see a few pounds initial weight gain from water weight etc when you up your calories, leave it alone for a few days, just follow the guidelines and it will go down.
No. The 2370 is his exercise calories for the week. Check the photo. He told it how much he plans to work out, it tells him that is his estimated burn for the week.
No, really, no. That's not how MFP works, it bases that number on the activity level you input *regardless* how many workouts you put in, please play around with it on your opwn profile and verify.
I just double-checked it again, you can say you plan to burn 2000 cals from your workouts, it will keep that info in your fitness goals so you can track it in "reports" but these are NOT included in the "daily calories burned' in your profile.
really, just check it, don't change anything else just your planned workouts, you'll see MFP's projection for how much you burn will not change.
ETA: I can see he's using a different app than me, I can also post pictures from the site and the app, I really doubt that such essential part of MFP changes from platform to platform though. really, it's eas to check just by plugging in different workout numbers if that number changes or not.
Rather than tell me that I am really, really wrong, maybe double check the photo he posted first?
If you take a second look at his screen shot it is clearly legible under the Fitness Goals: Calories burned / week 2370 / week. So he plans to work out 2370 per week, doing 6 60 minute workouts.0 -
I double checked, my height was wrong and was corrected before I gave you the numbers but it is set to male. Selected seditary and work out 60minutes for 6 days a week.
MFP doesn't give males 1200 calories ever...the bottom limit is 1500
So something is wrong there if you're saying it gives you 1200
What's your age, height, current weight
The exercise you target is not relevant to the calories set, that's just a target
I'm a male and MFP says my goal is 1460.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I double checked, my height was wrong and was corrected before I gave you the numbers but it is set to male. Selected seditary and work out 60minutes for 6 days a week.
MFP doesn't give males 1200 calories ever...the bottom limit is 1500
So something is wrong there if you're saying it gives you 1200
What's your age, height, current weight
The exercise you target is not relevant to the calories set, that's just a target
I'm a male and MFP says my goal is 1460.
Then you either put in your stats wrong or are trying to go for to aggressive of a goal.
I disagree.
Regardless, my point is that those claiming that MFP "can't" computer a <1500 Cal goal for males are wrong.0 -
For once, I agree with Ana. TDEE - x % is just easier for people to grasp and doesn't require reliance on a HRM. Set it, log, weigh, adjust. Way too many people mistake BMR for TDEE.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions