My stats are: weight= 223lbs, body fat %= 49%, age = 31, female, height= 66inches, and I exercise 4 times a week for 1hr each time doing dance workouts. I'm soon gping to stop these dance workouts because I'm moving and can't get to the gym. I'm instead going to be doing body by you workouts (which are 30min bodyweight workouts). So how do I calculate my tdee using the Katch method.

Also at what body weight % do I start using the other method of calculating tdee?

Using the Katch calculator and using 1-3hr of exercise, My BMR is now 1487, TDEE= 2044 and TDEE-20%= 1635. Should I be eating at 1635 cals or should I go up to 2044 cals?

Ok, I just saw where you said to eat at 1784cals and see if after a few weeks it is the best for the acivity level I chose.

First, with only 38 lbs to lose, you need to use 15% deficit amount. If you had over 40lbs by decent amount, 20% would be reasonable.

Always use Katch if you have decent estimate of bodyfat. You aren't going to gain much if any non-fat mass during a diet, so that won't change.

Calculating TDEE doesn't change depending on if you are using Katch of Mifflin or Harris BMR. You just need a BMR to start with - but why not start with the one with bigger chance of accuracy in your case - Katch.

So you currently exercise 4 x a week at 1 hr each = 4 hrs.
Is that 1-3 hrs for Lightly Active?

Be honest with yourself, no need shooting your body in the metabolism thinking it's better to underestimate.

That would all be high cardio you'll be doing, with a strength benefit. So straight hrs.

When you finally do switch to the 30 min workouts, add them up for the week as to what you'll really do.

Plus - is daily life outside exercise truly a sedentary desk job and commute for 45 hrs weekly?
That's what the TDEE tables are assuming.
Increased daily activity increases the level yet again.

And NO to the 1784 - that was based on your wrong selection of activity level for the figures you gave.
Learn how to do this - because you will always need to eat correctly for your level of exercise.

As to doing a reset, how low have you been eating, how much of an increase is honest TDEE level?

I've been eating between 1800-2000 calories. Maybe more this past Easter break. So what will my new TDEE be? I'm pretty sedentary right now but in a week I start a new job which involves a 15 min walk to and from work. The 30min bodyweight exercise 3 times a week and I will probably be on my feet for a good part of the work week. So how do I determine my TDEE. This is just to confusing.

I actually want to lose at least 60lbs

You are going to learn to fish. Get ready, no worms at least.

What makes up TDEE? Do you really understand what that means?

I want to take a diet break and eat at maintenance for a while.
All your activities. This method looks at the typical week and averages it back out to a daily level to eat. You are just trying to be honest with how active you will be.

So walking 30 min daily to/from work, as well as on your feet decent amount of time while there.
Is that sedentary? No.
So what is that TDEE level all by itself?

Now, what is exercise all by itself, how many hrs a week?
Is that sedentary? No.
What level is exercise by itself?

So with those 2 added together, are you possibly at the same level as either one by itself? 1 + 1 = 1? No.
Now what level are you at putting them together?

The reason you have to know how to do this - what if you change up exercise amount, what if 30 min x 6 days a week, what if 1 hr x 3 days, 1 hr x 5 days, ect, what if you drive to work that is now sitting all day?

And are you still taking diet break then, eating at maintenance for a reset?
Then just set MFP to sedentary and weight loss goal to maintain - and meet your daily eating goal.

gia07 wrote: »

I s there any one still reading, replying to posts here? I took an average of Harris, Katch and Miffin. I had to because I was overeating. I took the average of the three (BMR, 1175, 1267 and 1297) and came up with 1246. I was not losing so I needed something to bench mark by. My BMR is 1246 and I allow my deficit at 40%. That is around 748 calories a day. Nothing moved for four weeks. This past week I lost 1.2. That is the most I have seen in 6 weeks. My goal is for this next week to lose 2.2 lbs. I run 3 - 4 times a week but I put in "sedentary - no exercise" so I could have the bare minimum basal in case I cannot do a run in the week.

31prvrbs wrote: »

Because the calorie upping process always brings some concerns, I thought it might be helpful to have a synopsis of the process. We're all different, and of course will respond in different ways, but at some point during the process we may feel like we are all alone in our reactions to increased cals.

We often hear the success story of the person that upped their cals and dramatically started losing weight again, and I find that this can often lead to calorie increasing being looked at just as any other "fad diet.' With claims sometimes sounding similar to those of magazines, "lose 10 lbs in 10 days" many MFPers want to jump on the calorie upping bandwagon and start shedding that weight again. And who could blame us, we've all obviously been there, losing and gaining the same pounds over and over

So enough of *that* part of my ramble, and on to what to expect:

Upon starting this process, some dive in w/little to no knowledge, and some take it slow. What I've found over time, is that those who take the time to properly educate themselves and prepare for the mental aspect, have much greater success. Often those that dive in, thinking that they'll up their cals and fit into that bikini by next Friday have a rude awakening. We see the success stories of those that up their cals, but we don't see the mental transition that had to take place before/during the process.

Typically, a person is coming into this process after already having had "success" on lower cal diets, therefore this "success" (and I use quotes because they have typically re-gained the weight) will always be at the forefront of their mind as a "just in case this doesn't work" option. So the first place of mental acceptance that a person has to arrive at is: IF YOU GAIN THE WEIGHT BACK, OR HAVE COMPLETELY STALLED, IT WASN'T A "SUCCESS." A person who does not feel this way, will run at the first sign of trouble. You have to become completely convinced that super low cals, excessive cal burns through exercise, and eating under your BMR are no longer an option. Lowering cals, begets lowering them more during plateaus, and becomes a slippery slope, especially if you are already a too low of a cal level. You'll eventually drop into that gray area, and your body either starts holding on to every morsel of fat, or completely stalls out. Think of it this way: WHEN YOUR CAR "RUNS OUT OF GAS," IS IT "TECHNICALLY" COMPLETELY EMPTY? More than likely there is still some smidgen of gas in there, right?. But just not enough to make the large body of metal "go." This is what happens to your body when you make it try to operate on bare minimums.

Now, let's say that you "get" all that, and are ready to get this party started and start losing weight again, all while stuffing your face. I mean, we can eat like it's Thanksgiving everyday and watch the lbs melt off? It's a win, win, eh? Um....no. The next thing that a person will have to realize it that, the longer you have been in the super deficit/overexertion phase, the more patience you'll need to have during your "re-feed" phase. Yes, ultimately you want those lbs to melt off, but some people need to take a couple of steps back first, and will actually GAIN some "scale" weight up front (the "scale weight" can be different for each person, sometimes it's just bloat/water weight, sometimes a person has lost the weight unhealthily, and the body must first recoup before it can function properly). The analogy that I like to use here can be understood by anyone who has a newer phone (be it Blackberry or iPhone), or other rechargeable device. When your battery runs out on your phone, it doesn't matter what you do to it, there's only one way to make it work again (other than putting in an entirely new, newly charged battery). You have to plug it in. Most phones or devices nowadays, will not start working the second that you plug them in. They often need a few minutes of "re-feed" charging before they will even *turn on*. Then once they're turned on, you can't just unplug them and walk away, you have to wait. Different devices take different amounts of time to charge, and different charging sources also come into play. If I plug my iPhone into the wall charger (when completely dead), it takes about 1-5 minutes before it can turn on, and then another 30-

diane2306 wrote: »

Sorry...extra calories...equals slower loss...giving one a chance to get bored or make no progress whatsoever...it's simple..it's not complicated...energy in...energy out...you just have to suck it up and make the commitment...and people can do this anyway they wish...anyway that suits them..they can eat junk food..healthy food...whatever..,the fact remains eat more calories than you burn up you gain....heard a quote once, it stuck in my mind...EVER SEE A FAT SHEEP IN A CONCRETE PADDOCK!!!