Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

New study suggests exercise may play more important role in weight loss

135

Replies

  • Traveler120Traveler120 Posts: 712Member Member Posts: 712Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    I really like how this one describes activity levels.

    Yeah, and most calculators have about 5 levels of activity. This one has an expanded list of 10 levels from completely paralyzed to extremely active.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    That graph was an example, a male at 150 kg shows more than 200 cals difference with those formulas. Here you go.

    7xgx5jd5luy0.png

    As to which equation is better? There are literally dozens and dozen of equations and the best estimator is still ± 300 cals when applied to individuals.

    The Mifflin St Jeer equation is pretty good for only part of the population.
    J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016 Feb 29. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12355. [Epub ahead of print]
    Estimation of energy expenditure using prediction equations in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review.
    Madden AM1, Mulrooney HM2, Shah S1.
    Author information
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Estimates of energy requirements are needed in weight management and are usually determined using prediction equations. The objective of these two systematic reviews was to identify which equations based on simple anthropometric and demographic variables provide the most accurate and precise estimates of (1) resting energy expenditure (REE) and (2) total energy expenditure (TEE) in healthy obese adults.
    METHODS:
    Systematic searches for relevant studies in healthy adults with body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg m-2 and published in English were undertaken using Cinahl, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, PubMed and Web of Science (completed March 2014). Search terms included metabolism, calorimetry, obesity and prediction equations. Data extraction, study appraisal and synthesis followed guidelines from PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses).
    RESULTS:
    From 243 REE papers and 254 TEE papers identified, 21 and four studies, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. (1) The most accurate REE predictions varied with BMI subgroup: WHO (weight and height) ≥25 and ≥30 kg m-2 ; Mifflin 30-39.9 kg m-2 ; Henry ≥40 kg m-2 . The most precise REE predictions were obtained using Mifflin in BMI 30-39.9 and ≥40 kg m-2 , where approximately 75% of predictions were within 10% of measured REE. (2) No accurate or precise predictions of TEE were identified.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    No single prediction equation provides accurate and precise REE estimates in all obese adults. Mifflin equations are recommended in this population, although errors exceed 10% in 25% of those assessed. There is no evidence to support the use of prediction equations in estimating TEE in obesity.
    edited May 2016
  • ReaderGirl3ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868Member Member Posts: 868Member Member
    Rocknut53 wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    There is a thread, somewhere here, about people who lost without doing any excersize and they posted photographs too. In my eyes all of them looked really good. I thought their body composition was very nice, super attractive. Could body composition be a preferential taste for certain body type, rather than an objective standard of what is right body composition?

    Also, my tdee seems right based on my weight loss, from the two sources I used. I've used cico before, lost a lot of weight 75 # and am here losing very well with no excersize, as I did before, with same calorie deficit as I used 9 years ago.

    I have an average life, average activity I think.

    I have some before/after pictures in my profile, and I'm very happy with how I look and feel now, especially considering where I've been and that I'm also creeping up in age and this body has carried 3 pregnancies :)

    You've had an amazing transformation! I scoff at your "creeping up in age" though. Wait until you're 60, there's no creeping, it's a full on sprint. That being said, I was in my mid 40's when I started really packing on the pounds, now after all these years I'm almost to the weight I was at 40. I couldn't have done this without exercise. Exercise keeps me sane.

    My husband is younger than me and he likes to point out that I'm almost 40 (I'll be 38 this year). I just remind him that statistically speaking I'm still going to outlive him :D
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,416Member Member Posts: 9,416Member Member
    ekat120 wrote: »
    I just skimmed the full text. Energy flux was measured as intake+burn (e.g., someone who eats 1500 and burns 1500 has an energy flux of 3000, whereas someone who eats 2000 and burns 2000 has an energy flux of 4000). There was a moderate correlation of ~.3 between energy flux and RMR, meaning that "energy flux" explains about 10% of the variation in RMR (resting metabolic rate) from person to person. The association between energy flux and body fat % at follow-up was about the same size, with higher energy flux predicting lower body fat % (after controlling for energy balance, or the difference between what people burned and ate).

    I'll take a free 10 % especially when it means I feel and look better for it. Oh and I get to spend time outdoors in the sun too?

    26502027470_3070af601c_o_d.jpg
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    There is a thread, somewhere here, about people who lost without doing any excersize and they posted photographs too. In my eyes all of them looked really good. I thought their body composition was very nice, super attractive. Could body composition be a preferential taste for certain body type, rather than an objective standard of what is right body composition?

    Also, my tdee seems right based on my weight loss, from the two sources I used. I've used cico before, lost a lot of weight 75 # and am here losing very well with no excersize, as I did before, with same calorie deficit as I used 9 years ago.

    I have an average life, average activity I think.

    I have some before/after pictures in my profile, and I'm very happy with how I look and feel now, especially considering where I've been and that I'm also creeping up in age and this body has carried 3 pregnancies :)

    If you have three children, it might be also that what you consider a "no exercise" lifestyle is actually quite active and full of incidental exercise.

    My youngest is 8 now, so I'm not chasing little ones around anymore :) If anything I spend a lot more time sitting in bleachers watching them play sports lol.

    So for the past 8 years you've been rather active.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    it shows just the BMR...

    Yeah, it's a BMR chart that @EvgeniZyntx posted saying it SHOWS as much as a 200+ variation in BMR, between the 2 formulas. It doesn't.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, across different weights and ages when you play with the equations these differences exceed 200 cals. If you'd like the worksheet, I can make it public.

    Here is another study on the subject.
    Obes Res Clin Pract. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S1871-403X(15)00111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2015.07.008. [Epub ahead of print]
    Accuracy of resting metabolic rate prediction in overweight and obese Australian adults.
    Wright TG1, Dawson B2, Jalleh G3, Guelfi KJ2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations in Australian populations are at least 10 years old, focused on males and do not commonly use overweight and obese weight categorisation. The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU).
    METHODS:
    Retrospective data from 278 participants (154 males, 124 females: 37% overweight, 63% obese) who had attended a weight management clinic were used to develop predictive RMR equations. These were then validated against another sample (from the same clinic) of 297 participants (150 males, 147 females: 47% overweight, 53% obese), and their accuracy compared with known standard equations.
    RESULTS:
    For the prediction sample, weight, BMI, resting VO2 and measured RMR were significantly greater in the obese than overweight. Using the validation sample, the predictive equations met a ±10% of measured RMR criterion 42% (females), 41% (total sample) and 40% (males) of the time. Prediction accuracy was not improved by using specific overweight and obese weight category equations, or by applying the known standard equations from the literature.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    In our sample of overweight and obese adults, RMR prediction to within ±10% of the measured value was only accurate ∼40% of the time, regardless of gender and weight classification. In clinical weight management settings direct measures of RMR should be made wherever possible.

    See the bold.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    The differences in TDEE calculators is going to be type of calculator (basically the main ones are Katch-McArdle, which uses BF%, Mifflin-St Jeor (what MFP uses for BMR and seemingly the most common), and Harris-Benedict).

    For BMR, they give me (at goal of 120, assuming BF% of 22%, which makes sense with my most recent DEXA):

    M-SJ=1155
    H-B=1257
    K-M=1289

    I think BF% is the most accurate, so assuming I felt good about that measurement's accuracy, and did not have other numbers, I'd start with that.

    Then the other variable is the activity factor. One way I've seen it is 1.2 for truly sedentary, 1.375 for lightly active, 1.5 or 1.55 for moderate, 1.725 for active, and 1.9 for extremely active.

    Gives a wide range (more at higher levels of activity) and much room for error, for sure, which is why using your own numbers makes sense.

    My own results (based on current weight of 125, not goal) is consistent with what the calculations would suggest for me. In that that doesn't mean much, as the range is so wide, I will say that what worked for me when I started seems to work now, in terms of estimating TDEE. I find the same calculators and estimates still seem to work (although the numbers are of course different).
    edited May 2016
  • ReaderGirl3ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868Member Member Posts: 868Member Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    There is a thread, somewhere here, about people who lost without doing any excersize and they posted photographs too. In my eyes all of them looked really good. I thought their body composition was very nice, super attractive. Could body composition be a preferential taste for certain body type, rather than an objective standard of what is right body composition?

    Also, my tdee seems right based on my weight loss, from the two sources I used. I've used cico before, lost a lot of weight 75 # and am here losing very well with no excersize, as I did before, with same calorie deficit as I used 9 years ago.

    I have an average life, average activity I think.

    I have some before/after pictures in my profile, and I'm very happy with how I look and feel now, especially considering where I've been and that I'm also creeping up in age and this body has carried 3 pregnancies :)

    If you have three children, it might be also that what you consider a "no exercise" lifestyle is actually quite active and full of incidental exercise.

    My youngest is 8 now, so I'm not chasing little ones around anymore :) If anything I spend a lot more time sitting in bleachers watching them play sports lol.

    So for the past 8 years you've been rather active.

    Not really? Of the last 8 years- I spent around 4 years overweight, 6ish months in the weight loss phase and then 3.5ish years transitioning/in maintenance. My weight gain started after my youngest was born (I had 3 pregnancies close together/kids are now 8, 9 and 11). So while I may have been a bit more active when they were little, I was actually gaining weight during that time.

    I'm not really an active person and never have been. My favorite hobby is reading, and I've had years where I've clocked in over 300 books. That's a lot of sitting, not even factoring in my internet time (which we shall not speak of :p ). During my weight loss phase and now in maintenance I always chose the 'sedentary' option when figuring out my calorie intake.
    edited May 2016
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    whoops, nevermind.
    edited May 2016
  • robininflrobininfl Posts: 1,144Member Member Posts: 1,144Member Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    There is a thread, somewhere here, about people who lost without doing any excersize and they posted photographs too. In my eyes all of them looked really good. I thought their body composition was very nice, super attractive. Could body composition be a preferential taste for certain body type, rather than an objective standard of what is right body composition?

    Also, my tdee seems right based on my weight loss, from the two sources I used. I've used cico before, lost a lot of weight 75 # and am here losing very well with no excersize, as I did before, with same calorie deficit as I used 9 years ago.

    I have an average life, average activity I think.

    I have some before/after pictures in my profile, and I'm very happy with how I look and feel now, especially considering where I've been and that I'm also creeping up in age and this body has carried 3 pregnancies :)

    If you have three children, it might be also that what you consider a "no exercise" lifestyle is actually quite active and full of incidental exercise.

    My youngest is 8 now, so I'm not chasing little ones around anymore :) If anything I spend a lot more time sitting in bleachers watching them play sports lol.

    So for the past 8 years you've been rather active.

    Not really? Of the last 8 years- I spent around 4 years overweight, 6ish months in the weight loss phase and then 3.5ish years transitioning/in maintenance. My weight gain started after my youngest was born (I had 3 pregnancies close together/kids are now 8, 9 and 11). So while I may have been a bit more active when they were little, I was actually gaining weight during that time.

    I'm not really an active person and never have been. My favorite hobby is reading, and I've had years where I've clocked in over 300 books. That's a lot of sitting, not even factoring in my internet time (which we shall not speak of :p ). During my weight loss phase and now in maintenance I always chose the 'sedentary' option when figuring out my calorie intake.


    I'm 48 now (and more kids than 3) but yeah love to read and spent more time sitting on the porch reading when my kids were little, desk job, never had a problem with weight. Exercise for me makes me feel better and does determine my body weight in a way, but mostly adds muscle, and normalizes - without it I sometimes got slightly dumpy, skinnyfat, and other times just very skinny. Inactivity probably adjusts your appetite down so you just eat to maintain what you are (or aren't) doing, I assume that's what happened for me. Grandma on my mom's side never took exercise, never was fat, was skinny when old, fragile.

    I will maintain, though, that slim and active trumps slim and idle, health-wise. Even if your bloodwork looks good. I originally went back to working out when i got winded having sex, in my 30s - that lack of fitness startled me into action. So cardiovascular fitness is important to me, being able to DO things like handstands pleases me, being able to *redacted* for hours is cool, and I like being able to eat more.

    Although - if you like being able to read more, then your stress levels are lower, and stress is a big whompin' risk factor just like idleness is, so who knows? Maybe 6 of one, half dozen of another? I have less stress working out daily so it wouldn't work that way for me...
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    You can put me in the "won't lose weight without cardio" crowd (not exercise but cardio). That said, I chalk that up to caloric expenditure and my appetite. I would be interested in seeing more studies, but my heart and lung health and general well being are too important for me to really care about what I can or cannot do without cardio.
  • ekat120ekat120 Posts: 407Member Member Posts: 407Member Member
    ekat120 wrote: »
    I just skimmed the full text. Energy flux was measured as intake+burn (e.g., someone who eats 1500 and burns 1500 has an energy flux of 3000, whereas someone who eats 2000 and burns 2000 has an energy flux of 4000). There was a moderate correlation of ~.3 between energy flux and RMR, meaning that "energy flux" explains about 10% of the variation in RMR (resting metabolic rate) from person to person. The association between energy flux and body fat % at follow-up was about the same size, with higher energy flux predicting lower body fat % (after controlling for energy balance, or the difference between what people burned and ate).

    I'll take a free 10 % especially when it means I feel and look better for it. Oh and I get to spend time outdoors in the sun too?

    26502027470_3070af601c_o_d.jpg

    Me, too! Plus I feel way better when I'm more active. My body and mind just seem to work better.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    There is a thread, somewhere here, about people who lost without doing any excersize and they posted photographs too. In my eyes all of them looked really good. I thought their body composition was very nice, super attractive. Could body composition be a preferential taste for certain body type, rather than an objective standard of what is right body composition?

    Also, my tdee seems right based on my weight loss, from the two sources I used. I've used cico before, lost a lot of weight 75 # and am here losing very well with no excersize, as I did before, with same calorie deficit as I used 9 years ago.

    I have an average life, average activity I think.

    I have some before/after pictures in my profile, and I'm very happy with how I look and feel now, especially considering where I've been and that I'm also creeping up in age and this body has carried 3 pregnancies :)

    If you have three children, it might be also that what you consider a "no exercise" lifestyle is actually quite active and full of incidental exercise.

    My youngest is 8 now, so I'm not chasing little ones around anymore :) If anything I spend a lot more time sitting in bleachers watching them play sports lol.

    So for the past 8 years you've been rather active.

    Not really? Of the last 8 years- I spent around 4 years overweight, 6ish months in the weight loss phase and then 3.5ish years transitioning/in maintenance. My weight gain started after my youngest was born (I had 3 pregnancies close together/kids are now 8, 9 and 11). So while I may have been a bit more active when they were little, I was actually gaining weight during that time.

    I'm not really an active person and never have been. My favorite hobby is reading, and I've had years where I've clocked in over 300 books. That's a lot of sitting, not even factoring in my internet time (which we shall not speak of :p ). During my weight loss phase and now in maintenance I always chose the 'sedentary' option when figuring out my calorie intake.

    Activity doesn't mean one can't eat more than what one does. However, I'd imagine that someone involved in raising small kids will tend to be more active than the "sedentary" equivalent of sitting at a desk 9-5. But I'm sure you know yourself best.

    Personally, when my children where small and I was the stay at home parent I was "active" just due to that. My youngest is 11 and certainly now, the physical effort is a lot less.
  • Traveler120Traveler120 Posts: 712Member Member Posts: 712Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    it shows just the BMR...

    Yeah, it's a BMR chart that @EvgeniZyntx posted saying it SHOWS as much as a 200+ variation in BMR, between the 2 formulas. It doesn't.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, across different weights and ages when you play with the equations these differences exceed 200 cals. If you'd like the worksheet, I can make it public.

    Here is another study on the subject.
    Obes Res Clin Pract. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S1871-403X(15)00111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2015.07.008. [Epub ahead of print]
    Accuracy of resting metabolic rate prediction in overweight and obese Australian adults.
    Wright TG1, Dawson B2, Jalleh G3, Guelfi KJ2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations in Australian populations are at least 10 years old, focused on males and do not commonly use overweight and obese weight categorisation. The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU).
    METHODS:
    Retrospective data from 278 participants (154 males, 124 females: 37% overweight, 63% obese) who had attended a weight management clinic were used to develop predictive RMR equations. These were then validated against another sample (from the same clinic) of 297 participants (150 males, 147 females: 47% overweight, 53% obese), and their accuracy compared with known standard equations.
    RESULTS:
    For the prediction sample, weight, BMI, resting VO2 and measured RMR were significantly greater in the obese than overweight. Using the validation sample, the predictive equations met a ±10% of measured RMR criterion 42% (females), 41% (total sample) and 40% (males) of the time. Prediction accuracy was not improved by using specific overweight and obese weight category equations, or by applying the known standard equations from the literature.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    In our sample of overweight and obese adults, RMR prediction to within ±10% of the measured value was only accurate ∼40% of the time, regardless of gender and weight classification. In clinical weight management settings direct measures of RMR should be made wherever possible.

    See the bold.
    I don't know where you're trying to go with this. I think the part you should have bolded was this one:
    "The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU)"

    Looks like they developed their own NEW predictive equations and found THOSE to be only accurate 40% of the time.

    Meanwhile this study -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883556 - found that:
    "Four prediction equations were identified as the most commonly used in clinical practice (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, Owen, and World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University [WHO/FAO/UNU]). Of these equations, the Mifflin-St Jeor equation was the most reliable, predicting RMR within 10% of measured in more nonobese and obese individuals than any other equation, and it also had the narrowest error range."

    The point is that if someone wants 100% accuracy, they can go get tested in a lab, OR they can use the most accurate formula/calculator available as a guide or starting point and see how it matches with their reality and adjust from there as most people do quite successfully.
    edited May 2016
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    You can put me in the "won't lose weight without cardio" crowd (not exercise but cardio). That said, I chalk that up to caloric expenditure and my appetite. I would be interested in seeing more studies, but my heart and lung health and general well being are too important for me to really care about what I can or cannot do without cardio.


    I see that the calorie difference between my active weeks and inactive ones is about 600-800 cals per day, I'm also a cardio bunny. But aside from the burn, there are a lot of other things going in the body that we tend to forget about thanks to exercise, or that appear secondary and probably aren't.
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    it shows just the BMR...

    Yeah, it's a BMR chart that @EvgeniZyntx posted saying it SHOWS as much as a 200+ variation in BMR, between the 2 formulas. It doesn't.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, across different weights and ages when you play with the equations these differences exceed 200 cals. If you'd like the worksheet, I can make it public.

    Here is another study on the subject.
    Obes Res Clin Pract. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S1871-403X(15)00111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2015.07.008. [Epub ahead of print]
    Accuracy of resting metabolic rate prediction in overweight and obese Australian adults.
    Wright TG1, Dawson B2, Jalleh G3, Guelfi KJ2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations in Australian populations are at least 10 years old, focused on males and do not commonly use overweight and obese weight categorisation. The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU).
    METHODS:
    Retrospective data from 278 participants (154 males, 124 females: 37% overweight, 63% obese) who had attended a weight management clinic were used to develop predictive RMR equations. These were then validated against another sample (from the same clinic) of 297 participants (150 males, 147 females: 47% overweight, 53% obese), and their accuracy compared with known standard equations.
    RESULTS:
    For the prediction sample, weight, BMI, resting VO2 and measured RMR were significantly greater in the obese than overweight. Using the validation sample, the predictive equations met a ±10% of measured RMR criterion 42% (females), 41% (total sample) and 40% (males) of the time. Prediction accuracy was not improved by using specific overweight and obese weight category equations, or by applying the known standard equations from the literature.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    In our sample of overweight and obese adults, RMR prediction to within ±10% of the measured value was only accurate ∼40% of the time, regardless of gender and weight classification. In clinical weight management settings direct measures of RMR should be made wherever possible.

    See the bold.
    I don't know where you're trying to go with this. I think the part you should have bolded was this one:
    "The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU)"

    Looks like they developed their own NEW predictive equations and found THOSE to be only accurate 40% of the time.

    Meanwhile this study -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883556 - found that:
    "Four prediction equations were identified as the most commonly used in clinical practice (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, Owen, and World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University [WHO/FAO/UNU]). Of these equations, the Mifflin-St Jeor equation was the most reliable, predicting RMR within 10% of measured in more nonobese and obese individuals than any other equation, and it also had the narrowest error range."

    The point is that if someone wants 100% accuracy, they can go get tested in a lab, OR they can use the most accurate formula/calculator available as a guide or starting point and see how it matches with their reality and adjust from there as most people do quite successfully.

    From your article:
    "For members of groups that are greatly underrepresented by existing validation studies of predictive equations, a high level of suspicion regarding the accuracy of the equations is warranted."

    The point is that all formulas have a large error for 25% of the population. If it works for you great, but considering them as a gold standard for others is incorrect. You are right that, that metabolic testing can be useful in those cases to determine a baseline but nothing beats your own tracking and experience with calorie counting (even when biased by incorrect measuring because it provides you with an operational yardstick).

    And there is no 100% accuracy - that measure in the lab is under specific conditions, as soon as you've slept a little less, drank some coffee, etc your RMR varies. One needs to consider TDEE or RMR as moving targets day to day with significant variations, not exact numbers. It's a range not a single number.
    edited May 2016
  • Traveler120Traveler120 Posts: 712Member Member Posts: 712Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    it shows just the BMR...

    Yeah, it's a BMR chart that @EvgeniZyntx posted saying it SHOWS as much as a 200+ variation in BMR, between the 2 formulas. It doesn't.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, across different weights and ages when you play with the equations these differences exceed 200 cals. If you'd like the worksheet, I can make it public.

    Here is another study on the subject.
    Obes Res Clin Pract. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S1871-403X(15)00111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2015.07.008. [Epub ahead of print]
    Accuracy of resting metabolic rate prediction in overweight and obese Australian adults.
    Wright TG1, Dawson B2, Jalleh G3, Guelfi KJ2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations in Australian populations are at least 10 years old, focused on males and do not commonly use overweight and obese weight categorisation. The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU).
    METHODS:
    Retrospective data from 278 participants (154 males, 124 females: 37% overweight, 63% obese) who had attended a weight management clinic were used to develop predictive RMR equations. These were then validated against another sample (from the same clinic) of 297 participants (150 males, 147 females: 47% overweight, 53% obese), and their accuracy compared with known standard equations.
    RESULTS:
    For the prediction sample, weight, BMI, resting VO2 and measured RMR were significantly greater in the obese than overweight. Using the validation sample, the predictive equations met a ±10% of measured RMR criterion 42% (females), 41% (total sample) and 40% (males) of the time. Prediction accuracy was not improved by using specific overweight and obese weight category equations, or by applying the known standard equations from the literature.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    In our sample of overweight and obese adults, RMR prediction to within ±10% of the measured value was only accurate ∼40% of the time, regardless of gender and weight classification. In clinical weight management settings direct measures of RMR should be made wherever possible.

    See the bold.
    I don't know where you're trying to go with this. I think the part you should have bolded was this one:
    "The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU)"

    Looks like they developed their own NEW predictive equations and found THOSE to be only accurate 40% of the time.

    Meanwhile this study -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883556 - found that:
    "Four prediction equations were identified as the most commonly used in clinical practice (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, Owen, and World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University [WHO/FAO/UNU]). Of these equations, the Mifflin-St Jeor equation was the most reliable, predicting RMR within 10% of measured in more nonobese and obese individuals than any other equation, and it also had the narrowest error range."

    The point is that if someone wants 100% accuracy, they can go get tested in a lab, OR they can use the most accurate formula/calculator available as a guide or starting point and see how it matches with their reality and adjust from there as most people do quite successfully.

    From your article:
    "For members of groups that are greatly underrepresented by existing validation studies of predictive equations, a high level of suspicion regarding the accuracy of the equations is warranted."
    And they explained who the underrepresented in the study were:
    "Older adults and US-residing ethnic minorities were underrepresented both in the development of predictive equations and in validation studies."
    edited May 2016
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    it shows just the BMR...

    Yeah, it's a BMR chart that @EvgeniZyntx posted saying it SHOWS as much as a 200+ variation in BMR, between the 2 formulas. It doesn't.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, across different weights and ages when you play with the equations these differences exceed 200 cals. If you'd like the worksheet, I can make it public.

    Here is another study on the subject.
    Obes Res Clin Pract. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S1871-403X(15)00111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2015.07.008. [Epub ahead of print]
    Accuracy of resting metabolic rate prediction in overweight and obese Australian adults.
    Wright TG1, Dawson B2, Jalleh G3, Guelfi KJ2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations in Australian populations are at least 10 years old, focused on males and do not commonly use overweight and obese weight categorisation. The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU).
    METHODS:
    Retrospective data from 278 participants (154 males, 124 females: 37% overweight, 63% obese) who had attended a weight management clinic were used to develop predictive RMR equations. These were then validated against another sample (from the same clinic) of 297 participants (150 males, 147 females: 47% overweight, 53% obese), and their accuracy compared with known standard equations.
    RESULTS:
    For the prediction sample, weight, BMI, resting VO2 and measured RMR were significantly greater in the obese than overweight. Using the validation sample, the predictive equations met a ±10% of measured RMR criterion 42% (females), 41% (total sample) and 40% (males) of the time. Prediction accuracy was not improved by using specific overweight and obese weight category equations, or by applying the known standard equations from the literature.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    In our sample of overweight and obese adults, RMR prediction to within ±10% of the measured value was only accurate ∼40% of the time, regardless of gender and weight classification. In clinical weight management settings direct measures of RMR should be made wherever possible.

    See the bold.
    I don't know where you're trying to go with this. I think the part you should have bolded was this one:
    "The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU)"

    Looks like they developed their own NEW predictive equations and found THOSE to be only accurate 40% of the time.

    Meanwhile this study -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883556 - found that:
    "Four prediction equations were identified as the most commonly used in clinical practice (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, Owen, and World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University [WHO/FAO/UNU]). Of these equations, the Mifflin-St Jeor equation was the most reliable, predicting RMR within 10% of measured in more nonobese and obese individuals than any other equation, and it also had the narrowest error range."

    The point is that if someone wants 100% accuracy, they can go get tested in a lab, OR they can use the most accurate formula/calculator available as a guide or starting point and see how it matches with their reality and adjust from there as most people do quite successfully.

    From your article:
    "For members of groups that are greatly underrepresented by existing validation studies of predictive equations, a high level of suspicion regarding the accuracy of the equations is warranted."
    And they explained who the underrepresented in the study were:
    "Older adults and US-residing ethnic minorities were underrepresented both in the development of predictive equations and in validation studies."

    And several other studies show issues with older groups or obese groups or Koreans or African-Americans or Brazilians, etc...
    These are simple linear best fit equations and just do not do a good job at individual estimators if you spend some time with the research.

    In the article the Miffin - St Jeor accuracy is reported to drop to 70% of the population for the obese with maximum underestimates of 20% and overestimates of 15%. That's pretty wide.

    Here is a summary graph, from the study you cited.dqsp4ot3juta.png

    Note that 10% accuracy means ± 200-300 error on TDEE and would still be considered accurate. For 25-30% of the population, the estimation falls outside of this accuracy.

    Apologies to the OP for going off on this tangent.
    edited May 2016
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    You can put me in the "won't lose weight without cardio" crowd (not exercise but cardio). That said, I chalk that up to caloric expenditure and my appetite. I would be interested in seeing more studies, but my heart and lung health and general well being are too important for me to really care about what I can or cannot do without cardio.


    I see that the calorie difference between my active weeks and inactive ones is about 600-800 cals per day, I'm also a cardio bunny. But aside from the burn, there are a lot of other things going in the body that we tend to forget about thanks to exercise, or that appear secondary and probably aren't.

    Agreed. We tend to focus heavily on weight loss and body composition on these boards. The things you are posting are all good ones to keep in mind. For me, cardio improves my mood, my capacity to lift weights, and my breathing (highly important since I'm asthmatic), as well as obviously lowering my resting heart rate and blood pressure.
  • Traveler120Traveler120 Posts: 712Member Member Posts: 712Member Member
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    CaptainJoy wrote: »
    Exercise is extremely important when in a calorie deficitbecause without it you can actually lower the rate you use calories while resting. This was proven by a U.S.government study done in 2009. Ci/co works but what good is losing the weight if you're just going to put it back on because you are no longer burning the same amount of calories at rest as you were before you lost the weight?

    https://www.nia.nih.gov/newsroom/announcements/2009/05/study-shows-metabolic-adaptation-calorie-restriction

    May I ask how long you've been in maintenance? 3 years into maintenance here, and I didn't exercise at all during my weight loss phase. My TDEE is spot on and has been since I started this whole thing back in 2012.

    If you look at my profile it is obvious that I am not into maintenance "here." I did however lose 38 pounds about 28 years ago from diet and exercise and did a pretty good job of maintaining it until about 7 years ago. That would put me in maintenance for about 21 years. Of course that was before MFP. Exercise is important during weight loss to preserve our bone mass and metabolism as we get older. If you're happy and your TDEE is spot on then I'm happy for you. Not everyone is as lucky.

    Yes, people keep telling my I'm a lucky freak of nature special snowflake :p TDEE calculators don't ask you your weight loss and exercise history. Many of us here have found these calculators to be very accurate, regardless of our dieting/exercise history. If not exercising during my weight loss phase had somehow lowered the rate I use calories while resting, then why would my TDEE still be accurate? From my own experience my TDEE is very accurate and it's what I go by now in maintenance. I haven't had any issues with my calorie amount being off.

    These formulas are very rough estimators - here is an example graph of two leading formulas. If you find them accurate it is just confirmation bias. In every study they only correspond to about 65% of metabolic factors.

    For example, consider women weighing 75Kg of different heights, you'll see that the equations only match at one point and may differ as much as 200 cals (or more).

    81ewqof6k0r3.png
    Even from your graph, the widest point of variation is 1375 and 1475. That's only 100 calories. I don't know where you're getting 200 or more from your graph.

    From what I've read, the Mifflin St Jeor is widely regarded to be the most accurate.

    I like the one posted by @ReaderGirl3 above. http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/. For me it's very accurate.

    it shows just the BMR...

    Yeah, it's a BMR chart that @EvgeniZyntx posted saying it SHOWS as much as a 200+ variation in BMR, between the 2 formulas. It doesn't.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, across different weights and ages when you play with the equations these differences exceed 200 cals. If you'd like the worksheet, I can make it public.

    Here is another study on the subject.
    Obes Res Clin Pract. 2015 Aug 12. pii: S1871-403X(15)00111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2015.07.008. [Epub ahead of print]
    Accuracy of resting metabolic rate prediction in overweight and obese Australian adults.
    Wright TG1, Dawson B2, Jalleh G3, Guelfi KJ2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Predictive resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations in Australian populations are at least 10 years old, focused on males and do not commonly use overweight and obese weight categorisation. The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU).
    METHODS:
    Retrospective data from 278 participants (154 males, 124 females: 37% overweight, 63% obese) who had attended a weight management clinic were used to develop predictive RMR equations. These were then validated against another sample (from the same clinic) of 297 participants (150 males, 147 females: 47% overweight, 53% obese), and their accuracy compared with known standard equations.
    RESULTS:
    For the prediction sample, weight, BMI, resting VO2 and measured RMR were significantly greater in the obese than overweight. Using the validation sample, the predictive equations met a ±10% of measured RMR criterion 42% (females), 41% (total sample) and 40% (males) of the time. Prediction accuracy was not improved by using specific overweight and obese weight category equations, or by applying the known standard equations from the literature.
    CONCLUSIONS:
    In our sample of overweight and obese adults, RMR prediction to within ±10% of the measured value was only accurate ∼40% of the time, regardless of gender and weight classification. In clinical weight management settings direct measures of RMR should be made wherever possible.

    See the bold.
    I don't know where you're trying to go with this. I think the part you should have bolded was this one:
    "The aim of this study was to measure RMR via indirect calorimetry in overweight and obese Australian adults to develop population specific predictive equations and compare with other well-known international equations (Mifflin-St. Jeor, Owen and WHO/FAO/UNU)"

    Looks like they developed their own NEW predictive equations and found THOSE to be only accurate 40% of the time.

    Meanwhile this study -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15883556 - found that:
    "Four prediction equations were identified as the most commonly used in clinical practice (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, Owen, and World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University [WHO/FAO/UNU]). Of these equations, the Mifflin-St Jeor equation was the most reliable, predicting RMR within 10% of measured in more nonobese and obese individuals than any other equation, and it also had the narrowest error range."

    The point is that if someone wants 100% accuracy, they can go get tested in a lab, OR they can use the most accurate formula/calculator available as a guide or starting point and see how it matches with their reality and adjust from there as most people do quite successfully.

    From your article:
    "For members of groups that are greatly underrepresented by existing validation studies of predictive equations, a high level of suspicion regarding the accuracy of the equations is warranted."
    And they explained who the underrepresented in the study were:
    "Older adults and US-residing ethnic minorities were underrepresented both in the development of predictive equations and in validation studies."

    And several other studies show issues with older groups or obese groups or Koreans or African-Americans or Brazilians, etc...
    These are simple linear best fit equations and just do not do a good job at individual estimators if you spend some time with the research.

    In the article the Miffin - St Jeor accuracy is reported to drop to 70% of the population for the obese with maximum underestimates of 20% and overestimates of 15%. That's pretty wide.

    Here is a summary graph, from the study you cited.

    Note that 10% accuracy means ± 200-300 error on TDEE and would still be considered accurate. For 25-30% of the population, the estimation falls outside of this accuracy.

    Apologies to the OP for going off on this tangent.

    Thanks for posting the chart. I only have access to the abstract so it's nice to see some details. I think for the formula to be within 10% accuracy for the vast majority (70-82%), is pretty good. And I said earlier, it's a best estimate (short of a lab test) and a point of reference. I can't imagine anyone expects it to be exact, so to me a 200-300 margin of error is not alarming. Even nutrition labels are allowed to be 10-20% off so whenever I aim for 1700 calories I'm aware it could be as much as 170-340 calories more. But like the calculators, it's the best information I have so I work with that and then use real world results to decide what changes to make.
Sign In or Register to comment.