Depressing TDEE calculation - tell me it's not true!

did you go onto the right section in IIFYM, as it calculates how many calories you need to eat ( whilst taking into account your exercise, ) theres no need for you to do any calculations, if you go onto accurate calorie calculator on iifym it will work out TDEE then subtract 20% off that to give you your allowance

try that and see what it gives you

That seems about right to me.

But that is with no exercise so once you add those calories on you'll be able to have more.

Have you considered a recomp instead?

When I first started my weight loss journey, I looked up how much I was going to need to eat to maintain my goal weight once I got there. (I'm 5'2") and it was really sad LOL.

use stairs, dont park your car to the closes entrance, use every oppurtunity to move

Yeah ... I'm taller than you, and MFP gave me 1250 to start.

Eat what MFP gave you and 50-75% of your exercise calories back.

maryjaquiss wrote: »

I'm short, close to goal and in my healthy weight range (female, 5'3, 134lb - goal 126lb). I've been hovering around the same weight for a couple of weeks so thought I'd calculate my TDEE on IIFYM and it's telling me 1481 with no exercise (I prefer to add that on with accurate-ish calories from HRM - run 30-60 mins 5 times a week and ashtanga yoga 3-4 times a week).

Did some sums and I think based on losing 0.5lb a week I would need to be eating 1231 net. This makes me sad! I have previously been on 1370 but cut that to 1300 recently to try to get closer to goal, always eat back exercise calories, and even this is a bit sad for me. Is it really true? Do I actually have to cut back this much?

(1231 would also put me below my BMR apparently which doesn't seem right?)

you are making an error which is TDEE takes into account how much you exercise and your goal weight - at least on the calculator I use - so you shouldn't be adjusting before what it gives you

https://mytdee.com/#gender=female&yr=32&cm=160&kg=60.8&bfp=&goal=lose&goal_kg=57.2&lose_speed=easy&formula=standard&units=imperial&exercise=sedentary

I used the info you provided and it gave a TDEE of 1650 daily and if you want to lose weight then 1480 - which is much more doable

I get your desire to calculate a sedentary TDEE; it's certainly worth knowing. But with that knowledge in hand I would go to a daily level TDEE, including average exercise, rather than adding "accurate" calorie burns to the sedentary TDEE. Once your intake is level it all becomes straightforward. If you are gaining weight, you need to drop intake, in small manageable increments, and if you are losing too fast, you need to increase intake. Of course this only works with relatively stable exercise, but it sounds like you are consistent. Using TDEE in this manner will leave no question as to your appropriate intake. It reflects you and your lifestyle, so it's far better than any calculator can offer. TDEE calculators offer a good starting point, but how your body reacts and behaves is the ultimate test. I have been practising this method with success for several years.

Yes, smaller bodies burn less calories. I am 5'5.5", 135ish and 42 years old. Without intention activity, I'd average about 3000-4000 steps a day due to desk job & commute and my calorie burn would be about 1400-1500 per day. I walk/run daily to push it up to 1800+.

maryjaquiss wrote: »

I'm short, close to goal and in my healthy weight range (female, 5'3, 134lb - goal 126lb). I've been hovering around the same weight for a couple of weeks so thought I'd calculate my TDEE on IIFYM and it's telling me 1481 with no exercise (I prefer to add that on with accurate-ish calories from HRM - run 30-60 mins 5 times a week and ashtanga yoga 3-4 times a week).

Did some sums and I think based on losing 0.5lb a week I would need to be eating 1231 net. This makes me sad! I have previously been on 1370 but cut that to 1300 recently to try to get closer to goal, always eat back exercise calories, and even this is a bit sad for me. Is it really true? Do I actually have to cut back this much?

(1231 would also put me below my BMR apparently which doesn't seem right?)

maryjaquiss wrote: »

I'm short, close to goal and in my healthy weight range (female, 5'3, 134lb - goal 126lb). I've been hovering around the same weight for a couple of weeks so thought I'd calculate my TDEE on IIFYM and it's telling me 1481 with no exercise (I prefer to add that on with accurate-ish calories from HRM - run 30-60 mins 5 times a week and ashtanga yoga 3-4 times a week).

Did some sums and I think based on losing 0.5lb a week I would need to be eating 1231 net. This makes me sad! I have previously been on 1370 but cut that to 1300 recently to try to get closer to goal, always eat back exercise calories, and even this is a bit sad for me. Is it really true? Do I actually have to cut back this much?

(1231 would also put me below my BMR apparently which doesn't seem right?)

The short answer: Yes, 1481 sounds about right. I just put your numbers into a different calculator (but with my age 52yo) and it gave me nearly the same calories (I actually get less because I'm older, so enjoy those extra 60 calories while you are young). BTW, this is the calculator I like (https://tdeecalculator.net/) though the IIFYM is a good one also.

The longer answer:
Like you, I prefer to calculate my 'NEAT' or TDEE at sedentary due to my job, and then add reasonable calories back to my daily goal based on my actual workouts, and not take the nebulous 'light, moderate, heavy exercise' calculations at face value (but they do give me nice ballpark estimations to verify my own calculations). I also did my calculations this way, because it gave me more calories to eat when I started rather than the generic 1200 minimum initially (which would have put me at a less than 1lb per week loss with no explanation even though I asked for the numbers for a 1lb a week per loss). Also, it helped me understand the calculations rather than just blindly trusting some algorithm that didn't provide much explanations. And it allowed me to go lower in my goal calculations as I got closer to goal to continue to work toward losing nearly a pound a week.

I'm 5'3" and once I got down to 125, I was probably at about 1250 calories to continue to lose about a pound a week (and that was already figuring in some exercise (about 200 per day) even though most of my lifestyle is sedentary with a desk job). At that point it was getting harder to lose ~ I had two month long stalls, and there wasn't much to be gained by trying to drop my calories down to 1200, so I opted to start working myself back to maintenance (adding 100 calories per month until I get up to maintenance levels, which is about 1700 with some exercise figured in (and yes, more than I was initially doing ~ 300 per day now).

I actually added back a 100 calories in Jan as the start of my maintenance (at 125-126 instead of my original goal of 120lbs), but also opted to do dry Jan. After having stalls in Oct and Dec, I ended up losing about 4 lbs in Jan. Was that because I gave myself an extra 100 calories that my body "needed" or because I stopped drinking for the month, or because after a stall month I would typically lose about 3-4 lbs, or some other mysterious reason that only my body knows? I have no clue. I was still about 400 calories under maintenance, so it could have just been the time to drop the weight after the Dec stall. It definitely wasn't because I was exercising more because in Jan I was sick with the flu for about half of the month. Weight loss isn't just not linear, it is just weird and can often defy explanation. Best thing to do is not to stress too much about it, and keep doing what you are doing.

When you are short and close to your goal weight, the calorie goal is very low, and even lower when you are in a deficit. So, you need to adjust in other ways.
-- As others have said, you can workout more to get more calories ~ which is what I try to make sure I do (I went from a goal of burning 1400 calories weekly (200 more calories per day) to a goal of burning 2100 calories weekly (300 more calories per day). Some weeks I can get more. I like my wine and cheese, so it's motivating.
--The other option is to adjust your expectations at this point. At 134lbs and 5'3" you are in a healthy range. Sure 126lbs will be a more ideal weight for your height. But maybe 134lbs is healthy enough given your current lifestyle and responsibilities.
--Also maybe consider strength training instead of more cardio to get the body that you are looking for at 126lbs but at a higher weight like in the low 130's (you don't need to go into full on 'recomp' mode unless you want to). My original goal was 120lbs, but at 129lbs I fit into my goal dress (size 4). I think a lot of the reason for that was because I started strength training in October (probably the reason for my stall that month, with the extra initial water retention from working different muscles). When I stalled again at 125lbs, I thought, well, I already fit in my goal dress, maybe this is maintenance for me rather than 120lbs. And now at 122-123, I'm okay with that because I did adjust my expectation at 125lbs.
--Note, some combo of the above will probably be optimal. But you have to figure out what is best for you.

Welcome to the world of being short and at a healthy weight!! It has it's own challenges, but being healthier is a great benefit. But it is a lifestyle, not a destination. So, make sure it's a lifestyle you can sustain and yet still enjoy.

ozgurvh wrote: »

use stairs, dont park your car to the closes entrance, use every oppurtunity to move

My apple watch helps me so much with this