Depressing TDEE calculation - tell me it's not true!
Options
Replies
-
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?)
0 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »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?)
Finally someone close to my stats who isn't burning 2200-2500 per day. I always feel so bad about my TDEE.1 -
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.2 -
Tell me about it OP, I'm super jealous of tall people at 5' eating 1200 cals a day I lose at a moderate weight, haven't looked at it, but can't see me having a huge maintenance number!
On the plus side I am starting to see I was just stuffing myself before1 -
Thanks for your detailed response @b3achy
I would definitely consider strength training but balancing family time, exercise and work is so difficult! I think I'm just going to have to grit my teeth and get through the last 8lb as I'm definitely not quite where I want to be, although I do feel so much better! 0 -
maryjaquiss wrote: »Thanks for your detailed response @b3achy I would definitely consider strength training but balancing family time, exercise and work is so difficult! I think I'm just going to have to grit my teeth and get through the last 8lb as I'm definitely not quite where I want to be, although I do feel so much better!
Just remember you can do plenty of resistance/strength training at home without going to a gym. Get some dumb bells or a kettlebell. Do body weight exercises in addition to the yoga. Get some resistance bands. Find exercises you can do lifting your baby. That's why I said you can do more strength training without it being a full on body recomposition, which implies heavy weights, gyms, etc. I only now am using a gym because I had gotten past the capabilities of my personal at home options, and I wanted certain machines for some training I'm doing.
And yea, I thought losing the last bit of weight wasn't going to be any harder than the rest, but it's definitely a game of patience, especially at our size. You can do it!1 -
maryjaquiss wrote: »Thanks for your detailed response @b3achy I would definitely consider strength training but balancing family time, exercise and work is so difficult! I think I'm just going to have to grit my teeth and get through the last 8lb as I'm definitely not quite where I want to be, although I do feel so much better!
Just remember you can do plenty of resistance/strength training at home without going to a gym. Get some dumb bells or a kettlebell. Do body weight exercises in addition to the yoga. Get some resistance bands. Find exercises you can do lifting your baby. That's why I said you can do more strength training without it being a full on body recomposition, which implies heavy weights, gyms, etc. I only now am using a gym because I had gotten past the capabilities of my personal at home options, and I wanted certain machines for some training I'm doing.
And yea, I thought losing the last bit of weight wasn't going to be any harder than the rest, but it's definitely a game of patience, especially at our size. You can do it!
Ha, I'll be benching my 2 year old later! (If I can catch him)3 -
Also you can do a body recomp with body weight exercises, won't be as quick as weights, but there are a lot of variations and you can definitely follow a progressive body weight program, check out you are your own gym or convict conditioning! Super challenging! Super quick, easy at home workouts! YAYOG has like a $2-$3 app so you don't even need to bother with the book!
I also like them because if there's an exercise you want to do (chin ups for me) it gives you variations to work up to the goal exercise!0 -
Doesn't sound right to me unless you're literally just sitting around doing nothing...like literally completely sedentary. Even with a desk job and no deliberate exercise, I'm not a sedentary setting and neither is my desk jockey wife.
My wife is between 5'2" and 5'3" and around 125-130 Lbs and with exercise, her TDEE is around 2200-2300 calories per day. She runs about 5 miles per day with a couple of interval sessions mixed into the week and lifts once per week...0 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »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?)
Finally someone close to my stats who isn't burning 2200-2500 per day. I always feel so bad about my TDEE.
^^^^^YES-- me too!!!0 -
Yeah that seems about right, I am similar stats to you but I'm active so my TDEE averages 2000-2100 compared to around 1450 if I was sedentary. We can do something about our TDEE just by moving more 0
-
maryjaquiss wrote: »Thanks for your detailed response @b3achy I would definitely consider strength training but balancing family time, exercise and work is so difficult! I think I'm just going to have to grit my teeth and get through the last 8lb as I'm definitely not quite where I want to be, although I do feel so much better!
Just remember the more lean muscle mass you have the more you burn! Sounds like you are on the right track.. nothing beats weighing and logging everything.. You will know what you can and can't do for maintaining and losing.0 -
That's not that bad. I'm eighteen years old, 5'5", 106 lbs., and my TDEE is under 1,400. It sucks.0
-
runningforthetrain wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »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?)
Finally someone close to my stats who isn't burning 2200-2500 per day. I always feel so bad about my TDEE.
^^^^^YES-- me too!!!
Add me to the club. And I'm not even remotely sedentary. 15K fitbit steps a day. 20-25 miles a week of that running. Plus heavy lifting 3x times a week. And I know for a fact I gain 2 pounds a month at 1800-2000 a day. Tried it during a "maintenance break" last year and still trying to get back below 140.0 -
I show a BMR of @ 1450 and TDEE of SEDENTARY of @ 20000
-
prattiger65 wrote: »I show a BMR of @ 1450 and TDEE of SEDENTARY of @ 2000
I was wondering if the OP was maybe looking at BMR which sounds more like it...0 -
runningforthetrain wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »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?)
Finally someone close to my stats who isn't burning 2200-2500 per day. I always feel so bad about my TDEE.
^^^^^YES-- me too!!!
Add me to the club. And I'm not even remotely sedentary. 15K fitbit steps a day. 20-25 miles a week of that running. Plus heavy lifting 3x times a week. And I know for a fact I gain 2 pounds a month at 1800-2000 a day. Tried it during a "maintenance break" last year and still trying to get back below 140.
A lot of people think they "gain" when they actually achieve their true maintenance...which they do...because when you're truly at maintenance you top of your glycogen...I gained three pounds when I went to my true mainteanance because my glycogen stores were reduced while dieting...it wasn't fat...it's glycogen replenishment and it's a good thing but people are so obsessive about the scale that they freak out about it...1 -
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?)
I put your numbers in, and that's what I'm coming up with as a completely sedentary person who basically does nothing...move more in general and do some exercise and it won't be so depressing.
Like literally, this setting is basically you sitting all day and then coming home and just sitting on the couch afterwards and then going to bed0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »runningforthetrain wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »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?)
Finally someone close to my stats who isn't burning 2200-2500 per day. I always feel so bad about my TDEE.
^^^^^YES-- me too!!!
Add me to the club. And I'm not even remotely sedentary. 15K fitbit steps a day. 20-25 miles a week of that running. Plus heavy lifting 3x times a week. And I know for a fact I gain 2 pounds a month at 1800-2000 a day. Tried it during a "maintenance break" last year and still trying to get back below 140.
A lot of people think they "gain" when they actually achieve their true maintenance...which they do...because when you're truly at maintenance you top of your glycogen...I gained three pounds when I went to my true mainteanance because my glycogen stores were reduced while dieting...it wasn't fat...it's glycogen replenishment and it's a good thing but people are so obsessive about the scale that they freak out about it...
Yeah, I chalked it up to glycogen and let it go. That's why I gave it 12 weeks. But my average weight trend didn't stabilize and I consistently put on 2 pounds a month and ended up 6 pounds heavier. I did feel better and my lifts all increased dramatically, so I sure some of it was muscle. But and I was edging into the overweight BMI category my pants were getting snug.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions