TDEE stories?
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »lemonychild wrote: »OP u didn't get the gist of @kimny72 comment. She wrote that all the formulas eventually amount to the same number one way or another. For MFP's formula to work properly you need to add exercise calories back that is due to MFP calculating your current maintenance calories and then deducting 500-1000 cals off that based on your desired weight loss, this is how MFP creates the deficit- therefore if you exercise you should eat majority of those cals back ( as not to take a double deficit and go down in cals too much)
TDEE also looks at your maintenance cals and your weekly activity then adds it all up together and then creates a deficit of 15% - 20% off that number. Bottom line is both formulas shave calories off if u want to lose weight and that is the bottom line to all these calculations : eat less move more taaaadaaaa = weight loss
I got the gist thanks: More than 2 ways to skin a cat. I just prefer not to record exercise cals burned, the way MFP wants me to. Its a little too tedious for me. Which is why I do TDEE. I like having a consistent calorie goal so I'm not trying to run around and find an extra 100 (or what ever I burned) calories to eat. I set my calorie goal manually and record minutes of exercise, with cal burned as "1".
So much this!!! It's so much easier to just know I have to hit 1960 calories per day, rather than 1500 today and 2100 tomorrow.
As for results, I don't have super current photos, but I do have this...
I thought I was the only weird one. Haha! That's amazing you are at 1960 cals per day and are so successful. Honestly, the biggest reason I weight lift is so I can increase my RMR... and thus TDEE.... So I can eat more... haha... YOU LOOK AMAZING!!0 -
One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
0 -
there is really no different - the numbers should be approximately the same - I just like TDEE so I don't have to think about exercise calories - I just use the same numbers daily - but my workout schedule is pretty static and doesn't change much2
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
When you set up your goals in MFP, it suggests a one pound loss - probably the TDEE calculators use it because it is a safe reasonable rate.
After you've read a thousand or so 1200 calorie threads you might start to think it's a matter of keeping it simple, as well. MFP allows a lot more fine-tuning, which is good and bad. Requires people to think a bit more, which seems to be usually a bad thing.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.
But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.
It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.0 -
I wanna know what kind of experience people have using the TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) minus 20% method. I'm amazed at how anyone can eat 1200 cals a day and still work out for an hour... As is the case with a lot of people in my group of MFP friends. I believe in not exhausting/punishing yourself and I wanna be healthy about losing weight. It'd be refreshing to know there are people out there doing the TDEE method.
Just FYI I am 5'6", female, currently 183lbs, and workout 30-40 mins 4-5x a week (2x strength and 2-3x cardio). Been working out like that for a few years consistently, but not really for weight loss. It just makes me feel better, mentally. Now I actually do wanna lose weight.
I had a BodPod assessment this week and they calculated my RMR as 1400 cals and my TDEE as 2145 cals to maintain. My body fat is 41%. So I'm eating about 1800 cals to lose and that's the calculation for a "lightly active" person. With what I do in the gym, I'm not sure if I should bump myself up to an "active" person. My TDEE would then be 2455 to maintain, but even with 20% less that seems like a lot of food... But if I can eat more, then that's cool too.
So tell me your story!! Any advice for me is welcome too.
The two methods are 6 of 1 if you're doing it right and comparing apples to apples rate of loss targets...the only difference between the two methods is where you account for exercise.1 -
My TDEE is 14.35 x body weight. So when I want to cut, I just take 14.35 x body weight then subtract 15%. Weight comes off.1
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.
But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.
It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.
Well good for you. Other people are uncomfortable at 2000 calories. If you were a woman with a 2200 TDEE, you likely would feel like crap trying to eat only 1200 calories while maintaining the activity level required to burn 2200 calories per day. You might even feel like crap eating 1700 calories while maintaining that activity level (*waves arm in the air*.)
Different strokes for different folks.
3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.
But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.
It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.
Well good for you. Other people are uncomfortable at 2000 calories. If you were a woman with a 2200 TDEE, you likely would feel like crap trying to eat only 1200 calories while maintaining the activity level required to burn 2200 calories per day. You might even feel like crap eating 1700 calories while maintaining that activity level (*waves arm in the air*.)
Different strokes for different folks.
I get that, and it's not really my question. More like why does the TDEE calc use a % reduction vs. just saying 500 cals less for 1 lb loss?0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.
But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.
It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.
Well good for you. Other people are uncomfortable at 2000 calories. If you were a woman with a 2200 TDEE, you likely would feel like crap trying to eat only 1200 calories while maintaining the activity level required to burn 2200 calories per day. You might even feel like crap eating 1700 calories while maintaining that activity level (*waves arm in the air*.)
Different strokes for different folks.
I get that, and it's not really my question. More like why does the TDEE calc use a % reduction vs. just saying 500 cals less for 1 lb loss?
My guess is because most TDEE calculators are built to show people how many calories to eat for varying intensities of weight loss (e.g., aggressive vs moderate, etc.) and not how to lose X pounds per week.2 -
SmartAlec03211988 wrote: »My TDEE is 14.35 x body weight. So when I want to cut, I just take 14.35 x body weight then subtract 15%. Weight comes off.
That's a much more simplified equation than the actual way to find your TDEE but if it works for you, great!
The real calculation is:
((10 x weight in kilograms) + (6.25 x height in cm) - (5 x age) (and for a female you then subtract 161 from this)) x your activity factor
I think that's what it is anyways... but I just use this:
http://www.iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
And then of course you subtract a deficit if your goal is weight loss and that's 250 calories for each 1/2 pound per week. (So 500 for 1 pound, 750 for 1.5 pounds...) but your daily calorie goal needs to be more than your BMR (the first equation before multiplying by your activity factor). I like to leave a cushion of about 100 to 150 calories above BMR so that I feel good during the weight loss process.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »I do something similar to the TDEE method, but I use my FitBit data instead of a calculator. (The calculators don't work for my lifestyle; I have to pretend to be a manual labourer to get the right results.) I just aim for a 500 calorie deficit every day relative to my average TDEE. That's pretty close to a TDEE-20% goal. It works well for me.
Even before I had a fitness tracker, I preferred this general approach. Futzing about with logging exercise and having different goals every day is just a pain in the butt.
Doesn't mean I don't have higher days and lower days. They're just not dictated by that day's exercise (or lack thereof). I only care about weekly/monthly averages.
Yes, I prefer that too. I don't enjoy doing the math everyday of what I can eat and what not based on my exercise. Thanks for your story.
Honestly, that's really the difference between the two. NEAT plus exercise calories is going to give you more food on days you do more activity, and TDEE is going to even everything out over the week. My exercise can be all over the map, some days I hardly get off the couch, and other days I'll get 10,000 steps and do a strength workout. If I stuck to TDEE minus a % there would be some days I was starving and others I didn't need all those calories, so NEAT works better for me. I naturally play with numbers in my head all day, so it isn't stressful to me, LOL
2 -
All very informative points! I love this debate and clearing out the air! I guess the point is there are a lot of ways and depending on preferences, the one you like most is the one you'll most likely stick to.
@jemhh, that makes sense about why percentages are used.
@cwolfman13 that makes sense about differing the two methods by considering where to account for exercise. I avoid math at all costs so I tackle it on the front end.
@courtneyfabulous thanks for the equation!0 -
All very informative points! I love this debate and clearing out the air! I guess the point is there are a lot of ways and depending on preferences, the one you like most is the one you'll most likely stick to.
@jemhh, that makes sense about why percentages are used.
@cwolfman13 that makes sense about differing the two methods by considering where to account for exercise. I avoid math at all costs so I tackle it on the front end.
@courtneyfabulous thanks for the equation!
Need to double check it is the right one but it looks like it is from my notes... thus is where I got it:
https://youtu.be/rGkRFM5T0Ng
0 -
I've personally had success with TDEE method but have been thinking lately about maybe sort of blending it with NEAT for a hybrid version... I do notice I get extra hungry sometimes on my workout days or after a long hike and my normal calorie goal just isn't enough. But I don't want to be calculating calorie burns all the time either... was thinking just cycling calories a bit might be good, like my current goal is 1500 so on heavy workout days I could do 1550 calories and on rest days I could do 1450 and on light workout days stick to 1500... or something like that. Best of both worlds?1
-
In the past, and also at the beginning of my current weight loss effort, I ate at a 500-calorie deficit from my TDEE and lost a lb per week. My TDEE at the time was about 2100, and eating at 1650 did it for me!
A few months ago I switched to using MFPs method of NEAT + exercise calories, and that works better for me for now. But either way, I'm eating at about a 500 calorie deficit, so about a lb per week.
Good luck! It sounds like you're off to a good start!
1 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »I've personally had success with TDEE method but have been thinking lately about maybe sort of blending it with NEAT for a hybrid version... I do notice I get extra hungry sometimes on my workout days or after a long hike and my normal calorie goal just isn't enough. But I don't want to be calculating calorie burns all the time either... was thinking just cycling calories a bit might be good, like my current goal is 1500 so on heavy workout days I could do 1550 calories and on rest days I could do 1450 and on light workout days stick to 1500... or something like that. Best of both worlds?
I have a calorie goal based on my TDEE that I aim to average on a weekly basis. I've been doing well using a 3 day cycle that is something like 2200/1800/1400 when my overall goal is 1800. I'm not super rigid about hitting those individual numbers but that seems to be the cycle that I've fallen into naturally and it feels good so far.3 -
-
I posted recently on this too as I am right about as heavy as you, and 3 inches less, female.
I wanted to hear from women who eat ~2000 calories to lose as 1200-1500 is not realistic for me..I've been on this dieting train for awhile and even at my thinnest, if I'm as active as I like to be for cardiovascular/strength/health benefits, I need to eat 1700-2200 calories. The problem was my constant eating of 2200-3500 calories...I gained a lot of weight doing that the past year and kind of fell of track.
However, I do believe based on the advanced energy calculator on health-calc.com, my TDEE is around 2500-2800 depending on what I do exercise wise/daily living wise that day. So, ~2000 daily should be roughly 1 lb. a week if I'm tracking accurately and working out daily. Unfortunately I'm not quite a success story yet as I lost about 60 lbs 8 years ago and then fell into some fasting/binging patterns and gained it all back. However this time, I am eating to make this sustainable, focusing on lessening my binging, not skipping meals.0 -
charlenekapf wrote: »I posted recently on this too as I am right about as heavy as you, and 3 inches less, female.
I wanted to hear from women who eat ~2000 calories to lose as 1200-1500 is not realistic for me..I've been on this dieting train for awhile and even at my thinnest, if I'm as active as I like to be for cardiovascular/strength/health benefits, I need to eat 1700-2200 calories. The problem was my constant eating of 2200-3500 calories...I gained a lot of weight doing that the past year and kind of fell of track.
However, I do believe based on the advanced energy calculator on health-calc.com, my TDEE is around 2500-2800 depending on what I do exercise wise/daily living wise that day. So, ~2000 daily should be roughly 1 lb. a week if I'm tracking accurately and working out daily. Unfortunately I'm not quite a success story yet as I lost about 60 lbs 8 years ago and then fell into some fasting/binging patterns and gained it all back. However this time, I am eating to make this sustainable, focusing on lessening my binging, not skipping meals.
Awesome job recognising the issues and addressing them intelligently.
One of the biggest hurdles in the past was explaining to people that you don't have to eat like a bird to get in shape.
Addressing the underlying habits that caused the weight gain and understanding a little nutrition can make this so much easier.
Nice job!3 -
Thank you Dan. As frustrating as it is to regain the weight it is an important lesson in patience and consistency. I believe a lot of the people on here doing the 1200 calorie quick fix or resorting to similar extremes I used to, may end up in a similar place I was in the past . Everyone is different but thank you for recognizing the effort I'm making. People are quick to doubt the slow sustainable way but it's working for me and definitely a sustainable method I can practice for the rest of my life.Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »charlenekapf wrote: »I posted recently on this too as I am right about as heavy as you, and 3 inches less, female.
I wanted to hear from women who eat ~2000 calories to lose as 1200-1500 is not realistic for me..I've been on this dieting train for awhile and even at my thinnest, if I'm as active as I like to be for cardiovascular/strength/health benefits, I need to eat 1700-2200 calories. The problem was my constant eating of 2200-3500 calories...I gained a lot of weight doing that the past year and kind of fell of track.
However, I do believe based on the advanced energy calculator on health-calc.com, my TDEE is around 2500-2800 depending on what I do exercise wise/daily living wise that day. So, ~2000 daily should be roughly 1 lb. a week if I'm tracking accurately and working out daily. Unfortunately I'm not quite a success story yet as I lost about 60 lbs 8 years ago and then fell into some fasting/binging patterns and gained it all back. However this time, I am eating to make this sustainable, focusing on lessening my binging, not skipping meals.
Awesome job recognising the issues and addressing them intelligently.
One of the biggest hurdles in the past was explaining to people that you don't have to eat like a bird to get in shape.
Addressing the underlying habits that caused the weight gain and understanding a little nutrition can make this so much easier.
Nice job!4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.
Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?
So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.
Why the difference or am I missing something?
As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).
Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.
But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.
It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.
Well good for you. Other people are uncomfortable at 2000 calories. If you were a woman with a 2200 TDEE, you likely would feel like crap trying to eat only 1200 calories while maintaining the activity level required to burn 2200 calories per day. You might even feel like crap eating 1700 calories while maintaining that activity level (*waves arm in the air*.)
Different strokes for different folks.
I get that, and it's not really my question. More like why does the TDEE calc use a % reduction vs. just saying 500 cals less for 1 lb loss?
They all acknowledge that a 500 calorie deficit (on average) results in 1 pound/week loss. What they don't do is offer everyone the option to choose to lose 1 pound/week.
A woman with a BMI of 21 trying to lose 5 vanity pounds should not be choosing to lose weight that fast and, unless she's active enough to be burning 2500 calories daily, she won't be given that option.
A large male burning 5000 cals/day, on the other hand, will be offered the option to aim for a 1000 calorie deficit for 2 pounds/week.
It's about providing a suggestion for a rate of weight loss appropriate to the person's size. Maybe it gets a little conservative for people who are larger - but that's better than MFP letting teeny tiny people choose 2 pounds/week then cutting them off at 1200 calories (which, in many cases, will only see them losing 0.5 pounds/week and leave them frustrated and thinking that "calorie counting doesn't work").6 -
@ charlenekapf
Yeah anything less than 1700 for me is just not possible. I tried doing it, but I could barely hold it together in the evening. When I trained for a half marathon a few years ago, it taught me to listen to my body so I try not to ignore what it's saying... and my body was screaming "EATING SOMETHING NOW!!" when I did 1700. I'm working on mindful eating now, which I feel is harder.
What amazes me about the body is that someone will lose the same amount of weight over the same time period as that same person with a slightly higher calorie limit. I believe someone said earlier they ate 1200 cal a day and lost a pound a week, but probably could get away with a higher limit and still lose the same amount. CICO is a great, simple way of visualizing weight loss, but sometimes it isn't that simple. Our bodies don't function simply in input/output mode, but use complex biochemical systems to balance our energy levels.2 -
Actually yes you do. They are part of your TDEE calculation. You just eat an average amount -20%.Thanks Kimny72. I don't eat my exercise calories back since the TDEE already factors that in for me.
More accurate would be "I don't separate out my exercise calories".
Both methods work and if done properly and over time they will result in very similar calorie levels if rate of weight loss selected is the same. It's really mostly personal preference but there's advantages for TDEE method of simplicity, there's an advantage for the MFP method if you have a very variable TDEE day to day (week to week, even season to season).
0 -
So - can people clarify for me. I think I've just worked out on that calculator that my TDEE - 20% is 1600 cals per day (which is what I've been working on on MFP). Should I just be trying to be at that amount of calories each day to lose weight or do I need to try to be in the green by a couple of hundred? I exercise for enjoyment but also to eat more so I add my exercise calories onto my daily goal - so if I've learnt 350 cals (I use a HRM strap so much more accurate than what the machines tell me) then can I expect to eat 1950 and lose weight? Then obviously there are the macros which is confusing in itself - I've set mine to be 45%(carbs)/35%(fat)/25%(protein) - does that sound right? I'm 5'6, age 50 and weigh 90kg ...0
-
So - can people clarify for me. I think I've just worked out on that calculator that my TDEE - 20% is 1600 cals per day (which is what I've been working on on MFP). Should I just be trying to be at that amount of calories each day to lose weight or do I need to try to be in the green by a couple of hundred? I exercise for enjoyment but also to eat more so I add my exercise calories onto my daily goal - so if I've learnt 350 cals (I use a HRM strap so much more accurate than what the machines tell me) then can I expect to eat 1950 and lose weight? Then obviously there are the macros which is confusing in itself - I've set mine to be 45%(carbs)/35%(fat)/25%(protein) - does that sound right? I'm 5'6, age 50 and weigh 90kg ...
@zippyjojo
No you eat to your -20% goal. You don't deliberately undercut your goal otherwise you are now making your goal -25% (or whatever.)
Your average exercise should have been included in your TDEE calculation - you did include it I hope? If not start again. Remember average TDEE calculation is a very rough estimate, it's not intended to be precise.
You don't add exercise calories to your daily goal when you follow the TDEE method or you would be double dipping. You eat the same level of calories every day.
If your true average TDEE is 2000 and your food logging is accurate then eating anything under that should result in weight loss over time.
3 -
Thanks sijomial - the TDEE calculator I used seemed to separate the exercise so I just used another one. My daily TDEE came up as 2315 if I do 5 moderate exercise sessions a week. Take off 20% makes it 1852 - so should I put 1850 as my daily goal and not add exercise calories (as long as I make sure I do exercise)?2
-
May I say how happy I am to find this thread? I've been following TDEE for the good part of 2 years, and maybe I would have lost all the weight if I hadn't got two injuries, one of which led to surgery and 6 months off all workouts. Anyways... TDEE-20% is the only method with which I've managed to lose weight without being hungry all the time and having tons of energy. I tried explaining my friends about it, but they were 'NO! It's 1200 calories! My trainer told me so, do you know better than my trainer?!' ... And yeah, it looks like I do. Because that particular friend's diet is truly 1100-1200 calories (she has an eating plan made by her trainer) and her workouts are weight+cardio which when I used to do them I'd get a burn of around 600-700 calories. This leaves her at 500 net because she doesn't eat back... -sighs-
Anyways! For me TDEE-15 or -20% is perfect, you might need to adjust a little your calories until you find your own TDEE (because after all the calculations are standardized, which might be slightly off for you), but after that it works perfectly.
Right now I'm at 1700 calories with light activity (still recovering, just started working out for the first time since my ACL reconstruction).3 -
... And yeah, it looks like I do. Because that particular friend's diet is truly 1100-1200 calories (she has an eating plan made by her trainer) and her workouts are weight+cardio which when I used to do them I'd get a burn of around 600-700 calories. This leaves her at 500 net because she doesn't eat back... -sighs-
Anyways! For me TDEE-15 or -20% is perfect, you might need to adjust a little your calories until
In most states a trainer cannot prescribe nutrition unless properly certified or licensed by the state. Tell your friend to be very careful. Lots of grey area.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions