TDEE - Let's talk about it
Options
Replies
-
You really need to take a much longer view of things - attempting to micro manage yourself to that degree isn't necessary or even desirable. Really think you are setting yourself up for a load of anxiety for no good reason.
Lets say one week your activity level is sedentary and the next it's active - so just split the difference and call yourself lightly active.
I know I already said take the average over a week or ever 3...you get a pretty good number...
nothing will be perfect but it's better than trying to figure all this out...wow.1 -
piranha420 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't that basically be NEAT, which is what MFP gives you pre-exercise?
But if you use NEAT, you're still using a stagnant number. What if I am very active one week and then not so much the next? Sometimes my job is very sedentary, but other times I'm hauling equipment back and fourth all day. There's a lot of grey area in NEAT and I guess that's what I am trying to figure out.
You would have the exact same issue with using a TDEE number without exercise (which is your NEAT). The only difference between NEAT and TDEE is where you account for exercise...the methods are 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
But doesn't NEAT still take into account your daily activity level? What if that changes wildly from day to day?
Set MFP based on activity level being sedentary and then use Fitbit or Google Fit (I'm assuming it is similar) and logged non step based exercise to determine daily TDEE.
That is how MFP works.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »NEAT is before any activity at all. If you are using a tracker, enable negative calorie adjustments and then if your baseline falls under what is expected it will exclude some calories. But really, over time, it all comes out in the wash and as said above, you can use real world results over time. Like over 6 months you will get an idea of what all those activity fluctuations require calorie wise.
You are making this a lot harder than it needs to be. A lot harder. You're just going to tie yourself up in knots.
My days vary wildly depending on how I'm doing health wise. I just let my tracker take care of it. Everything to with my weight is as expected. Easy peasy.
bolded part is false.
NEAT is defined as
Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is the energy expended for everything we do that is not sleeping, eating or sports-like exercise. It ranges from the energy expended walking to work, typing, performing yard work, undertaking agricultural tasks and fidgeting. Even trivial physical activities increase metabolic rate substantially and it is the cumulative impact of a multitude of exothermic actions that culminate in an individual's daily NEAT.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12468415
0 -
Does your job have busier days every week? Why not just eat a couple hundred more on those days, sort of like exercise calories? Track your intake over a period of a week instead of daily. You're trying to be too exact, and few of us have the exact same amount of activity/exercise on a day to day basis.
I've found that a range of calories works best for me. I eat a couple hundred more on really active days, not many hundred more - so it all kind of balances out over a week's time. Just pick one, TDEE (with no added exercise calories used) OR MFP's NEAT method, where you add in extra on exercise days. Stick with one method long enough to establish a pattern of weight management; so a month or two. It really doesn't matter which you use, they are the same in the big picture.
In the end, it's about finding some range of calories that works for your particular life, not what any of us say. It's about you keeping track over TIME and adjusting when necessary. Even Google Fit or FitBit or any other calculator is an estimate based on a swath of people.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »NEAT is before any activity at all. If you are using a tracker, enable negative calorie adjustments and then if your baseline falls under what is expected it will exclude some calories. But really, over time, it all comes out in the wash and as said above, you can use real world results over time. Like over 6 months you will get an idea of what all those activity fluctuations require calorie wise.
You are making this a lot harder than it needs to be. A lot harder. You're just going to tie yourself up in knots.
My days vary wildly depending on how I'm doing health wise. I just let my tracker take care of it. Everything to with my weight is as expected. Easy peasy.
bolded part is false.
NEAT is defined as
Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is the energy expended for everything we do that is not sleeping, eating or sports-like exercise. It ranges from the energy expended walking to work, typing, performing yard work, undertaking agricultural tasks and fidgeting. Even trivial physical activities increase metabolic rate substantially and it is the cumulative impact of a multitude of exothermic actions that culminate in an individual's daily NEAT.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12468415
Sorry you are correct, I did mean a baseline of just living, BMR is the not anything at all. Rightly pointed out!
And if one turns on negative adjustments, aside from sedentary, whatever activity level you pick will adjust accordingly.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »NEAT is before any activity at all. If you are using a tracker, enable negative calorie adjustments and then if your baseline falls under what is expected it will exclude some calories. But really, over time, it all comes out in the wash and as said above, you can use real world results over time. Like over 6 months you will get an idea of what all those activity fluctuations require calorie wise.
You are making this a lot harder than it needs to be. A lot harder. You're just going to tie yourself up in knots.
My days vary wildly depending on how I'm doing health wise. I just let my tracker take care of it. Everything to with my weight is as expected. Easy peasy.
I don't think the bolded is true is it? I thought NEAT was basically just non gym calories + RMR (so it still takes into account normal daily activity). If you use NEAT and a pedometer that adjusts MFP, wouldn't the numbers be off?
Other than that you and I are talking about similar things. Essentially just using RMR while actually measuring both daily and gym activity with a tracker0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't that basically be NEAT, which is what MFP gives you pre-exercise?
But if you use NEAT, you're still using a stagnant number. What if I am very active one week and then not so much the next? Sometimes my job is very sedentary, but other times I'm hauling equipment back and fourth all day. There's a lot of grey area in NEAT and I guess that's what I am trying to figure out.
You would have the exact same issue with using a TDEE number without exercise (which is your NEAT). The only difference between NEAT and TDEE is where you account for exercise...the methods are 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
But doesn't NEAT still take into account your daily activity level? What if that changes wildly from day to day?
"You can expend calories in one two ways. One is to go to the gym and the other is through all the activities of daily living called NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis).”
Won't "lazy bum" TDEE numbers with my actual daily activity added on work better? Some days I literally sit behind a desk all day, the next I might be hauling equipment. Wouldn't this fall under NEAT?
If it changes wildly from day to day I don't see how you wouldn't have the same issue with TDEE. Your TDEE (without exercise) on a slow day would be less than on an active day...just as it would be with NEAT.
Again, the methods are 6 of 1...the only difference between the methods is where exercise is accounted for.
My TDEE is around 2800 calories right now (includes exercise), meaning I'd need about 2300 calories to lose about 1 Lb per week.
According to MFP, my NEAT (TDEE without exercise) is around 2300 calories, so I'd get a calorie target of 1800 calories to lose about 1 Lb per week...if I exercise and burn 500 calories I then eat 2400 calories which is pretty close to what I would eat with the TDEE method...
I'm not sure how your coming up with one being better than the other when your activity level swings substantially...I'd think you'd have the same issue either way.
You would have the same issue with TDEE - if youre using a TDEE calculator. What I am asking about is getting a MORE accurate TDEE by measuring your RMR (which is what I meant by lazy TDEE) and using trackers to actually gage how many calories are going out.
You're kind of proving my point that TDEE and NEAT have similar accuracy issues. With todays technology we should all be on some next level Ivan Drago stuff here, not using generalized calculators that leave no room for grey area0 -
piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't this give me the most accurate TDEE in the end?
That's basically what MFP does. Where do you see the improvement for accuracy?
In the fluctuations of daily non gym activity. If I only use one number I naturally yo-yo diet due to the nature of my job.
The MFP approach accounts for daily non-gym activity. You explicitly deal with your exercise (eg I biked 30 minutes last night running errands) and you sync a pedometer to account for your walking for you. I don't understand how your approach is different?0 -
I have a desk job but I also walk 13K steps in a day because i walk to get morning coffee and for 30 minutes on lunch plus breaks. Throughout the workday I'll get up to about 8K which isn't even close to sedentary so just set your activity level correctly (even if you happen to sit at a desk for work) and you should be fine. My Fitbit data and rate of loss are pretty accurate. Like a previous poster mentioned, you need about a month of data (to account for natural fluctuations etc) and look at your rate of loss.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't this give me the most accurate TDEE in the end?
That's basically what MFP does. Where do you see the improvement for accuracy?
In the fluctuations of daily non gym activity. If I only use one number I naturally yo-yo diet due to the nature of my job.
The MFP approach accounts for daily non-gym activity. You explicitly deal with your exercise (eg I biked 30 minutes last night running errands) and you sync a pedometer to account for your walking for you. I don't understand how your approach is different?
If NEAT (the MFP approach) accounts for you walking already, then adding steps via a pedometer is making your calorie pool inaccurate.0 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »I have a desk job but I also walk 13K steps in a day because i walk to get morning coffee and for 30 minutes on lunch plus breaks. Throughout the workday I'll get up to about 8K which isn't even close to sedentary so just set your activity level correctly (even if you happen to sit at a desk for work) and you should be fine. My Fitbit data and rate of loss are pretty accurate. Like a previous poster mentioned, you need about a month of data (to account for natural fluctuations etc) and look at your rate of loss.
No.
A month of data is a small sample size that only tells you about the past and any small variable change will render the information inaccurate.0 -
piranha420 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I have a desk job but I also walk 13K steps in a day because i walk to get morning coffee and for 30 minutes on lunch plus breaks. Throughout the workday I'll get up to about 8K which isn't even close to sedentary so just set your activity level correctly (even if you happen to sit at a desk for work) and you should be fine. My Fitbit data and rate of loss are pretty accurate. Like a previous poster mentioned, you need about a month of data (to account for natural fluctuations etc) and look at your rate of loss.
No.
A month of data is a small sample size that only tells you about the past and any small variable change will render the information inaccurate.
You're way overthinking this.8 -
you could get an activity tracker and link it to mfp. if you configure mfp to sedentary and allow for negative adjustments you'll get a flexible goal based on your actual daily activity. or just go with what the tracker gives you.
eta: there are some issues with the accuracy of trackers as well, but real world adjustments are always going to be necessary.2 -
piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't this give me the most accurate TDEE in the end?
That's basically what MFP does. Where do you see the improvement for accuracy?
In the fluctuations of daily non gym activity. If I only use one number I naturally yo-yo diet due to the nature of my job.
The MFP approach accounts for daily non-gym activity. You explicitly deal with your exercise (eg I biked 30 minutes last night running errands) and you sync a pedometer to account for your walking for you. I don't understand how your approach is different?
If NEAT (the MFP approach) accounts for you walking already, then adding steps via a pedometer is making your calorie pool inaccurate.
I am set up on MFP and Fitbit as sedentary, My Fitbit syncs with MFP to give me a calorie adjustment based on my steps (usually anywhere from 100 to 400 extra extra calories per day). I eat those calories. I have maintained as expected for over a year.
What everyone is trying to tell you is that there is no accurate way to determine how many calories you are burning on each individual day as it is happening. Past data is all you have to go on. Keep track of your weight and calories eaten for a month. If you don't get the results you want, tweak.2 -
piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't this give me the most accurate TDEE in the end?
That's basically what MFP does. Where do you see the improvement for accuracy?
In the fluctuations of daily non gym activity. If I only use one number I naturally yo-yo diet due to the nature of my job.
The MFP approach accounts for daily non-gym activity. You explicitly deal with your exercise (eg I biked 30 minutes last night running errands) and you sync a pedometer to account for your walking for you. I don't understand how your approach is different?
If NEAT (the MFP approach) accounts for you walking already, then adding steps via a pedometer is making your calorie pool inaccurate.
I am set up on MFP and Fitbit as sedentary, My Fitbit syncs with MFP to give me a calorie adjustment based on my steps (usually anywhere from 100 to 400 extra extra calories per day). I eat those calories. I have maintained as expected for over a year.
First, congrats on maintaining for a year!
From what I understand, your calorie count is going to be off. MFP uses NEAT which assumes how much you were going to walk. Then the fitbit added what you actually walked on top of it.0 -
piranha420 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't that basically be NEAT, which is what MFP gives you pre-exercise?
But if you use NEAT, you're still using a stagnant number. What if I am very active one week and then not so much the next? Sometimes my job is very sedentary, but other times I'm hauling equipment back and fourth all day. There's a lot of grey area in NEAT and I guess that's what I am trying to figure out.
You would have the exact same issue with using a TDEE number without exercise (which is your NEAT). The only difference between NEAT and TDEE is where you account for exercise...the methods are 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
But doesn't NEAT still take into account your daily activity level? What if that changes wildly from day to day?
"You can expend calories in one two ways. One is to go to the gym and the other is through all the activities of daily living called NEAT (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis).”
Won't "lazy bum" TDEE numbers with my actual daily activity added on work better? Some days I literally sit behind a desk all day, the next I might be hauling equipment. Wouldn't this fall under NEAT?
If it changes wildly from day to day I don't see how you wouldn't have the same issue with TDEE. Your TDEE (without exercise) on a slow day would be less than on an active day...just as it would be with NEAT.
Again, the methods are 6 of 1...the only difference between the methods is where exercise is accounted for.
My TDEE is around 2800 calories right now (includes exercise), meaning I'd need about 2300 calories to lose about 1 Lb per week.
According to MFP, my NEAT (TDEE without exercise) is around 2300 calories, so I'd get a calorie target of 1800 calories to lose about 1 Lb per week...if I exercise and burn 500 calories I then eat 2400 calories which is pretty close to what I would eat with the TDEE method...
I'm not sure how your coming up with one being better than the other when your activity level swings substantially...I'd think you'd have the same issue either way.
You would have the same issue with TDEE - if youre using a TDEE calculator. What I am asking about is getting a MORE accurate TDEE by measuring your RMR (which is what I meant by lazy TDEE) and using trackers to actually gage how many calories are going out.
You're kind of proving my point that TDEE and NEAT have similar accuracy issues. With todays technology we should all be on some next level Ivan Drago stuff here, not using generalized calculators that leave no room for grey area
In this case, it's fine though I think overly complicated...I used calculators to give me a baseline and then just made adjustments as necessary from there given my own data (i.e. was I losing when I wanted to lose and maintaining when I wanted to maintain. I didn't bother ever worrying about RMR or anything. The calculators gave me a good enough starting point to make adjustments to along the way.
Also, any gadget that you would use is also going to be a more or less generalized estimate...your own data from tracking is the most accurate.0 -
piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't this give me the most accurate TDEE in the end?
That's basically what MFP does. Where do you see the improvement for accuracy?
In the fluctuations of daily non gym activity. If I only use one number I naturally yo-yo diet due to the nature of my job.
The MFP approach accounts for daily non-gym activity. You explicitly deal with your exercise (eg I biked 30 minutes last night running errands) and you sync a pedometer to account for your walking for you. I don't understand how your approach is different?
If NEAT (the MFP approach) accounts for you walking already, then adding steps via a pedometer is making your calorie pool inaccurate.
You seem to think MFP is a tool that was invented to trick people into being fat.
MFP accounts for walking around either by guessing up front with activity levels, by tracking with a pedometer, or with some combination of the two. In practice, it works well for people who adhere to it. See the "success stories" forum for examples.3 -
piranha420 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »I have a desk job but I also walk 13K steps in a day because i walk to get morning coffee and for 30 minutes on lunch plus breaks. Throughout the workday I'll get up to about 8K which isn't even close to sedentary so just set your activity level correctly (even if you happen to sit at a desk for work) and you should be fine. My Fitbit data and rate of loss are pretty accurate. Like a previous poster mentioned, you need about a month of data (to account for natural fluctuations etc) and look at your rate of loss.
No.
A month of data is a small sample size that only tells you about the past and any small variable change will render the information inaccurate.
You're way overthinking this.
Maybe you're not thinking about it enough?0 -
piranha420 wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't this give me the most accurate TDEE in the end?
That's basically what MFP does. Where do you see the improvement for accuracy?
In the fluctuations of daily non gym activity. If I only use one number I naturally yo-yo diet due to the nature of my job.
The MFP approach accounts for daily non-gym activity. You explicitly deal with your exercise (eg I biked 30 minutes last night running errands) and you sync a pedometer to account for your walking for you. I don't understand how your approach is different?
If NEAT (the MFP approach) accounts for you walking already, then adding steps via a pedometer is making your calorie pool inaccurate.
I am set up on MFP and Fitbit as sedentary, My Fitbit syncs with MFP to give me a calorie adjustment based on my steps (usually anywhere from 100 to 400 extra extra calories per day). I eat those calories. I have maintained as expected for over a year.
First, congrats on maintaining for a year!
From what I understand, your calorie count is going to be off. MFP uses NEAT which assumes how much you were going to walk. Then the fitbit added what you actually walked on top of it.
No, the adjustments only start with a Fitbit sync when you move more than MFP would have estimated for your activity level.1 -
piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »Wouldn't this give me the most accurate TDEE in the end?
That's basically what MFP does. Where do you see the improvement for accuracy?
In the fluctuations of daily non gym activity. If I only use one number I naturally yo-yo diet due to the nature of my job.
The MFP approach accounts for daily non-gym activity. You explicitly deal with your exercise (eg I biked 30 minutes last night running errands) and you sync a pedometer to account for your walking for you. I don't understand how your approach is different?
If NEAT (the MFP approach) accounts for you walking already, then adding steps via a pedometer is making your calorie pool inaccurate.
Not if you do negative adjustments, but the simplest idea is to be sedentary if you sometimes are and let the pedometer control.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions