TDEE - Let's talk about it
Options
Replies
-
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.
The Fitbit would only add on if the steps exceed the stated activity level...it wouldn't add on for baseline steps within the activity level setting.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Jane, after all of this discussion, I think you may have finally cleared this up for me. So MFP only gives you calories if you go above the expected amount? What if you come under? Does it take calories for you? Is this documented somewhere?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.
Thanks!
Might I suggest that there is probably far more inaccuracy in your food logging than you need to worry about in your Cals Out? Everything we do has an understood level of inaccuracy to it. Success is found in picking a method, running it for 4-6 weeks, looking at results, changing something if you need to, running that for another 4-6 weeks, etc until you get to a place where your weight is doing what you want it to. Control the stuff that is easy to control, and make educated guesses on the rest. Best of luck!2 -
lemurcat12 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.
Not if you do negative adjustments, but the simplest idea is to be sedentary if you sometimes are and let the pedometer control.
This, which is what has already been recommended. MFP doesn't double dip it adjust accordingly with the activity level you picked. if you have negative adjustments on it will deduct accordingly if you picked too high an activity setting. Most set it to sedentary and let MFP and their tracker do the work.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.
My Fitbit TDEE when I used it was almost exactly correct based on past results. I was nearly always at least lightly active so had that as my activity level and had negative adjustments permitted.
If I walked what was assumed in lightly active, I got no extra calories. If I walked less (rare) I'd lose calories down to (potentially) 1200. If I walked more I'd get more.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
And the bolded part is the key to the whole thing.
No calculator is going to be spot-on accurate for everybody, whether you're doing it by TDEE, NEAT, BMR + adjustments or whatever else. Your calorie intake is an estimation. Your calorie expenditure is an estimation. Your predicted BMR, NEAT, TDEE are all estimations. Use calculators to get it somewhere in the ballpark (by whichever method you choose to use), track as accurately as you can (with the understanding that it will never be exact unless you live full-time in a metabolic ward) and tweak from there based upon your results over time.2 -
piranha420 wrote: »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?
I've lost 67 pounds and 15% bodyfat and am maintaining it now, and I actually found it to be pretty effortless, if time consuming. When you have similar results come on back and we'll talk again.9 -
piranha420 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Jane, after all of this discussion, I think you may have finally cleared this up for me. So MFP only gives you calories if you go above the expected amount? What if you come under? Does it take calories for you? Is this documented somewhere?
Yeah, if you sync your MFP account with your Fitbit account you begin getting adjustments when you go over the estimated calorie burn for your activity level. So if I run 3 miles but sit on the couch for the rest of the day, my adjustment will be much smaller than for a day when I run 3 miles and then go to work and do other types of movement.
If you turn on negative adjustments, it will actually subtract calories if you move less than MFP would have estimated. So if I spent the day in bed and didn't run at all, my base calories would actually be lower.
As far as documentation, you can check out the posts in the Fitbit group, where multiple users have experience with this. For what my personal experience is worth, I have almost two years of Fitbit and MFP syncing to clarify that it does work exactly like that.1 -
piranha420 wrote: »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?
From having interacted with @AnvilHead for months, I can assure you that's not the case.5 -
piranha420 wrote: »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?
I've lost 67 pounds and 15% bodyfat and am maintaining it now, and I actually found it to be pretty effortless, if time consuming. When you have similar results come on back and we'll talk again.
I know right...I said over complicating it from the start...coming from someone who has maintained for almost 4 years...3 -
I have been using a Garmin Fenix 3 HR since December, wearing it almost continuously, and have had my "resting calories" consistently come in around 2,100 per day. Therefore, as my "active" calories start to accumulate throughout the day, I get an idea of where my total calories burned will be at the end of the day, and plan my targeted calories accordingly (I'm in sustainment / maintenance, looking to come close to a breakeven).
(If anyone sees a logic flaw in this methodology please give me feedback (beyond general criticism of the data provided by fitness trackers, that is a different issue)! In the pic above, since I know that the "resting" circle will end at 2,100 by the end of the day, I am sitting at around 2,400 calories if I cease being active. I'm not exercising tonight so I will only burn a few hundred more active calories, so I'm thinking I will shoot for 2,600 or 2,700 total)
Hypothetically, the interface between MFP and Garmin would do some of these calculations for me, but it is very unreliable and I often can't reconcile what my watch calculates and what is synched into MFP.
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.
The mere fact that she's maintaining her weight shows her calorie count isn't off.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Jane, after all of this discussion, I think you may have finally cleared this up for me. So MFP only gives you calories if you go above the expected amount? What if you come under? Does it take calories for you? Is this documented somewhere?
Yeah, if you sync your MFP account with your Fitbit account you begin getting adjustments when you go over the estimated calorie burn for your activity level. So if I run 3 miles but sit on the couch for the rest of the day, my adjustment will be much smaller than for a day when I run 3 miles and then go to work and do other types of movement.
If you turn on negative adjustments, it will actually subtract calories if you move less than MFP would have estimated. So if I spent the day in bed and didn't run at all, my base calories would actually be lower.
As far as documentation, you can check out the posts in the Fitbit group, where multiple users have experience with this. For what my personal experience is worth, I have almost two years of Fitbit and MFP syncing to clarify that it does work exactly like that.
This has been my experience with FitBit as well. I have both systems set up with the same basic data and goal, and I have also selected an appropriate activity level for my total activity (~15K steps/day = active, not sedentary).
I have negative adjustments enabled, so that if I do not achieve the minimum level of calorie burn that MFP is expecting me to (1836 cals/day) then I would see a drop in my allotted calories that I can assume. Once I surpass that level of what MFP thinks my NEAT is, then I see positive adjustments which are essentially a true up of what FitBit estimates that I'm actually burning.
It worked for me during weight loss and now about 3 years into maintenance, eating back the exercise calorie adjustments on top of my baseline MFP cals.
This to me is more accurate than a calculator based on statistical averages across the entire population - and while it may not be exact; actual results have proven the tools and the method to be trustworthy.1 -
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.
Yes. A month of solid data will show your average TDEE. I would argue that a month of data will be more consistent at providing insight as to how much you should be eating to cut vs the wildly overestimated "burned 652 calories doing cleaning for 3 hours" from MFP and eating back inconsistent arbitrary numbers. (often way over estimated)
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Jane, after all of this discussion, I think you may have finally cleared this up for me. So MFP only gives you calories if you go above the expected amount? What if you come under? Does it take calories for you? Is this documented somewhere?
Yeah, if you sync your MFP account with your Fitbit account you begin getting adjustments when you go over the estimated calorie burn for your activity level. So if I run 3 miles but sit on the couch for the rest of the day, my adjustment will be much smaller than for a day when I run 3 miles and then go to work and do other types of movement.
If you turn on negative adjustments, it will actually subtract calories if you move less than MFP would have estimated. So if I spent the day in bed and didn't run at all, my base calories would actually be lower.
As far as documentation, you can check out the posts in the Fitbit group, where multiple users have experience with this. For what my personal experience is worth, I have almost two years of Fitbit and MFP syncing to clarify that it does work exactly like that.
This has been my experience with FitBit as well. I have both systems set up with the same basic data and goal, and I have also selected an appropriate activity level for my total activity (~15K steps/day = active, not sedentary).
I have negative adjustments enabled, so that if I do not achieve the minimum level of calorie burn that MFP is expecting me to (1836 cals/day) then I would see a drop in my allotted calories that I can assume. Once I surpass that level of what MFP thinks my NEAT is, then I see positive adjustments which are essentially a true up of what FitBit estimates that I'm actually burning.
It worked for me during weight loss and now about 3 years into maintenance, eating back the exercise calorie adjustments on top of my baseline MFP cals.
This to me is more accurate than a calculator based on statistical averages across the entire population - and while it may not be exact; actual results have proven the tools and the method to be trustworthy.
This is exactly what I do (except I set my activity level to "sedentary" because I still get a kick out of seeing big adjustments). I've been eating back my adjustments since July of 2015 and have lost/maintained exactly as I have expected.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Jane, after all of this discussion, I think you may have finally cleared this up for me. So MFP only gives you calories if you go above the expected amount? What if you come under? Does it take calories for you? Is this documented somewhere?
Yeah, if you sync your MFP account with your Fitbit account you begin getting adjustments when you go over the estimated calorie burn for your activity level. So if I run 3 miles but sit on the couch for the rest of the day, my adjustment will be much smaller than for a day when I run 3 miles and then go to work and do other types of movement.
If you turn on negative adjustments, it will actually subtract calories if you move less than MFP would have estimated. So if I spent the day in bed and didn't run at all, my base calories would actually be lower.
As far as documentation, you can check out the posts in the Fitbit group, where multiple users have experience with this. For what my personal experience is worth, I have almost two years of Fitbit and MFP syncing to clarify that it does work exactly like that.
This has been my experience with FitBit as well. I have both systems set up with the same basic data and goal, and I have also selected an appropriate activity level for my total activity (~15K steps/day = active, not sedentary).
I have negative adjustments enabled, so that if I do not achieve the minimum level of calorie burn that MFP is expecting me to (1836 cals/day) then I would see a drop in my allotted calories that I can assume. Once I surpass that level of what MFP thinks my NEAT is, then I see positive adjustments which are essentially a true up of what FitBit estimates that I'm actually burning.
It worked for me during weight loss and now about 3 years into maintenance, eating back the exercise calorie adjustments on top of my baseline MFP cals.
This to me is more accurate than a calculator based on statistical averages across the entire population - and while it may not be exact; actual results have proven the tools and the method to be trustworthy.
This is exactly what I do (except I set my activity level to "sedentary" because I still get a kick out of seeing big adjustments). I've been eating back my adjustments since July of 2015 and have lost/maintained exactly as I have expected.
I think if people understand how it works and expect those big adjustments and plan to eat the right amount to support that total calorie burn - that approach works just fine - you are clearly one who knows what to expect and how the tools work. There are so many people though who automatically assume that the adjustments are inflated because they've taken that same approach, put themselves as sedentary when they average 8-10K steps or more/day and then don't eat back the calorie adjustment, or save them till the end of the day and have to figure out how to squeeze in another 600 calories into their day. So when I first got mine and was wondering about it, I got good advice from forum vets jonnythan and heybales that increasing my activity level setting to a higher one, would make it such that the general day to day activity I do from being a busy working mom would be worked into my baseline, and then the adjustments I would get would be more representative of the purposeful exercise. That clicked with me.
(note - not putting that out there to suggest that you need to change your approach Jane, just so that OP and others reading along who may not understand how activity trackers synced with MFP really work can follow).2 -
piranha420 wrote: »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?
I've lost 67 pounds and 15% bodyfat and am maintaining it now, and I actually found it to be pretty effortless, if time consuming. When you have similar results come on back and we'll talk again.
As a male with a sub 1300 calorie goal and 60g protein I give him 2 months to get his kitten together and learn something or he will not be back to talk about this with you lol2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »piranha420 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Jane, after all of this discussion, I think you may have finally cleared this up for me. So MFP only gives you calories if you go above the expected amount? What if you come under? Does it take calories for you? Is this documented somewhere?
Yeah, if you sync your MFP account with your Fitbit account you begin getting adjustments when you go over the estimated calorie burn for your activity level. So if I run 3 miles but sit on the couch for the rest of the day, my adjustment will be much smaller than for a day when I run 3 miles and then go to work and do other types of movement.
If you turn on negative adjustments, it will actually subtract calories if you move less than MFP would have estimated. So if I spent the day in bed and didn't run at all, my base calories would actually be lower.
As far as documentation, you can check out the posts in the Fitbit group, where multiple users have experience with this. For what my personal experience is worth, I have almost two years of Fitbit and MFP syncing to clarify that it does work exactly like that.
This has been my experience with FitBit as well. I have both systems set up with the same basic data and goal, and I have also selected an appropriate activity level for my total activity (~15K steps/day = active, not sedentary).
I have negative adjustments enabled, so that if I do not achieve the minimum level of calorie burn that MFP is expecting me to (1836 cals/day) then I would see a drop in my allotted calories that I can assume. Once I surpass that level of what MFP thinks my NEAT is, then I see positive adjustments which are essentially a true up of what FitBit estimates that I'm actually burning.
It worked for me during weight loss and now about 3 years into maintenance, eating back the exercise calorie adjustments on top of my baseline MFP cals.
This to me is more accurate than a calculator based on statistical averages across the entire population - and while it may not be exact; actual results have proven the tools and the method to be trustworthy.
This is exactly what I do (except I set my activity level to "sedentary" because I still get a kick out of seeing big adjustments). I've been eating back my adjustments since July of 2015 and have lost/maintained exactly as I have expected.
I think if people understand how it works and expect those big adjustments and plan to eat the right amount to support that total calorie burn - that approach works just fine - you are clearly one who knows what to expect and how the tools work. There are so many people though who automatically assume that the adjustments are inflated because they've taken that same approach, put themselves as sedentary when they average 8-10K steps or more/day and then don't eat back the calorie adjustment, or save them till the end of the day and have to figure out how to squeeze in another 600 calories into their day. So when I first got mine and was wondering about it, I got good advice from forum vets jonnythan and heybales that increasing my activity level setting to a higher one, would make it such that the general day to day activity I do from being a busy working mom would be worked into my baseline, and then the adjustments I would get would be more representative of the purposeful exercise. That clicked with me.
(note - not putting that out there to suggest that you need to change your approach Jane, just so that OP and others reading along who may not understand how activity trackers synced with MFP really work can follow).
I completely understand what you're saying. I frequently see posts saying things like "There is no way these adjustments could be right," and I like to share my experience. My default assumption was that I was sedentary (because I work a desk job), but my average adjustment is 500-700 calories because I move much more than I would have guessed that I did before I got my Fitbit.
In practical terms, I'm using your method because I pre-log and so I'm planning to use my calories before I've actually seen the adjustment. I know that my TDEE is typically around 2,000 calories and I plan to use all of those so it works out exactly the same as your method. If I waited until the evening to plan what to do with them, it wouldn't work for me.1 -
My TDEE varies wildly (sometimes 1500+) from day to day due to what I do in the 23 or so hours I'm not working out. I wear a Fitbit 24/7. I sync it to mfp. It makes the adjustments in my calorie goal for me based on what my TDEE is for that day. On days I work at home and move nowhere and do nothing and my TDEE is 1700, I get minimal (if any) calorie adjustment from Fitbit. On days I do a good workout and spend hours building a patio and running around doing who knows what else for 20 hours a day and have a TDEE of 4,000, I get a 2,300 calorie adjustment. Mfp is set up to do this for you. All with my deficit accounted for. Most people don't have wildly variable TDEE so a couple hundred calories here and there really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. And you could log all your activity manually in mfp and end up with the same result but it would still be a major guess because did I spend 3.5 or 4.5 hours moving stones? Was it 3 hours digging or 6? Meh. I don't know about Google fit, but if it tracks 24/7 and syncs to mfp-you don't need to do anything special but link the two and go about life and let all the technology handle this for you. Make adjustments over time if you need to.0
-
I also find my Garmin to be very accurate. 2 years into this eating pretty much all of my adjustments and I lose gain and maintain as expected.0
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