Help figuring out bmr
microwhisper
Posts: 84 Member
Hey guys, have you got any advice or resources for figuring out my base metabolic rate so I can know how much I'm supposed to be consuming for maintenance? Or however you guys have figured out what your calorie allowance is. Please share.
Thank ;-)
Thank ;-)
1
Replies
-
you'll want your TDEE, not BMR...
scooby.com is pretty good.
or just use MFP...2 -
Go to MY HOME>Goals>View guided setup here, select "Maintain my current weight." You'll be given a calorie goal.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided4 -
Maintenance level certainly isn't your BMR!
First decide how you want to account for your exercise...
If estimating after the event then use the myfitnesspal method - so your daily goal is plus exercise. A varied daily amount.
If you prefer to eat the same amount daily then go to any (or several TDEE) calculators and manually set your goal which will then include an average amount for your usual exercise routine.
Both should end up similar over the long run but some fine tuning probably required to achieve a relatively stable weight within your chosen maintenance range.
If you have been logging a while your recent rate of loss is a good guide or starting point.2 -
I was also having problems settling on what my TDEE was and therefore what my maintenance calories should be, since different formulas give you different numbers and some say your BMR can be affected by dieting (the dreaded "starvation mode" phenomenon).
So I finally broke down and got mine tested at a nutritionist's office. It was not too expensive (and my insurance even covered the consultation and part of the test) and I got a nice, clear answer on what my own personal BMR and TDEE range are for maintenance. Made me feel loads better than the trial-and-error approach.
This is the test: http://korr.com/products/metabolic-rate-analysis-system/5 -
TavistockToad wrote: »you'll want your TDEE, not BMR...
scooby.com is pretty good.
or just use MFP...
Thanks TT. I'll look into my TDEE. x0 -
Maintenance level certainly isn't your BMR!
First decide how you want to account for your exercise...
If estimating after the event then use the myfitnesspal method - so your daily goal is plus exercise. A varied daily amount.
If you prefer to eat the same amount daily then go to any (or several TDEE) calculators and manually set your goal which will then include an average amount for your usual exercise routine.
Both should end up similar over the long run but some fine tuning probably required to achieve a relatively stable weight within your chosen maintenance range.
If you have been logging a while your recent rate of loss is a good guide or starting point.
Sijomial, sorry I should have clarified. I wanted to know my BMR as a basis for then figuring out my daily maintenance requirements. Not that I thought that would be all I needed. Thank you for all your advice though- I'll look into what you suggested
3 -
sosta_vietata wrote: »I was also having problems settling on what my TDEE was and therefore what my maintenance calories should be, since different formulas give you different numbers and some say your BMR can be affected by dieting (the dreaded "starvation mode" phenomenon).
So I finally broke down and got mine tested at a nutritionist's office. It was not too expensive (and my insurance even covered the consultation and part of the test) and I got a nice, clear answer on what my own personal BMR and TDEE range are for maintenance. Made me feel loads better than the trial-and-error approach.
This is the test: http://korr.com/products/metabolic-rate-analysis-system/
Thank you!
0 -
sosta_vietata wrote: »I was also having problems settling on what my TDEE was and therefore what my maintenance calories should be, since different formulas give you different numbers and some say your BMR can be affected by dieting (the dreaded "starvation mode" phenomenon).
So I finally broke down and got mine tested at a nutritionist's office. It was not too expensive (and my insurance even covered the consultation and part of the test) and I got a nice, clear answer on what my own personal BMR and TDEE range are for maintenance. Made me feel loads better than the trial-and-error approach.
This is the test: http://korr.com/products/metabolic-rate-analysis-system/
The tester/test can be used to measure your BMR, but it does not measure your TDEE. They take your BMR results and spit out a TDEE based on calculations from your BMR and assumed activity. It still requires trial and error to get your TDEE. Consistent, honest logging and taking your results in a feedback loop is the closest way to get your TDEE short of living in a metabolic chamber. And it has the advantage that even if it's not 100% correct due to inaccuracies in logging/small difference in how many calories you actual get from your food vs. what's calculated, as long as you are consistent it will get you to the right answer for the purposes of food logging and calorie counting. E.g., if you are logging 2300 calories as your TDEE, even if you actually getting 2100 or 2500, it doesn't matter as long as you are consistent. You know for your activity and diet/logging habits that you need to stay to a goal of 2300 calories to maintain.
In my case, all the calculators say I should be maintaining on 2100 net calories at my weight and being a sedentary office worker. I lose unless I net at least 2300 calories/day based on years of logging (a TDEE of ~3000 cal/day as an avid runner).4 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »The tester/test can be used to measure your BMR, but it does not measure your TDEE. They take your BMR results and spit out a TDEE based on calculations from your BMR and assumed activity. It still requires trial and error to get your TDEE.
Thanks for clarifying. I did some looking into the accuracy of the test before I went and paid for it, and it seemed to check out, but I'm still taking it slow working up to maintenance calories. I have been adding 100 cals every 2 weeks and weighing regularly. So far I'm still losing weight, just more slowly. I'm still below the TDEE the machine spit out, but getting close. Hopefully this approach will pin down an accurate number, but the test results did give me the confidence to start adding back those calories in decent chunks.2 -
microwhisper wrote: »Hey guys, have you got any advice or resources for figuring out my base metabolic rate so I can know how much I'm supposed to be consuming for maintenance? Or however you guys have figured out what your calorie allowance is. Please share.
Thank ;-)
BMR isn't maintenance...BMR is the calories you burn merely existing...the calories you burn in a coma.
My BMR is between 1700-1800 calories...my maintenance is around 2600-2800
Just plug your stats and whatnot into this or preferably a TDEE calculator...you will get a reasonable starting point...make adjustments up or down as necessary. You don't have a TDEE of exactly XXXX calories...TDEE is a range of calories.0 -
microwhisper wrote: »Maintenance level certainly isn't your BMR!
First decide how you want to account for your exercise...
If estimating after the event then use the myfitnesspal method - so your daily goal is plus exercise. A varied daily amount.
If you prefer to eat the same amount daily then go to any (or several TDEE) calculators and manually set your goal which will then include an average amount for your usual exercise routine.
Both should end up similar over the long run but some fine tuning probably required to achieve a relatively stable weight within your chosen maintenance range.
If you have been logging a while your recent rate of loss is a good guide or starting point.
Sijomial, sorry I should have clarified. I wanted to know my BMR as a basis for then figuring out my daily maintenance requirements. Not that I thought that would be all I needed. Thank you for all your advice though- I'll look into what you suggested
Ah OK - there's a BMR calculator/estimator on here.
Online version, click on APPS top toolbar, that will bring up another toolbar - click on BMR.
But really it's a waste of time trying to work out TDEE manually from your BMR when this site and other calculators do it for you.
My BMR is apparently 1567 and I maintain between 2500 and 3000.1 -
Thanks everyone for your advice... too kind. A lot learned and now time to churn out some numbers!!
Almost dinner time so bring on the calories!!! ;-)2 -
So, this fits my little rant today....
Basal Metabolic Rate is the number of calories that we humans need to simply exist. So, if you were to simply lay in bed all day and do absolutely nothing, that is your BMR. The human body is made up of a bunch of systems...and each of these systems "works" as long as we are alive. This "work" requires energy.
The formula for a woman is this:
BMR = 655 + (4.35 x weight in pounds) + (4.7 x height in inches) – (4.7 x age in years)
To find your Active Metabolic Rate, you would simply take your BMR and multiply that by an "Activity Multiplier". That looks like this:
*Sedentary (little or no exercise) – your AMR = BMR x 1.2
*Lightly active (light exercise/work 1-3 days per week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.375
*Moderately active (moderate exercise/work 3-5 days per week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.55
*Very active (hard exercise/work 6-7 days a week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.725
*Ultra active (very hard exercise/work 6-7 days a week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.9
To find out your maintenance, you take the following formula:
(BMR + AMR)/2
Now, this is a formula so I strongly recommend using this as a starting point.
Are there other ways to figure this out? Sure are! Absolutely.
This is one tried and true way to figure out a starting point and then to use the "trial and error" method. But, slow changes over time (like a week or two....depending on several things) will be most useful in determining YOUR numbers. Again, formulas do not take genetics or 'nutritional history' into account.
Make sense?
3 -
One last comment - Buy a polar watch and heart strap and wear it all day on a few of your exercise days but also on rest days. It uses your actual heart rate along with your profile of Age, Sex, Weight to determine your TDEE.
What I found was it gave me a # that was 20 to 30% lower then what the on line charts were indicating. And since it's actually using my heart rate throughout the day I believe this is more accurate or at least it was for me.
All the best!3 -
Except that BMR formula and TDEE multipliers are from a Harris 1919 study that has been found in many more studies since then to not be as accurate as they could be.
Shoot - that TDEE table doesn't even include daily activity in it - merely exercise, and days a week not even hours?
So a desk jockey walking 1 hr 3 x weekly and a mailman doing 1 hr 5 x weekly of cross-country skiiing - if their age, gender, weight, height are the same - have the same TDEE?
Obviously not.
MFP updated their multipliers for ONLY the non-exercise part of the day based on much more recent research, and even with no exercise it comes out to:
Sedentary - 1.25
Lightly Active - 1.4
Active - 1.6
Very Active - 1.8
And your formula you recommend - why in the world would you even deal with a multiplier - and then take the average of the result and your BMR and call that your maintenance - you got that way off even with the old formula method and table?
4 -
@Arleigh7One last comment - Buy a polar watch and heart strap and wear it all day on a few of your exercise days but also on rest days. It uses your actual heart rate along with your profile of Age, Sex, Weight to determine your TDEE.
What I found was it gave me a # that was 20 to 30% lower then what the on line charts were indicating. And since it's actually using my heart rate throughout the day I believe this is more accurate or at least it was for me.
All the best!
No heart rate monitors can't do that at all.
Heart rate is very, very varied and there's no direct correlation between HR and calories.
They are a training aid for cardio not an activity tracker or calorie counter.2 -
One last comment - Buy a polar watch and heart strap and wear it all day on a few of your exercise days but also on rest days. It uses your actual heart rate along with your profile of Age, Sex, Weight to determine your TDEE.
What I found was it gave me a # that was 20 to 30% lower then what the on line charts were indicating. And since it's actually using my heart rate throughout the day I believe this is more accurate or at least it was for me.
All the best!
Nope, get an activity tracker if you want a rough estimate of your TDEE...2 -
One last comment - Buy a polar watch and heart strap and wear it all day on a few of your exercise days but also on rest days. It uses your actual heart rate along with your profile of Age, Sex, Weight to determine your TDEE.
What I found was it gave me a # that was 20 to 30% lower then what the on line charts were indicating. And since it's actually using my heart rate throughout the day I believe this is more accurate or at least it was for me.
All the best!
HR-based calculations are ONLY valid for the aerobic zone, when cardio flex-HR starts up to the point you hit anaerobic level.
And steady-state same HR for 2-4 min at that even.
The closer you are to the edges of that zone - easy exercise or anaerobic, even if steady-state - the less accurate those calculations will be.
And daily living is below the exercise zone - so not even valid use of HR-based calculated calorie burn.
It'll be inflated calorie burn.
Unless you have some means to accomplish the following with your HRM (which is not built in). Which is why your activity trackers with HRM still use step-based calorie burn for daily activity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428382/#S8title
The relationship between HR and EE for an individual is established using a sub-maximal calibration procedure typically undertaken immediately following the assessment of REE. HR and breath-by-breath VO2 and VCO2 are measured (averaged over 10-s intervals) using a metabolic cart in the following sequential steps: 5-min sitting, 5-min standing, 5-min cycling at low resistance (55 W), and further 5-min blocks of increasing cycling resistance while maintaining a cadence of 60 rpm. Cycling resistance is increased by 50 W in each subsequent 5-min block until the participant has cycled for at least three incremental stages, depending on level of fitness, and HR has reached ~150 beats/min. Average EE for each activity and at each workload is estimated from VO2 and VCO2 values using the equations of Livesey and Elia (38). To equate HR to EE, a regression line of HR to EE is developed for each individual from the sub-maximal calibration procedure and using measurements for sitting, standing, and at each of the workloads. The critical HR, below which the relationship between HR and EE is non-linear (flex-HR), is calculated from the mean of the highest HR when the participant was standing, and the lowest HR when exercising (66).
However, the method has important limitations. Because the relationship between HR–VO2 differs between upper-body and lower-body activities (69), the use of a single regression line derived from an activity such as walking or running will not be accurate for other activities. Further, while there is a very close relationship between HR and EE during exercise, this is not the case during rest and light activity (11, 66, 70). This problem can be overcome using the flex-HR method that utilizes an individually predetermined HR to discriminate between resting and exercise HR (71). HR monitoring has been validated for measurement of EE in controlled settings (72, 73) and free-living contexts (74, 75) in young people (5).
Further comment on the Polar:
If cheaper model, they estimate your VO2 (fitness level) by means of your BMI (height/weight) and deciding where in the range for your gender/age you fall.
So high BMI means low fitness level, low BMI means high fitness level.
And if that just ain't about untrue. I know many healthy BMI level people that are no where near fit. They would be receiving even during exercise inflated calorie burn with the cheaper Polars.
And conversely - many overweight by BMI people that are very fit, high VO2.
More expensive one that test resting HR and HRmax and comes up with a VO2max figure - much better.5 -
Hey HeyBales! Love a good discussion. Thank you for responding to my post. Nothing personal taken. Like I said, love love love a good discussion.
So, your first point is a very good one! Yes, the formula that I use is indeed 100 years old. It has been updated twice, but it is still 100 years old. I do not believe that I mentioned that in this specific post, but I made numerous posts yesterday and somewhere in there I did indeed stipulate that this formula is 100 years old. But, a good formula is a good formula. Regardless of age. Anyway, thank you for making that point specific.
And, yes - MFP does indeed have a built-in BMR Tool. Based on one of the other two or three BMR formulas. To give you an idea, the formula that I use gives me a BMR of 1937 while the MFP built-in tool gives me a BMR of 1850. Same person. Same "stats". Somewhat big difference. Or, is it?
My point here - IT IS A FORMULA! So, use it as a guideline. Use it as a starting point. Adjust from there via - unless you have experience with doing this - the good old fashioned trial and error method.
I don't think that you will disagree with that point (it is a formula....use it as a starting point). But, I do not want to put words in your mouth.
So, then the next logical step is to find a formula that gets you as close as possible. Right? I mean, if we are using the formula as a starting point, why not get as close as possible. Agreed! 100%!
So, what formula should someone use? I suggested one. MFP uses another. There is at least one other "legit" formula out there. Does it matter which one you use? Well.........yes and no.
My whole point here is to find a formula, use it as a launching point and adapt based on "you". None of these formulas - NONE OF THEM - take into account two really important components: genetics and nutritional history. I think that you would agree with that! I mean, not trying to put words in your mouth. What say you?
Anyway, I welcome your comments. I really appreciate a good conversation and I do not propose that I know everything. Shoot! I know very little! So, I welcome the opportunity to learn something new.0 -
Microwhisper - are you more confused now? I sure hope that our discussion is not leading to confusion. I hope that it is expanding your horizons. There is a lot of information out there (generally speaking) - some good and some bad - and you will find that there are a lot of opinions and ideas.
I just want to make sure that we are helping you to find an answer that works for you!0 -
I think it's a safe statement that a formula is just a formula and can get one in the ballpark. From there, you use your own empirical data to dial it in. Log your calorie intake as accurately as possible, graph your weight trend over time and adjust your intake accordingly. If you're gaining, you're eating more than your TDEE; if you're losing you're eating less than your TDEE, and if you're maintaining, you've found your TDEE.
A trend over time is important because day to day fluctuations can introduce noise to the equation. What's happening week to week or month to month is more important than what's happening day to day.0 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »Microwhisper - are you more confused now? I sure hope that our discussion is not leading to confusion. I hope that it is expanding your horizons. There is a lot of information out there (generally speaking) - some good and some bad - and you will find that there are a lot of opinions and ideas.
I just want to make sure that we are helping you to find an answer that works for you!
haha. Thanks for the concern! The discussion has certainly gone a bit beyond my frame of reference but it's been interesting following along and learning new things. Thanks again everyone. x
1 -
@heybales and @sijomial - so, thank you to you two for correcting (by calling out) an error that I have been making. I am going to diligently correct my posts that I made in the last two days (Sunday and Monday) that contain this error. The error is the (BMR + AMR)/2 part. Not necessary. Totally incorrect.
Anyway, I am also going to switch formula's that I use. I am going to go from the Harris-Benedict original formula (1919) to the Mifflin 1990 variation. Thanks to you two I did a lot more research on this and am simply going to go with the more modern formula.
Yes, a formula is a formula is a formula.....but let's use one that is more accurate. In few instances do I just "blindly follow" something.....and I have been using the original formula and the "math error" for the last 18 months....not afraid to admit when I am wrong. My words, my responsibility.
Also, going to slow down and make sure that I get everything (including editing......had a few of those yesterday) 100% correct.2 -
CORRECTION!!!!! CORRECTION!!!!!
So, made a mistake. Please see the below from my post on Monday, September 3, 2017 at 2:05PM...I would like to correct it...
======================================================
The formula for a woman is this:
BMR = 655 + (4.35 x weight in pounds) + (4.7 x height in inches) – (4.7 x age in years)
To find your Active Metabolic Rate, you would simply take your BMR and multiply that by an "Activity Multiplier". That looks like this:
*Sedentary (little or no exercise) – your AMR = BMR x 1.2
*Lightly active (light exercise/work 1-3 days per week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.375
*Moderately active (moderate exercise/work 3-5 days per week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.55
*Very active (hard exercise/work 6-7 days a week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.725
*Ultra active (very hard exercise/work 6-7 days a week) – your AMR = BMR x 1.9
To find out your maintenance, you take the following formula:
(BMR + AMR)/2
Now, this is a formula so I strongly recommend using this as a starting point.
==============================================================
The part about (BMR + AMR)/2 is incorrect. Please remove that part from any calculations that you might do. It will create a situation for you that is different from your goal.
The rest is correct. The formula that I used is the Harris-Benedict orginal from 1919. As mentioned in the original post, it is a formula. So, use it as a starting point. It will also give you a different set of numbers from the MFP will give you.
I am sorry for the confusion that this mistake has caused.0 -
@microwhisper
Okay....glad to help. My question is this - is your original question answered to your satisfaction?0 -
@CWShultz27105
I agree that calculated is just that, an estimate - but with all the built in inaccuracies (nutrition labels, exercise, ect) - I figure too, why not start out with the best first shot in the dark.
Some people are losing vanity final few lbs - really doesn't matter much in the long run if they waste many weeks honing in on correct value. Of course hits mental aspect when things don't seem to be working and they are in a rush.
But some people have lbs that really need to be lost for strong health reasons, and those many weeks attempting a reasonable rate could be hampered by first estimate being way off (like even Mifflin starts getting inflated when carrying a lot of fat, I've seen many instances of tested RMR being 300-500 less than calculated Mifflin, but a whole lot closer using Katch formula with decent BF% estimate), and a month for them missing out on losing an extra lb a week isn't good.
And as you read more posts, you'll start seeing the confusion of people using weekly avg TDEE method saying to do different ways of things forgetting or perhaps not understanding in the first place how MFP works, which includes those that don't understand it's premise is different than others sites they may have used.0 -
Amen, man! And I clearly did not | do not yet understand how MFP works. I will remedy that situation for sure.
And, very familiar with the Katch formula. In your experience, is using the Katch formula a better "first best guess" than the others? I am all for doing things right the first time....if possible. And, many many many other "sources" use the Harris-Benedict original formula. So, just kinda followed that for the last 18 months.
I guess that my experience in this world has allowed me to be a little more lazy and to play with the 'trial and error' approach a little too much. I work a lot with single moms who simply want to build the booty and to loose most, if not all, of the baby weight. Most of them are in that category - not all. But the vast majority.
Hey, if we can learn something new today then I am only tooooooo glad to! Thanks for your feedback. Really appreciate it.0 -
And, to the Katch Formula question......
Of course it is a much better first guess! I mean, it is using a known number for lean body mass.
The example would be where two people have the same stats but one is more muscular than the other. In other words, the body composition of both would be different. Using the Harris-Benedict Formula, each would have the same numbers. Using the Katch Formula, however, the numbers would be more accurate for both (and, different) because of the lean body mass figure.
What I am really asking is, in your experience, if you do not have a really really good way of determining body fat percentage is it "safer" to use the Harris-Benedict formula (or, the Mifflin modification)? Generally speaking!0 -
Wow, all these explanations are great. Thank you everyone!1
-
CWShultz27105 wrote: »And, to the Katch Formula question......
Of course it is a much better first guess! I mean, it is using a known number for lean body mass.
The example would be where two people have the same stats but one is more muscular than the other. In other words, the body composition of both would be different. Using the Harris-Benedict Formula, each would have the same numbers. Using the Katch Formula, however, the numbers would be more accurate for both (and, different) because of the lean body mass figure.
What I am really asking is, in your experience, if you do not have a really really good way of determining body fat percentage is it "safer" to use the Harris-Benedict formula (or, the Mifflin modification)? Generally speaking!
Whenever I've been in groups here on MFP and much earlier elsewhere, whenever I saw someone report they got Bodpod or water mass or DEXA, I'd ask them (because we'd talked already) to go do a couple of decent measurement BF calc's that use many sites - and avg the results together.
Almost always I recall the results were within 5% of tested. Which sounds not that great.
But for the purpose of the Katch formula - not much difference if you took the extremes of LBM and BMR results.
The Katch formula is assuming an avg ratio of LBM to FM even though it uses the LBM amount.
So the bad (or good?) thing there when you have lots of fat without matching lots of LBM - it's underestimating. So it doesn't ramp up well either to high BF%.
Which isn't that bad at high fat levels - where you can safely lose at faster rate anyway.
So as BF% comes down, potential accuracy goes up - not as bad an issue.
I incorporated many of those discoveries and research in the 2nd spreadsheet on my profile page. Which I don't think is as useful now with the advent of activity trackers. (though they can be improved too since they rely on calculated BMR, usually Mifflin or similar it seems)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions