Baffled by my TDEE. Can anyone help me understand this?

ChaoticMoira
ChaoticMoira Posts: 103 Member
edited July 2021 in Health and Weight Loss
Hi everyone. Here is my info, and the situation.
I am Female, 41, 5.3" and 275.

When I put my info into tdeecalculator.net without my bodyfat, it says my sedentary tdee is: 2258

My body fat, according to an app, is about 60%, which sounds right considering my height to weight ratio... So I redid my tdee, adding in this info, and somehow it is much lower!!?? 1737

Without BF: 2258
With BF: 1737


I do not understand this at all!

How can my body sustain this level of fat on that low of a calorie intake!? This is lower than what is recommended for an average woman's diet. How can that possibly be maintenance for someone as fat as me??? :'(

Further, I put in the details for my goal weight and body fat, 130 lbs, at 20% fat and my tdee is 1667.

How can my body maintain 275 pounds eating practically the same as what someone half my size would be expected to eat? This just does not make any sense to me.

If someone understands this stuff better than me, I would soooo appreciate the help. I just does not make sense..


Side note..
I tried another calculator, but it said about the same thing. So it wasn't the calculator.
«1

Replies

  • IllustriousBee
    IllustriousBee Posts: 70 Member
    edited July 2021
    Muscle burns more calories than fat, which is why cardio becomes more challenging as you build muscle. 60% body fat is quite a bit, so the calculator assumed your body fat % was lower for the first amount. I didn't even know MFP took that into consideration when calculating calories. Those calorie amounts sound right to me, though, and I majored in nutrition. I would recommend you set your calorie goal at around 1500-1700 to lose weight, and add in regular strength exercise. Is your goal a lean, muscular (think female athlete) body type? 20% body fat is in the "athlete" range for a female your age. I'm 38, and very lean (not yet at my goal, but close) and my body fat % is 21 (at least according to my measurements and the US military/Navy formula, as I don't have access to a more accurate way to measure). My goal IS to have a very athletic/muscular body. If you just want to be regularly lean, then there's no reason to aim for so low body fat.

    Edited to add: If you put 130lbs with 20% body fat and sedentary, that number makes sense. However, you would have to be working out quite a bit to sustain that body fat, so this would be the calories burned BEFORE any exercise, so that is also why it seems so low. The amount would go up after you add in your exercise.
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,877 Member
    When I tried putting my stats into MFP or other calculators, it gives me one number but when I use a calculator that incorporates body fat %, my maintenance calories are lower and that was based on body fat in the overweight range. Apparently body fat doesn’t burn many calories.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    Muscle burns more calories than fat, which is why cardio becomes more challenging as you build muscle. 60% body fat is quite a bit, so the calculator assumed your body fat % was lower for the first amount. I didn't even know MFP took that into consideration when calculating calories.

    It doesn't, which is why it can be off when someone has a high body fat percentage.

    I will second your explanation -- fat doesn't really take a lot of calories to support whereas muscle does, so it would be expected that when adding in a high body fat percentage the TDEE would go down.

    OP, if you check your calculations, you are assuming a similar amount of muscle in both cases: 104 lb at the 130 lb goal weight and 110 lb at the current weight. That's why the TDEE numbers are not that different. You are also assuming sedentary it seems, and at your current weight you will burn more cals just from moving, which is something that will be helpful if you do add in more movement (even just walking).
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,843 Member
    Hi everyone. Here is my info, and the situation.
    I am Female, 41, 5.3" and 275.

    When I put my info into tdeecalculator.net without my bodyfat, it says my sedentary tdee is: 2258

    My body fat, according to an app, is about 60%, which sounds right considering my height to weight ratio... So I redid my tdee, adding in this info, and somehow it is much lower!!?? 1737

    Without BF: 2258
    With BF: 1737


    I do not understand this at all!

    How can my body sustain this level of fat on that low of a calorie intake!? This is lower than what is recommended for an average woman's diet. How can that possibly be maintenance for someone as fat as me??? :'(

    Further, I put in the details for my goal weight and body fat, 130 lbs, at 20% fat and my tdee is 1667.

    How can my body maintain 275 pounds eating practically the same as what someone half my size would be expected to eat? This just does not make any sense to me.

    If someone understands this stuff better than me, I would soooo appreciate the help. I just does not make sense..


    Side note..
    I tried another calculator, but it said about the same thing. So it wasn't the calculator.

    I can't answer your question, but then, I don't bother with TDEE. I just let MFP do the calculations. (MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis) - you add exercise outside of your job separately.)

    Thanks for including your age, height, etc! I plugged them in, put you as Sedentary, and got 2,350 calories for maintenance:

    https://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/change_goals_guided
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,393 Member
    If you work at an office, enjoy reading, gaming, or watching TV, and are happy eating fast food while living in a car friendly area... it is easy to become sedentary.

    But, sedentary at the level of many of these estimators (and MFP) pretty much involves about half an hour to less than an hour of ANY non sitting activity in a day. By the time most people exceed 2500-3000 steps on a pedometer they start to move above the activity multipliers implicit in these sedentary estimations.

    And an increase in activity magnifies the smaller differences you see in your base metabolic rate.

    It sounds to me as if you're choosing a fairly low fat % at your goal and you're inputting a fairly high fat % as your current values.

    In any case... it also sounds that you've got a beautiful opportunity! Just start practicing eating like your future self will be eating to maintain your future weight at the same activity level as you engage in today. As long as this results in your weight trend changing at a level of about 0.5% to no more than 1% per week over the span of several weeks... well... no need to tweak other than to ensure that what you're doing is sustainable for you so that you can continue to happily engage in weight management! :smiley:
  • IllustriousBee
    IllustriousBee Posts: 70 Member
    I was thinking about this post on the way home from the gym, and wanted to add something. If 130lbs and 20% body fat is your ultimate goal, it will probably take you YEARS to get there. I highly suggest setting smaller, achievable goals, like just losing 15-20lbs.

    Just to give you some context, I've always been fairly healthy, and never overweight. Back in the beginning of 2019, I was at a BMI of 18.8 and about 30% body fat. After almost A YEAR of training with a personal trainer, I got to a BMI of 19.9 with 24% body fat. I slacked off on tracking my food during the pandemic and got to a BMI of 22.2 and 25% body fat. I started tracking everything and working harder at the gym (cardio and strength training almost every day) on April 15th. I lost the weight, and I'm now a BMI of 20 and body fat at 21%. So overall, with the ups and downs, but working hard and eating right for most of that time, it has taken me about 2.5 YEARS to decrease my body fat by ONLY 9%. You are setting yourself up for failure if the 130lb, 20% body fat is your only goal. You will just end up disappointed and frustrated.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    I'm guessing that the 130 lb goal is the main one, and BF% at that weight a guess or more of a long term goal.

    I lost from a little over 200 (I don't know my top weight) to 125, and am also 5'3, and based on a DEXA I think my BF% at 125 was about 25% (estimated 95 lb lean mass). I had shorter term goals--many not weight focused--but having an ultimate goal weight of 120-125 wasn't discouraging. I do think it's common to just naturally have many intermediate goals on the way (like for OP under 250, under 220, under 200, no longer obese, often just any lower decade becomes a goal).

    Body fat goes down way faster when you have lots of weight to lose, so isn't really comparable to recomping, but it's also generally hard to measure accurately, so when one still has lots to lose body weight can work as a proxy.

    I agree with PAV that assuming one is sedentary could easily be wrong, and that the sedentary estimates in those calculators tend to be very sedentary.
  • TwistedSassette
    TwistedSassette Posts: 8,447 Member
    May I ask what app you're using that is estimating your body fat as 60%? That seems like a lot.

    I use a digital smart scale that estimates my BF% (yes, I know this is also just an estimate). I am the same height as you, and within a couple of pounds of your weight. My BF% is estimated at 46.5%. I plugged my stats into the TDEE calculator you used, and got similar results, then played around with it and worked out that for my weight, it's estimating that my BF% should be around 42.5%. I accept this is likely too low, but I think that the 60% estimate you got is way too high.
  • ChaoticMoira
    ChaoticMoira Posts: 103 Member
    May I ask what app you're using that is estimating your body fat as 60%? That seems like a lot..

    It is called Monitor Your Weight. I don't like the weight loss graph in MFP, so I got this one just to use their graph...

    I suspect it is a little off as I have never put in my measurements like the Navy fat estimator thing asks for. But I also literally did not exercise for over 6 years prior to 3 months ago. I work from home, and am a hermit. I left my house about once a week for shopping, which I used my car for. And my job is on the computer. Soooo, I suspect my muscle mass is extremely low, and therefor the percentage, while off some, is probably fairly close...
  • ChaoticMoira
    ChaoticMoira Posts: 103 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    I don't think putting your BF% into a calculator is a great idea unless you have some confidence that it's actually good data from a high accuracy estimate (DEXA scan for example).

    I did consider this, but as I mentioned above, based on my low activity level, I suspect it is close. I have a trainer currently who was suppose to do whatever it is they do with the numbers and the pincher thing to get my data, but she has not done it yet..

  • Redordeadhead
    Redordeadhead Posts: 1,188 Member
    Thanks everyone for your input. I am afraid I still don't understand it. But I was considering the numbers and did notice something interesting.

    I have been eating a 1200 calorie diet for 7 weeks now. I know it is low, but I wanted the 1000 calorie deficit to lose 2 lbs per week. I take a vitamin supplement, and on the days I exercised I at 1400.. Anyway, At my tdee without the fat % (2258) I should have lost 2 lbs a week. However, I have only lost about 1 pound a week, which would more accurately match the tdee with the fat % (1737), being a 500 deficit.

    How accurately are you monitoring your intake? Are you weighing all your food on a scale, counting all drinks, condiments etc., cooking yourself and not eating takeout?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    I don't think putting your BF% into a calculator is a great idea unless you have some confidence that it's actually good data from a high accuracy estimate (DEXA scan for example).

    I did consider this, but as I mentioned above, based on my low activity level, I suspect it is close. I have a trainer currently who was suppose to do whatever it is they do with the numbers and the pincher thing to get my data, but she has not done it yet..

    Calipers used by a trained person can be a pretty decent method and if repeated periodically will show you a trend.

    TBH the calculations (whether TDEE or MyFitnessPal) just provide a good starting point, once you have weeks and months of your own data and results that is far more valuable.

    We all have different levels of calorie tracking accuracy. If results over an extended period of time don't match expectations then reviewing your tracking makes sense, I wouldn't just assume numbers given by calculators are wrong as there is also the possibility your actual calories in / calories out are not what you think they are.

    Although the "game" of dieting and calorie counting is a game of numbers those numbers are estimates of varying accuracy.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    I would just go with the TDEE #'s based on age, height, weight, as the number you got looks pretty reasonable, or use MFP's goals tool. It seems like trying to make bf % part of this is throwing the numbers off. You could do a lot worse than to assume the 2258 is an OK estimate, set your calories accordingly (e.g. 1758 for 1 lb/week weight loss), and see what happens. In 3-4 weeks you'll know if the # was too high, too low, or just right, but I have a feeling it will end up well within the ballpark.
  • wunderkindking
    wunderkindking Posts: 1,615 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    I don't think putting your BF% into a calculator is a great idea unless you have some confidence that it's actually good data from a high accuracy estimate (DEXA scan for example).

    I did consider this, but as I mentioned above, based on my low activity level, I suspect it is close. I have a trainer currently who was suppose to do whatever it is they do with the numbers and the pincher thing to get my data, but she has not done it yet..

    Calipers used by a trained person can be a pretty decent method and if repeated periodically will show you a trend.

    TBH the calculations (whether TDEE or MyFitnessPal) just provide a good starting point, once you have weeks and months of your own data and results that is far more valuable.

    We all have different levels of calorie tracking accuracy. If results over an extended period of time don't match expectations then reviewing your tracking makes sense, I wouldn't just assume numbers given by calculators are wrong as there is also the possibility your actual calories in / calories out are not what you think they are.

    Although the "game" of dieting and calorie counting is a game of numbers those numbers are estimates of varying accuracy.

    This.

    I am NOT someone who weighs food or is super precise in calculating calories in - or out - but I am apparently darned consistent. I probably DO eat more calories than I calculate that I do, based on using cups and spoons and guesstimates -- but because I am consistent in what I'm doing and have adjusted as I go, it's been fine on the average. Sometimes I lost more than I expected, sometimes a little less, but I don't think that matters at all. It's just a matter of adjusting what I DO do (eating a little more or a little less or altering my activity a little).

    That said the whole 'weigh something you measure with a tablespoon and see the difference' experiment for me... it showed a difference, all right. The measured spoon was about 25% lighter than the weight listed on the back of my peanut butter jar, LOL
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    Hi everyone. Here is my info, and the situation.
    I am Female, 41, 5.3" and 275.

    When I put my info into tdeecalculator.net without my bodyfat, it says my sedentary tdee is: 2258

    My body fat, according to an app, is about 60%, which sounds right considering my height to weight ratio... So I redid my tdee, adding in this info, and somehow it is much lower!!?? 1737

    Without BF: 2258
    With BF: 1737


    I do not understand this at all!

    How can my body sustain this level of fat on that low of a calorie intake!? This is lower than what is recommended for an average woman's diet. How can that possibly be maintenance for someone as fat as me??? :'(

    Further, I put in the details for my goal weight and body fat, 130 lbs, at 20% fat and my tdee is 1667.

    How can my body maintain 275 pounds eating practically the same as what someone half my size would be expected to eat? This just does not make any sense to me.

    If someone understands this stuff better than me, I would soooo appreciate the help. I just does not make sense..


    Side note..
    I tried another calculator, but it said about the same thing. So it wasn't the calculator.

    Are you sure those aren't BMR numbers? The only time I've ever seen BF% being used in one of these calculators, it was to determine BMR as you will get a more accurate picture of BMR using BF% because you don't need to fuel your fat. I've only ever seen TDEE as a number per your height and weight and activity level.