Baffled by my TDEE. Can anyone help me understand this?
ChaoticMoira
Posts: 103 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 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
-
I don't have an answer directly relating to the impact of changing the bodyfat percentage, but...
The thing is: a calculator, whether it's MFP or an external site, is just a calculator based on statistical averages etc. So it doesn't give you your actual TDEE.
Just like your app isn't necessarily giving an accurate bodyfat number.
If you log your food intake (accurately) for 4 to 8 weeks, and monitor your weight trend during that period, you can calculate your own TDEE.
Add up your intake of calories for that period.
Add to that 3500 calories per lb of weight lost (or subtract 3500 calories per lb of weight gained).
Divide by the number of days and hey presto, that's your average daily TDEE for that period.5 -
Fat isn't very metabolically active at about 2cals per day per pound so the effect of having an extra 100lbs of fat by itself still isn't very high for someone that doesn't move that weight around much.
Clearly though every weight bearing movement a lot heavier person does burn more though so the impact of that extra weight as regards calorie burns varies a lot between active and inactive people.
No all formulae take BF% into account.
This text is taken from a better TDEE calculator ( https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ ) regarding BF%
"This field is not required, but will be needed to calculate BMR using the Katch-McArdle, Cunningham, or Katch-McArdle Hybrid methods. "
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 put in the details for my goal weight and body fat, 130 lbs, at 20% fat" - that's a an unusually lean goal (top end of athlete range) for a female with your height and goal weight. Maybe that's skewing the estimates?
Although 20% is seen as "average" for a good weight male (according to A.C.E.) it's unusually low for a female.
9 -
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.2 -
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.0
-
IllustriousBee wrote: »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).3 -
ChaoticMoira wrote: »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_guided2 -
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!
3 -
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.4 -
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.4 -
I can’t explain what all these different apps are telling you. I suggest that you use the MFP numbers and focus on that. 🤗5
-
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.0 -
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.
For those concerned about my mentioned goal:
This is not my main goal or anything. It is like the fantasy/dream goal. When you are severely obese, realistically you have to have many goals, at least imo. I have my fantasy goal (130), my ultimate goal (155), and my current real goal (under 200). Then there are the actual fitness goals.. I put 20% body fat at 130 because I misremembered the healthy number for a woman. So it should have been more like 24% - 25%. But my main physical goal is based in strength training and putting on a decent amount of muscle. So that is why the goal looked like that. I don't want to be thin, I want to be fit.5 -
TwistedSassette wrote: »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...
0 -
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..
1 -
I'd like to add that starting strength training in those 7 weeks might have skewed the numbers: it's very common to retain more water for muscle repair and extra glycogen in the muscles. So you may have lost more lbs (of fat) than you think, but masked by some water retention.6
-
ChaoticMoira wrote: »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?1 -
ChaoticMoira 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.4 -
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.1
-
ChaoticMoira 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
1 -
ChaoticMoira wrote: »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.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ChaoticMoira wrote: »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.
Her numbers are correct for TDEE (assuming activity level is sedentary, which I had a question about). The Katch-McArdle calculator uses BF%. I think MFP uses a version of the Mifflin-St Joer calculator without the activity estimate and related multiplier.
How all of them work is to figure BMR and then multiply based on the activity estimate.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ChaoticMoira wrote: »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.
Her numbers are correct for TDEE (assuming activity level is sedentary, which I had a question about). The Katch-McArdle calculator uses BF%. I think MFP uses a version of the Mifflin-St Joer calculator without the activity estimate and related multiplier.
How all of them work is to figure BMR and then multiply based on the activity estimate.
Pretty much any TDEE calculator I've seen (that's transparent about how it works) is estimating BMR, then using an activity multiplier (sometimes more than one for different activity types, I think) to estimate TDEE based on BMR.
In that context, I think the BF% affects the BMR estimating calculation directly, and then affects the TDEE estimate via the variation in estimated BMR.
As an aside, I don't like TDEEcalculator.net much at all, but prefer the Sailrabbit.com/bmr one, because it's much more transparent about where/how the numbers are used. (It does have a busy, somewhat confusing user interface as a consequence, though.)0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ChaoticMoira wrote: »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.
Her numbers are correct for TDEE (assuming activity level is sedentary, which I had a question about). The Katch-McArdle calculator uses BF%. I think MFP uses a version of the Mifflin-St Joer calculator without the activity estimate and related multiplier.
How all of them work is to figure BMR and then multiply based on the activity estimate.
Pretty much any TDEE calculator I've seen (that's transparent about how it works) is estimating BMR, then using an activity multiplier (sometimes more than one for different activity types, I think) to estimate TDEE based on BMR.
In that context, I think the BF% affects the BMR estimating calculation directly, and then affects the TDEE estimate via the variation in estimated BMR.
Yes, I wasn't intending to imply anything to the contrary. I agree that's how it works. Point is that the numbers are actually correct for the TDEE calculator I think she used; she's not accidentally using BMR numbers. She might be assuming she is more sedentary than she is or that her BF% is higher than it is (although 110 lb lean mass on a 5'3 woman doesn't seem off the wall to me).0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ChaoticMoira wrote: »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.
Her numbers are correct for TDEE (assuming activity level is sedentary, which I had a question about). The Katch-McArdle calculator uses BF%. I think MFP uses a version of the Mifflin-St Joer calculator without the activity estimate and related multiplier.
How all of them work is to figure BMR and then multiply based on the activity estimate.
Pretty much any TDEE calculator I've seen (that's transparent about how it works) is estimating BMR, then using an activity multiplier (sometimes more than one for different activity types, I think) to estimate TDEE based on BMR.
In that context, I think the BF% affects the BMR estimating calculation directly, and then affects the TDEE estimate via the variation in estimated BMR.
Yes, I wasn't intending to imply anything to the contrary. I agree that's how it works. Point is that the numbers are actually correct for the TDEE calculator I think she used; she's not accidentally using BMR numbers. She might be assuming she is more sedentary than she is or that her BF% is higher than it is (although 110 lb lean mass on a 5'3 woman doesn't seem off the wall to me).
Yes. With apologies, it seems I'd left the thread open in my browser from earlier, didn't see your reply until after I'd posted. That was confusing, I'm sure. I didn't edit, and thought it was maybe worth leaving for the part about Sailrabbit being more explicit about the mechanics.
FWIW, as a general comment not a reply to you specifically, I see the same general effect OP does, though in the opposite direction (kind of, because my estimated BF% is apparently lower than average for my demographic).
My BMR estimate from formulas that don't use BF% ranges 1113-1202, depending on which specific formula. If I put in my best estimate of BF% (which I admit isn't authoritative), BMR from the formulas that use BF% are in the range 1308-1460. That pushes my sedentary TDEE estimate from 1335-1439 (without BF% estimate) to 1570-1753 (with BF%).
That makes sense to me, with the general rationale that greater muscularity (mostly lower BF%) would statistically imply a higher BMR at equal body weight.
The activity multipliers are the same, whether with a BF% or not, because that's what Sailrabbit does.
As an aside, using BF% also erases effect of age on the BMR estimate, it seems . . . and on the TDEE estimate as a consequence, of course.
0 -
..it's very common to retain more water for muscle repair and extra glycogen in the muscles. So you may have lost more lbs (of fat) than you think, but masked by some water retention.
Thanks Lietchi, I will read up on that.Redordeadhead wrote: »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?
I don't want to say I am perfect or anything, but I believe I am calculating very accurately. I am not a snacker/graze-eater by nature, so it wasn't that hard. Everything I ate was planned ahead, prepped ahead, and put into MFP upon eating. I always round up to the nearest 10 as well, just to cover any error on packaging. Anything packaged that says zero, I count as 10 cal per serving. I don't assume other people's input info is correct, so on foods without labels I look them up to double check. I don't weigh everything, but I weighed my meat, starches, and fats - everything else was measured by volume. And yes I count everything I consume, including condiments. I don't drink anything but water, so that isn't an issue.
To be honest, THIS is actually a frustration I am dealing with this week. It is what made me recalculate my info. I haven't worked out this week at all, because I felt like I was giving it 100% and getting back so-so results... It really has been a drain on my motivation.cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
Yes I am sure that is what is listed for my sedentary tdee. My BMR was lower, as it always is. If you go to the site I listed you will see a spot to add your body fat %. All the calculators I have seen have that spot, they just don't require you to use it. They so however say that the calculator is more accurate with the body fat information.
2 -
Are you actually sedentary or are you also adding exercise?0
-
"To be honest, THIS is actually a frustration I am dealing with this week. It is what made me recalculate my info. I haven't worked out this week at all, because I felt like I was giving it 100% and getting back so-so results... It really has been a drain on my motivation."
This is a worry so soon in what will be a long process for you.
Working out really isn't for weight loss. It's a healthy habit for life and health improvements aren't apparent in a short timescale, you really do need to think long term. Motivation is great to get you started but it's a fragile and limited resource you need to use wisely.
As regards using calculators/estimators....
Although you can use sedentary as a person who exercises when using the MyFitnessPal method of accounting for exercise burns you should pick the appropriate TDEE category when using that method.
Even the pretty poor TDEE calculator you used expects you to take exercise into account.3 -
Are you actually sedentary or are you also adding exercise?
No I have not been completely sedentary for the last 3 months. Apart from this last week, I have been seeing a trainer and exercise 3-4 times a week.This is a worry so soon in what will be a long process for you.
Working out really isn't for weight loss. It's a healthy habit for life and health improvements aren't apparent in a short timescale, you really do need to think long term. Motivation is great to get you started but it's a fragile and limited resource you need to use wisely.
I didn't mean for it to sound like I was throwing in the towel just because my weight loss was too slow. I just felt I needed to take the week off to reevaluate. I am still on my diet. But there were other issues at hand as well. I don't like my trainer.. Or at least, her method of training me..
I realize working out is more about fitness and health; that is actually the issue. She and I don't mesh well. I see my weight loss goal and my fitness goals as two separate parallel lines. Meaning I want to workout with my fitness in mind, not weight loss, though I know working out will help the weight loss. I expect my fitness goal to take several years. But I feel like my trainer sees my workouts primarily as a way to bolster my weight loss goal.
I also know if you try to do things you don't like, you will not stick with it. She likes hiit cardio, with a some calisthenics thrown in. I prefer steady state cardio and weight lifting.. Losing little sucks on it's own, but losing little and hating every workout on top of that really sucks. If I only lose a pound a week, but I am also benefiting by building muscle, and changing my body composition. I will be happy with that. Especially since I actually enjoy weight lifting. I dislike cardio, but am willing to put up with it..
I have decided that since gyms have reopened and I am vaccinated, I am going to join a gym instead so I can focus better on my own vision. I know I still need cardio, and intend to do a half hour a day, but the rest of my workout will be strength training. I also have a workout partner to go with so that should help to keep me on track.
4 -
I am baffled by the trainer and see nothing wrong with steady state (which incidentally can be continued for much more time than HIIT, thus burning more calories on an overall--not per minute-basis) and strength training in combination!
In any case if you just started exercising you're extremely likely to be retaining water which is masking your overall progress2 -
Get a new trainer. One that listens to their clients!
Steady state cardio is a brilliant fitness tool, especially for someone starting out, far easier to find the right intensity level and build your base of CV fitness.
And you are spot on about enjoyment. Since I retired I exercise more than ever - because I love my exercise and the feeling of being fit.4
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
- 424 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