Baffled by my TDEE. Can anyone help me understand this?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I think the TDEE calculator assumes that two persons with the same weight but different body fat percentages will have different energy requirements to maintain that body weight. A pro bodybuilder with 270 lbs and 10 percent body fat will need more energy to maintain the weight compare to a person with the same weight but 50 percent body fat.
In his book Arnold Schwarzenegger says before a competition he was eating over 5000 calories a day just to maintain his muscle mass. A guy with the same weight as Arnold but a tenths of his muscle mass probably doesnt need that many calories just to maintain.1 -
I think the TDEE calculator assumes that two persons with the same weight but different body fat percentages will have different energy requirements to maintain that body weight. A pro bodybuilder with 270 lbs and 10 percent body fat will need more energy to maintain the weight compare to a person with the same weight but 50 percent body fat.
In his book Arnold Schwarzenegger says before a competition he was eating over 5000 calories a day just to maintain his muscle mass. A guy with the same weight as Arnold but a tenths of his muscle mass probably doesnt need that many calories just to maintain.
Bingo!!1 -
Just a FYI. I just downloaded your app and put in my stats. It said 49.1% body fat. Dexa scan says 29.1, which is close to what various trainers have said over time.0
-
ChaoticMoira wrote: »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.
Good idea. When I first started at a gym I wanted a trainer to help me with lifting but I was experienced with cardio so explained that I preferred to do cardio on my own and was interested in lifting for the trainer sessions. I think even without a trainer one can follow various other progressive lifting plans, so long as you are comfortable with the form.1 -
I think the TDEE calculator assumes that two persons with the same weight but different body fat percentages will have different energy requirements to maintain that body weight. A pro bodybuilder with 270 lbs and 10 percent body fat will need more energy to maintain the weight compare to a person with the same weight but 50 percent body fat.
In his book Arnold Schwarzenegger says before a competition he was eating over 5000 calories a day just to maintain his muscle mass. A guy with the same weight as Arnold but a tenths of his muscle mass probably doesnt need that many calories just to maintain.
Along these lines, my partner has the same height and weight as football tight end Rob Gronkowski, but not the same shape, as one man is a professional athlete and the other is not
ETA: I see Gronk is now retired, and is doing some nasty beet juice thing. I'll pass this along to my partner
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions