Fat2Fitradio v scoobyworkshop
tpittsley77
Posts: 607 Member
I am looking for a couple things, without making this a really long thread. I have crunched all the numbers on the fat2fitradio site AND did the calorie calculator on the scoobysworkshop site. Between the sites, I come up with a 250 calorie difference on what I should be eating to lose. That is a big calorie difference.
I am looking for someone that has used the fat2fitradio site WITH success to let me know how well that site's calculations worked for them. I know that I need to be eating more than I currently am and am scared to increase my calories and gain weight. Yet this entire month of May, I have fluctuated within 2 pounds. I am not please about that.
Here are my numbers:
SW:208 last year before I got pregnant
CW:181.4
GW:145 (potentially 135, depends on how I feel at 145)
Current body fat% 39.4 (based off fat2fit military calculator)
Fat2fitradio... after doing the calculators, says my BMR is 1450, and to get to 145, I need to consume 2223 calories per day. Which would be my maintenance at 145.
Scoobysworkshop calculator (which I think has to be less accurate as it really takes a LOT less information) says:
BMR: 1586
TDEE 2467
Eat 1967
I have an active job, on my feet walking about 7.5 hours a day, with a good amount of lifting throughout the day. I also work out 6 days a week. 20-60 minutes depending on what I am doing that day. I do no heavy lifting and cannot do heavy lifting due to medical issues.
If I follow MFP they say I should be eating like 1450, plus my exercise calories. I would rather figure out a set number to consume, than to have to worry about eating back exercise calories. BTW my diary is open if anyone wants to peek. Please ignore that MFP currently says I have gone over a few days. I had my calorie goals set at 1800 for a few weeks, without success, but changed them to mfp guidelines yesterday..
Thank you so much!
I am looking for someone that has used the fat2fitradio site WITH success to let me know how well that site's calculations worked for them. I know that I need to be eating more than I currently am and am scared to increase my calories and gain weight. Yet this entire month of May, I have fluctuated within 2 pounds. I am not please about that.
Here are my numbers:
SW:208 last year before I got pregnant
CW:181.4
GW:145 (potentially 135, depends on how I feel at 145)
Current body fat% 39.4 (based off fat2fit military calculator)
Fat2fitradio... after doing the calculators, says my BMR is 1450, and to get to 145, I need to consume 2223 calories per day. Which would be my maintenance at 145.
Scoobysworkshop calculator (which I think has to be less accurate as it really takes a LOT less information) says:
BMR: 1586
TDEE 2467
Eat 1967
I have an active job, on my feet walking about 7.5 hours a day, with a good amount of lifting throughout the day. I also work out 6 days a week. 20-60 minutes depending on what I am doing that day. I do no heavy lifting and cannot do heavy lifting due to medical issues.
If I follow MFP they say I should be eating like 1450, plus my exercise calories. I would rather figure out a set number to consume, than to have to worry about eating back exercise calories. BTW my diary is open if anyone wants to peek. Please ignore that MFP currently says I have gone over a few days. I had my calorie goals set at 1800 for a few weeks, without success, but changed them to mfp guidelines yesterday..
Thank you so much!
0
Replies
-
I'm interested in hearing a response to this as well, I've been struggling for 2 years to lose and haven't seen the scale budge. I think I have weightloss immune disease
UGH 
0 -
Here are my numbers:
SW:208 last year before I got pregnant
CW:181.4
GW:145 (potentially 135, depends on how I feel at 145)
Current body fat% 39.4 (based off fat2fit military calculator)
Fat2fitradio... after doing the calculators, says my BMR is 1450, and to get to 145, I need to consume 2223 calories per day. Which would be my maintenance at 145.
Scoobysworkshop calculator (which I think has to be less accurate as it really takes a LOT less information) says:
BMR: 1586
TDEE 2467
Eat 1967
I don't have your height or age to redo your calculations. Please add that information.0 -
66.5 inches (5'6.5) and 35 years old. I just did these calculations this morning before posting. On fat2fit I used my measurements to get my bmi.0
-
Here are my numbers:
SW:208 last year before I got pregnant
CW:181.4
GW:145 (potentially 135, depends on how I feel at 145)
Current body fat% 39.4 (based off fat2fit military calculator)
Fat2fitradio... after doing the calculators, says my BMR is 1450, and to get to 145, I need to consume 2223 calories per day. Which would be my maintenance at 145.
Scoobysworkshop calculator (which I think has to be less accurate as it really takes a LOT less information) says:
BMR: 1586
TDEE 2467
Eat 1967
OK. I see your BMR on fit2fat as 1592, which is about the same as on scooby (1586).
I would initially use the TDEE-15% from scooby, which is 2090 calories using moderate activity. If after 6-8 weeks your weight stalls, then you can increase to the cut shown on Fat2fit (2223).
So, in MFP, change your daily calorie goals to 2050-2100. If your net calories (food - exercise) is less than your BMR (1586), then eat more, at least enough to Net your BMR.
Hope that helps.0 -
So that explains the difference. I have been reading the katch mcardle number. You read the harris benedict number. I was told the katch mcardle was more accurate.0
-
So that explains the difference. I have been reading the katch mcardle number. You read the harris benedict number. I was told the katch mcardle was more accurate.
I read somewhere (I think it was somewhere on the scooby site) that Katch McArdle was more accurate for people who were closer to fitness goals (i.e. been working out, building strength for awhile), but for people who are far outside of their goals, it's not as accurate. Anyone have any more info. on that? It can be so confusing with so many formulas for the same things - it's hard to know which to use!0 -
I saw the same thing about Katch McArdle being more accurate for more fit individuals than for seriously overweight people. And based on my BMF, Mifflin St Jeor and Harris Benedict come closer to my BMR (and thus giving me an accurate TDEE) than Katch McArdle, and I've got ~100 pounds to lose. YMMV0
-
So that explains the difference. I have been reading the katch mcardle number. You read the harris benedict number. I was told the katch mcardle was more accurate.
I read somewhere (I think it was somewhere on the scooby site) that Katch McArdle was more accurate for people who were closer to fitness goals (i.e. been working out, building strength for awhile), but for people who are far outside of their goals, it's not as accurate. Anyone have any more info. on that? It can be so confusing with so many formulas for the same things - it's hard to know which to use!
I believe its the opposite, and the Scooby fitness guy posted about it:
The energy required to maintain muscle is higher than the energy required to maintain fat so both these equations will be off for either very lean or very fat people. To get around this problem there are two more sets of equations based upon the research by Katch-McArdle and Cunningham which are based upon Lean Body Mass (LBM) instead of weight. Everything has flaws and the Cunningham and Katch-McArdle equations do to. Whose equations should you use for best accuracy? If you know your body fat accurately, then I suggest using the Katch-McArdle formula, otherwise use Mifflin- St Jeor. For those who want to know, here are the equations:0 -
So for me, based on military body fat formula, doing measurements, I know my body fat %. I am no longer in the obese category, now just overweight. Looking to lose 35 more lbs. So I am neither overly fit nor in need of losing large amounts of weight. So, I have been ok following katch mcardle.....0
-
So that explains the difference. I have been reading the katch mcardle number. You read the harris benedict number. I was told the katch mcardle was more accurate.
I read somewhere (I think it was somewhere on the scooby site) that Katch McArdle was more accurate for people who were closer to fitness goals (i.e. been working out, building strength for awhile), but for people who are far outside of their goals, it's not as accurate. Anyone have any more info. on that? It can be so confusing with so many formulas for the same things - it's hard to know which to use!
I believe its the opposite, and the Scooby fitness guy posted about it:
The energy required to maintain muscle is higher than the energy required to maintain fat so both these equations will be off for either very lean or very fat people. To get around this problem there are two more sets of equations based upon the research by Katch-McArdle and Cunningham which are based upon Lean Body Mass (LBM) instead of weight. Everything has flaws and the Cunningham and Katch-McArdle equations do to. Whose equations should you use for best accuracy? If you know your body fat accurately, then I suggest using the Katch-McArdle formula, otherwise use Mifflin- St Jeor. For those who want to know, here are the equations:
Thanks. Wow - I did get that pretty much exactly backwards!
0
