Another way to calculate BMR

[eatrainrest]

[b]before i begin proposing the

[jamyjamjr]

yea, i know the diff between the two.. if someone has a high bf, the second one is more ideal

[eatrainrest]

exactly..thats why i think i would stick to the second method as its worked for me, ive been using thsi method over the 1st. its more specific geared and less broad.. im sure it could help others

[Phate]

yea, i know the diff between the two.. if someone has a high bf, the second one is more ideal

or if they have a very low bf, second one works better for extremes

exactly..thats why i think i would stick to the second method as its worked for me, ive been using thsi method over the 1st. its more specific geared and less broad.. im sure it could help others

only problem with the second one is most people think they are lower bf then they are, so unless they have a good body comp test they will come up with more calories then they need(since they will be accounting for a higher LBM) and overeat

[eatrainrest]

yea, i shouldve highlighted that IF YOU ACCURATELY KNOW YOUR BF%, 2nd option yield more specific results... in that case over 400 calories off at just 13% BF.. given the scenario i listed

[Reed]

bump this up. lets debate this guys.

The Harris Benedict formula is almost a 100 years old

[eatrainrest]

my opinion is the flat BMR number is almost identical. there are many flaws using the benedict formula because people do now know how many kcals they burn through activity. i think that is hard for most people who dont have a monitor. for me, i know how many cals i burn through warmup/cardioo and estimate based on my Recovery HR between sets because through my training these are how many cals you burn (although they may vary)

100 BPM-250 cals/half hour-this is 1:20 seconds rest time for me
125 BPM-500 cals/half hour-i dont do this as this is more circuit routine to expel alot of calories/muscle glycogen.

generally speaking, either way the personj has to alter their caloric intake based on their CURRENT diet, and this is what i believe to be the downfall. either people over or undereat significantly.. i personally think if one is serious, that there are programs spywizard has one, that can actually calculate to the T, how many cals is expelled. ive used the method i prposed, and have found it to be a great tool because i burn around 800-900 calories through activity and i add around that to my BMR, and it has worked for me so i will play off of my current numbers, using the 2nd method.

[Reed]

Well also have the KatMc formula:
The Katch-McArdle formula calculates BMR based on lean body weight. So you will first need to obtain a ACCURATE body fat measurement

BMR: is the amount of energy expended while at rest in a neutrally temperate environment

BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)


Then, using the BMR, TDEE is calculated using the activity multiplier:

TDEE: total daily energy expenditure
Activity Multiplier:

Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
Extr. active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training)






Then another I came across another the Miffin equation:
For men: BMR (REE) = 5 + 10(wt) + 6.25 (ht) – 5 (age)
For women: BMR (REE) = -161 + 10 (wt) + 6.25 (ht) – 5 (age)

but I can put that one to bed real fast just like the Benedict formula

Validity of predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in US and Dutch overweight and obese class I and II adults aged 18-65 y.

Validity of predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in US and Dutch overweight and obese class I and II adults aged 18-65 y.

Weijs PJ.
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, University of Applied Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [email protected]
BACKGROUND: Individual energy requirements of overweight and obese adults can often not be measured by indirect calorimetry. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to analyze which resting energy expenditure (REE) predictive equation was the best alternative to indirect calorimetry in US and Dutch adults aged 18-65 y with a body mass index (in kg/m(2)) of 25 to 40. DESIGN: Predictive equations based on weight, height, sex, age, fat-free mass, and fat mass were tested. REE in Dutch adults was measured with indirect calorimetry, and published data from the Institute of Medicine were used for US adults. The accuracy of the equations was evaluated on the basis of the percentage of subjects predicted within 10% of the REE measured, the root mean squared prediction error (RMSE), and the mean percentage difference (bias) between predicted and measured REE. RESULTS: Twenty-seven predictive equations (9 of which were based on FFM) were included. Validation was based on 180 women and 158 men from the United States and on 154 women and 54 men from the Netherlands aged <65 y with a body mass index (in kg/m(2)) of 25 to 40. Most accurate and precise for the US adults was the Mifflin equation (prediction accuracy: 79%; bias: -1.0%; RMSE: 136 kcal/d), for overweight Dutch adults was the FAO/WHO/UNU weight equation (prediction accuracy: 68%; bias: -2.5%; RMSE: 178), and for obese Dutch adults was the Lazzer equation (prediction accuracy: 69%; bias: -3.0%; RMSE: 215 kcal/d). CONCLUSIONS: For US adults aged 18-65 y with a body mass index of 25 to 40, the REE can best be estimated with the Mifflin equation. For overweight and obese Dutch adults, there appears to be no accurate equation.
PMID: 18842782 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

[Reed]

I know this study about the accuracy of the Harris formula is on hospitalized patients but none the less a good read

Accurate determination of energy needs in hospitalized patients.

Boullata J, Williams J, Cottrell F, Hudson L, Compher C.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6096, USA. [email protected]
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of seven predictive equations, including the Harris-Benedict and the Mifflin equations, against measured resting energy expenditure (REE) in hospitalized patients, including patients with obesity and critical illness. DESIGN: A retrospective evaluation using the nutrition support service database of a patient cohort from a similar timeframe as those used to develop the Mifflin equations. SUBJECTS/SETTING: All patients with an ordered nutrition assessment who underwent indirect calorimetry at our institution over a 1-year period were included. INTERVENTION: Available data was applied to REE predictive equations, and results were compared to REE measurements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy was defined as predictions within 90% to 110% of the measured REE. Differences >10% or 250 kcal from REE were considered clinically unacceptable. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: Regression analysis was performed to identify variables that may predict accuracy. Limits-of-agreement analysis was carried out to describe the level of bias for each equation. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients, mostly white (61%) and African American (36%), were included in this analysis. Mean age+/-standard deviation was 56+/-18 years (range 16 to 92 years) in this group, and mean body mass index was 24+/-5.6 (range 13 to 53). Measured REE was 1,617+/-355 kcal/day for the entire group, 1,790+/-397 kcal/day in the obese group (n=51), and 1,730+/-402 kcal/day in the critically ill group (n=141). The most accurate prediction was the Harris-Benedict equation when a factor of 1.1 was multiplied to the equation (Harris-Benedict 1.1), but only in 61% of all the patients, with significant under- and over-predictions. In the patients with obesity, the Harris-Benedict equation using actual weight was most accurate, but only in 62% of patients; and in the critically ill patients the Harris-Benedict 1.1 was most accurate, but only in 55% of patients. The bias was also lowest with Harris-Benedict 1.1 (mean error -9 kcal/day, range +403 to -421 kcal/day); but errors across all equations were clinically unacceptable. CONCLUSIONS: No equation accurately predicted REE in most hospitalized patients. Without a reliable predictive equation, only indirect calorimetry will provide accurate assessment of energy needs. Although indirect calorimetry is considered the standard for assessing REE in hospitalized patients, several predictive equations are commonly used in practice. Their accuracy in hospitalized patients has been questioned. This study evaluated several of these equations, and found that even the most accurate equation (the Harris-Benedict 1.1) was inaccurate in 39% of patients and had an unacceptably high error. Without knowing which patient's REE is being accurately predicted, indirect calorimetry may still be necessary in difficult to manage hospitalized patients.
PMID: 17324656 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

[Reed]

Looking into studies on the Katch Ardie formula and its accuracy

Only thing I got so far is wikipedia

which states that the more accurate formula IS the Katch-Ardie formula as it takes in account the differene in metabolic activity between lean body mass and body fat. The goal for all us is of course more lean body mass and not so much overall weight. Hence the reason one could hold weight, burn fat, and gain LBM and IMO be the reason for the KatA over the Harris.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_m...ation_formulas

[Reed]

ETR i see you down there

any thoughts, questions, statements, a hello, maybe a kick in the teeth??

[Tigershark]

Great post.

[Reed]

Thanks any one have any studies input or whatever please join the fun.

this can be a healthy debate as we all know there are different roads to the same goal.

I'd like to hear from anyone and everyone!

[Reed]

bump this up again ladies I'm gonna continue on my hunt

[eatrainrest]

lol im looking too.. jammy is wrapped up in studies and idno where phate is...but well keep bumping

[Reed]

There he is, was waiting on something.

I think the studies I pulled are good, I don't think I need to damage the Harris Formula any more That second one gives you the deal. But I might just grab some more.

Phate I know is busy as well.

[eatrainrest]

ETR i see you down there

any thoughts, questions, statements, a hello, maybe a kick in the teeth??

haha i just started reading this now.. ive always posted a flaw within harris benedict even with the example i made shows a 430 calorie difference ED! this could be detrimental to somboedy and an ovious over-estimate... my advice would be to find out their daily caloric expenditure, as this would be th emost accurate. i havent tried any othe rmethod, but the one you proposed looks better because of the LBM. but you still need accurate body fat % to calculate that, right or am i mistaken?

[eatrainrest]

Well also have the KatMc formula:
The Katch-McArdle formula calculates BMR based on lean body weight. So you will first need to obtain a ACCURATE body fat measurement

BMR: is the amount of energy expended while at rest in a neutrally temperate environment

BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)


Then, using the BMR, TDEE is calculated using the activity multiplier:

TDEE: total daily energy expenditure
Activity Multiplier:

Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
Extr. active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training)






Then another I came across another the Miffin equation:
For men: BMR (REE) = 5 + 10(wt) + 6.25 (ht) – 5 (age)
For women: BMR (REE) = -161 + 10 (wt) + 6.25 (ht) – 5 (age)

but I can put that one to bed real fast just like the Benedict formula

Validity of predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in US and Dutch overweight and obese class I and II adults aged 18-65 y.

Validity of predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in US and Dutch overweight and obese class I and II adults aged 18-65 y.

Weijs PJ.
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, University of Applied Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands. [email protected]
BACKGROUND: Individual energy requirements of overweight and obese adults can often not be measured by indirect calorimetry. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to analyze which resting energy expenditure (REE) predictive equation was the best alternative to indirect calorimetry in US and Dutch adults aged 18-65 y with a body mass index (in kg/m(2)) of 25 to 40. DESIGN: Predictive equations based on weight, height, sex, age, fat-free mass, and fat mass were tested. REE in Dutch adults was measured with indirect calorimetry, and published data from the Institute of Medicine were used for US adults. The accuracy of the equations was evaluated on the basis of the percentage of subjects predicted within 10% of the REE measured, the root mean squared prediction error (RMSE), and the mean percentage difference (bias) between predicted and measured REE. RESULTS: Twenty-seven predictive equations (9 of which were based on FFM) were included. Validation was based on 180 women and 158 men from the United States and on 154 women and 54 men from the Netherlands aged <65 y with a body mass index (in kg/m(2)) of 25 to 40. Most accurate and precise for the US adults was the Mifflin equation (prediction accuracy: 79%; bias: -1.0%; RMSE: 136 kcal/d), for overweight Dutch adults was the FAO/WHO/UNU weight equation (prediction accuracy: 68%; bias: -2.5%; RMSE: 178), and for obese Dutch adults was the Lazzer equation (prediction accuracy: 69%; bias: -3.0%; RMSE: 215 kcal/d). CONCLUSIONS: For US adults aged 18-65 y with a body mass index of 25 to 40, the REE can best be estimated with the Mifflin equation. For overweight and obese Dutch adults, there appears to be no accurate equation.
PMID: 18842782 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

looks like i just answered my own question, anytime you have LBM in the equation (my formula and this formula), you will yield more accurate results.

[Reed]

Exactly and you will not need to adjust so much for peeps.


There are efficient ways of measuring body comp that people are not aware of that are easy and accessible


I'm sure several if not most local universities offer the bod pod: http://www.bodpod.com/

mine does, read that

[eatrainrest]

^^looks lieka very great tool, i will have to look into local universities here to find it, ive been wanting to get a very accurate test in a long time. until then i will rely on my fellow trainers to pinch me lol.

[eatrainrest]

Reed, i wont have time for a while on this but if you want to use the same statistics supported from the first 2 porposed methods, and plug them in for you rmethod this way i can post it up and edit the first post and we could show the caloric differences

[jrmy]

are there any guys on here that can personally help with a diet?
also will a doctor accuratly measure my body fat and body mass or where would i have to get this done?