Original TDEE calculation and (LBM x 15) result in drastically different results. Thoughts?
Printable View
Original TDEE calculation and (LBM x 15) result in drastically different results. Thoughts?
Maybe. TDEE is always going to be flawed due to aproximations on activity levels, and just general differences in BMR between individuals. LBM x 15 is also going to be flawed for the same reasons. No matter what you do, you are going to have to make adjustments to find true equalibrium to TDEE.
is there a another way to calculate TDEE so that we have more than one option?
some use a 14x or 15x lbm to calculate. but even that is flawed since adjustements are needed. no method will ever be perfect.
There is this method: http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?483452-TDEE-Total-Daily-Energy-Expenditure#.UGeaz5jA_wk
And there is LBM x 15
the "LBM X" is also not precise
some use 14, others 15 as the multiplier. but again, adjustments are still necessary to find your own equilibrium point.
most important variable is choosing the correct activity level, or at least most certainty the one that's most often incorrectly selected. walking your dog once a night for a pee doesn't automatically put you at level 4
^^^ i workout about 5 days per week about 8 hours in total, but i sit behind a desk and therefore i am sedentary! 15 mutlipler is too high for me.
yup. im in the same boat as you.Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlyGymRat
Interesting, I was going with the TDEE from the old sticky, and was around 2700 calories for TDEE, BUT I have been cutting at 1200 to 1600, recently upped to 1700 (reverse taper as I get leaner).
I used the x 15, and x 14 to be very conservative and got 2550 and 2380.
Fortunately even at a lower TDEE of 2380, I'd still be moving in the right direction, losing more than 1 pound of fat a week eating 1700 calories a day.
from the calculations ive done, speaking only for myself, the original TDEE in the sticky (or better the katch.mcardle) always required a deficit of 800-950cals. this approach, while it worked, i dont like because people get too familiar with gaining comfort with an extremely high deficit. in reality i dont believe the deficit was actually that great (800-950cals) but thats what u had to set it at to see progress. the reason being is the activity multiplier IMO was set too high.
using the katch/mcardle formula and LBM x 15 i compared the 2 and figured out for myself LBM x 15 was closer and the multiplier i had to use with katch to get it to match (LBM x 15) was 1.26 NOT 1.55
LBM x 15 is the easiest and, IMO if anything, is going to err to the side of being a touch low on average. this i believe to be better than erring to the side of high.
For sure, especially when cutting.Quote:
Originally Posted by --->>405<<---
Also, just for keeping it simple, LBM x 15 is an easier formula to use.