Is it time to update TDEE stickies?

[austinite]

Original TDEE calculation and (LBM x 15) result in drastically different results. Thoughts?

[Times Roman]

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.

[GirlyGymRat]

is there a another way to calculate TDEE so that we have more than one option?

[Times Roman]

some use a 14x or 15x lbm to calculate. but even that is flawed since adjustements are needed. no method will ever be perfect.

[austinite]

There is this method: http://forums.steroid .com/showthread.php?483452-TDEE-Total-Daily-Energy-Expenditure#.UGeaz5jA_wk

And there is LBM x 15

[Times Roman]

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.

[MickeyKnox]

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

[GirlyGymRat]

^^^ 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.

[MickeyKnox]

^^^ 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.

[fatman225]

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.

[--->>405<<---]

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.

[fatman225]

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.

Also, just for keeping it simple, LBM x 15 is an easier formula to use.