Harris Benedict Formula

[mindarchitect]

I gave LeanMeOut's diet post a good read. Fairly standard stuff relative to the vast body of information available on bodybuilding dieting. Regarding the Harris Benedict formula provided in the post, the main flaw I noticed is that the formula is based on bodyweight. Given that muscle mass increases calorie load while fat does not, its a bit misleading to simply use bodyweight. Does anyone have a favorite formula they like to use?

I've been on a CKD diet for the past 6 weeks so I've no idea where my maintenance calories would be on a standard bulking diet macro ratio. Does anyone have a more accurate formula to use as a base for maintenance calories when switching diets?

[mindarchitect]

Did some googling and found a formula that takes into account lean body mass, its called Katch-McArdle. It goes BMR=370+9.79*lbm_in_lbs. Compared to the Harris-Benedict formula, I get a nearly equal BMR if I assume my lean body mass equals my body weight, or in other words, I have 0% body fat. So for my height and age, Katch-McArdle tends to give lower numbers.

[-KJ-]

The Katch-McCardle formula is better IMO.. Baseline also has a good thread on maintenance calories.

[gbrice75]

^^ THIS. K-M is more accurate as it's calculations are based on LBM, H-B is based on total bodyweight.

With that said, I personally find both to always come out way too high. The problem is with the activity multiplier; it's subjective and leaves too much room for error. What you consider 'very active' might be very different from what I consider it.

A very easy but general guide is LBM x 15 = maintenance calories. Realize this is a starting point and will most definitely need monitoring and adjustment. However, that will be the case with ANY formula you use, including either of the two mentioned above. At the end of the day you have to watch your body to see how it responds, and adjust accordingly until you're dialed in.

As mentioned by KJ, Baseline made a handy chart and it follows the pattern of the general LBM x 15 formula, but does the math for you.

[-KJ-]

Much better put than I GB

[mindarchitect]

^^ THIS. K-M is more accurate as it's calculations are based on LBM, H-B is based on total bodyweight.

With that said, I personally find both to always come out way too high. The problem is with the activity multiplier; it's subjective and leaves too much room for error. What you consider 'very active' might be very different from what I consider it.

A very easy but general guide is LBM x 15 = maintenance calories. Realize this is a starting point and will most definitely need monitoring and adjustment. However, that will be the case with ANY formula you use, including either of the two mentioned above. At the end of the day you have to watch your body to see how it responds, and adjust accordingly until you're dialed in.

As mentioned by KJ, Baseline made a handy chart and it follows the pattern of the general LBM x 15 formula, but does the math for you.

On activity multiplier I agree, way too much a slack factor. The formula is only useful if it gets within 5%, but I think the slack factor is as high as 15%, which means for a 3000cal/day diet, 1lb of fat/week.

Could you post the link to baseline's thread? I only see one thread by baseline on tren. Thanks.

[gbrice75]

Here you go mate. You probably searched the wrong Baseline.

http://forums.steroid.com/showthread...ine-s-Guide-**

[jfalco]

^^ THIS. K-M is more accurate as it's calculations are based on LBM, H-B is based on total bodyweight.

With that said, I personally find both to always come out way too high. The problem is with the activity multiplier; it's subjective and leaves too much room for error. What you consider 'very active' might be very different from what I consider it.

A very easy but general guide is LBM x 15 = maintenance calories. Realize this is a starting point and will most definitely need monitoring and adjustment. However, that will be the case with ANY formula you use, including either of the two mentioned above. At the end of the day you have to watch your body to see how it responds, and adjust accordingly until you're dialed in.

As mentioned by KJ, Baseline made a handy chart and it follows the pattern of the general LBM x 15 formula, but does the math for you.

Great post.

For me LMB x 15 would have weight flying off me. I eat well above what any formula predicts my tdee would be and I don't gain weight. I eat 2900 kcal and my lbm is only 140 lbs. Last time I bulked I had to hit 3500 and cut out cardio before I gained a pound. Everyone is different. Some people are very close to the formulas others aren't anywhere near them. Only real way to know what your body will do is to watch your diet and your body and experiment.

[Str8Jakked]

Some people are very close to the formulas others aren't anywhere near them. Only real way to know what your body will do is to watch your diet and your body and experiment.

Well said, I myself did a lot of research between the two (Harris Benedict and Katch-McCardle) and after 15 years of experimenting I now know my body and how it reacts regarding diet- I could give someone with my exact stats my exact diet and they might respond the same, somewhat differently or it may not even work for them at all.

[gbrice75]

Well said, I myself did a lot of research between the two (Harris Benedict and Katch-McCardle) and after 15 years of experimenting I now know my body and how it reacts regarding diet- I could give someone with my exact stats my exact diet and they might respond the same, somewhat differently or it may not even work for them at all.

Exactly. Sometimes it takes a really long time to find your 'sweet spot', but once you do you can feel confident that you can manipulate it either way to meet your goals.

[nguadagno]

i did the one formula in the bulking thread where its something like 55+(LBM in kg X whatever)+(5 x whatever) that one and it came out to 3300 and if i do it this way it comes out to 1875, so i dont really know which one to use