Calculating Daily Cals

[Ronin]

This is just a wee spreadsheet I threw together to help with working out daily maintenance cals. Thought someone else may get some benefit from it too. As you can see there is quite a bit of variance between Cunningham, Katch-McArdle and Harris-Bennedict, so there is still a need for a bit of interpretation. Cunningham sems to be the more comprehensive of the 3, but also seems to return the highest levels.

Harris-Bennedict is probably the least use to memebers of this site as it doesn't allow for differences in body comp, but could be useful for someone who hasn't had their BF% measured.

Should be pretty simple to use, just put your numbers into the grey boxes, get answers in the yellow ones. Oh and, best not to play around with the numbers on page 4.

Calorie Calc.xls

[Pseudonym]

You, sir, have far too much time on your hands. And I thanks you for it!

I had planned to make a javascript calculator for the site based on the Cunningham equation, but I wasn't sure it was the best equation to use, and I never got the time to do it anyway.

Very interesting comparing the three formulae though.

Harris-Benedict: 3100cal

Katch-McArdle: 3200cal

Cunningham: 3590 - 3920cal :shock:

[Ronin]

You, sir, have far too much time on your hands.

Yeah the benefits of a summer flu. Figured I'd make the most of it. Between :puke: and :toilet:

I like the Cunningham for it's thoroughness, but the end result frightens me. I'm aiming for calorie defecit at the moment, and if I go 500 below my cunningham total, that still puts me above the Katch-McArdle figure :shock:

[Specter]

For cunningham leave out TEF and the end figure is more realistic though the RMR is still higher. TEF is irrelvant anyway. If you want to use a formula based on LBM but dont know your BF%, for fat loss one way is to use the BF% you want to be at, ie if you want to be 16% use 16% in the equation and dont bother with a calorie deficit.

[Douchebag]

For cunningham leave out TEF and the end figure is more realistic though the RMR is still higher. TEF is irrelvant anyway. If you want to use a formula based on LBM but dont know your BF%, for fat loss one way is to use the BF% you want to be at, ie if you want to be 16% use 16% in the equation and dont bother with a calorie deficit.

:clap:

Still higher than the other two though.

[rose]

For cunningham leave out TEF and the end figure is more realistic though the RMR is still higher. TEF is irrelvant anyway. If you want to use a formula based on LBM but dont know your BF%, for fat loss one way is to use the BF% you want to be at, ie if you want to be 16% use 16% in the equation and dont bother with a calorie deficit.

Still higher than the other two though.

Agree on all counts. TEF is irrelelvant and inflates Cunningham something chronic when it's already above the others at the RMR stage of the calculation, which makes me wonder whether RMR is different to BMR. Hmmm, just found this:

BMR is measured under very restrictive circumstances when a person is awake. An accurate BMR measurement requires that the person's sympathetic nervous system not be stimulated, such a condition whose prerequisite is that of complete rest. A more common and closely related measurement, used under less strict conditions, is resting metabolic rate (RMR).

Helps explain the difference in the results somewhat. RMR is likely accounting for some stimulation whereas BMR is just lying in bed doing nothing cabbage status. It's therefore something to take into account when choosing activity level if using Cunningham.

[Douchebag]

^ Thanks.

[haakuturi]

Agree on all counts. TEF is irrelelvant and inflates Cunningham something chronic when it's already above the others at the RMR stage of the calculation, which makes me wonder whether RMR is different to BMR. Hmmm, just found this:

omg acronyms! >mind explodes<

[rose]

omg acronyms!

Don't blame me! :pfft:

TEF - Thermal Effect of Food

RMR - Resting Metabolic Rate

BMR - Basal Metabolic Rate

BMR is not equal to RMR. Essentially BMR is bed ridden vegetable status. RMR is not.

:grin:

[haakuturi]

lol good times

So my BMR = 1772 kcal; how does that work out into a daily intake? Surely I shouldn't be eating less than 1700 kcal to lose weight? O_o

[teamfatboy]

lol good times

So my BMR = 1772 kcal; how does that work out into a daily intake? Surely I shouldn't be eating less than 1700 kcal to lose weight? O_o

Nope, the equations all call to multiply by an activity factor...

Grab the spreadsheet in the first post, and you'll see that (if you discount the TEF in Cunningham) most of them will come out not too far apart.

The good news is "way more than 1772 cals" (oh, and 5'5" eq 165cm)

[Beef]

For cunningham leave out TEF and the end figure is more realistic though the RMR is still higher. TEF is irrelvant anyway. If you want to use a formula based on LBM but dont know your BF%, for fat loss one way is to use the BF% you want to be at, ie if you want to be 16% use 16% in the equation and dont bother with a calorie deficit.

what happened to specter? :-s

[haakuturi]

Cripes - apparently just under 3000cal for a non-training day and just over 3100cal on a training day!

Glad to see I don't need to drop under 2000 for any reason lol

[NZresident1]

Hi peeps research has come up with a newbie as Harris Benedict over estimates and under estimates if you want to read which google it.

The new formula is Mifflin St Jeor eqaution try it out google it and it will talk you through it

Nice spready looks like one of my late 90's early 2000 versions lol

I have done up a range of periodisation plans and nutrition equations in excel may have to dig out a few and post