You are reading a single comment by @danb and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
danb-
No, "These formulas are based on body weight, which does not take into account the difference in metabolic activity between lean body mass and body fat. Other formulas exist which take into account lean body mass, two of which are the Katch-McArdle formula, and Cunningham formula."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
That's what I mean by it being the best estimate, since I don't have DXA scans etc to work off.
ie. Oshima:
REE (men & women) = 2.3 x bone mineral weight + 4.5 x adipose tissue weight + 13 x skeletal muscle weight + 54 x rest weight*
hippy
MFP vs. Harris-Benedict equation for BMR?
MFP seems to dish out quite low BMR values, ie. 1500 cal for me. Watching some diet show the other night they were using 1500 cal for a 5'4" woman so I reckon 1500 is maybe too low for moi.
If I use Harris-B equation:
REE (men) 66.5 + 13.75 x weightKG + 5.003 x heightCM - 6.775 x ageYEARS
my BMR is over 2000 cal at my current weight.
So, assuming HB equation is the most accurate I can get without testing, should I up my MFP value to match it?
Reading this:
http://suppversity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-female-athlete-triad-part-iiiiii.html
"If you take a look a the way the luteinizing hormone secretion becomes impaired, when your energy intake goes below a critical threshold of roughly 30kcal/kg (for men you will see probably see your T-levels plummet if you go below this level - diet or not!), it should be obvious that your first step towards recovery is to increase your basal energy intake, i.e. the amount of energy you consume irrespective of your daily energy expenditure, above this critical threshold."
30kcal/kg is WAY more, like 2800 calories!
So on one hand I lose weight, but on the other hand I turn into a woman?