Moderately Active (going with the PAL definition of "moderate"): HB is overestimated at 1924.Īnd you can see that the PAL (If I've seen that before, it was a loooong time ago - I've always used either of the formulas above instead of the wiki page multipliers) drastically overestimates for me as well. If I go to "moderate" activity (which is only "moderate exercise 3-5days/week"), Mifflin is underestimated at 1736 (My actual average hovers right at 1850). Using Harris-Benedict, it's 1490 (and HB is the accurate one here). So it made more sense to add to a sedentary burn number. Not RMR, because then I'd also have to add in brushing my teeth and driving and. ![]() Then to find my sedentary burn to add to. IIRC, the 150 was the number the treadmill returned, I was pretty naive when I started!) (example, I was trying to cut with no results because although I was running 6 miles 3x a week and 10 on saturday, I was calculating at 150cal/mile!! It's actually 80. To figure out my exercise calories burned, I would get an average from several websites, and recheck periodically to get my numbers to match my results. Which was also a year's worth of trial and error to figure out. That's why I never use the multipliers I just add exercise to my sedentary. Which, according to the PAL link, is "sedentary".ĭoes my activity level sound like sedentary to you?! First off, there is a gap between "light" and "moderate" - and that's where my true averages fall. When I use any of the multipliers, I can never find the right one. Sundays I rack up the same amount of burn as weekdays just cleaning. I have an office job, some days I'm running around (up and down stairs between suites) but that's maybe 4 days out of the month. I lift for an hour 2x a week, bike/run for 45-60 minutes 4x a week, and I chart calories burned in a spreadsheet. Did you find one of the two models more accurate than the other? What kind of lifestyle do you live and does the description of the right multiplier for you match its description? I'm interested in your personal experiences with these kind of calculations and multipliers. There is some (significant) variance in metabolic rates, but it would still be low if it was the mean. I've always found the 1.2-1.9 range very low because it would mean that a regular guy would only need 2100 calories per day with a sedentary lifestyle. I recommend reading the whole page – it's very interesting. Here is another quote from an interesting site from the articles linked on the Wikipedia PAL page (emphasis mine):Ī meta-analysis of studies that involved a total of 411 men and women from 18 to 64 years of age showed a modal value for PAL of 1.60 (range 1.55 to 1.65) for both men and women (Black et al., 1996) What's even more interesting is that sedentary people are in the range 1.4 - 1.69, again a lot more than the standard 1.2 you find everywhere. The range of multipliers we find in a table of examples reach from 1.4 to 2.4, quite a bit greater than the ones most people use. The last part of the quote links to the page about the physical activity level. ![]() To calculate daily calorie needs, the BMR value is multiplied by a factor with a value between 1.2 and 1.9, depending on the person's physical activity level. The Wikipedia page on basal metabolic rate says (emphasis mine): I've been doing a bit of research and found that the commonly used activity level multipliers (1.2 - 1.9) apparently aren't the same that are used in science.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |