PDA

View Full Version : Harris-Benedict



HemiVision
06-18-2004, 11:02 AM
Is anyone using this formula to calculate calorie requirements? Does it work for you?

geoffgarcia
06-18-2004, 11:09 AM
HB doesn't calculate calorie requirements, its a BMR calculator. From there you'll need to add in your activity level.

its a staple..there are similar formulas you could use also, they all tend to be within 1% of each other.

HB "will be very accurate in all but the very muscular (Harris-Benedict will under-estimate calorie needs) and the very fat (Harris-Benedict will over-estimate calorie needs)"

here is a full HB calculator that takes into account activity level.
http://www.businessplanforthebody.com/plans_metabolism_men.asp
The BIGGEST variations come in picking your activity level and there are a zillion variations from this. There are generally 4-5 levels, and I've seen charts with the highest level as low as 1.4 and some that have it at 1.95

The multiplier on that page is fairly accurate for me.
I workout 3-4 times per week, and it accurately predicted my activity calories at 3217, which is +/- 50 calories of what I would have guessed it at (after having monitored/studied my diet/weight relationship for a few months)

HemiVision
06-18-2004, 11:24 AM
HB doesn't calculate calorie requirements, its a BMR calculator. From there you'll need to add in your activity level.

its a staple..there are similar formulas you could use also, they all tend to be within 1% of each other.

HB "will be very accurate in all but the very muscular (Harris-Benedict will under-estimate calorie needs) and the very fat (Harris-Benedict will over-estimate calorie needs)"

here is a full HB calculator that takes into account activity level.
http://www.businessplanforthebody.com/plans_metabolism_men.asp
The BIGGEST variations come in picking your activity level and there are a zillion variations from this. There are generally 4-5 levels, and I've seen charts with the highest level as low as 1.4 and some that have it at 1.95

The multiplier on that page is fairly accurate for me.
I workout 3-4 times per week, and it accurately predicted my activity calories at 3217, which is +/- 50 calories of what I would have guessed it at (after having monitored/studied my diet/weight relationship for a few months)

Thanks for the link. According to this calculator, my BMR would be burning just over 2000 cals a day. Because I get some form of exercise just about every day, this suggests I need to eat a lot more than the 2200 calorie diet I've been using to cut.

Once the activity level comes into the equation the calorie requirements seem high to me - certainly a lot higher than people on this forum tend to recommend.

Mademan118
06-18-2004, 11:30 AM
it says i need 3089 cals a day to maintan. to cut that will be 2500 cals. THat seems like its pretty off to me. I need anywhere from 1800-2100 cals a day to cut, as my metabolism isnt as fast as it seems even though i workout 3-4 times a week.

HemiVision
06-18-2004, 11:34 AM
it says i need 3089 cals a day to maintan. to cut that will be 2500 cals. THat seems like its pretty off to me. I need anywhere from 1800-2100 cals a day to cut, as my metabolism isnt as fast as it seems even though i workout 3-4 times a week.

Yes - I was bulking at the number of calories this says I need for maintenance... and even then I put on more fat than I'd have liked.

geoffgarcia
06-18-2004, 11:37 AM
According to this calculator, my BMR would be burning just over 2000 cals a day. Because I get some form of exercise just about every day, this suggests I need to eat a lot more than the 2200 calorie diet I've been using to cut.
the link I sent you factors your activity into the BMR, so your bmr you'd have to deduct the activity.


a lot higher than people on this forum tend to recommend.
not everyone on this forum knows what they are doing in terms of diet...
a lot of people just multiply their bodyweight to figure out how much to eat..
anyone you see posting this typa recommendation you can pretty much ignore...some people are doing special diets such as UD2 that are based on lower caloric intake...I'm not sold on them.



it says i need 3089 cals a day to maintan. to cut that will be 2500 cals. THat seems like its pretty off to me. I need anywhere from 1800-2100 cals a day to cut, as my metabolism isnt as fast as it seems even though i workout 3-4 times a week.
how long have you been monitoring your diet/weight relationship?
1800 calories for someone at 180lbs is less than your body would need if ur in a coma...eating low calories for a prolonged period of time will lower your metabolism...however this isn't a desirable state as your body will start to triage the calories...NOT an ideal situation...

HemiVision
06-18-2004, 11:41 AM
no, the link I sent you factors your activity into the BMR, so your bmr you'd have to deduct the activity.

That's what I did - divided the final number by the multiplier to see what the straight BMR was. I also tried doing the equation manually and it came out to the same thing.

Augury
06-18-2004, 04:29 PM
not everyone on this forum knows what they are doing in terms of diet...a lot of people just multiply their bodyweight to figure out how much to eat..anyone you see posting this typa recommendation you can pretty much ignore...

Harsh. I think its fairer to say that general rules of thumb have their place, but should be taken for what they are: generalizations. If you are starting a bulk then 16-18 cals per lb of bodyweight is a good place to start depending on how you judge your own metabolism speed. Start is the operative word. Any form of bulking or cutting involves monitoring your weight gain/loss and then adjusting your calories to achieve the steady growth or loss you are shooting for. To say that people who use rules of thumb for a place to start should be ignored is a little odd.

geoffgarcia
06-18-2004, 07:39 PM
Harsh. I think its fairer to say that general rules of thumb have their place, but should be taken for what they are: generalizations. To say that people who use rules of thumb for a place to start should be ignored is a little odd.
harsh would be giving teh multiplication nonsense to a 17 year old 6'5 dude at 190lb and 8% bf in peak testosterone growing years and expecting the same results on a 45 year old woman thats 5'3 and 190lbs and 45% bf....

reality is harsh :whiner:
and this is why there are so many posts on here by people saying how they can't gain weight or lose weight and their diets aren't working anymore...and you ask how they came to their numbers and their like I just multiplied by 14 and waved the magic wand!

when it takes just as long to tell someone how to do it right I don't see why people give that kinda poopy answer ...I've seen f-tards on here advise others to cut at 10x bw, and other people advise bulking at 12x without having any clue about age/height/bf/activity level/gender etc....
I'm just trying to be helpful!
;)