Resting Metabolic Rate

Hi all, On the back of the podcast with Jesss, loved the original successful athletes podcast and then last nights how to become faster similar repeat.

Want to check my numbers a bit.

I found the following… https://blog.nasm.org/nutrition/resting-metabolic-rate-how-to-calculate-and-improve-yours .

Men: BMR = 88.362 + (13.397 x69) + (4.799 x 168) - (5.677 x 46) = 1557 calories

For me this adds up to 1557, allot lower than what Jonathan mentioned (2200),

does this 1557 number sound/look correct for someone my age/size, I’m pretty fit in that |I’ve been on TR for 4.5 yrs, now, ftp of 250 at the moment, normally 4 workouts per week, indoor and trying 1 or 2 rides a weekend. plan is to loose 4Kg in next 2 months, which is probably not realistic either, average resting HR of 50. (wear a Garmin watch).

… Update, just saw the formula above.
Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) for males (kcal/day) = (9.99 x 69) + (6.25 x 168) – (4.92 x 46) + 5=231.32
would that be 231.32 kCal -> 2313 calories ?
again, 2 significant different numbers.
some guidance please, trying to determine a accurate’ish number to use as part of diet plan/tracking.

G

2 Likes

There is calculator in the weight loss thread spreadsheet, uses the three main equations.

Mifflin St Jeor (1990) is considered the most accurate from the research I have read.

1 Like

I scanned through the threads under nutrition, nothing pops out as the thread with this spread sheet.
can you point/link me to the correct thread please.

G

1 Like

Hi

when I studied for a diploma in Sports Nutrition, the formula we were provided was as your first formula. Or you can keep is simple and say(roughly) 10cals for every lb of body weigh as a rougher estimate.

And this is your BMR - ie the cals you need to maintain if you did nothing

Thanks, then whats up with that second formula, also posted on the thread re the podcast, which implies RMR. which one do I now say is what I should look at working on as from where I create a deficit from.

G

I just tried the first formula with my numbers and it gave me a much lower number than I think is realistic. I know this from tracking my calories and weight for a couple of years.

Everyone’s different though and these formulas are no doubt the outcome of averaging data sets. So plenty of people will be +/- the figures given by the calculator I would assume.

have you tried the 2nd formula I posted, that was also posted as part of the thread related to the podcast,

how does that compare against your know values.

G

Spreadsheet… 2nd tab/sheet.

1 Like

The 2nd formula gave me a value 50kcals lower than the first.

Both of these formulas’ numbers are the sort of calories I eat on a daily basis to lose 1-2lbs per week, NOT to maintain my weight.

Abstract

A predictive equation for resting energy expenditure (REE) was derived from data from 498 healthy subjects, including females (n = 247) and males (n = 251), aged 19-78 y (45 +/- 14 y, mean +/- SD). Normal-weight (n = 264) and obese (n = 234) individuals were studied and REE was measured by indirect calorimetry. Multiple-regression analyses were employed to drive relationships between REE and weight, height, and age for both men and women (R2 = 0.71): REE = 9.99 x weight + 6.25 x height - 4.92 x age + 166 x sex (males, 1; females, 0) - 161. Simplification of this formula and separation by sex did not affect its predictive value: REE (males) = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5; REE (females) = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) - 161. The inclusion of relative body weight and body-weight distribution did not significantly improve the predictive value of these equations. The Harris-Benedict Equations derived in 1919 overestimated measured REE by 5% (p less than 0.01). Fat-free mass (FFM) was the best single predictor of REE (R2 = 0.64): REE = 19.7 x FFM + 413. Weight also was closely correlated with REE (R2 = 0.56): REE = 15.1 x weight + 371.

1 Like

Here is a link from the weght loss spreadsheet thread with several calculators. They are all estimates and only a starting point. Your individual needs will override.

https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

1 Like

strange, first and 2nd formula gave me 500 cal difference… not though, 2nd formula is in the middle of my writing, not the next line.
Men: BMR = 88.362 + (13.397 x69) + (4.799 x 168) - (5.677 x 46) = 1557 calories
vs
Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) for males (kcal/day) = (9.99 x 69) + (6.25 x 168) – (4.92 x 46) + 5=231.32
Looking at spread sheet, listing about 1580cal/day
G

keep in mind the resting rate is probably lower than what you actually burn in a day. I don’t it accounts for ANY even normal activity that you might perform that would burn calories, like moving around. That would be in addition to any workouts you would add to that. I could be wrong.

2 Likes

Y’all, all of these equations are based on population-level data, so they aren’t going to predict your BMR/RMR with a high degree of accuracy. What works better—track your food intake and exercise (be honest with both), then trim kcals by 200-300 from there. Do that and see what happens to weight/BF%. Adjust accordingly.

In addition, nutrition labels and PA kcal estimates can be off by a lot…kcal estimates on food labels have been shown to be off by 20-30% in some cases. So you’re better off starting from your baseline and making incremental adjustments from there.

1 Like

These estimates do not take into account your activity level. If a person was to try and use these to determine how many calories their body burns a day, you would then need to multiple the number by the activity factor (1.2 for sedentary, 1.375 for light activity, 1.55 moderate activity, 1.725 very active, 1.9 extra activity).

Additionally, these only take into account your body mass, and not whether it is lean body mass vs. fat mass, which would skew the baseline value as well.

Basically these calculations are a good starting point, but should not be taken as gospel.

2 Likes