whats the point of inputting weight in TDEE? nothing fucking changes>input stats in TDEE>6'0 200 lbs>durr 1600 calories for cutting>6'0 250 lbs>durrrrr same 1600 calories for cuttingits fucking pointless. whats the point of inputting stats? just cut at 1600 unless you're a fucking girl
>>77143226It's a good starting point.Next step is measuring the weight difference week to week. Seeing how far it is off your projections then readjusting the target. You do this from week 2 on because the water and glycogen loss in week 1 will give you an erroneously high target otherwise.
Just listen to your body, you're not a thermodynamics closed system. Not all calories are the same, and even if you want to break it down to a more reasonable count of macros by gram, not all proteins, lipids and carbohydrates are the same and arent ingested the same by your body.
>>77143226I just tried this on the first tdee calculator on Google and got 1968 for a cut at 250lbs and 1696 at 200lbs.
>>77143268>Not all calories are the samelol
>>77143226>whats the point of inputting weight in TDEE? nothing fucking changesyour calculator is shitty and wrongit absolutely should changeand alsoliterally every calculator misunderstand the activity levelthe original research paper for TDEE was using blue collar worker as referencewhich 1h weightlifting absolutely doesn't compare to (maybe like 1h rowing)
a calculator is no goodtrack your calories and watch your weight m what you eat normally should average to maintenance unless you're fat
>>77143283Yes. In the context of nutrition, not only is it impossible to even estimate calories or count them but your body doesn't treat all foods equally. Cooking and freezing takes away a lot also.
>>77143226what's this website?
>>77143332weight fluctuates too much just measure your waist
>>77143226>activity level: moderate Unless you do 30m cardio on top of lifting AND you do 20k steps a day, you aren't moderate.
>>77143226maybe don't use a shitty calculator? Also it should be giving you different TDEEs, meaning that on a 1600kcal diet the deficit should be different.You are getting hung up on pointless fluff, this stuff works on massive approximations and it should just serve as a starting point to better understand you metabolism, don't fixate on the exact numbers
>>77144704Anyone?
>>77143335So that's your excuse for still being fat?
>>77143226>haven't done a calculated cut in a decade>wonder why my cut at 1800 isn't moving the needle, I distinctly remember cutting there in 2016>check the websites, all calculations now point at 1650what the fuck is this shit?
>>77144704>>77145412bro it's 2026, feed this image into chatgpt and it'll spit out the formula used and literally make a bespoke website for you.
>>77147261As if I didn't try that.
