The amount of calories that your body burns while inactive is referred to as your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). Since exercising makes you active, using your BMR to determine how many calories you need to consume daily is a bad idea.

Instead, you should use Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE), which accounts for how much activity you perform daily.

To calculate your TDEE, use http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

You will never be 100% accurate when it comes to determining how many calories your burn daily, but TDEE is the most simple and accurate method of getting close.

Once you have calculated your TDEE, add 500 and eat that many calories daily to bulk, or subtract 500 and eat that many calories to cut. Of course, you may also maintain your current weight by eating exactly your TDEE.

Whenever your weight changes by 5 pounds, you should recalculate your TDEE and your daily caloric intake to reach your fitness goals in the most efficient manner possible.

>>36478267

Yes obviously I know this. I am asking a specific question.

what happens if i call cheng

>>36478292
Well it varies based on how tall you are, how much you weigh, how much effort you are exerting, what your exact routine is, etc.

Just use TDEE.

>>36478292
how much weight do you use, faggit

>>36478307
i think i'm just gonna do it

>>36478314

Yeah that's true. Fuck it, I'll probably just estimate my TDEE by taking my weight after a month or two. I have it at around 2500 just going off my gut.

Seems like the best way since TDEE calculators give me anywhere from 2000 to 3000 depending on which one i use.

All exercise, but high intensity exercise especially causes your body to burn extra energy for long after you've actually completed the exercise.

This, among other reasons, is why you ironically tend to get a much better calorie estimate by taking your BMR and multiplying it by an "activity level multiplier" than you do by taking your BMR and attempting to add each individual exercise to it.
Obviously though this does only give you an average energy expenditure per day, your body does a pretty good job of saving and spending food energy over the course of days.

>How do you even find out how many calories lifting burns, for that matter?
Per exercise estimates are made by measuring the amount of carbon dioxide a person exhales while they're doing that exercise, because it's the byproduct of metabolism.
Obviously your MOST accurate TDEE measurement would be made by walking around with some kind of measuring machine on your back all day, but I don't think they make those. Plus, it'd throw the readings off when you had to take off the mask to eat.

>>36478390

Really good info. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks man.

Except I have one question

>Tell me, why do you wear that CO2 mask

>>36478390
Oh, another method, but much more prone to error: I don't lose or gain weight when I eat about 2750 calories a day when I'm not exercising. When I get about 6 hours of high intensity lifting a week, that goes up to 3350. 600 extra a day is 4200 extra a week, divided over 6 hours gives roughly 700 calories per hour. It's full body not PPL though.

And here are the typical Harris-Benedict multipliers:

Little to no exercise x1.2
Light exercise (1–3 days per week) x1.375
Moderate exercise (3–5 days per week) x1.55
Heavy exercise (6–7 days per week) x1.725
Very heavy exercise (twice per day, extra heavy workouts) x1.9

>>36478390
>>36478412

Screencapped for future reference. You seem to know a lot about this stuff - do/did you study Nutrition and/or exercise?

>>36478412

> 700 calories per hour

You realise you're trying to claim your weight lifting session burns more calories on average than a marathon runner would burn for an entire race in 1 hour?

>>36478332
What happened? Did you die?

>>36478435
It was extremely painful

>>36478434
Very conservative estimates would put running a marathon at 2000 calories burned.

>>36478458
I bet you're a big guy.

The right answer is ~300

>>36478473
For you.

>>36478434
Not that guy, but how many calories do you think you burn running 26 miles?

Hint: it ends in thousands

>>36478434
>You realise you're trying to claim your weight lifting session burns more calories on average than a marathon runner would burn for an entire race in 1 hour?

>All exercise, but high intensity exercise especially causes your body to burn extra energy for long after you've actually completed the exercise.

I hate to ruin brevity like that, but there are also plenty of potential sources of error, which is why I don't recommend this method. Who knows, since I had time to go to the gym maybe I also did other physical activity that I didn't track well? Maybe I'm undercounting the hours I spent at the gym. Maybe I overcounted calories since I had to have so many of them. etc.

>>36478433
I did actually, I was thinking of going into sports medicine, maybe with a degree in kinesiology, but I quit before I'd even done the first year. I don't think I have much specialized knowledge. I might even be overconfident in the knowledge I have since I received it in a formal environment.

>>36478434

700 calories makes sense based off what he said.

If you burn 100-200 from the actual lifting and then an extra 20-30 calories every hour for that entire day, it puts you at about 700. That would all be from 1 hour of lifting. This isn't unreasonable if he's doing 6 days a week of grueling full body.

>>36478494

> The technical term is “excess post-exercise oxygen consumption” or EPOC

> Researchers found that the greatest EPOC was seen in the 75% group, lasting for about 10.5 hours and resulting in an additional 150 calories burned.

>>36478543

There we go... 150kcal/hour for 10 hours is 1500 kcal just from one lift session.

>>36478555

No, the 150 is the TOTAL burn in 10.5 hours.

So 200 + 100 = 300

>>36478555
I think that's supposed to be total, over the entire 10.5 hour period.
But it's also probably cherry picking. They didn't link a source. Taking bets it was about cardio.
Recovery and muscle growth takes calories too.

700 calories per hour of lifting sounds really high, but it doesn't sound crazy either.

>>36478569

> The underlying mechanisms that cause the higher EPOC observed in resistance exercise include elevated blood lactate, and an increase in circulating catecholamines (epinephrine and norepinephrine) and anabolic hormones.
Inspecting the data from several investigations, it appears that EPOC accounts for postexercise expenditure of 51 (Haltom et al. 1999) to 127 (Burleson et al. 1998) kilocalories.

51 - 127 kcal.

>>36478569

Of course suggesting you could burn 700 calories in EPOC is absurd.

That's an INSANE amount of calorie burn to tack ontop of burning just 100 - 150 calories during the exercise.

We wouldn't have an obesity epidemic if we could burn ~ 800 calories just by lifting weights for 1 hour.

Lordy lordy.

>>36478187
1.5 x bodyweight in lbs per hour has proven itself to be relatively accurate in my experience.