# *Diet Formula To Work Out BMR (Bulk/Cut) (Calories/Macros)*



## will-uk

Got the formula from a Mate who PT's at the gym!

Hope it Helps 

*
*

*
The Harris -Benedict Formula (BMR based On Total Body Weight)*

*
*

The Harris Benedict equation is a calorie formula using the factors of height, weight, age, and sex to determine basal metabolic rate (BMR). This makes it more accurate than determining calorie needs based on total bodyweight alone. The only variable it does not take into consideration is lean body mass. Therefore, this equattion will be very accurate in all but the extremely muscular (will underestimate your caloric needs) and the extremely overfat (will overestimate caloric needs)

Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 x *Weight in kg*) + (5 x *height in cm*) - (6.8 x *age in years*)

Women: BMR = 655.1 + ( 9.563 x *weight in kg *) + ( 1.850 x *height in cm* ) - ( 4.676 *x age in years*)

Now that you know your BMR, you can calculate TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) by multiplying your BMR by your activity multiplier from the chart below.

*Activity Multiplier:*

Sedentary = BMR x 1.2 (Little or no exercise, desk job)

Lightly Active = BMR x 1.375 (Light exercise/sports 1-3 days a week)

Moderately Active = BMR x 1.55 (Moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days a week)

Very Active = BMR x 1.725 (Hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week)

Extremely Active = BMR x 1.9 (Hard daily exercise/sports and physical job or 2x day training, ie; Marathon, Contest etc.)

*Example:*

*
*

Your BMR is 1339 calories per day

Your activity level is moderately active (Work out 3-4 times per week)

Your activity factor is 1.55

Your TDEE = 1.55 x 1339 = 2075 calories a day

Once you know your TDEE (Maintenance level), The next step is to adjust your calories according to your primary goal. The mathematics of calorie balance are simple:

To keep weight at its current level, you should remain at your daily caloric maintenance level.

To lose weight, you need to create a calorie deficit by reducing your calories slightly below your maintenance level (or keeping your calories the same and increasing your activity above your current level)

To gain weight you need to increase your calories above your maintenance level.

The only difference between weight gain programs and weight loss programs is the total number of calories required.

Positive calorie balance is essential to gain lean bodyweight. (Basal metabolic rate) BMR.

If you want to gain lean bodyweight and become more muscular, you must consume more calories than you burn up in a day. Provided that you are participating in a weight training program of sufficient intensity, frequency and volume, then caloric surplus will be used to create new muscle tissue.

Once you have determined your TDEE, the next step is to increase your calories high enough above your TDEE that you can gain weight.

It is a basic law of energy balance that you must be on a positive calorie balance diet to gain muscular bodyweight. A general guideline for a starting point for gaining weight is to add approximately 300-500 calories a day onto your TDEE.

An alternate method is to add an additional 15 - 20% onto your TDEE.

*Example:*

*
*

Your weight is 120lbs.

Your TDEE is 2033 calories

Your additional requirement for weight gain is + 15 to 20% = 305 to 406 calories.

Your optimal caloric intake for weight gain is 2033 + 305 to 406 = 2338 to 2439 calories.

:thumb:


----------



## will-uk

Example for me to clean bulk:

66 +

13.7 x 95kg = 1301.5

5 x 182cm = 910

6.8 x Age 21 = 142.8

BMR = 2134.7

Extremely Active Level so: 2134.7 x 1.9 = 3682.35 TDEE

3682.35 TDEE +20% To Clean Bulk = 4418.8215 Calories/Day

Split into groups of fats 20% Carbs 40% Protein 40% (TDEE/100x20 for fat, 40 for protein, 40 for carbs) 9cals per g of fat, 4 cals per g of carbs, 4 cals per g of protein! =

884 cals fats

1768 cals protein

1768 cals carbs

1768 + 1768 + 884 = 4420 (Double check maths)

1768 / 4cals = 442g Protein

1768 / 4cals = 442g Carbs

884 / 9cals = 98g Fats


----------



## BIG BUCK

thanks will


----------



## Scholar

excellent info mate very useful its a shame my maths are terrible and cant figure mine out :/ Im 25 height 5ft 7in weight 11st 3. cardio around 2x week. weights x4 week


----------



## Dux

And the conclusion I have drawn from this is I've been massively over eating, even when on cycle in an attempt to build muscle.

At the mo I'm doing sweet FA except going to the gym (my Xbox Achievement score is ticking along nicely though) so I'm gonna stick to 3000 calories a day with 400g of protein and low carbs, and see where that takes me.


----------



## Ddraig_Goch

Good post. Will calculate mine abit later.


----------



## will-uk

Scholar said:


> excellent info mate very useful its a shame my maths are terrible and cant figure mine out :/ Im 25 height 5ft 7in weight 11st 3. cardio around 2x week. weights x4 week


Your Stats:

Age 25

Height 5'7" (5'6.93" = 170cm)

Weight 11.3 stone = 71.75kg

You are moderately active (moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)

So:

Your BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 71.75kg = *982.975*) + (5 x 170cm = *850*) - (6.8 x age 25 = *170*) = *2068.975*

*BMR = 2068.975* x Moderately Active *1.55* = *3206.91125* Rounded up = *3207* Calories a day *To Maintain Weight*

To Clean Bulk add 20% to your Maintenance Level

3207 Calories Divided By 100 x 20 (To get 20%) = 641.4 Calories needed

3207 + 641.4 = 3848.4 rounded Down = *3848 Calories a day to clean bulk* 

Split your cals into food groups for example:

40% protein (1g protein = 4cals)

40% carbs (1g carbs = 4 cals)

20% fats (1g fats = 9cals)

3848 Divided by 100 x 40 for carbs and protein = 1539.2

3848 Divided by 100 x 20 for fats = 769.6

1539.2 (40% Protein) + 1539.2 (40% Carbs) + 769.6 (20% Fats) = 3848 (Double Check maths)

Now to work out Grams:

1539.2 Divided by 4 (There is 4 cals per g or carbs) = 384.8g Carbs (Same for Protein)

769.6 Divided by 9 (There is 9 cals per g of fat) = 85.511g Fats

You need:

*384.8g Protein*

*
384.8g Carbs*

*
85.5g fats*

To Clean Bulk 

*Based on a ratio of: 20% Fats 40% Carbs 40% Protein


----------



## expletive

Lots of threads with this info in the diet section mate, but cheers any way


----------



## will-uk

expletive said:


> Lots of threads with this info in the diet section mate, but cheers any way


No worries pal, a lot of the threads are quite old now, i understand that the formula is the same, just been a lot of people not seeming to understand it, so i tried to simplify it for people, cheers pal


----------



## expletive

Nothing wrong with bumping the info :thumb:


----------



## Scholar

will-uk said:


> Your Stats:
> 
> Age 25
> 
> Height 5'7" (5'6.93" = 170cm)
> 
> Weight 11.3 stone = 71.75kg
> 
> You are moderately active (moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
> 
> So:
> 
> Your BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 71.75kg = *982.975*) + (5 x 170cm = *850*) - (6.8 x age 25 = *170*) = *2068.975*
> 
> *BMR = 2068.975* x Moderately Active *1.55* = *3206.91125* Rounded up = *3207* Calories a day *To Maintain Weight*
> 
> To Clean Bulk add 20% to your Maintenance Level
> 
> 3207 Calories Divided By 100 x 20 (To get 20%) = 641.4 Calories needed
> 
> 3207 + 641.4 = 3848.4 rounded Down = *3848 Calories a day to clean bulk*
> 
> Split your cals into food groups for example:
> 
> 40% protein (1g protein = 4cals)
> 
> 40% carbs (1g carbs = 4 cals)
> 
> 20% fats (1g fats = 9cals)
> 
> 3848 Divided by 100 x 40 for carbs and protein = 1539.2
> 
> 3848 Divided by 100 x 20 for fats = 769.6
> 
> 1539.2 (40% Protein) + 1539.2 (40% Carbs) + 769.6 (20% Fats) = 3848 (Double Check maths)
> 
> Now to work out Grams:
> 
> 1539.2 Divided by 4 (There is 4 cals per g or carbs) = 384.8g Carbs (Same for Protein)
> 
> 769.6 Divided by 9 (There is 9 cals per g of fat) = 85.511g Fats
> 
> You need:
> 
> *384.8g Protein*
> 
> *
> 384.8g Carbs*
> 
> *
> 85.5g fats*
> 
> To Clean Bulk
> 
> *Based on a ratio of: 20% Fats 40% Carbs 40% Protein


your a diamond mate. thanks it would of taken me a year to figure that out


----------



## Jak3D

+ 10 % of calories . For TEF , thermic effect of food


----------



## will-uk

Jak3D said:


> + 10 % of calories . For TEF , thermic effect of food


True, however the effect of TEF varies greatly depending on different food components, so it is difficult to measure accurately


----------



## Dorian Gray

How much would you add to this if on cycle?

Is there generally a % you would add to each macro if on gear?


----------



## Fatstuff

You can just download spreadsheets here, makes the world so much easier, look at the left side of page for details

#

http://michaelandkendra.com/PhysiqueFX/bmr.htm


----------



## GShock

thanks OP


----------



## DiggyV

Fatstuff said:


> You can just download spreadsheets here, makes the world so much easier, look at the left side of page for details
> 
> #
> 
> http://michaelandkendra.com/PhysiqueFX/bmr.htm


These are great sheets, and I use them both bulk and cut, works for me. :thumb:


----------



## will-uk

Formula for women now added 

BMR = 655.1 + ( 9.563 x weight in kg ) + ( 1.850 x height in cm ) - ( 4.676 x age in years ) for Maintenance :thumb:


----------



## dtlv

There's another good formula called the Mifflin-St Jeor, which is generally considered slightly more accurate than the HB, (see study - http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjada/article/S0002-8223(05)00149-5/abstract)... the differences aren't huge, but it does seem closest for me.

You can try each, plus the McArdle Katch formula which is the other main formula, using this calculator (you can choose the formula you want to use under advanced options) - http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm


----------



## will-uk

Dtlv74 said:


> There's another good formula called the Mifflin-St Jeor, which is generally considered slightly more accurate than the HB, (see study - http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/yjada/article/S0002-8223(05)00149-5/abstract)... the differences aren't huge, but it does seem closest for me.
> 
> You can try each, plus the McArdle Katch formula which is the other main formula, using this calculator (you can choose the formula you want to use under advanced options) - http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm


Just had a look at the second link, re checked my maths and even the HB formula isnt the same... Is TEF added into this equation? Difference is:

*I Worked mine out to be (3682kcal) maintenance level*

600cals lower for maintenance on the mifflin-st jeor formula (3089kcal)

120cals higher for maintenance on the katch-mc cardle formula (3754kcal)

300cals lower for maintenance on the Harris benedict formula (3325kcal)

Cheers will


----------



## dtlv

will-uk said:


> Just had a look at the second link, re checked my maths and even the HB formula isnt the same... Is TEF added into this equation? Difference is:
> 
> *I Worked mine out to be (3682kcal) maintenance level*
> 
> 600cals lower for maintenance on the mifflin-st jeor formula (3089kcal)
> 
> 120cals higher for maintenance on the katch-mc cardle formula (3754kcal)
> 
> 300cals lower for maintenance on the Harris benedict formula (3325kcal)
> 
> Cheers will


Interesting. To be honest when I do the activity modifications for the HB (BMR x 1.55 (Moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days a week)), it puts my maintenance over by about 200 kcals from what I know it is... the MSJ is closer only being out by about 50 kcals when I select (exercise level 5 times per week)... the HB has me at 2708 kcals, the MSJ at 2547, and I know from experience I need about 2500 dead to maintain (average kcals after daily calorie cycling) which is what I've done for the last eighteen months or so.

I think what throws all of these formulas out though is the multiplier for activity - no way that can accurately represent activity down to a precise degree... any formula that can get within 200kcals is pretty good imo.


----------



## huge monguss

Nice one


----------



## will-uk

Dtlv74 said:


> Interesting. To be honest when I do the activity modifications for the HB (BMR x 1.55 (Moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days a week)), it puts my maintenance over by about 200 kcals from what I know it is... the MSJ is closer only being out by about 50 kcals when I select (exercise level 5 times per week)... the HB has me at 2708 kcals, the MSJ at 2547, and I know from experience I need about 2500 dead to maintain (average kcals after daily calorie cycling) which is what I've done for the last eighteen months or so.
> 
> I think what throws all of these formulas out though is the multiplier for activity - no way that can accurately represent activity down to a precise degree... any formula that can get within 200kcals is pretty good imo.


Thanks for taking the time to reply, your replies are always very informative and easy to understand, learnt many a thing form yourself 

Cheers

Will.


----------



## dtlv

will-uk said:


> Thanks for taking the time to reply, your replies are always very informative and easy to understand, learnt many a thing form yourself
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Will.


Thanks buddy... not wishing to turn this into a soppy mutual appreciation club, lol, but you contribute well yourself mate


----------



## jaycue2u

I was reading an article by Will Brinks a while back that had this calculation in it. I have been using it for a while now, nice and easy to use :thumb:


----------



## dtlv

jaycue2u said:


> I was reading an article by Will Brinks a while back that had this calculation in it. I have been using it for a while now, nice and easy to use :thumb:


Can you post it up or link it? Am thinking I'll sticky this thread, and it'd be good to have a range of formulas on here (you know, just to confuse people after Will's excellent initial post :lol: )


----------



## jaycue2u

I will have a go mate, its on my HD so any ideas on how to do it would be great? Its a large PDF so not sure how to get it on here


----------



## dtlv

jaycue2u said:


> I will have a go mate, its on my HD so any ideas on how to do it would be great? Its a large PDF so not sure how to get it on here


You could try it as an attachment if the file isn't too big... choose 'Go Advanced' as an option to reply, then just to the right of the Smiley Icon in the top menu there'll be an icon kind of like a paperclip - click on that and it gives options for uploading and attaching a file. It should work so long as the pdf isn't too large.


----------



## will-uk

jaycue2u said:


> I will have a go mate, its on my HD so any ideas on how to do it would be great? Its a large PDF so not sure how to get it on here


Reply to thread....

Then click Go Advanced

Click Attachments (Paper Clip Icon).....

Add Attachments........

Select file......

Find it on your computer..........

Upload file.......

Post reply 

Or........

Copy and paste the whole thing into a reply


----------



## jaycue2u

Its too large to attach (10Mb) and its a secured PDF so cant copy & paste it :cursing: Any other ideas? Iguess i could host it somewhere but iv never done it.....


----------



## will-uk

jaycue2u said:


> Its too large to attach (10Mb) and its a secured PDF so cant copy & paste it :cursing: Any other ideas? Iguess i could host it somewhere but iv never done it.....


Stop being lazy and re-write the whole thing out copied from the pdf :lol: :lol: :lol:

Another possibility is to write the first paragraph into google, it may come up with the original website, then just post the link


----------



## dtlv

jaycue2u said:


> Its too large to attach (10Mb) and its a secured PDF so cant copy & paste it :cursing: Any other ideas? Iguess i could host it somewhere but iv never done it.....





will-uk said:


> Stop being lazy and re-write the whole thing out copied from the pdf :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Another possibility is to write the first paragraph into google, it may come up with the original website, then just post the link


I like Will Brink, and would be interested in his formula... had a look at his site yesterday quickly but couldn't find reference to it. Am sure it's out there somewhere though.

jaycue - what is the title of the pdf? Maybe we can find it collectively. Reps for your efforts so far though buddy, appreciated 

I'll put up some other formulas on here later - anyone else is more than welcome to do the same.


----------



## will-uk

Dtlv74 said:


> I like Will Brink, and would be interested in his formula... had a look at his site yesterday quickly but couldn't find reference to it. Am sure it's out there somewhere though.
> 
> jaycue - what is the title of the pdf? Maybe we can find it collectively. Reps for your efforts so far though buddy, appreciated
> 
> I'll put up some other formulas on here later - anyone else is more than welcome to do the same.


Im Searching too but found this, which is an interesting read 

*NB: Cannot put source as it would break forum rules.*

*Theory of Everything by William D. Brink*

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, " they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.

"A calorie is a calorie"

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The "calories don't matter" school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables...

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

"Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses;

macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"

This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.

Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:

"Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition?

Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether).

Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:

An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.

A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.

Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored.

This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!

There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.


----------



## Ddraig_Goch

Just read all that.. little bit of a head job but makes sense...

On the OP, you got yourself as 'clean bulk - 40/40/20 (pro/car/fat)'

What would you have the split if you wanted to simply lose fat (as opposed to 'weight' as detailed above)

Same 40/40/20 pro/car/fat split BUT 500cals less ??? Or a different split entirely ??

cheers,


----------



## Uk_mb

well according to this ... my bulk macros should be 432,832 :lol:

ps. my fingers are too fat for calculator


----------



## will-uk

monsterballs said:


> well according to this ... my bulk macros should be 432,832 :lol:
> 
> ps. my fingers are too fat for calculator


Did they not teach you at school :lol:

Add the numbers in the brackets seperately first then do the addition


----------



## Sharp161

RelaxTheBody said:


> How much would you add to this if on cycle?
> 
> Is there generally a % you would add to each macro if on gear?


Id also like to know this?


----------



## will-uk

Sharp161 said:


> Id also like to know this?


Im Researching this as we speak....


----------



## SkinnyJ

Worked it out! Thanks mate.


----------



## gashead88

Hey guys,

can anybody let me know if i have worked out my calorie intake correctly using this method.

BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 73kg) + (5 x 162.56cm) - (6.8 x 23) = 1,722.5 x 1.55 = 2669.87

cheers dudes


----------



## babyshins

Great help... Cheers


----------



## alex the bear

This is bang on what Iv been looking for cheers, used the maths and original link to Phisique Fx calculators and now I m gonna work out how many tins of tuna, pieces of chicken and grains of brown rice I can consume in a day :lol: or how many meals I have to miss to allow me a trip to Nandos


----------



## RedEye

Thank you Will-Uk, I have been trying to get the answer to how many calories to eat for ages with no luck.

Next I need to work out the best meal structure and an easy way to prepare meals in advance.

Thanks again, I'm now much further down the road.


----------



## StewieG

my nutrients based on the above to bulk clean are:

318g Protein

318g Carbs

70g Fat

How in hell do I eat 318g of protein and carbs in a day?


----------



## Tom90

I'm 84 kg, 22 and 185 cm, can't get my head around my TDEE being 3439.

How accurate are these things? My clean bulk would have to be ~3700 cals, I can't afford that much food :lol:


----------



## AndyTee

Great info.


----------



## Horsfall

So for a clean bulk you split it as 20% fats, 40% carbs and 40% protein. What would you do for just bulking?


----------



## Logman

will-uk said:


> Your Stats:
> 
> Age 25
> 
> Height 5'7" (5'6.93" = 170cm)
> 
> Weight 11.3 stone = 71.75kg
> 
> You are moderately active (moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
> 
> So:
> 
> Your BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 71.75kg = *982.975*) + (5 x 170cm = *850*) - (6.8 x age 25 = *170*) = *2068.975*
> 
> *BMR = 2068.975* x Moderately Active *1.55* = *3206.91125* Rounded up = *3207* Calories a day *To Maintain Weight*
> 
> To Clean Bulk add 20% to your Maintenance Level
> 
> 3207 Calories Divided By 100 x 20 (To get 20%) = 641.4 Calories needed
> 
> 3207 + 641.4 = 3848.4 rounded Down = *3848 Calories a day to clean bulk*
> 
> Split your cals into food groups for example:
> 
> 40% protein (1g protein = 4cals)
> 
> 40% carbs (1g carbs = 4 cals)
> 
> 20% fats (1g fats = 9cals)
> 
> 3848 Divided by 100 x 40 for carbs and protein = 1539.2
> 
> 3848 Divided by 100 x 20 for fats = 769.6
> 
> 1539.2 (40% Protein) + 1539.2 (40% Carbs) + 769.6 (20% Fats) = 3848 (Double Check maths)
> 
> Now to work out Grams:
> 
> 1539.2 Divided by 4 (There is 4 cals per g or carbs) = 384.8g Carbs (Same for Protein)
> 
> 769.6 Divided by 9 (There is 9 cals per g of fat) = 85.511g Fats
> 
> You need:
> 
> *384.8g Protein*
> 
> *
> 384.8g Carbs*
> 
> *
> 85.5g fats*
> 
> To Clean Bulk
> 
> *Based on a ratio of: 20% Fats 40% Carbs 40% Protein


Your BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 71.75kg = *982.975*) + (5 x 170cm = *850*) - (6.8 x age 25 = *170*) = *2068.975*

I make this 1728.975?


----------



## Adz

I think Ive just worked this out right, my BMR is 3603.

So if I want to lose weight but still keep my muscle, I just aim to eat less than 3603 but keep on training, this correct?


----------



## paul1968uk

Good information to have to hand cant figure mine out,must be with getting old lol, need to bulk up on mine but still lose a bit off the stomach too

Age 44

Height 5ft 8

weight 205

Weights 4 x a week

Did get a full print out from boots that gave me this info so not sure if this is any good to you too

weight 205.2

bmi 31.1

body water 47.1

muscle 35.4

bone mass 3.2

thanks in advance

paul


----------



## RonH

If I am not mistaken, your calculation is wrong?

Your BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 71.75kg = 982.975) + (5 x 170cm = 850) - (6.8 x age 25 = 170) = 1728.975

Not 2068.975

I think you added the last bracket (170), but it has a subtract sign.

I am just trying to figure out my own, so are you supposed to add or subtract the last bracket?


----------



## lodge stewart

Yap RonH!

You are absolutely right i personally tried its not actually correct.Hoping the amended right formula to calculate.


----------



## MiXiN

Man, am I glad I found this thread!

I took all info' in this link as Gospel truth, and I was TRYING to knock back 4300 calories a Day based on this information. I just can't eat or drink this amount without being stranded to the settee like a beached Whale- http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_diet_mass/the_getbig_diet_for_bodybuilders;jsessionid=BC7321E88A307476C99D774236E52990-mcd02.hydra

I've read a few places now, including here, that my calorie intake should be around 2700 calories so thank God for that. I can manage that, no worries.

Can someone confirm I have my calculations right if you would please?

I'm 5ft 11in, 38 Years old, have a sit down job, and weigh 16st 1ib - 102Kg.

I've just recently today started a Test and DBol 12wk cycle if that comes into it?


----------



## bradc

Help

34 years old

190 cm tall

204 pounds

Moderately active

Thanks in advance


----------



## ZyZee_2012

bradc said:


> Help
> 
> 34 years old
> 
> 190 cm tall
> 
> 204 pounds
> 
> Moderately active
> 
> Thanks in advance


Here you go: http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/food-diet-nutrition-info/164237-diet-formula-work-out-bmr-bulk-cut-calories-macros.html#post2805344


----------



## sammclean23

Based on my calculation, I should be consuming around 230g protein for bulking. Is this not quite high for a weight of 154 pounds/69kg?


----------



## Redbeard85

Great post :thumb:


----------



## B3NNY

Could somebody in the know just double check this for me please as I'm very new to calculating my food

Age: 31

Height 170cm

Weight 73kgs

I'm getting a total of

3954 cals

87g fat

395 g protein

395 g carbs

I've been reading the book bigger stronger leaner and that has recommended the formula of

1gram of protein per lb of body weight

2 grams of carbs per body weight

1 gram of fats per 3lb of bodyweight.

Which gives me totals of

2668 cals

320 grams of carbs

225 of protein

55 grams of fat.

As you can see there is quite a difference, so im a little confused as which to follow as long as the calculations are correct, I'm obviously looking for lean muscle gains with minimal fat increase.

Thanks


----------



## Scottyuk

Bit late for some but found this calc that uses same formula as the OP

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/bmr-calculator.html


----------



## GShock

Can there be a calculation that tells people how they

manage food ?

Is this a start point so that % can be changed according to how you deal with c/p/f ?

There can't be a blanket answer that covers everyone, can there ?


----------



## Jonnyboy82

So once you have worked out your BMR and added your 20% to clean bulk. Do I then divide my fat, protein and carbs by the amount of meals daily? i.e 5?

If so then when or whats is the easiest way to work out what food and how to work out what I can have? Or am I making it harder than it is?


----------



## Scottyuk

Jonnyboy82 said:


> So once you have worked out your BMR and added your 20% to clean bulk. Do I then divide my fat, protein and carbs by the amount of meals daily? i.e 5?
> 
> If so then when or whats is the easiest way to work out what food and how to work out what I can have? Or am I making it harder than it is?


Once you know you % and grams for each p/c/f just get myfitnesspal app for your phone and plan out your day to meet your requirements.

I consume most of my carbs in my meals pre and post workout and a lesser amount in the evening (I train a.m)


----------



## Boshlop

now, does any one know what body fat % this si worked out using? so it can be adjusted to fit different levels, can imagine if its based on average of around 25% or sumint, sitting at 7-8% is gonna have a good few hundred of difference in it


----------



## Sharpz

its easier to just go to http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/ an use their calculators


----------



## Boshlop

Sharpz said:


> its easier to just go to http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/ an use their calculators


thank you, i looked for one of these but couldnt quite find it. it makes 350 diff, so thats quite significant


----------



## Sharpz

Josh Heslop said:


> thank you, i looked for one of these but couldnt quite find it. it makes 350 diff, so thats quite significant


you're welcome, ive just opened a new thread for it as its just a long drawn out process having to input all the sums yourself..


----------



## Boshlop

Sharpz said:


> you're welcome, ive just opened a new thread for it as its just a long drawn out process having to input all the sums yourself..


aye i know, but it helps at work for putting diets together when i dont always have a pc, i usually do it off the top of my head though, im weird and enjoy maths :whistling:


----------



## bradc

Could someone please calculate for me I just don't get it

Age - 35

Height 6'2

Weight 93.4 kilos

Moderate exercise

Thanks in advance


----------



## Scottyuk

bradc said:


> Could someone please calculate for me I just don't get it
> 
> Age - 35
> 
> Height 6'2
> 
> Weight 93.4 kilos
> 
> Moderate exercise
> 
> Thanks in advance


More accurate with a bf % but:

BMR: 1930cal

TDEE: 2660cal


----------



## bradc

Scottyuk said:


> More accurate with a bf % but:
> 
> BMR: 1930cal
> 
> TDEE: 2660cal


Cheers

So 2660cal per day

Is that to gain muscle

Also how do you work out protein/carb/fat


----------



## Scottyuk

bradc said:


> Cheers
> 
> So 2660cal per day
> 
> Is that to gain muscle
> 
> Also how do you work out protein/carb/fat


I think you need to read the diet section of the forum.

In a nutshell to gain add 10% ish.

Aim for % split of 40/40/20 p/c/f as a start point.

TDEE + 10% * 40% = protein cals

Divide by 4 (1g protein = 4 cals) = g of protein per day

Same for carbs

Same formula for fats but divide by 9 (1g of fats = 9 cals)

There are you daily macros.


----------



## frankie1905

will-uk said:


> Your Stats:
> 
> Age 25
> 
> Height 5'7" (5'6.93" = 170cm)
> 
> Weight 11.3 stone = 71.75kg
> 
> You are moderately active (moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
> 
> So:
> 
> Your BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 71.75kg = *982.975*) + (5 x 170cm = *850*) - (6.8 x age 25 = *170*) = *2068.975*
> 
> *BMR = 2068.975* x Moderately Active *1.55* = *3206.91125* Rounded up = *3207* Calories a day *To Maintain Weight*
> 
> To Clean Bulk add 20% to your Maintenance Level
> 
> 3207 Calories Divided By 100 x 20 (To get 20%) = 641.4 Calories needed
> 
> 3207 + 641.4 = 3848.4 rounded Down = *3848 Calories a day to clean bulk*
> 
> Split your cals into food groups for example:
> 
> 40% protein (1g protein = 4cals)
> 
> 40% carbs (1g carbs = 4 cals)
> 
> 20% fats (1g fats = 9cals)
> 
> 3848 Divided by 100 x 40 for carbs and protein = 1539.2
> 
> 3848 Divided by 100 x 20 for fats = 769.6
> 
> 1539.2 (40% Protein) + 1539.2 (40% Carbs) + 769.6 (20% Fats) = 3848 (Double Check maths)
> 
> Now to work out Grams:
> 
> 1539.2 Divided by 4 (There is 4 cals per g or carbs) = 384.8g Carbs (Same for Protein)
> 
> 769.6 Divided by 9 (There is 9 cals per g of fat) = 85.511g Fats
> 
> You need:
> 
> *384.8g Protein*
> 
> *
> 384.8g Carbs*
> 
> *
> 85.5g fats*
> 
> To Clean Bulk
> 
> *Based on a ratio of: 20% Fats 40% Carbs 40% Protein


I know this is very old, but this has just helped me in a ridiculous manner! My maths is awful but looking at that In can use it as a reference, to get what I need thank you kindly :thumb:


----------



## katielouise87

Hi Will,

I have literally just done a post about this.

I'm 27, 5ft4 and currently 58kg (from being 48kg) Although I have realised I was under weight I want to loose some muscle as well as fat that I have gained to get back into some of my clothes (as I have gained my fat content has also increased) I exercise between 3-5 times a week do i need to be on a calorie deficit?

Thank you


----------



## ryanj

one of the best bits of info i have seen, very helpful. if im 5,7 83kg age 22 what should my expected daily intake be to clean bulk? weight training 6 days a week no cardio.


----------



## bugii

Hello Mates, i have one question. How that formula can be ok if don't ask the % of BF?

I don't understand. Another thing is if i can cut without cardio.

That question its a little offtopic but.. what program you use for IIFYM? Some days i just don't have time to make my chicken with rice 

One more!!! Sorry.... Regular diet 40/40/20 or carbs cycle? and in the regular why we don't eat like 60% protein and 20%carbs/20%fat?

Thanks guys!


----------



## scot-ish

can someone advise me if this is right? seems like a whole lot more calories than i eat?

My Stats:

Age 29

Height 5'10" (5'6.93" = 178cm)

Weight = 84kg

i am pretty active, as gym 5 nights plus dog walks etc, but will put (moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)

So:

My BMR = 66 + (13.7 x 84kg = 1150) + (5 x 178cm = 890) - (6.8 x age = 197) = 2303

BMR = 2303 x Moderately Active 1.55 = 3569 Calories a day To Maintain Weight

To Clean Bulk add 20% to your Maintenance Level

4283 Calories needed

Split your cals into food groups for example:

40% protein (1g protein = 4cals)

40% carbs (1g carbs = 4 cals)

20% fats (1g fats = 9cals)

4283 Divided by 100 x 40 for carbs and protein = 1713

4283 Divided by 100 x 20 for fats = 856

1713 (40% Protein) + 1713 (40% Carbs) + 856 (20% Fats) = 4282 (Double Check maths)

Now to work out Grams:

1713 Divided by 4 (There is 4 cals per g or carbs) = 428g Carbs (Same for Protein)

856 Divided by 9 (There is 9 cals per g of fat) = 95g Fats

so I need:

428g Protein

428g Carbs

95g fats

To Clean Bulk

*Based on a ratio of: 20% Fats 40% Carbs 40% Protein

i usually eat like 50 grams of fat, and a whole lot less food than that i think :/ will this be why i struggle to lean up? and actually kind of feel like i have no energy most of the time?

cheers


----------



## chfp

If you check your initial calculation, the final part of it you have added 6.8 x height not subtracted. This puts your numbers out a bit. Thats if ive followed how to do the calculation correct!


----------



## Bem

Cheers pal, i will try this method.


----------



## 2487jamesm

will-uk said:


> Got the formula from a Mate who PT's at the gym!
> 
> Hope it Helps
> 
> *
> *
> 
> *
> The Harris -Benedict Formula (BMR based On Total Body Weight)*
> 
> *
> *
> 
> The Harris Benedict equation is a calorie formula using the factors of height, weight, age, and sex to determine basal metabolic rate (BMR). This makes it more accurate than determining calorie needs based on total bodyweight alone. The only variable it does not take into consideration is lean body mass. Therefore, this equattion will be very accurate in all but the extremely muscular (will underestimate your caloric needs) and the extremely overfat (will overestimate caloric needs)
> 
> Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 x *Weight in kg*) + (5 x *height in cm*) - (6.8 x *age in years*)
> 
> Women: BMR = 655.1 + ( 9.563 x *weight in kg *) + ( 1.850 x *height in cm* ) - ( 4.676 *x age in years*)
> 
> Now that you know your BMR, you can calculate TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) by multiplying your BMR by your activity multiplier from the chart below.
> 
> *Activity Multiplier:*
> 
> Sedentary = BMR x 1.2 (Little or no exercise, desk job)
> 
> Lightly Active = BMR x 1.375 (Light exercise/sports 1-3 days a week)
> 
> Moderately Active = BMR x 1.55 (Moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days a week)
> 
> Very Active = BMR x 1.725 (Hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week)
> 
> Extremely Active = BMR x 1.9 (Hard daily exercise/sports and physical job or 2x day training, ie; Marathon, Contest etc.)
> 
> *Example:*
> 
> *
> *
> 
> Your BMR is 1339 calories per day
> 
> Your activity level is moderately active (Work out 3-4 times per week)
> 
> Your activity factor is 1.55
> 
> Your TDEE = 1.55 x 1339 = 2075 calories a day
> 
> Once you know your TDEE (Maintenance level), The next step is to adjust your calories according to your primary goal. The mathematics of calorie balance are simple:
> 
> To keep weight at its current level, you should remain at your daily caloric maintenance level.
> 
> To lose weight, you need to create a calorie deficit by reducing your calories slightly below your maintenance level (or keeping your calories the same and increasing your activity above your current level)
> 
> To gain weight you need to increase your calories above your maintenance level.
> 
> The only difference between weight gain programs and weight loss programs is the total number of calories required.
> 
> Positive calorie balance is essential to gain lean bodyweight. (Basal metabolic rate) BMR.
> 
> If you want to gain lean bodyweight and become more muscular, you must consume more calories than you burn up in a day. Provided that you are participating in a weight training program of sufficient intensity, frequency and volume, then caloric surplus will be used to create new muscle tissue.
> 
> Once you have determined your TDEE, the next step is to increase your calories high enough above your TDEE that you can gain weight.
> 
> It is a basic law of energy balance that you must be on a positive calorie balance diet to gain muscular bodyweight. A general guideline for a starting point for gaining weight is to add approximately 300-500 calories a day onto your TDEE.
> 
> An alternate method is to add an additional 15 - 20% onto your TDEE.
> 
> *Example:*
> 
> *
> *
> 
> Your weight is 120lbs.
> 
> Your TDEE is 2033 calories
> 
> Your additional requirement for weight gain is + 15 to 20% = 305 to 406 calories.
> 
> Your optimal caloric intake for weight gain is 2033 + 305 to 406 = 2338 to 2439 calories.
> 
> :thumb:


Greatinfo but I am rubbish with maths. I am 5ft 10 and weigh 13st 10. my age is 30. any chance you could work out mine?


----------



## Ultrasonic

2487jamesm said:


> Greatinfo but I am rubbish with maths. I am 5ft 10 and weigh 13st 10. my age is 30. any chance you could work out mine?


BMR ~ 1950 kcal. TDEE impossible to say without more info but you should be able to work that OK as you just have to multiply this BMR figure by the appropriate number.

Bear in mind this is all very approximate though.


----------

