The Cunningham Equation -An accurate way to predict calories

[Doo]

Yeah 1000kcal deficit seems like a lot but I will only be doing it by eating a lot and exercising a lot more. I will also cycle the calories and/or carb:protein periodically to keep my body from getting used to the deficit.

[rossi]

Can multiple people use it at the same time now?

No, I can make it into HTML that can be hosted somewhere, that way it would start with default values everytime. But I don't think it is necessary.

[baatzr]

Rossi, on that new version, once you enter your body-fat percentage it multiplies it by 100. For example if I type in 12, it becomes 1200%.

Obviously I figured out to put in .12 instead, but could you change it around?

Nice work by the way.

[lovestolift]

If you were doing the math you would have to shift the decimal over anyway. I think he did a great job on the spreadsheet, it doesn't really need to be changed.

[lovestolift]

Here is a way to get an approximate body fat calculation. It's probably not very accurate, but it's good enough to get a start on the equation. Part of using this is keeping a close eye on the outcome and making changes when necessary, so any minor miscalculations will be worked out over time any way.

[rossi]

Sorry about that, you should also enter the % sign after the number, so "12%" or 0.12 indeed. I'll leave it as is.

[DaveT]

Great work rossi, but isn't this site doing the same thing?
http://www.johnberardi.com/updates/july262002/na_masscalculator.htm

[lovestolift]

DaveT- that calculator is specifically for mass gain. The equation is to find your maintenance level, which you can then add to subtract calories in order to reach your goals. BTW I got the equation from one of Dr. Berardi's books.

[DaveT]

Cheers LTL - should have looked at everything a bit more carefully.
Probably would have been more useful if Berardi's website had created a calculator that worked out the maintenance level.

[erebusii]

Here is a way to get an approximate body fat calculation. It's probably not very accurate, but it's good enough to get a start on the equation. Part of using this is keeping a close eye on the outcome and making changes when necessary, so any minor miscalculations will be worked out over time any way.

Here's a better one. The best one I've found so far. Male related input is on the top half of the page and female related input is on the bottom half of the page.

http://www.linear-software.com/online.html

[again]

Great post BTW I have now made it into my own spread sheet.

DO you know where can I find the MET of other exercises like running, HITT etc?

Thanks

[dylanamus]

Does this equation not factor in the age, gender and height of the subject?

[lovestolift]

Does this equation not factor in the age, gender and height of the subject?

No, it doesn't. But I don't see how that would affect it. It is based on body composition and activity level.

[dylanamus]

Fair enough. Just curious (as I have a very abnormal body type). I gave it a go and like other people have found, the suggested energy "requirement" was considerably higher than the estimated maintenance of other calculators:

Other calcs: 2000-2500kcal
Cunningham: 3500-4000kcal

It's interesting as I was eating around 4000kcal on lifting days and around 3000kcal on rest days when I was progressing consistently with squats. This intake was purely instinctive though, as I had no prior exposure to calorie counting or requirement estimators.

Considering I only gained about 2-3% fat and around 3% muscle while eating like this, I'd say the Cunningham Equation is pretty accurate in terms of energy required for building muscle, however, (and at least in my experience), I daresay if some people attempting fat loss abode by its results they could be unpleasantly surprised.

[lovestolift]

Well, I guess we can attribute the higher intake to two things, protein and athleticism. The factors are based on 1g/lb and 1.5 g/lb of body weight. Protein has a higher thermogenic effect, as it takes more energy to digest than fat and carbs. So if you don't get the same amount as those factors, the output will be skewed. The other issue is that it was designed for a highly athletic population. Look at Michael Phelps. He ate 10-12 thousand k/cal a day when training and competing. Obviously a high rate of exercise will boost metabolic rate.

Weight loss or gain is an outcome based pursuit. The ends do justify the means. That is why it's a good idea to measure every two weeks and readjust if you are not moving in the right direction. The equation will get you in the neighborhood of your maintenance caloric intake, you then tweak the numbers to meet your needs.