Thanks for trying and for reporting your results. If nothing else, your efforts at least validate that now three of us have all come up with numbers that seem to be totally "out to lunch".
I suppose it's still possible that ALL THREE of us are making some kind of mistake using their calc - but it's no longer just coincidence - and IF we are all making the same mistake then either the design of the calc or their UI just isn't very good.
Until someone proves us wrong, this calc is off my list (other than to demonstrate the fact that ALL the numbers are "guesstimates", some better than others but NONE exact, "cast in stone".
I just played around with this, and even on the basis of sleeping 8 hours a day and sitting for 16 hours (an extremely sedentary lifestyle), it seemed to come up with an estimate of about 27% in addition to BMR, which seems VERY generous.
7/5/14 11:03 P
When I click on your link to health-calc it comes up "populated" with your "numbers" (age, height, weight) - are they correct? (18, 5'2", 154)
If so here's a quick comparison of TDEE's (subtract 500/day for a weight loss "starting point" of ~1 lb/week.
See why I "dropped" HC from the "average"? Average the other three (1980) Subtract 500 = 1480/day (should get you close to 1 lb/week loss)
Remember that all the "numbers" will change as you lose so recalculate at least every couple weeks.
"Exercise" calories are already "figured in" to the TDEE's above so DO NOT "eat back" the cals you burn. If, after a few weeks your loss is greater than (or less than) ~1lb/week, adjust daily cal intake as required. (150-250 cals at a time then give it a chance, 2 weeks at least, to "adjust" to the new level.
Just for comparison, The 2878 number you get with HC, minus 500 would be a daily intake of 2378. IF our estimate of 1480 (and "light" exercise) is close, that means you would be taking IN 900 calories/day (6300/week) OVER our number and 400/day (2800/week) OVER YOUR TDEE - that's close to a POUND a WEEK GAIN
7/5/14 8:07 P
Rather than "reinvent" the wheel, could I point to a post of mine where I addressed pretty much the same issue?
Short answer (which will make more sense after you read other post) is that the calculator to which you referred is the "out-liar" that was so far away from the other three (which were, relatively closer) that I dropped it from the group when averaging the results.
My experience with this one is limited but based on my (one) attempt, and now yours - I have SERIOUS questions regarding either it's "accuracy" or, maybe we are both just missing something and "skewing" up the results with bad data entry (in which case, it's "user friendliness" is brought into question.
Don't have the time (or frankly, the interest) in investigating the problem but can assure you I won't be putting too much "faith" in its results any time soon.
The one thing I can say for sure is that if you rely on the results that both yourself and I obtained, at least ONE of us WILL GAIN WEIGHT!
Fitness Minutes: (86,286)
8/1/13 7:40 P
I like it but I'm not sure if the numbers are a little inflated or not. What do you think? I know it's not an exact science or anything but I'm just trying to check if I'm "lightly active" according to Spark to get my calorie intake accurate. Spark adds an extra 500-600 cals to my BMR for being "lightly active". Spark gives me a figure of 1800 cals on days I don't exercise for activity. According to this calculator that would be approximately 3 hours of just standing/light walking. Is that what Spark considers to be lightly active? How does Spark define activity levels?