Use Mifflin-St Jeor unless you have a reliable body fat measurement. It is the most accurate of the common equations for most adults. If you are very lean or very muscular and know your body fat percentage, Katch-McArdle is usually the better fit. Harris-Benedict is best used as a second opinion. The TDEE calculator runs all three side by side, so you can see the difference for yourself.
The three formulas at a glance
| Formula | Inputs | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mifflin-St Jeor (1990) | Weight, height, age, sex | Most accurate for most adults in a major review | Assumes average body composition |
| Revised Harris-Benedict (1984) | Weight, height, age, sex | Long track record, widely used | Tends to run a little high |
| Katch-McArdle | Weight, body fat % | Accounts for muscle directly | Only as good as your body fat estimate |
What the research says
In 2005, Frankenfield and colleagues published a systematic review of the main equations in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Mifflin-St Jeor came out as the most reliable: it estimated resting metabolic rate within 10% of the measured value in more non-obese and obese people than the other equations, and it had the narrowest error range. The review also noted gaps: there was less data for older adults and some ethnic groups.
Katch-McArdle takes a different route. Lean tissue such as muscle and organs drives most of your resting energy use, so a formula built on lean mass can follow your body more closely when your composition is far from average.
Three people, three formulas
Here is how the formulas compare for three different people, all calculated with the site's own engine.
| Person | Mifflin-St Jeor | Harris-Benedict | Katch-McArdle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sara35, female, 68 kg, 165 cm, 30% fat, light activity | 1,891 | 1,975 | 1,922 |
| Daniel28, male, 85 kg, 180 cm, 10% fat, very active | 3,174 | 3,333 | 3,489 |
| Robert45, male, 110 kg, 175 cm, 35% fat, sedentary | 2,369 | 2,576 | 2,297 |
- Sara has fairly average body composition. All three formulas land within about 85 calories, so Mifflin-St Jeor is fine.
- Daniel is lean and muscular. Katch-McArdle gives him about 315 calories more than Mifflin-St Jeor, because the standard equations don't know how much muscle he carries. If his body fat estimate is good, Katch-McArdle is the better starting point.
- Robert carries more fat. Katch-McArdle comes in lowest, and Harris-Benedict is about 280 calories above it. Starting from Harris-Benedict could leave him wondering why he isn't losing weight.
How to choose
- Don't know your body fat? Use Mifflin-St Jeor.
- Know it from a DEXA scan, or careful tape measurements tracked over time? Use Katch-McArdle, especially if you are lean or muscular. You can estimate it with the body fat calculator, then open the Katch-McArdle calculator.
- Use Harris-Benedict as a check rather than your main number.
Why we show all three
Seeing the spread tells you how certain your estimate is. If the formulas agree within 100 calories, you can start with confidence. If they are 300 apart, as for Daniel, your body composition matters, and it is worth getting a body fat estimate or testing your number against your scale sooner. Either way, the formula only gets you started. Two to three weeks of real data finishes the job, as explained in how to find your real maintenance calories.
See all three formulas for your own numbers.
Compare formulasFrequently asked questions
What is the most accurate TDEE formula?
Why do the formulas give different numbers?
Is Harris-Benedict outdated?
Should I average the three formulas?
Keep reading
Sources
- Frankenfield D, Roth-Yousey L, Compher C. Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(5):775–789. PubMed 15883556
- Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO. A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51(2):241–247. PubMed 2305711
- Roza AM, Shizgal HM. The Harris Benedict equation reevaluated: resting energy requirements and the body cell mass. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984;40(1):168–182. PubMed 6741850