Vanity DEE aka Calories/day calculators seem out of control I've been going mental recently trying to figure out what I should realistically estimate my Daily Energy Expenditure at. Every single calculator online seems retarded either by its lack of options, a lack of accurate explanations for its available options, a lack of realistic results, or any combination thereof.  It's no wonder fats think it's normal to pig out on two whole large pizzas every day when there are hugely popular DEE calculators online that might lead one to that conclusion. Let's take a look at some of these calculators. Bear in mind 1. that I'm only 77.5kg (172lbs) but I select 80kg (176lbs) as I exercise with 3kg (6.5lbs) of equipment, and 2. that I have been at the same weight for years. I'll start with the one I think most people would agree should be perceived as the most trustworthy one.  The Mayo Clinic is one of the most prestigious medical establishments in the world. As a matter of fact some people would contend it is the most prestigious.  http://i.imgur.com/WbMGlYp.png link 3250 Calories? What? Let's pretend I'm merely 'active' with my 2.5 daily hours of moderate exercise.  In that case, 2800 Calories? I would have disappeared by now if that were true as I only eat 2500-2550 Calories every day. But just stop and think for a moment about how many fats would describe their lifestyle as "very active", or at least 'active', because they take the stairs sometimes. This calculator would make them think that their food intake is just fine or maybe even that they're undereating.  - Let's move on to MeDindia.net (He he he, get it? M and D spell M.D. (I hate their logo)). While they aren't the most prestigious medical establishment in the world they are a collaboration of medical professionals founded by doctors  and as such should have no incentive to lie to anyone. http://i.imgur.com/OL8UZ6w.png link 3000 Calories? Seriously? I only selected 'Moderatively Active', I don't even want to know what 'Very Active' or 'Extra Active' results in.  I don't fault the folks over at MeDindia per se as their website makes it abundantly clear that two respected formulas gave wholly differing results which should allow any reasonable person to take the results with a grain of salt and it mentions clearly that fats should be aware that the results should be adjusted down to account for their 'curves'. Still I find these results ludicrous and I don't think I'd be fit for long if I ate accordingly.  - Let's move on to the random websites with no relationship to medicine.  I think it's important to bear in mind that it is probably more likely that fats would use websites like this.  A lot of fats visit this type of website as it often tells them what they want to hear and makes them feel good about their measly efforts. http://i.imgur.com/jOHUUkR.png link And. would. you. look. at. What is there to say really?  I purposefully selected 'sedentary lifestyle', which no fats ever would, and manually entered my exact daily exercise, and this calculator  tells me I need three fucking thousand and four fucking hundred calories. Here's a visual representation of 3450 calories: 500 grams of butter or these nine cheeseburgers with fries or SIX of these Quiznos meat sandwiches with a liter of sugary soda.  I mean, what the fuck. There are definitely people out there that used this website to estimate their DEE. Think about that.  For reference the extra (net) energy expenditure from walking 2.5 hours at 5km/h is around 550-600 kcal for me. Their 730 kcal figure seems more in line with the gross energy expenditure which you can't use if you're then going to add it to the DEE.  That's before we even get into the fact that an 80kg 183cm male with a sedentary lifestyle does not need 2720 kcal to maintain his weight.  There's just absolutely no way. No freaking way.  I don't even want to know what it spits out when you select one of the more active options.  - Let's move on to another one of the fats-favorite websites. Like Self.com this website is filled with clickbait quick-fixes marketed towards fats. Will their results also seem exaggerated in an effort to keep the fats visiting? Let's find out. http://i.imgur.com/VqLEOV5.png link 3300 Calories. Funnily enough this calculator also offers a BMR calculation so I've included that result of 1950 Calories. This BMR is at the top end of the results I've gotten elsewhere which ranged from 1885-1950.  I'd love to know how an average 'active' male is burning off the difference of 1350 Calories. Did everyone pick up long distance running recently? Selecting merely 'low active' which was the only thing in between 'sedentary' and 'active' results in 3000 Calories, a difference of 1050.  - It seems only fair to mention that most of these calculators are simply slightly modified versions of age-old equations which doctors and scientists, many of whom are no longer with us, came up with but I am in disbelief at the output.  - The most reasonable calculator I found online was on a website called ExRx.com and it was also the most transparent in its assumptions and methodology. http://i.imgur.com/CiHhl30.png link I still think its result of 2750 is higher than I need to maintain my weight, but I completely understand why it might overestimate my energy needs  when the activity level I selected has my activity as the bare minimum (walking 3.5mph), and includes activities such as carrying a load, weight training, and weeding and hoeing. - In conclusion I think there is a serious problem with the way we as a society estimate our energy needs and that until that changes the obesity epidemic can only get worse. God Save the Queen