Accuracy in Calorie Recommendation Between MFP and IIFYM

Th3Ph03n1x

I was curious about the IIFYM method and it seems like a good fit for me particularly since I want to go from weight loss to general fitness.

Thing is when I do the calculator over there it's giving me quite a few more calories than MFP is. I have MFP set at 1.5 lbs a week and the other one set at aggressive for weight loss.

I'm just wondering if anyone knows which one is more accurate. I did a search to see if anyone has asked this and couldn't fine a thread on it.

I am hesitant to up my calorie intake not knowing how accurate the calculator is.

mustgetmuscles1

My guess is that IIFYM is including exercise calories while MFP does not include them until you log the workout.

Daiako

I believe the iifym calculator has work out calories already factored in (TDEE method) in the long run the amount you get from there should be similar to what you end up with in MFP when you add in workout calories (NEAT method)

BarbieAS

What activity level settings did you use on each site? Do you eat back your exercise calories on MFP?

Math is math - both sites are exactly as accurate as the inputs they are given, you just need to use them appropriately, and understand the info they're giving you and the limits of that information.

segacs

Daiako wrote: »

I believe the iifym calculator has work out calories already factored in (TDEE method) in the long run the amount you get from there should be similar to what you end up with in MFP when you add in workout calories (NEAT method)

This.

If you use MFP's number, log your exercise and eat back (some or all of) your exercise calories.

If you use IIFYM's number, don't log or eat back exercise calories.

The two should work out to roughly the same, in the end. Just different approaches to get there.

Th3Ph03n1x

mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »

My guess is that IIFYM is including exercise calories while MFP does not include them until you log the workout.

That's not it I put in sedentary to prevent it doing that but I can see why that would be your first guess.

Thanks

segacs

Okay, if you're using sedentary on both, then the other possibility is, IIFYM will give you a percentage deficit from TDEE, while MFP is calculating an absolute weight loss.

1.5 pounds per week is a daily deficit of 750. Whereas IIFYM is probably calculating TDEE-20%, for a slower loss than 1.5lbs/week.

Th3Ph03n1x

BarbieAS wrote: »

What activity level settings did you use on each site? Do you eat back your exercise calories on MFP?

Math is math - both sites are exactly as accurate as the inputs they are given, you just need to use them appropriately, and understand the info they're giving you and the limits of that information.

I put sedentary (which is an exaggeration but I have not started an exercise program and I have a desk job) and my age/sex/weight on both sites.

IIFYM asks for body fat percentage whereas MFP does not. I'm going to check my body fat again later to be sure it's accurate but that was the only variable that differed (one asked one did not).

Daiako

segacs wrote: »

Okay, if you're using sedentary on both, then the other possibility is, IIFYM will give you a percentage deficit from TDEE, while MFP is calculating an absolute weight loss.

1.5 pounds per week is a daily deficit of 750. Whereas IIFYM is probably calculating TDEE-20%, for a slower loss than 1.5lbs/week.

This would be my next guess. Even set to agreaaive weight loss its probably TDEE-25% or something like that


But really just pick one. Try the bigger number. If it works out, awesome! If not adjust down. Ain't nothing wrong with playing with the numbers and finding a sweet spot; humans aren't calculators after all so some guess work is OK.

Th3Ph03n1x

Daiako wrote: »

segacs wrote: »

Okay, if you're using sedentary on both, then the other possibility is, IIFYM will give you a percentage deficit from TDEE, while MFP is calculating an absolute weight loss.

1.5 pounds per week is a daily deficit of 750. Whereas IIFYM is probably calculating TDEE-20%, for a slower loss than 1.5lbs/week.

This would be my next guess. Even set to agreaaive weight loss its probably TDEE-25% or something like that


But really just pick one. Try the bigger number. If it works out, awesome! If not adjust down. Ain't nothing wrong with playing with the numbers and finding a sweet spot; humans aren't calculators after all so some guess work is OK.

Thanks I appreciate the input.

Daiako

Th3Ph03n1x wrote: »

Daiako wrote: »

segacs wrote: »

Okay, if you're using sedentary on both, then the other possibility is, IIFYM will give you a percentage deficit from TDEE, while MFP is calculating an absolute weight loss.

1.5 pounds per week is a daily deficit of 750. Whereas IIFYM is probably calculating TDEE-20%, for a slower loss than 1.5lbs/week.

This would be my next guess. Even set to agreaaive weight loss its probably TDEE-25% or something like that


But really just pick one. Try the bigger number. If it works out, awesome! If not adjust down. Ain't nothing wrong with playing with the numbers and finding a sweet spot; humans aren't calculators after all so some guess work is OK.

Thanks I appreciate the input.

Happy to help. I find being proactive and taking control of finding your happy spot is very (for lack of a better term) empowering. It's taking control and making things fit you, instead of just accepting some number read out. Part of what I line about iifym is that it's able to fit anyone. The macro setup that makes you feel best is the right one. The calorie set up that makes you feel good and meets your goals is the right one. The food that meets your goals and makes you happy is the right food.


....lol. Anyway, good luck.