Do you trust MFP?

nm212

I've been having alot of trouble eating 1200-1300 calories a day, with low impact exercise. I used to do intense workouts and was fine cause I could always eat back my calories and still lose! However, I have a foot injury and had to switch to swimming. I only burn about 250 calories for 30 min and it's super hard for me to get through that! So I'm always still hungry and don't feel like I can eat my calories back cause I didn't burn much. (Still learning)

I decided to see what MFP suggests if I switch to lose .5 lb a week instead of 1 lb. They gave me 1460 calories for sedentary and 1660 for lightly active!! That sounds like ALOT .

Any suggestions here on your experience with this? Can I trust these numbers and still lose weight? I'm willing to lose it slower if I could eat more...

Please help! And yes I know about BMI and TDEE numbers and all that, but I'm asking about MFP system here.

Thanks for any help, Nicole

queenliz99

I trust the numbers but, be that as it may, I know my calorie counting is pretty accurate. I use a food scale and eat back almost all calorie burns. All the numbers, in and out, are just estimates, you need to keep that in mind.

Nicklebee93

MFP only gives what you ask of it. If you want to lose 3lbs a week it's going to give you a really aggressive calories deficient. Which for a woman is 1,200.

As long as you're eating less than your maintenance you're going to lose.

perkymommy

I have mine set at the lowest for everything. I have sedentary as my activity level and put 0.5 as what I would like to try and lose per week (the lowest possible on both). I only get 1200 calories per day and find it hard to stick within that amount. I've only been doing this for a couple of weeks and weight isn't coming off like it was when I was on Weight Watchers but I've committed to doing MFP for at least one month.

earlnabby

Yes, I trust the numbers and have a good number to show for it:

nm212

earlnabby wrote: »

Yes, I trust the numbers and have a good number to show for it:

Wow, yes congrats on your loss! I guess I need to have a little more faith in this process.

RWClary

I trust MFP to a point.
Their calorie estimates for food intake and exercise burn are just that: estimates.
I found that my metabolism was higher than their numbers, so I made adjustments. You must try their numbers first, then correct course only if needed. As you can see below, MFP worked for me once I found my zone. Many have had a similar experience...and so can you!
Good Luck!

Anya_000

nm212 wrote: »

I decided to see what MFP suggests if I switch to lose .5 lb a week instead of 1 lb. They gave me 1460 calories for sedentary and 1660 for lightly active!! That sounds like ALOT .

I'm 5'6, and initially wanted to lose 1 lb a week, but I was starving and couldn't hack the 1200-1300 calorie diet. I dropped my goal to .5lb a week, and MFP gave me the same numbers as you 1460-1660. When I log correctly and aim for 1460 I do lose about .5lb a week. I eat closer to 1600 on the two days a week that I lift weights.

Serah87

Yes. MFP help me lose 121 pounds and kept it off for 18 months now.

xtina315

I eat between 1300-1600 calories a day and have been losing 1.5-2 lbs per week, and do not work out that often. I'm also heavier my current weight is 206.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Christine_72

Has anyone found that MFP has underestimated their calories??

lynn_glenmont

nm212 wrote: »

I've been having alot of trouble eating 1200-1300 calories a day, with low impact exercise. I used to do intense workouts and was fine cause I could always eat back my calories and still lose! However, I have a foot injury and had to switch to swimming. I only burn about 250 calories for 30 min and it's super hard for me to get through that! So I'm always still hungry and don't feel like I can eat my calories back cause I didn't burn much. (Still learning)

I decided to see what MFP suggests if I switch to lose .5 lb a week instead of 1 lb. They gave me 1460 calories for sedentary and 1660 for lightly active!! That sounds like ALOT .

Any suggestions here on your experience with this? Can I trust these numbers and still lose weight? I'm willing to lose it slower if I could eat more...

Please help! And yes I know about BMI and TDEE numbers and all that, but I'm asking about MFP system here.

Thanks for any help, Nicole

I don't understand what you want. You say 1200-1300 is too little and you're always hungry but 1460 "sounds like ALOT." Split the difference and try 1380??

1460 doesn't sound like a lot to me. It's about what MFP recommended I start with for 1 lb. a week, and I ended up losing two pounds a week for months.

Are you losing on 1200-1300 calories a day? Would you be OK losing a little more slowly if you could have a few more calories?

Christine_72 wrote: »

Has anyone found that MFP has underestimated their calories??

If you mean "underestimated the calories that a user needs for maintenance," then yes. I have a desk job, but I had to kick my activity level up to active (not lightly active) to get a net calorie maintenance estimate that was close to what my actual results indicated.

Christine_72

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

nm212 wrote: »

I've been having alot of trouble eating 1200-1300 calories a day, with low impact exercise. I used to do intense workouts and was fine cause I could always eat back my calories and still lose! However, I have a foot injury and had to switch to swimming. I only burn about 250 calories for 30 min and it's super hard for me to get through that! So I'm always still hungry and don't feel like I can eat my calories back cause I didn't burn much. (Still learning)

I decided to see what MFP suggests if I switch to lose .5 lb a week instead of 1 lb. They gave me 1460 calories for sedentary and 1660 for lightly active!! That sounds like ALOT .

Any suggestions here on your experience with this? Can I trust these numbers and still lose weight? I'm willing to lose it slower if I could eat more...

Please help! And yes I know about BMI and TDEE numbers and all that, but I'm asking about MFP system here.

Thanks for any help, Nicole

I don't understand what you want. You say 1200-1300 is too little and you're always hungry but 1460 "sounds like ALOT." Split the difference and try 1380??

1460 doesn't sound like a lot to me. It's about what MFP recommended I start with for 1 lb. a week, and I ended up losing two pounds a week for months.

Are you losing on 1200-1300 calories a day? Would you be OK losing a little more slowly if you could have a few more calories?

Christine_72 wrote: »

Has anyone found that MFP has underestimated their calories??

If you mean "underestimated the calories that a user needs for maintenance," then yes. I have a desk job, but I had to kick my activity level up to active (not lightly active) to get a net calorie maintenance estimate that was close to what my actual results indicated.

Yes, that's what I meant. You often hear of it overestimating, but this could be because of user logging errors...

moto450

Mfp only uses General calculations. Go off of what it suggests in the beginning, but if you maintain or gain weight at those calories then reduce a little bit more. Do it slowly until you find that you are losing consistently at a reasonable rate. It takes time, patience, and overall it takes persistence and consistency. it all comes down how accurate you are about logging what you eat, finding your true maintenance number, and eating below that number.

gawworthington

Check out youtube videos for chair exercise for people that hurt a lower extremity. I used them when I sprained my ankle. It will help burn calories.

markrgeary1

I don't know about trust as it's a piece of code. All I can say is it worked for both my wife and I. Together we've dropped over 100 pounds. Some people say it's tougher to lose weight at our age, upper 50s, don't know it worked fine. The calculations may have been a little off, I lost a little quicker than MFP said, hers was a little slower. Either way it works, be very accurate with logging. Yes, you need a food scale. I wonder how we ever cooked without one, it's the most used item in the kitchen.

valente347

Also, I notice people who come and announce they want to loose weight seem to disappear after a few months. Those who announce they want to lose weight seem to stick around longer and lose weight.

Lol, it's the one weird trick.

trjjoy

Yes, I trust MFP. You should eat low-cal veggies to stay full on 1200 calories a day. Make a huge salad or turn them into a soup.

DonM46

Yes.
I lost 35 pounds in 10 months and have kept my weight +/- 3 pounds of my goal since reaching it in 2011.
I am annoyed by those who say, "Oh, you have to calculate your TDEE," or jump through all kinds of mathematical hoops to do it right.
Poppycock. I have no idea what my TDEE is, & don't want (or need) to know.
Just follow MFP's recommendations & you'll be fine.

earlnabby

DonM46 wrote: »

Yes.
I lost 35 pounds in 10 months and have kept my weight +/- 3 pounds of my goal since reaching it in 2011.
I am annoyed by those who say, "Oh, you have to calculate your TDEE," or jump through all kinds of mathematical hoops to do it right.
Poppycock. I have no idea what my TDEE is, & don't want (or need) to know.
Just follow MFP's recommendations & you'll be fine.

(Although you might need to tweak them a little depending on your body)

Francl27

DonM46 wrote: »

Yes.
I lost 35 pounds in 10 months and have kept my weight +/- 3 pounds of my goal since reaching it in 2011.
I am annoyed by those who say, "Oh, you have to calculate your TDEE," or jump through all kinds of mathematical hoops to do it right.
Poppycock. I have no idea what my TDEE is, & don't want (or need) to know.
Just follow MFP's recommendations & you'll be fine.

Bottom line is that, used correctly, MFP works just fine. I like knowing my TDEE so I don't have to bother eating exercise calories, but to each their own.

earlnabby

Francl27 wrote: »

DonM46 wrote: »

Yes.
I lost 35 pounds in 10 months and have kept my weight +/- 3 pounds of my goal since reaching it in 2011.
I am annoyed by those who say, "Oh, you have to calculate your TDEE," or jump through all kinds of mathematical hoops to do it right.
Poppycock. I have no idea what my TDEE is, & don't want (or need) to know.
Just follow MFP's recommendations & you'll be fine.

Bottom line is that, used correctly, MFP works just fine. I like knowing my TDEE so I don't have to bother eating exercise calories, but to each their own.

You don't NEED to know TDEE to use MFP properly and get results. That was the point.

Lounmoun

MFP worked for me so I would trust it.
If 1460 doesn't work for you to lose .5 a week then you can lower your calories again until you find what works for you but doesn't leave you hungry all the time.

You Tube has some seated workout videos. Jessica Smith tv has a couple. It is something you could do besides swimming while your foot heals.

nm212

earlnabby wrote: »

DonM46 wrote: »

Yes.
I lost 35 pounds in 10 months and have kept my weight +/- 3 pounds of my goal since reaching it in 2011.
I am annoyed by those who say, "Oh, you have to calculate your TDEE," or jump through all kinds of mathematical hoops to do it right.
Poppycock. I have no idea what my TDEE is, & don't want (or need) to know.
Just follow MFP's recommendations & you'll be fine.

(Although you might need to tweak them a little depending on your body)

Hahaha thanks

nm212

Lounmoun wrote: »

MFP worked for me so I would trust it.
If 1460 doesn't work for you to lose .5 a week then you can lower your calories again until you find what works for you but doesn't leave you hungry all the time.

You Tube has some seated workout videos. Jessica Smith tv has a couple. It is something you could do besides swimming while your foot heals.

Cool recommendation. I will try it!

jandsstevenson887

I trust MFP because I've been using for 3 months, set at 1lb/week and I've lost 1lb/week.

nm212

valente347 wrote: »

Also, I notice people who come and announce they want to loose weight seem to disappear after a few months. Those who announce they want to lose weight seem to stick around longer and lose weight.

Lol, it's the one weird trick.

I've been on here for a few years. MFP worked for me but like I said, my amount of exercise has decreased alot due to an injury and so I am trying to adjust.

yesimpson

Christine_72 wrote: »

Has anyone found that MFP has underestimated their calories??

Yep. Even using Fitbit adjustments, I have to add 75 calories a day to my goal in order to not lose weight. Doesn't sound a huge amount out, but that's 525 a week.

Also needed to increase for both losing and gaining in the past.

MFP calorie suggestions are good for a starting point, but you may need to tweak them on an individual basis (assuming you're weighing food accurately and estimating calories burnt through activity as best you can - I use 100% of Runkeeper calories for runs and 90% of MFP for other things like swimming or again, I lose too fast/fail to maintain).

nm212

Sandera2 wrote: »

nm212 wrote: »

I decided to see what MFP suggests if I switch to lose .5 lb a week instead of 1 lb. They gave me 1460 calories for sedentary and 1660 for lightly active!! That sounds like ALOT .

I'm 5'6, and initially wanted to lose 1 lb a week, but I was starving and couldn't hack the 1200-1300 calorie diet. I dropped my goal to .5lb a week, and MFP gave me the same numbers as you 1460-1660. When I log correctly and aim for 1460 I do lose about .5lb a week. I eat closer to 1600 on the two days a week that I lift weights.

Awesome. Thanks for sharing. That's good to hear

DanyellMcGinnis

I trust MFP because I'm getting good results. I have averaged about 1.6 pounds lost per week (have it set for 1) so my activity level is probably higher than the MFP estimate (plus I am not weighing my food...) but I am actually losing weight now, whereas I hadn't for any other attempt in the last 5 or 10 years, so the method works for me. I will worry more about accurate numbers when it comes time for maintenance.