Myfitnesspal is crazy! It says I would gain on 2000 calories a day...

Tropicoolblonde
Tropicoolblonde Posts: 70 Member
edited November 18 in Health and Weight Loss
Any idea why? That seems pretty low for weight gain.
«13

Replies

  • annacole94
    annacole94 Posts: 994 Member
    MFP works off the info you give it. If it's wrong, something in the settings may be wrong or else what you think you know and what actually happened aren't quite the same. Recalling food and activity is never very accurate.

    Either way, one day is just one day and isn't significant long term.
  • animatorswearbras
    animatorswearbras Posts: 1,001 Member
    edited May 2017
    What are your stats? Height, weight, activity level? I would gain on 2000 if I didn't exercise, my maintenance is around the 1700 mark sedentary. I'm female 5'5" and 143 pounds with a desk job. I do exercise on top of this to earn some extra cals.

    edit: the 2000 cal number is banded around alot (mostly on food packaging) but it makes alot of assumptions, the main one being that you're moderately active.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    Tropicoolblonde wrote: »
    Any idea why? That seems pretty low for weight gain.

    LOL. I would absolutely gain on that. You probably need to do a little research. :)
  • anaxmann
    anaxmann Posts: 103 Member
    I'm 5' 11", 160, desk job, but go to the gym daily, and I maintain on about 1900 net.
  • Running_and_Coffee
    Running_and_Coffee Posts: 811 Member
    I would totally gain on 2000 a day. I maintain on 1600.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,989 Member
    I'm guessing that most people get that number stuck in their head as the "ideal" number of calories because we see so often "Based on a 2,000 calorie diet".
    But that's just a very general average. Depending on your gender, weight, height, and activity level, it could be much lower or much higher.
  • Seffell
    Seffell Posts: 2,244 Member
    I maintain on 1600. On 2000 I would be gaining 3.5lbs per month.
  • ESinc1118
    ESinc1118 Posts: 19 Member
    I stopped paying attention to the gain estimator after completing my diary...It's told me consistently that I would gain or maintain if I ate 1100 calories a day for the next five weeks... :/ clearly something is off!
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    I would for sure gain on 2000 cals per day. What are your stats?
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    5'6" and I would gain if I were sedentary on 2K
  • HazyEyes93
    HazyEyes93 Posts: 89 Member
    If I was completely sedentary and never exercised, I would absolutely gain on 2,000. I'm 5'3", 24 year old woman. With my active job, I maintain my current weight on 2,034. When I reach goal, I expect my maintenance to be around 1,800, give or take a little.
  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    Sounds right. I'm 5'7", 219lb and I maintain at 1,400 calories. More than that and I gain.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    If you said sedentary, MFP's numbers assume no exercise.

    I'd gain on 2000 with no exercise. (This is why you log exercise in MFP.)
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    5'9" and 158 here. I get in average 14,500 steps a day, and am maintaining on about 2,000.

    If sedentary, I need to drop to about 1500/day to maintain.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    I would gain on 1800 a day.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Just to throw this out there since there are so many people comparing who maintains at what intake...

    If your logging/weight changes show you maintain at 1800 cals (just using this as an example)... they you actually maintain at 1800 cals based on how you log. There IS some margin for error. For some, that error rate could be fairly low, for others it could be fairly high.

    The point is that saying "I maintain at 1800 cals" could be misleading. You maintain at 1800 cals based on your logging... which may or may not be the same as 1800 cals for someone else, based on how they log.

    Did that make any sense? It was very clear in my head, but I can't seem to put it into words very well.


    It makes sense to me. 2 people at 5'8 145 could eat the same maintenance and do the same basic activity level and maintain, and one could be logging 1800 and the other 1400
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Just to throw this out there since there are so many people comparing who maintains at what intake...

    If your logging/weight changes show you maintain at 1800 cals (just using this as an example)... they you actually maintain at 1800 cals based on how you log. There IS some margin for error. For some, that error rate could be fairly low, for others it could be fairly high.

    The point is that saying "I maintain at 1800 cals" could be misleading. You maintain at 1800 cals based on your logging... which may or may not be the same as 1800 cals for someone else, based on how they log.

    Did that make any sense? It was very clear in my head, but I can't seem to put it into words very well.

    True, but my logging is as accurate as I *think* one can get because my expected losses over time match my calories in data pretty closely. If I'm sedentary, I'm REALLY sedentary, I would be in a small surplus or just maintaining at 2K. When I say lazy, I mean lazy lol
  • Quasita
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    I would also like to point out that people that are stating they would "absolutely gain" if they increased to 2k, that doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily needing to eat more. Every person that is routinely undereating for their current body stature and activity level will see an initial amount of weight gain simply because of adaptive thermogenesis to the much more restricted calorie intake that you have been functioning on, and increasing past that will absolutely make an initial weight gain happen... But very often, as we see here in the forums, people will *think* they need to eat far less than what they actually need, and find that they have much more success when they adjust their levels to a more appropriate intake for their stats and allow a few weeks for adjustment.

    That being said, the average woman routinely clocks in for a caloric intake need of under 2000 calories anyway, sedentary up to maybe moderately active. When we see the "based on a 2000 calorie diet" we have to keep in mind that this applies to the full spectrum of population. The nutrition labels can't break it down to biological sex, age and activity level and leave any room for other information, so they use this, because it fits right smack dab in the middle of an average between grown men and grown women and gives a general idea for nutritional content.

    For a shorter, slighter woman, a natural intake need of 1600 is entirely possible and healthy, which would indeed mean that eating 2k a day could generate weight gain, particularly if you weren't working out aggressively. People that fit into this category aren't likely to be burning 500+ calories an hour during workouts, you'd have to do quite a bit of activity to offset a 400+ calorie overage in that circumstance.
  • Tropicoolblonde
    Tropicoolblonde Posts: 70 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    What did you put as your activity level? Did you include your exercise? Perhaps you have underestimated your activity level. Also, the calculator just uses population statistics...no calculator takes into account differences in BMR, etc...that would be pretty impossible...it's population statistical data that is used in calculations and these numbers are really only meant to give someone a reasonably good starting point...it's not gospel.

    ETA: My wife is 5'3" and 42 years old...she has a desk job, but is also an avid runner and lifts...she maintains on roughly 2,300, so it's certainly not impossible that you wouldn't gain on 2,000, but it's a trial and error thing...just adding that with all of the 2,000 calories would be impossible not to gain comments.


    Hi! I am similar in fitness to your wife.. although I am 7 inches taller, and almost 20 years younger. I feel being young and being taller as well as a runner definitely raises the calorie needs a bit. I feel 2300 sounds about right for me too.. these calculators are just guesses after all and it is at best confusing. I recently got a HRM and I hope it will give me an idea (even though it is still just an estimation). I'm not too worried since I don't have much weight to lose at all... I just wish it were more clear.
  • Tropicoolblonde
    Tropicoolblonde Posts: 70 Member
    Just realized I didn't answer the question about activity level... I put sedentary and I add "exercise calories" as I go.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories