Why don't people use MFP to set their calorie goals?

AllSpiceNice

Not trying to be snarky - but everyday I see multiple posts about "how do I determine my calorie goal? Someone help me figure out how much to eat / exercise to meet my goals?"

I find these questions confusing. When I first stumbled upon MFP, it was obvious that I could put in my stats and MFP would help calculate & track this. Yet so many on the Forums seem completely unaware of this.

Maybe someone can help me understand - why don't you take advantage of the MFP calorie goal and tracking? Does MFP need to draw more attention to those features so people know they exist? Do you see the tools but not trust their accuracy? Or is there another reason people come to the MFP site and decline to use the tools they offer?

Ready2Rock206

I've always wondered this myself. Like I can see if you put in your info, try it for a bit and then decide it isn't working but to never even try to use the tools on a site you're using - I just don't get it.

MegaMooseEsq

I suspect a lot of people are hoping to find some secret formula that will lead to peak weight loss. I think a lot of people also don't trust the MFP estimates because they assume the only way to lose weight is through extremely low calorie diets, so they think MFP is wrong when they get 2000/day or something moderate like that.

amusedmonkey

I think it's mostly mistrust, because they believe their calories should be individualized but miss the fact that they ARE individualized by providing their stats.

MegaMooseEsq

amusedmonkey wrote: »

I think it's mostly mistrust, because they believe their calories should be individualized but miss the fact that they ARE individualized by providing their stats.

I think my biggest lesson learned losing weight is how straightforward it is. There are no tricks, my body is not against me, I can't "ruin" everything by having a piece of cake. I saw my mom and sister struggle with weight all my life, and when I started gaining weight a few years ago it turned into this huge emotional power struggle with my father for a while (families are fun!), so I just assumed that losing weight successfully was some mysterious, impossible thing. It really only sunk in how simple it is after I'd been tracking calories and my weight for some time and realized that, yes, if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight. That doesn't mean it's easy, of course.

cwolfman13

In five years here, I'd have to say that a whole lot of people are just generally clueless as to how this tool works and is designed to work...which I really don't understand because it seemed pretty straight forward to me.

sijomial

"Reading the manual" has gone out of fashion.

besaro

i think a bit of suspicion is a good thing when it comes to mfp recommendations. When I first started I was 250 and 5'6 and because i wanted to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week it set me at 1200, which was really way to low for me. After reading forums and such in about 3 weeks I upped to 1400 and continued to lose at 2 pounds a week. The default for 1200 for 2 pounds regardless of size seems reckless.

WinoGelato

cwolfman13 wrote: »

In five years here, I'd have to say that a whole lot of people are just generally clueless as to how this tool works and is designed to work...which I really don't understand because it seemed pretty straight forward to me.

^This.

janejellyroll

besaro wrote: »

i think a bit of suspicion is a good thing when it comes to mfp recommendations. When I first started I was 250 and 5'6 and because i wanted to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week it set me at 1200, which was really way to low for me. After reading forums and such in about 3 weeks I upped to 1400 and continued to lose at 2 pounds a week. The default for 1200 for 2 pounds regardless of size seems reckless.

It's not a default of 1,200 for 2 pounds regardless of size though. I'm not sure what happened in your case (sometimes there are bugs or whatever), but people do sometimes enter a goal of 2 pounds a week and get a calorie goal that is higher than 1,200.

geekyjock76

I set my own numbers after a trial period to establish how many calories I need to maintain weight; then I adjust according to goal. Out of curiosity, I did let MFP decide and their recommendation was about 200 calories less than the estimate from my month-long experiment(s). I go by my numbers since I don't want to assume too large a deficit.

cwolfman13

besaro wrote: »

i think a bit of suspicion is a good thing when it comes to mfp recommendations. When I first started I was 250 and 5'6 and because i wanted to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week it set me at 1200, which was really way to low for me. After reading forums and such in about 3 weeks I upped to 1400 and continued to lose at 2 pounds a week. The default for 1200 for 2 pounds regardless of size seems reckless.

It's not really the default though...it is the lowest MFP will go and if a female is sedentary, to lose 2 Lbs per week they would have to have a maintenance of about 2,200 calories which most sedentary females do not have. People also don't understand that 1200 is what generally falls under the sedentary setting for activity level and don't understand that exercise is additional, unaccounted for activity that should be accounted for and thus more food would be eaten as adjusted for exercise calories.

AllSpiceNice

I should clarify - I don't mean "why don't people trust the MFP calorie goal no matter what." Everyone has different circumstances and may need to adjust the MFP goals up or down. But it's a great place to start, if someone is new and seeking guidance. I was curious why some people don't even try to enter their stats and see what MFP has to say.

besaro wrote: »

i think a bit of suspicion is a good thing when it comes to mfp recommendations. When I first started I was 250 and 5'6 and because i wanted to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week it set me at 1200, which was really way to low for me. After reading forums and such in about 3 weeks I upped to 1400 and continued to lose at 2 pounds a week. The default for 1200 for 2 pounds regardless of size seems reckless.

izanebricks

I can attest that from 260-234 I lost and average of 2 lbs a week following the MFP allotments +/-200 calories a day with bad cheat days here and there without factoring in any steps or exercise extras.

I take them as a guideline and do the best I can to hit the targets.

ccsernica

besaro wrote: »

i think a bit of suspicion is a good thing when it comes to mfp recommendations. When I first started I was 250 and 5'6 and because i wanted to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week it set me at 1200, which was really way to low for me. After reading forums and such in about 3 weeks I upped to 1400 and continued to lose at 2 pounds a week. The default for 1200 for 2 pounds regardless of size seems reckless.

It's not a default, it's the hard-coded minimum the site will recommend for women under any circumstances. For many women, if they set their activity level to sedentary and ask for 2 lbs/week loss rate, the algorithm will actually return fewer calories than 1200. This is corrected upward to 1200 as a matter of safety.

If you were losing at 2 lbs/week with more daily calories, chances are you either set your activity level too low, or were doing some exercise you weren't logging.

AllSpiceNice

Congrats on your 26 lb loss! Yes, when I followed MFPs calorie goal + 75% of exercise calories, I always lost weight at the expected rate. Still works in maintenance too.

The tricky part is actually following those goals - LOL.

izanebricks wrote: »

I can attest that from 260-234 I lost and average of 2 lbs a week following the MFP allotments +/-200 calories a day with bad cheat days here and there without factoring in any steps or exercise extras.

I take them as a guideline and do the best I can to hit the targets.

amusedmonkey

besaro wrote: »

i think a bit of suspicion is a good thing when it comes to mfp recommendations. When I first started I was 250 and 5'6 and because i wanted to lose at a rate of 2 pounds a week it set me at 1200, which was really way to low for me. After reading forums and such in about 3 weeks I upped to 1400 and continued to lose at 2 pounds a week. The default for 1200 for 2 pounds regardless of size seems reckless.

When I first joined it gave me 15xx calories to lose 2 pounds (I think it was something like 1580), but I agree with you that it almost is a "default" of some sorts because not as many have enough fat to manage losing that much. I wish MFP eliminated the higher deficit options for those who can't achieve it eating over 1200 calories. For example, once weight and height are entered, a 150 lb woman would not be given the option to choose 2 pounds and would have to select between 0.5 and 1 pounds. This would eliminate a lot of the frustration people feel when they think MFP gave them 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds, and here they are only losing 1.

amusedmonkey

filbo132 wrote: »

AllSpiceNice wrote: »

Not trying to be snarky - but everyday I see multiple posts about "how do I determine my calorie goal? Someone help me figure out how much to eat / exercise to meet my goals?"

I find these questions confusing. When I first stumbled upon MFP, it was obvious that I could put in my stats and MFP would help calculate & track this. Yet so many on the Forums seem completely unaware of this.

Maybe someone can help me understand - why don't you take advantage of the MFP calorie goal and tracking? Does MFP need to draw more attention to those features so people know they exist? Do you see the tools but not trust their accuracy? Or is there another reason people come to the MFP site and decline to use the tools they offer?

Simply because our bodies are different, there's no calculator in the world that can pinpoint exactly how much is your maintenance. In my case, my metabolism is so high that most calculators get my maintenance wrong. I burn so much calories and all I do is lift weights + no cardio. The only way to estimate your maintenance is with trial and error. You try a certain number of calories for 3 weeks and see the results, change the calories if it's not being met, rinse and repeat until you get the desired results.

While that may be the case, what makes asking other members for a starting point any more accurate than letting MFP calculate it?