Guided goal

mulecanter
mulecanter Posts: 1,792 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I can't get a good answer from tech support, maybe you all can answer this. I'm 58, 6', male, 209lbs. When I use the guided goal function on MFP and ask for a 1.5lb/week loss rate it says 1500 calories. When I ask for a 2.0lb/week loss rate it gives me 1500 calories and a 1.5lb/week loss rate. Am I at some sort of minimum calorie hard stop or is there some sort of bug in the tool?

Replies

  • gophermatt
    gophermatt Posts: 129 Member
    Generally, they don’t recommend guys going below 1,500 or women below 1,200 / day.

    My BMR is low, sounds like yours may be as well. Might help to turn on exercise calories. Caution though: most trackers and logs significantly overestimate calories burned in exercise. Good practice to only eat back a portion of them.

  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,128 Member
    1500 is the minimum it will go for a guy regardless of what rate of loss you choose.

    Your maintenance per MFPs equation at sedentary will put you at around 2260 calories per day.

    One pound of fat is equivalent to 3500 calories which over 7 days is a 500 calorie deficit.

    So for you to remain above the healthy recommendation for a male it will not let you go below a 760 calorie deficit which is around 1.5lbs per week.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    Yes, the minimum recommended calories for an adult male is 1500, so it won't set you below that. If you would need to go below 1500 to lose 2 lbs per week, chances are you aren't heavy enough for that rate of loss to be advisable.
  • mulecanter
    mulecanter Posts: 1,792 Member
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,128 Member
    mulecanter wrote: »
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......

    Perhaps you set yourself a higher activity level back then? If you had chosen say Lightly Active your maintenance would be around 2530 which would allow for the 1000 calorie deficit required for a 2lb per week loss.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    tinkerbellang83 wrote: »
    mulecanter wrote: »
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......

    Perhaps you set yourself a higher activity level back then? If you had chosen say Lightly Active your maintenance would be around 2530 which would allow for the 1000 calorie deficit required for a 2lb per week loss.

    Or perhaps he was heavier back then, which would make for a higher BMR to start with, which would theoretically make more room for a larger deficit.

    A huge deficit isn't a great idea anyway, in terms of the possibility of excessive loss of lean body mass. It's a lot better idea to try to retain as much LBM/muscle as possible rather than having to try to gain it back later. Gaining muscle is a slow, laborious process and also involves gaining back some measure of fat along with it. I'd rather cut slower and avoid all that mess.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,128 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    tinkerbellang83 wrote: »
    mulecanter wrote: »
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......

    Perhaps you set yourself a higher activity level back then? If you had chosen say Lightly Active your maintenance would be around 2530 which would allow for the 1000 calorie deficit required for a 2lb per week loss.

    Or perhaps he was heavier back then, which would make for a higher BMR to start with, which would theoretically make more room for a larger deficit.

    Yep or that too. Just figured that would have been too obvious a change to be confused by.

  • amberellen12
    amberellen12 Posts: 248 Member
    Age also makes a difference. I should eat 300 calories less at 60 that what I would at 25 for maintenance.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,128 Member
    amberellen12 wrote: »
    Age also makes a difference. I should eat 300 calories less at 60 that what I would at 25 for maintenance.

    In a few years it wouldn't make 250 calories difference though, even putting his stats in at 10 years younger that's less than 100 calories different.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    mulecanter wrote: »
    I can't get a good answer from tech support, maybe you all can answer this. I'm 58, 6', male, 209lbs. When I use the guided goal function on MFP and ask for a 1.5lb/week loss rate it says 1500 calories. When I ask for a 2.0lb/week loss rate it gives me 1500 calories and a 1.5lb/week loss rate. Am I at some sort of minimum calorie hard stop or is there some sort of bug in the tool?

    1500 is the minimum for a male.
    mulecanter wrote: »
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......

    This could happen if you started out heavier back then...the smaller you are, the less calories you need. You could have also selected a higher activity level.

    Also, if you exercise, you can eat more.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    mulecanter wrote: »
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......

    Years ago it used to let men set goals as low as 1200. I don't remember exactly when they changed it, but I remember a lot of us grumbling about calorie goals that were too low for guys.
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    edited April 2018
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    mulecanter wrote: »
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......

    Years ago it used to let men set goals as low as 1200. I don't remember exactly when they changed it, but I remember a lot of us grumbling about calorie goals that were too low for guys.

    December 2014. I believe that was also when MFP reduced carb goal by 5% and increased protein goal by 5%.

    Although this article currently indicates the article was last update in 2015, I have posts prior to that updated article noting the goal change in December 2014.

    https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals
  • mulecanter
    mulecanter Posts: 1,792 Member
    CyberTone wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    mulecanter wrote: »
    1500 it is. Seems like something changed in the last couple years, I thought I remembered being able to get a 2lb rate when I was new here years ago. Or I'm old and confused.......

    Years ago it used to let men set goals as low as 1200. I don't remember exactly when they changed it, but I remember a lot of us grumbling about calorie goals that were too low for guys.

    December 2014. I believe that was also when MFP reduced carb goal by 5% and increased protein goal by 5%.

    Although this article currently indicates the article was last update in 2015, I have posts prior to that updated article noting the goal change in December 2014.

    https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals

    Thanks Everyone!! All good inputs, the December 14 change helps me know I'm not senile. I would also acknowledge I was at a higher weight when I started so that was a factor too. The biggest takeaway on this thread is that if you want an answer fast consult the community and not tech support ;-)
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    Take note of @AnvilHead's post. A slower 1lbs a week loss and including some weight training will probably give you a better result than just dropping the weight.
    More muscle retention is healthier, and will probably give you a better physique when you reach your goal weight.

    Cheers, h.

    ( @CyberTone, you always amaze me by the info and links you provide on the ins and out of MFP and it's changes over time).

Categories