Body weight planner - how accurate is it for your loss?

CharlieBeansmomTracey

CarvedTones wrote: »

It's a tool to help you figure out calories to lose weight, but I thought it would be interesting to see how accurate it is by having those of us in maintenance plug in our starting weights, activity, increase in activity, goal and time frame. You have to set it as starting now and make the goal date as far in the future as it took you to lose the weight.

https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/index.html

I played with the numbers and could not get it anywhere close to accurate. The maintenance numbers were way too high for me. How about you?

nope its way off for me. no way in hades I could maintain current weight on 2481 calories a day.I would gain weight. Im maintaining my weight now on 1900 net or less(with exercise). I recalculated and put in moderate exercise and light work and it gave me 2335 to maintain now and 1579 to reach my goal in 180 days. Im eating less than that without exercise. no weight loss for some reason.but thats another post

RunsWithBees

Way too high for me! It has me eating 2116 calories and my maintenance calories are 1800 as I’ve maintained for 4 years. I’m hypothyroid so that affects my calorie allowance. My weight tends to balloon up very quickly and it’s disheartening knowing I’m just a few cookies away from undoing all my hard work, so I must remain vigilant

PAV8888

At an AF of 1.8 the model comes up about 300 Cal short of MFP for me, though on average I am about 50 to 150 Cal short (2 to 5%). So the model under-estimates my final Cal.

@CarvedTones you may have to experiment with slightly higher intake amounts before you will know, for sure, your true upper bound.

To find your true actual max maintenance you will have to transition from losing to not only NOT losing any more; but, to actually gaining at a slight rate for at least two or three weeks before you pull back to no longer gaining.

It is the difference between pushing at the edge of the down boundary vs pushing at the edge of the up boundary.

Whether the potential extra Cal are worth it to you... that's a story only you can answer.

But based on your posts I believe that you may currently be in a good enough head space that with cautious determination you could increase calories to the point of showing a gain not exceeding ~ 100 to 150 Cal a day and then pull back that last 100 Cal to not gaining.

heybales

And as extra encouragement for that increase to cal's - remember that if those 100 extra calories daily really was above your maintenance - it would take 35 days to slowly gain 1 lb.

Anything faster would be water weight, or huge change in activity level without matching change in eating level.

And that's why maintenance should never be a goal number, but goal range.
Hit the upper, lower a bit. Hit the lower, allow going up.

Themajez

Way too high for me, if I ate that amount every day I'd be heaviest weight ever.

psychod787

PAV8888 wrote: »

At an AF of 1.8 the model comes up about 300 Cal short of MFP for me, though on average I am about 50 to 150 Cal short (2 to 5%). So the model under-estimates my final Cal.

@CarvedTones you may have to experiment with slightly higher intake amounts before you will know, for sure, your true upper bound.

To find your true actual max maintenance you will have to transition from losing to not only NOT losing any more; but, to actually gaining at a slight rate for at least two or three weeks before you pull back to no longer gaining.

It is the difference between pushing at the edge of the down boundary vs pushing at the edge of the up boundary.

Whether the potential extra Cal are worth it to you... that's a story only you can answer.

But based on your posts I believe that you may currently be in a good enough head space that with cautious determination you could increase calories to the point of showing a gain not exceeding ~ 100 to 150 Cal a day and then pull back that last 100 Cal to not gaining.

PAV8888 wrote: »

At an AF of 1.8 the model comes up about 300 Cal short of MFP for me, though on average I am about 50 to 150 Cal short (2 to 5%). So the model under-estimates my final Cal.

@CarvedTones you may have to experiment with slightly higher intake amounts before you will know, for sure, your true upper bound.

To find your true actual max maintenance you will have to transition from losing to not only NOT losing any more; but, to actually gaining at a slight rate for at least two or three weeks before you pull back to no longer gaining.

It is the difference between pushing at the edge of the down boundary vs pushing at the edge of the up boundary.

Whether the potential extra Cal are worth it to you... that's a story only you can answer.

But based on your posts I believe that you may currently be in a good enough head space that with cautious determination you could increase calories to the point of showing a gain not exceeding ~ 100 to 150 Cal a day and then pull back that last 100 Cal to not gaining.

PAV,
You are far higher than a 1.8 averaging 20000 steps a day. Closer to a 1.9 or more really!

inertiastrength

Looked good for me based on my observed TDEE

walking2running

very inaccurate. i have a sedentary job but I work out 4 times per week and remain lightly active while picking up the kids, going to the park, light cleaning around the house, etc. I am 5'4" and at the moment 172 pounds. Accoridng to the calculator I need 2,363 calories to maintain my weight. My TDEE according to my observations is 1850. Huge difference. I would basically gain a pound a week if I were to eat at the recommended maintenance calories.

PAV8888

psychod787 wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

At an AF of 1.8 the model comes up about 300 Cal short of MFP for me, though on average I am about 50 to 150 Cal short (2 to 5%). So the model under-estimates my final Cal.

@CarvedTones you may have to experiment with slightly higher intake amounts before you will know, for sure, your true upper bound.

To find your true actual max maintenance you will have to transition from losing to not only NOT losing any more; but, to actually gaining at a slight rate for at least two or three weeks before you pull back to no longer gaining.

It is the difference between pushing at the edge of the down boundary vs pushing at the edge of the up boundary.

Whether the potential extra Cal are worth it to you... that's a story only you can answer.

But based on your posts I believe that you may currently be in a good enough head space that with cautious determination you could increase calories to the point of showing a gain not exceeding ~ 100 to 150 Cal a day and then pull back that last 100 Cal to not gaining.

PAV8888 wrote: »

At an AF of 1.8 the model comes up about 300 Cal short of MFP for me, though on average I am about 50 to 150 Cal short (2 to 5%). So the model under-estimates my final Cal.

@CarvedTones you may have to experiment with slightly higher intake amounts before you will know, for sure, your true upper bound.

To find your true actual max maintenance you will have to transition from losing to not only NOT losing any more; but, to actually gaining at a slight rate for at least two or three weeks before you pull back to no longer gaining.

It is the difference between pushing at the edge of the down boundary vs pushing at the edge of the up boundary.

Whether the potential extra Cal are worth it to you... that's a story only you can answer.

But based on your posts I believe that you may currently be in a good enough head space that with cautious determination you could increase calories to the point of showing a gain not exceeding ~ 100 to 150 Cal a day and then pull back that last 100 Cal to not gaining.

PAV,
You are far higher than a 1.8 averaging 20000 steps a day. Closer to a 1.9 or more really!

I was using 1.8 as a common denominator because it is MFPs top setting.

I am actually close to 1.96 and Fitbit/MFP predict me to be closer to 2x

Basically:
Supertracker + 50 to 150 = Actual + 50 to 150 = MFP/Fitbit

psychod787

PAV8888 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

At an AF of 1.8 the model comes up about 300 Cal short of MFP for me, though on average I am about 50 to 150 Cal short (2 to 5%). So the model under-estimates my final Cal.

@CarvedTones you may have to experiment with slightly higher intake amounts before you will know, for sure, your true upper bound.

To find your true actual max maintenance you will have to transition from losing to not only NOT losing any more; but, to actually gaining at a slight rate for at least two or three weeks before you pull back to no longer gaining.

It is the difference between pushing at the edge of the down boundary vs pushing at the edge of the up boundary.

Whether the potential extra Cal are worth it to you... that's a story only you can answer.

But based on your posts I believe that you may currently be in a good enough head space that with cautious determination you could increase calories to the point of showing a gain not exceeding ~ 100 to 150 Cal a day and then pull back that last 100 Cal to not gaining.

PAV8888 wrote: »

At an AF of 1.8 the model comes up about 300 Cal short of MFP for me, though on average I am about 50 to 150 Cal short (2 to 5%). So the model under-estimates my final Cal.

@CarvedTones you may have to experiment with slightly higher intake amounts before you will know, for sure, your true upper bound.

To find your true actual max maintenance you will have to transition from losing to not only NOT losing any more; but, to actually gaining at a slight rate for at least two or three weeks before you pull back to no longer gaining.

It is the difference between pushing at the edge of the down boundary vs pushing at the edge of the up boundary.

Whether the potential extra Cal are worth it to you... that's a story only you can answer.

But based on your posts I believe that you may currently be in a good enough head space that with cautious determination you could increase calories to the point of showing a gain not exceeding ~ 100 to 150 Cal a day and then pull back that last 100 Cal to not gaining.

PAV,
You are far higher than a 1.8 averaging 20000 steps a day. Closer to a 1.9 or more really!

I was using 1.8 as a common denominator because it is MFPs top setting.

I am actually close to 1.96 and Fitbit/MFP predict me to be closer to 2x

Basically:
Supertracker + 50 to 150 = Actual + 50 to 150 = MFP/Fitbit

Pav8888.... If you were a gal..... i love the analytic mind! Lol