Calories calculated

nicoleisme
nicoleisme Posts: 95 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hi, I used to use MFP a lot and have just come back this week. I have gained 45 lbs since then and to lose weight it tells me to eat similar calories to what I was eating to lose weight BEFORE I gained this weight. This seems wrong, how do I find the correct calories to eat?

Replies

  • harper16
    harper16 Posts: 2,564 Member
    edited April 2020
    The entries are mostly used entered. If you haven't consider buying a food scale, and using mfp and the usda website to help calculate your calories.

    What did set your weekly weight loss at?
  • nicoleisme
    nicoleisme Posts: 95 Member
    My weekly weight loss was set to .5 before and it told me to eat 1720 calories approximately (when I was over 40lbs lighter)
    Now I am doing 1lb a week and it's telling me to eat 1520 calories. Which half a pound is 250 calories less a day so within 50 calories of what it was telling me to do beforehand. (1520+250=1770) So even if you take away the deficit it seems like a low-calorie goal. Do you use alternative sites for your estimated calorie burn or just do what MFP sets it at?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,093 Member
    harper16 wrote: »
    The entries are mostly used entered. If you haven't consider buying a food scale, and using mfp and the usda website to help calculate your calories.

    What did set your weekly weight loss at?

    This is a non sequitur. OP is talking about setting a calorie goal. That has nothing to do with food database entries being created by users. Nor does it have anything to do with using a food scale or calculating calories consumed. All of those things come after solving OP's current problem.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,093 Member
    edited April 2020
    nicoleisme wrote: »
    My weekly weight loss was set to .5 before and it told me to eat 1720 calories approximately (when I was over 40lbs lighter)
    Now I am doing 1lb a week and it's telling me to eat 1520 calories. Which half a pound is 250 calories less a day so within 50 calories of what it was telling me to do beforehand. (1520+250=1770) So even if you take away the deficit it seems like a low-calorie goal. Do you use alternative sites for your estimated calorie burn or just do what MFP sets it at?


    Are you sure you haven't selected a different activity level? I believe BMR formulas generally give you about 50 calories per day less for each 10 lbs you lose (a little more if you're a man, a little less if you're a woman), all else being equal.


    ETA: I used what MFP suggested at first, then after about four months, I used my most recent eight or 12 weeks' worth of data to calculate my own NEAT (pre-exercise maintenance calorie level). (This eliminated any large initial water weight losses.) (It's been about six years now, so I can't remember for sure whether I used eight weeks or 12 weeks. I repeated the calculation a year later at a lower weight.)
  • darreneatschicken
    darreneatschicken Posts: 669 Member
    edited April 2020
    Someone on MFP told me to use this calculator: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

    Apparently, it is the most accurate.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,226 Member
    asianambition wrote: »
    Someone on MFP told me to use this calculator: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

    Apparently, it is the most accurate.

    Welllll . . . I dunno.

    It has more activity levels than many, which may let it be more precise.

    It uses multiple research-based formulas all on one site, so the user can see a range of estimates.

    But it's still just estimates. And it's estimating TDEE (total daily energy expenditure), which includes intentional exercise; not estimating NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis), which doesn't include intentional exercise so one is expected to add exercise when performed and eat those calories, too. (MFP estimates NEAT.)

    But IMO Sailrabbit is a really good BMR (basal metabolic rate) and TDEE estimation site, and it's nice that it allows input of body fat percent for people who know that, and lets the user compare multiple popular estimating formulas.

    But again, they're still just estimates: Pick TDEE method (eat same calories daily based on exercise averaged over a typical week), or NEAT method plus exercise (eat more or bank calorie when exercise is actually performed). Pick a calorie estimate (preferred formula). Eat according to the estimate. Monitor for 4-6 weeks, then adjust based on actual results.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,226 Member
    asianambition wrote: »
    Someone on MFP told me to use this calculator: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

    Apparently, it is the most accurate.

    Welllll . . . I dunno.

    It has more activity levels than many, which may let it be more precise.

    It uses multiple research-based formulas all on one site, so the user can see a range of estimates.

    But it's still just estimates. And it's estimating TDEE (total daily energy expenditure), which includes intentional exercise; not estimating NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis), which doesn't include intentional exercise so one is expected to add exercise when performed and eat those calories, too. (MFP estimates NEAT.)

    But IMO Sailrabbit is a really good BMR (basal metabolic rate) and TDEE estimation site, and it's nice that it allows input of body fat percent for people who know that, and lets the user compare multiple popular estimating formulas.

    But again, they're still just estimates: Pick TDEE method (eat same calories daily based on exercise averaged over a typical week), or NEAT method plus exercise (eat more or bank calorie when exercise is actually performed). Pick a calorie estimate (preferred formula). Eat according to the estimate. Monitor for 4-6 weeks, then adjust based on actual results.

Categories