How accurate is myfitnesspal calorie tracker?

klisle103

Hi, so I’ve used my fitness pal on and off for years but it seems a bit off compared to other trackers I’ve used. When I plug my stats into a calorie calculator most of them say my maintenance calories is around 2100-2200 but my fitness pal says my maintenance is almost 2600. 500 calories off. How accurate has everyone found my fitness pal to be for this?

AnnPT77

It really isn't mostly about how accurate MFP or any other calorie calculator or even fitness tracker is: The good ones, including MFP, are based on solid research studies. The numbers they spit out are basically the statistically average calorie needs of people with the same demographic details as the software asked us to input. There are several different research-based estimating formulas, so results can differ. Also, different calculators may have different numbers of activity levels, or slightly different assumptions about activity level definitions.

So what's the real issue when it comes to accurate estimates? How close to average we as individuals are. Most people are close to average. A few people are noticeably different from average, high or low. A few people are surprisingly far off. That's the nature of statistical estimates.

I've been here for nearly ten years now. I've seen a lot of people comment that MFP estimates are fairly close for them. I've seen others say it's a bit off. For me, MFP is off by 25-30%, literally hundreds of calories daily. My good brand/model fitness tracker, one that other people here have said comes close for them, is off by a similar amount. If MFP and the tracker were accurate, and I ate what I've been logging, I would've gained over 50 pounds in the past year. In reality, I weigh not quite a pound less than I did this time last year. (I'm in long-term weight maintenance.) This is rare, but it can happen.

So . . . what to do?

Pick a number as your starting estimate, specifically a number from one of the sound research-based sources. If you think MFP's too high, pick one of the others. Doesn't really matter, as long as whatever we pick isn't crazy dangerously far off. Start logging food, using that number as a basis. Try to stick close, like +/- 50 calories on average daily.

After 4-6 weeks, look at your average weight change over the whole time period to determine the average weekly weight change. If you're a woman who has menstrual cycles, compare body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different cycles to figure average weekly weight change. If that average result differs from your sensible goal weight change, adjust calorie goal using the assumption that 500 calories per day is about a pound a week, or 1100 calories per day is about a kilo per week. Use arithmetic to figure fractional pounds or kilos.

If you don't seem to be making progress as you expect in the first couple of weeks, stick with it. If you're trying to lose and seem to be losing weight very fast plus have symptoms like otherwise unexplained fatigue/weakness, fainting, or anything like that, eat more and reset the experiment starting point. (It's dangerous to lose weight too fast.) That's what happened to me - weakness and fatigue, very suddenly. But it was about a month or so into the process. I increased my calorie goal as soon as I realized. It did take multiple weeks to regain normal strength and energy: No one needs that.

TL;DR: They're all statistical estimates. Use them as a starting point, test-drive an estimate for several weeks, adjust based on personal results if necessary. That works great.

After I figured out my personal calorie needs per above process, my average body weight changes became very predictable based on my calorie intake, and have stayed quite predictable in the 9+ years since weight loss. If that changed, I'd just run the experiment again.

Best wishes!

csplatt

It’s a statistical average, so it doesn’t take into account individual metabolisms, muscle makeup, etc. It gives me a starting point and I watch the scale and mirror and adjust as needed over long periods of time. Also, I think many people are inaccurate with guessing their activity level, so that probably contrubutes for some