No wonder why everyone is confused!!!

redheadmommy

Second, you're not logging properly if you even mention using measuring cups and spoons. Get rid of them. They're not accurate. Just use the scale.

??? Most basic liquid calories ,like milk, is given by volume not by weight in the database.

lexbubbles

First, if you have 50 lbs to lose and select 'lose 1 lb a week' there is no way MFP tells you to eat as little as 1250 calories... unless you really don't have 50 lbs to lose.

IDK, when I started I had 45lb to lose to get to the middle of healthy weight range for my height (130lb). I still have 34lb to go. The maximum it'll let me lose per week is 1.3lb at 1,200 cals a day - which is the same estimated loss as when I started. It's not totally out of the realms of possibility if the OP is shorter than me (I'm 5'4)

In fact, I just did a little test. If I put my height down to 5' it gives me 1,280 calories to lose 1lb/week.

erickirb

There's 3 different calculations for metabolism - Mifflin - St Jeor, Katch Mcardle and I forget the other.

Add to that different places will use different methods of calculating exercise expenditure and different multipliers applied to estimated BMR, and yeah, you will get different results.

I agree, and I think some of the sites used NEAT-500 cals, others used NEAT- 20%, others used TDEE - 500 cals, while others used TDEE - 20%. So 3 BMR cals, countless activity multipliers, depending on site, and 2 deficit calculator, -20% or -500 cals would give you a host of different info. Some of these are just different estimates, others are comparing apples to oranges.

Yydolemm

That is terrible! How confusing.

But great results...keep it up, girl!

1princesswarrior

Okay, I have 8 months of data that I've collected on myself and a bodpod measurement but what I've found is that using MFP or TDEE - 20% comes within 100 calories when I enter the data correctly into MFP. When I start playing with entering the data into MFP, particularly the activity factor it quickly drops me down to 1200, which by trial and error I cannot live on without going bald.

So here's what I do for what it's worth but I know my body by now. I set my calories at approximately my TDEE - 18% or so with rounding. I still track my burns with a hrm and make sure I net at least my BMR daily because I am very active. By doing this I have steadily lost 1 lb a week more or less. On days that I'm not as active I eat closer to my calorie goal, on really active days when I burn over 800 calories I eat what I need to meet my BMR.

I think the OP is right to experiment as long as she is counting calories as accurately as possible.

I'm 40, 5'4, losing on anywhere from 1900-3000 calories a day depending on activity.

CLC1974

Something else to think about is what you're eating. I believe that calorie monitoring is an important tool, but I think what type of food (and the quality of the food) you're using to fill those calories is more important. By quality, I don't necessarily mean organic - I just mean whole, unprocessed foods. If you've been rotating a lot of the same meals through your diet, maybe try changing those up a bit and see how your body responds.

erickirb

Something else to think about is what you're eating. I believe that calorie monitoring is an important tool, but I think what type of food (and the quality of the food) you're using to fill those calories is more important. By quality, I don't necessarily mean organic - I just mean whole, unprocessed foods. If you've been rotating a lot of the same meals through your diet, maybe try changing those up a bit and see how your body responds.

That may affect energy levels and general healthy, maybe, but for weight loss will make no difference. And you could be fine if you eat a lot of processed stuff as long as you are meeting your mico (vitamins and minerals) and macro (Cabs/Fat/Protein) requirements.

Mischievous_Rascal

All of those seem really high to me. I am in maintenance and eating around 1800/day with moderate exercise (4-5 x per week, various workouts- kickboxing, Zumba, C25k, and walking) and an active job and am maintaining within a pound, following my glycogen stores replenishment...yeah, confusing no doubt!!!!!!

In case anyone is interested- I am 5'4 1/2, 40 yo, F, 141 lbs

That's all really low to me. I'm maintaining at 2500-2600, 45 yo, 5'5, 128 lbs.

OP. When I finally cut out the crazy amount of cardio I used to do and started resistance training and eating enough food to fuel this, my weight didn't move drastically, but my BF (and dress size) shrank considerably. And that's all via IIFYM, so as long as I get my protein, fats, fruits and veg in, I can lose and maintain while eating whatever other carbs fit my calories for the day. (FYI, while I was losing my macros were 40C/30P/30F. Now that I'm maintaining they're 45C/25P/30F.) Best of luck!

GBrady43068

2,000 is often quoted as the daily requirement for the average woman....but none of us is average.

Very true...if you believe in averages, the average human will have 1 breast and 1 testicle.

While I'm sure there are plenty of women and single-testicle dudes bringing the mean down to "one" for the "average" person....I've never seen anyone with only one breast (who didn't have them medically removed anyhow...). I would guess the average is probably more like 1.333 after adjusting for mastectomies. (What's a third of a boob look like anyhow?)

Francl27

Second, you're not logging properly if you even mention using measuring cups and spoons. Get rid of them. They're not accurate. Just use the scale.

??? Most basic liquid calories ,like milk, is given by volume not by weight in the database.

Ok... liquids definitely, lol! But I thought it was self explanatory.

Although I do use grams to log my milk too... just way easier that way.

wonderwoman234

First, if you have 50 lbs to lose and select 'lose 1 lb a week' there is no way MFP tells you to eat as little as 1250 calories... unless you really don't have 50 lbs to lose.

Second, you're not logging properly if you even mention using measuring cups and spoons. Get rid of them. They're not accurate. Just use the scale.

Otherwise, yeah, there are a ton of formulas out there, just got to find what works for you.

I find it really irritating when people tell me so definitively that there is "no way" or that what I am doing or not doing is wrong with limited information.

Um, using measuring cups, liquid measuring cups and a food scale is about as accurate as you can get. And while I am sexy as hell right now, I do have about 40 more lbs. to lose. Nuff said.....

Siansonea

This is why one ought to take the lowest number, and try that out for a week, and slowly increase the calories until the weight loss is at the desired rate. It's not complicated, but people want to have their hands held the whole time and want instant results. If people would just do what they're supposed to, and do it correctly, they'd lose weight with zero drama. But I guess that's no fun. :yawn:

redheadmommy

Second, you're not logging properly if you even mention using measuring cups and spoons. Get rid of them. They're not accurate. Just use the scale.

??? Most basic liquid calories ,like milk, is given by volume not by weight in the database.

Ok... liquids definitely, lol! But I thought it was self explanatory.

Although I do use grams to log my milk too... just way easier that way.

Well, obviously was not self explanatory to YOU, since you were the one who immediately assumed she doing it wrong and suggested to throw away the measuring cups. Most people use scale for solid food, and measuring cups for liquid.

Tanya949

bump

albayin

When I cut my calories to 1400 I tend to be less accurate with logging and cheat more which ends in either gaining or maintaining.

This is so true...

albayin

First, if you have 50 lbs to lose and select 'lose 1 lb a week' there is no way MFP tells you to eat as little as 1250 calories... unless you really don't have 50 lbs to lose.

Second, you're not logging properly if you even mention using measuring cups and spoons. Get rid of them. They're not accurate. Just use the scale.

Otherwise, yeah, there are a ton of formulas out there, just got to find what works for you.

I find it really irritating when people tell me so definitively that there is "no way" or that what I am doing or not doing is wrong with limited information.

Um, using measuring cups, liquid measuring cups and a food scale is about as accurate as you can get. And while I am sexy as hell right now, I do have about 40 more lbs. to lose. Nuff said.....

I know what you mean...but when you put yourself out there on the net (even unintentionally) people will jump in and offer their opinion no matter if they are asked...

that's just how the world works...

I stop asking a while ago because every time when I even just mentioned I haven't lost a pound, so many start saying "you are eating too much" without even knowing what I eat and how much I really eat...

Mr_Knight

You've been given outstanding advice. Since you are obviously not going to take any of it, nothing else to say until your inevitable future "I'm back to try again!" thread.

Cheers.

Mr_Knight

I stop asking a while ago because every time when I even just mentioned I haven't lost a pound, so many start saying "you are eating too much" without even knowing what I eat and how much I really eat...

There isn't anything else that needs to be known.

If you aren't losing weight, you are eating too much for your activity level - period, full stop.

It sucks, I know, but that's how the universe is built.

wonderwoman234

I am seeking opinions, even ones I don't agree with necessarily. It's all in the delivery. I'm really quite happy with the helpful responses, which are the vast majority. :drinker:

nxd10

Different sites calculate exercise differently, which is what causes most of the differences.