Very frustrated with MFP, help!

WBB55

So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

3laine75

I dont understand, I am actually eating 2000. My TDEE is only 2700. That's not but a 700 calorie deficit on the eating side, and it isn't the point. The point is, my Macros should be 207 Protien, 151 Carb and 72 Fat. I can't get the percentages anywhere even close to that.

Okay - you're eating 2000 altogether but have MFP set at 1350, is that right?

Jiggle your percentages till you get the protein and fat at what you want it to be (for the 1350) then make sure you get that 207 and 72 - eat what you like with the rest.

Or set it up at 2000 and don't add your exercise (or make custom exercises with a 1 cal burn).

jdb3388

So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

Iknowsaur

So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

MFP does not take designated exercise into account.
That is why you are supposed to log your exercise and eat back those calories.

WBB55

So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

So basically now, to keep everything making sense if you stick to these settings, what would probably make sense is to log your exercises as only 1 calorie. So it won't change any of your targets. Again, if that makes sense to you.

jdb3388

So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

MFP does not take designated exercise into account.
That is why you are supposed to log your exercise and eat back those calories.

And that is what i WANT to do, except it doesn't allow me to include the Macros of the calories that I eat back into the percentages.

lisajsund

2700 seems like it might actually be your BMR, not your TDEE.
What are your stats?
Here is the website I use for BMR:

http://www.fat2fittools.com/tools/bmr/

It's accurate for me and it gives you an estimated calorie goal based on your "activity" level.

My husband is 6'4", and his BMR is closer to 2800. Are you tall?

Agree with most here - 1350 as a net goal for a man is way too low, I would say 1800 is a better number for a net.

ShannonMpls

And for the love of God, I understand how to count and I know how to do all the "fancy brainwork" to make it add up, but thats not the point of having MFP. The point is for it to do all of those things for you so it can show accurate charts and graphs based on the data you've entered.

Oh, I didn't realize that was the point of MFP.

Agreed. I didn't realize this free program was designed to prevent OP from doing any thinking on his own.

knra_grl

When you go to MY HOME and then GOALS there is box with FITNESS GOALS does that not account for your calorie goals when MFP calculates? I am confused now, I thought it did. So now I need an answer to this question. In the FITNESS GOALS it shows calories burned per week.

Chrisabella7

No need to be rude to him.

jdb3388

And for the love of God, I understand how to count and I know how to do all the "fancy brainwork" to make it add up, but thats not the point of having MFP. The point is for it to do all of those things for you so it can show accurate charts and graphs based on the data you've entered.

Oh, I didn't realize that was the point of MFP.

Agreed. I didn't realize this free program was designed to prevent OP from doing any thinking on his own.

If you don't believe that the whole reason MFP even exists is to gather data and arrange it in a way that makes sense without requiring the user to do much calculating then you're just wrong. That IS, in fact, why the program exists.

lisajsund

[/quote]

"And that is what i WANT to do, except it doesn't allow me to include the Macros of the calories that I eat back into the percentages."
[/quote]

MFP makes all those calculations for you. No worries.

Iknowsaur

And for the love of God, I understand how to count and I know how to do all the "fancy brainwork" to make it add up, but thats not the point of having MFP. The point is for it to do all of those things for you so it can show accurate charts and graphs based on the data you've entered.

Oh, I didn't realize that was the point of MFP.

Agreed. I didn't realize this free program was designed to prevent OP from doing any thinking on his own.

If you don't believe that the whole reason MFP even exists is to gather data and arrange it in a way that makes sense without requiring the user to do much calculating then you're just wrong. That IS, in fact, why the program exists.

It's actually a tool that people use to track their calories that gives you the option of either setting your own goals or following their guided goals.

jdb3388

"And that is what i WANT to do, except it doesn't allow me to include the Macros of the calories that I eat back into the percentages."

MFP makes all those calculations for you. No worries.

But it doesnt. If it did it would allow me to add Macros that add up to my Gross Calorie Intake rather than just my Net

ironrat79

Why such a large deficit?

Exactly, I'd starve at 1350

jdb3388

Why such a large deficit?

Exactly, I'd starve at 1350

Im not eating 1350. Im eating 2000.

lemonsnowdrop

You need to set your activity level to reflect your daily life. If you have a desk job, it's sedentary, etc. Exercise is accounted for separately, so that MFP will create a deficit for you based on dy to day activities WITHOUT factoring in exercise.

MinnieInMaine

I dont understand, I am actually eating 2000. My TDEE is only 2700. That's not but a 700 calorie deficit on the eating side, and it isn't the point. The point is, my Macros should be 207 Protien, 151 Carb and 72 Fat. I can't get the percentages anywhere even close to that.

This might help?

There are 4 calories per gram for protein and carbs, 9 calories per gram for fat.

207g x 4 = 828 caloires of protein
151g x 4 = 604 calories of carbs
72g x 9 = 648 calories of fat

828 + 604 + 649 = 2080. That's pretty darn close!

Mischievous_Rascal

So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

I log all my exercise as one calorie burned, and eat to my calorie allowance. I find it easier, especially using the TDEE method.

lemonsnowdrop

Why such a large deficit?

Exactly, I'd starve at 1350

Im not eating 1350. Im eating 2000.

But you're not netting 2000. Your exercise puts you under. You might not feel hungry, but you need the fuel for future workouts.