BMR or MFP? Conflicting numbers

Supergirl9801

So, I've searched and this seems to be a common problem. MFP calculates 1200 calories for me...Scooby's Workshop (http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/) calculates my BMR at 1560 and my calorie intake with a 20% reduction is 1460. On IIFYM my BMR is 1471 and my calorie intake with 20% reduction is 1413. All this is with NO exercise. I've been exercising and when I plug that in then it increases my calories by about another 300-400 each day. So is MFP just wayyy off, should I go by one of these other websites?? Right now I've been using MFP and eating back half my calories for the most part....I haven't been losing really any weight though. Could I really be under-eating. I've been weighing my food with a kitchen scale and using measuring spoons too. Thoughts??

5'6"
Female
166lbs
sedentary until I started this now I work out about 5-6 days a week for at least 45 minutes average.

SezxyStef

If MFP gave you 1200 it's probably because you put in a 2lb a week weight loss goal....

With Under 50lbs it should be set at 1lb a week for sufficent calories.

TDEE is used when you include your exercise ....NEAT is when you don't include exercise.

diannethegeek

They are two different methods but they usually get to around the same number if you set them up equally.

MFP takes your information and calculates your assumed TDEE with no exercise included. It then takes your goal, which I assume is to lose 2 pounds per week (almost everyone chooses 2 pounds/week), and subtracts a certain number of calories to get you there (for 2 pounds per week it takes 1000 calories from your TDEE), keeping 1200 as the absolute minimum threshold.

The TDEE method that Scooby's uses takes a percentage from your TDEE instead of a set number of calories to keep you from losing weight too fast. In this case, you'd only be losing around a pound a week (maybe a little less). This is the biggest discrepancy between the two for you since you're setting both to sedentary.

With the MFP method you're meant to log your exercise and eat back the extra calories you earn. You should also be setting a reasonable goal (1 pound per week for most people).

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

cwolfman13

So, I've searched and this seems to be a common problem. MFP calculates 1200 calories for me...Scooby's Workshop (http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/) calculates my BMR at 1560 and my calorie intake with a 20% reduction is 1460. On IIFYM my BMR is 1471 and my calorie intake with 20% reduction is 1413. All this is with NO exercise. I've been exercising and when I plug that in then it increases my calories by about another 300-400 each day. So is MFP just wayyy off, should I go by one of these other websites?? Right now I've been using MFP and eating back half my calories for the most part....I haven't been losing really any weight though. Could I really be under-eating. I've been weighing my food with a kitchen scale and using measuring spoons too. Thoughts??

5'6"
Female
166lbs
sedentary until I started this now I work out about 5-6 days a week for at least 45 minutes average.

You're comparing apples to oranges...a 20% cut from TDEE is a slower rate of loss than the 2 Lbs per week goal rate you likely put in for MFP to arrive at 1200 calories. Also, with MFP you're supposed to eat your exercise calories back...with TDEE you're supposed to include an estimate of your exercise in your activity level...thus why it is referred to as Total Daily Energy Expenditure.

If you're doing it right and comparing apples to apples in terms of loss rate goals, the TDEE method and MFP are basically 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. Keep in mind that any calculator is going to be slightly different due to algorithms and what not used to account for various activity levels, etc...but differences shouldn't really be substantial if you're truly comparing apples to apples.

Supergirl9801

If MFP gave you 1200 it's probably because you put in a 2lb a week weight loss goal....

With Under 50lbs it should be set at 1lb a week for sufficent calories.

TDEE is used when you include your exercise ....NEAT is when you don't include exercise.

So you're saying if you put in a 2lb. weight loss it will automatically put you at a 1200 calorie limit? I did put in 2 lbs. but you would think it would still calculate it accurately.

SezxyStef

If MFP gave you 1200 it's probably because you put in a 2lb a week weight loss goal....

With Under 50lbs it should be set at 1lb a week for sufficent calories.

TDEE is used when you include your exercise ....NEAT is when you don't include exercise.

So you're saying if you put in a 2lb. weight loss it will automatically put you at a 1200 calorie limit? I did put in 2 lbs. but you would think it would still calculate it accurately.

1200 is the minimum MFP will give you...

MFPs calculations are only as good as the information entered in.

asciiqwerty

I'm a 5'6 woman I was 190 now about 155

I use mfp method with a 0.25kg/0.5lb per week loss target
I set sendentary and log my workouts
I mfp method target is 1520 net (eat back excercise)

so i think you've set an unreasonable weight loss goal for your size as at 5'6 166lb while you are in the "overweight" category for bmi you are only 11lb from the "normal/healthy" category

i've been gradually reducing my weighloss goal as i progressed accross the "overweight" segment of the graph
when I was where you are now i set 0.5 to 1lb a week and worked out a 1200 minimum 1400 maximum NET range

hope these help you - shout if you want more info

TAsunder

If MFP gave you 1200 it's probably because you put in a 2lb a week weight loss goal....

With Under 50lbs it should be set at 1lb a week for sufficent calories.

TDEE is used when you include your exercise ....NEAT is when you don't include exercise.

So you're saying if you put in a 2lb. weight loss it will automatically put you at a 1200 calorie limit? I did put in 2 lbs. but you would think it would still calculate it accurately.

If it showed you the true number it would be under 1200 calories because 2lb/week at your starting and goal weight is fairly hard to achieve.

Supergirl9801

They are two different methods but they usually get to around the same number if you set them up equally.

MFP takes your information and calculates your assumed TDEE with no exercise included. It then takes your goal, which I assume is to lose 2 pounds per week (almost everyone chooses 2 pounds/week), and subtracts a certain number of calories to get you there (for 2 pounds per week it takes 1000 calories from your TDEE), keeping 1200 as the absolute minimum threshold.

The TDEE method that Scooby's uses takes a percentage from your TDEE instead of a set number of calories to keep you from losing weight too fast. In this case, you'd only be losing around a pound a week (maybe a little less). This is the biggest discrepancy between the two for you since you're setting both to sedentary.

With the MFP method you're meant to log your exercise and eat back the extra calories you earn. You should also be setting a reasonable goal (1 pound per week for most people).

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

Ah, ok...so this makes sense then! Still can't figure out why I'm not losing anything though. I've got to set up a dr appt. though....I think I may have a thyroid issue!

cwolfman13

If MFP gave you 1200 it's probably because you put in a 2lb a week weight loss goal....

With Under 50lbs it should be set at 1lb a week for sufficent calories.

TDEE is used when you include your exercise ....NEAT is when you don't include exercise.

So you're saying if you put in a 2lb. weight loss it will automatically put you at a 1200 calorie limit? I did put in 2 lbs. but you would think it would still calculate it accurately.

2 Lbs per week loss rate is roughly 1,000 calorie deficit from your theoretical maintenance number. The average female maintains at around 1800 - 2000 calories with little in the way of deliberate exercise...1,200 calories is generally the minimum recommended calorie intake without supervision of a medical professional so MFP won't go below that.

Further, this illustrates just how substantial a 2 Lb per week loss rate really is...it is a huge calorie deficit and really should be reserved for those needing to lose a substantial amount of weight.

diannethegeek

If MFP gave you 1200 it's probably because you put in a 2lb a week weight loss goal....

With Under 50lbs it should be set at 1lb a week for sufficent calories.

TDEE is used when you include your exercise ....NEAT is when you don't include exercise.

So you're saying if you put in a 2lb. weight loss it will automatically put you at a 1200 calorie limit? I did put in 2 lbs. but you would think it would still calculate it accurately.

It does do it's best to calculate it accurately, but 2 pounds per week is an aggressive goal that requires a large cut in calories and would take most people to unhealthy levels of eating. 1200 calories is the minimum that the system is allowed to recommend, so many people who set it to 2 pounds a week find themselves there simply because that's where the system stops. In actuality, to lose 2 pounds a week you'd end up closer to 800 calories, which is dangerous and shouldn't be attempted unless you're morbidly obese and under close doctors supervision.

diannethegeek

Ah, ok...so this makes sense then! Still can't figure out why I'm not losing anything though. I've got to set up a dr appt. though....I think I may have a thyroid issue!

Are you logging everything you eat?
Are you weighing everything you eat? I know you said you use a food scale, but are you using it for everything? Measuring cups/spoons should be used for liquids only. Everything else should go on the scale.
How long has it been since you've seen a drop on the scale?
When did you start your exercise program?
Are you seeing no weight loss at all or just not as much as you'd like?

Supergirl9801

But what if my BMR is 1400 and I plug in to lose two lbs a week...that would take my caloric goal to 400 and if I exercise I can add in those calories...so if I really bust my butt and burn between 700-800 calories a day that would still keep me netting around 1200 though right? Is it dangerous to do it that way?

SezxyStef

I looked at your diary and it doesn't appear that you weigh your food so chances are you are eating more than you think.

Supergirl9801

I looked at your diary and it doesn't appear that you weigh your food so chances are you are eating more than you think.

Then you weren't looking at my diary. With the exception of Easter, I've been pretty religious about weighing everything (except prepackaged stuff that's already weighed).

diannethegeek

But what if my BMR is 1400 and I plug in to lose two lbs a week...that would take my caloric goal to 400 and if I exercise I can add in those calories...so if I really but my butt and burn between 700-800 calories a day that would still keep me netting around 1200 though right? Is it dangerous to do it that way?

Let me see if I"m reading this right? You want to eat around 1200 calories total while exercising off 700-800 calories a day?

No, this wouldn't be netting 1200 calories a day. You'd be eating 1200 gross and netting around 400 calories per day.

1200 is the bare minimum for a sedentary woman. You aren't sedentary is you're trying to burn 700-800 calories a day. You need to eat more than that.

There is no math that will let you lose 2 pounds per week in a safe way at this point. And the harder you try to push that the more likely you are to be vitamin deficient and lose muscle along with the fat.

You need to adjust your expectations.

Supergirl9801

But what if my BMR is 1400 and I plug in to lose two lbs a week...that would take my caloric goal to 400 and if I exercise I can add in those calories...so if I really but my butt and burn between 700-800 calories a day that would still keep me netting around 1200 though right? Is it dangerous to do it that way?

Let me see if I"m reading this right? You want to eat around 1200 calories total while exercising off 700-800 calories a day?

No, this wouldn't be netting 1200 calories a day. You'd be eating 1200 gross and netting around 400 calories per day.

1200 is the bare minimum for a sedentary woman. You aren't sedentary is you're trying to burn 700-800 calories a day. You need to eat more than that.

There is no math that will let you lose 2 pounds per week in a safe way at this point. And the harder you try to push that the more likely you are to be vitamin deficient and lose muscle along with the fat.

You need to adjust your expectations.

You said the same thing I did. I'd only net 400 calories UNLESS I ate back those exercise calories which would put me back up very close to or at 1200.

diannethegeek

I looked at your diary and it doesn't appear that you weigh your food so chances are you are eating more than you think.

Then you weren't looking at my diary. With the exception of Easter, I've been pretty religious about weighing everything (except prepackaged stuff that's already weighed).

The two eggs from today don't appear to be logged by weight. Yesterday's log shows oatmeal, sugar, strawberries, cool whip, eggs, and a clementine all logged by cups/spoons (and qty for the clementine) rather than weight.

I know it feels nitpicky, but it really can make a difference. I recently logged a day of my food by measurement and then logged the same food by weight to compare. These were the exact same portions of food measured different ways and the day logged with cups/spoons measurements was over 200 calories less than the one logged by weight. Weighing your food really can make a big difference.

TAsunder

What exercise are you planning to do that will burn 700-800 calories per day? If you were a runner that would mean running > 40 miles per week. Whatever the exercise, it's going to have to be at least 2 hours per day, I would guess.

jchrisman717

I took a look at your diary and I would say its not that you are not eating enough - you have consistely logged pretty close to your goals and not dropped down too low. You seem to eat pretty healthy so I think you just need to give it more time. Yes I do think 2 lbs a week is a pretty aggressive goal. If you seem to think you are stalled then try somethign like cutting more processed foods and eating up to your goal by eating fruits and lean proteins - try aiming to hit you macros more consistently. Get closer to your protein goals without going over on your carbs - maybe a few weeks of doing that will jump start your loss.

lemon629

But what if my BMR is 1400 and I plug in to lose two lbs a week...that would take my caloric goal to 400 and if I exercise I can add in those calories...so if I really bust my butt and burn between 700-800 calories a day that would still keep me netting around 1200 though right? Is it dangerous to do it that way?

I think you don't understand net calories. It sounds like your plan is to net 400 calories a day, since you talk about a calorie goal of 400 (nuts, by the way, and FP won't let you set it that low anyway) and then burning 800 so you can eat 1200 and still have a deficit of 1000 calories a day. Is that what you mean? Because that would give you a net of 400 calories. This would be dangerously low. Plus, if you're only eating 1200 calories a day, I doubt you'd have the energy to exercise for over an hour every day (which is what it would take to burn an extra 800 calories every day).

Net calories = Calories in (all food) - calories burned through exercise etc.

Your net calories should be at least 1000.

a_stronger_me13

I took a look at your diary and I would say its not that you are not eating enough - you have consistely logged pretty close to your goals and not dropped down too low. You seem to eat pretty healthy so I think you just need to give it more time. Yes I do think 2 lbs a week is a pretty aggressive goal. If you seem to think you are stalled then try somethign like cutting more processed foods and eating up to your goal by eating fruits and lean proteins - try aiming to hit you macros more consistently. Get closer to your protein goals without going over on your carbs - maybe a few weeks of doing that will jump start your loss.

While low calorie intake isn't great for your metabolism in the long run, the stall that you are suggesting doesn't happen in the amount of time that the OP has been on here for. If she was truly eating 1200 calories, she would be losing weight and would continue to do so for a pretty substantial amount of time.

asciiqwerty

I know it feels nitpicky, but it really can make a difference. I recently logged a day of my food by measurement and then logged the same food by weight to compare. These were the exact same portions of food measured different ways and the day logged with cups/spoons measurements was over 200 calories less than the one logged by weight. Weighing your food really can make a big difference.

^^^^This makes a huge difference
checking that the entry on mfp is actually the same as on the packet in your hands also makes a huge difference
keep in mind that in most jurisdictions the weight of food on the packet has to legally be the minimum content, so if you eat the packet you will be eating more than what it says it contains and in some countries the nutritional data is allowed to be +/- 20% accurate!

Net = food in - exercise
Net < 1200 is not safe or healthy - there is a resaon that mfp does not let you go below 1200

many people try it and struggle but find that they lose a lot better on closer to 1400

FYI: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105100021.htm

jchrisman717

I took a look at your diary and I would say its not that you are not eating enough - you have consistely logged pretty close to your goals and not dropped down too low. You seem to eat pretty healthy so I think you just need to give it more time. Yes I do think 2 lbs a week is a pretty aggressive goal. If you seem to think you are stalled then try somethign like cutting more processed foods and eating up to your goal by eating fruits and lean proteins - try aiming to hit you macros more consistently. Get closer to your protein goals without going over on your carbs - maybe a few weeks of doing that will jump start your loss.

While low calorie intake isn't great for your metabolism in the long run, the stall that you are suggesting doesn't happen in the amount of time that the OP has been on here for. If she was truly eating 1200 calories, she would be losing weight and would continue to do so for a pretty substantial amount of time.

For most people yes - but everyone is different. I went back and looked at her profile again and she has lost weight in the last month - just not in a consistent weekly manner. I would say if you are averaging weight loss over a 4 week period - even if the average is .5 lbs a week - that's still a good loss. She had mentioned that she was afraid she wasn't eating enough. I would hate to see her upping her calories when she isn't losing on what I see in her diary. I think you just need to give it more time without any weight loss before you get discouraged. Use average weight loss. Don't bank everything on a loss every week. Just IMHO.

lemurcat12

If MFP gave you 1200 it's probably because you put in a 2lb a week weight loss goal....

With Under 50lbs it should be set at 1lb a week for sufficent calories.

TDEE is used when you include your exercise ....NEAT is when you don't include exercise.

So you're saying if you put in a 2lb. weight loss it will automatically put you at a 1200 calorie limit? I did put in 2 lbs. but you would think it would still calculate it accurately.

If you say you are sedentary and want a 2 lbs a week loss and are a woman who is neither extremely obese or very tall otherwise, you will almost certainly get 1200 just because of math. If you exclude exercise and just figure NEAT for someone in those categories, it's not terribly high. If you then deduct 1000 calories per day from food intake alone, it's going to be under 1200 most of the time, and 1200 is the lowest it can give you.

A few things to keep in mind (which others have also said):

(1) Your real goal isn't 1200. It's 1200 + exercise. If you try to get half your deduction from exercise, even for 2 lbs a week, that adds 500 more to the daily goal. Even if you do more like 300 calories, that's still 1500 vs. 1200. That's why if you put consistent information in the TDEE and MFP calculations the numbers you get should be consistent over a week. The difference is that MFP would have you at 1200 (or whatever low goal you get) on exercise off days, and higher when you do exercise, whereas TDEE evens out that so you have the same every day.

(2) Are you really sedentary, even ignoring exercise? MFP explains this badly. According to its explanation I am sedentary (because of my job), but according to my fitbit and my own math after a month, I am not--I'm at least lightly active, just based on daily walking.

(3) Is 2 lbs a week too aggressive given the amount you have to lose?

deksgrl

A properly set MFP + exercise calories goal SHOULD BE ABOUT THE SAME as a properly set TDEE - % calorie goal.

MFP is a tool which you need to set up correctly. If you put wrong info in (like lose 2 pounds per week) then you will get a resulting wrong output.

So, set MFP to lose 1 pound a week and also eat more for exercise..... (it gives you a lower calorie goal because it DOES NOT include exercise).

OR

Eat the TDEE - 20% number.

If you eat too little, you will be burning up your lean body mass, so when you reach your goal weight you will still have a correspondingly high body fat %, and you won't be happy with how you look.

And yes, make sure you weigh/measure/log everything.

a_stronger_me13

Read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

All your answers are in there.

SezxyStef

I looked at your diary and it doesn't appear that you weigh your food so chances are you are eating more than you think.

Then you weren't looking at my diary. With the exception of Easter, I've been pretty religious about weighing everything (except prepackaged stuff that's already weighed).

Yah it was your diary...I pick random days and what I see is this

April 2nd nothing logged
April 3rd Oatmeal 1/2 cup, 4 cookies oreo double stuff (even package stuff isn't always correct)
April 5th Pizza 2 slices
April 6th homemade egg and cheese sandwich..unless you made that recipe....it's incorrect and not weighed, garlic mashed 2 servings, 2 rolls,
April 10th 1.5cup of green giant, cantelope 1cup
April 12th 1 hotdog with bun

I wont go on...but you get the idea...

As for calories you are not netting 400...most days you are netting 1400 and some of your burns could be high.

I weigh prepackaged food as the government says the nutrition facts can be within 20%...I dig out a can of crab it says 100g drained..it's not it is about 80g...my fruit loops says 3/4 cup is 110calories...or 27g...27g is not 3/4 cup...it's less.

bgrmystr

Question from a different perspective. When you exercise, do you maintain your target heart rate ((220-age)*80%)?

jchrisman717

The Sexy pants thread -- really good reading. I see that you (OP) posted another similar post a few days ago. Your getting frustrated - which can be easy to do when you don't see the type of weight loss you want. It takes time, especially as a woman and as we get older. Hang in there and try not to focus too much on the scale.

deksgrl

Question from a different perspective. When you exercise, do you maintain your target heart rate ((220-age)*80%)?

Irrelevant. It is food which is critical in weight loss.