Calorie count discrepancy

Tickwomp

MFP has me on a 1590 calorie diet to lose 2lbs per week, whereas CalorieKing has me at 1900-2100. I am male, 5'8", 198 lbs. I work out vigorously 90 minutes per day, but otherwise don't do a whole bunch. I have never really counted calories (when in the military I ate pretty much however much I wanted and stayed in decent shape, I just tried not to eat junk) and don't know which suggested count to believe.

I also have my intake set at 45P/40C/15F since I know my body and do a lot of strength training.

How accurate is MFP's suggested intake? Should I believe it or bump it?

leahraskie

Well your BMR is almost 1700 calories, so you'd be losing a lot if you did 1590 plus worked out like you do. CalorieKing's estimate is more accurate for your body's needs unless you want to lose that weight super fast then plateau. Perhaps start out at the 1900-2100 then if you aren't seeing enough results go down to the 1600.

editorgrrl

2 lbs. per week is for those who are 100+ lbs. overweight. Set your goal no higher than 1 lb. per week.

Please, read the Sexypants post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-Sexypants

kgeyser

MFP is suggesting that because you set it for 2 lbs per week, which is far too aggressive for the amount of weight you have to lose. Set your goal for 1 lb per week, and make sure your activity level is realistic (i.e. do not set it to sedentary). Also, MFP's calorie goal does not include exercise calories, you need to log those each day and eat a portion of those back.

Tickwomp

I've read the post, and I understand that they suggest 2lbs/wk for those who are 100+ lbs overweight, however I have a deadline to lose a certain amount of body fat.

Caloric intake increases with exercise, so I take that into account (as does MFP to some level), but even then I'm only "allowed" to eat somewhere in the neighborhood of 1900-2000 a day (according to MFP)

What caught me off guard was the significant difference in BMR rates. When I did my RMR last year, I was somewhere around 1800. I was taking in 3500+ cal on training days around then too to maintain. (competition cutting was a different story)

SO I guess the bottom line is- CalorieKing says 1900 to lose with my lifestyle, MFP says 1590 to lose before exercise. Are we talking about six vs half-dozen, or is MFP lowballing my caloric intake? I eat back calories and have it set to "lightly active". I thought that was activity OUTSIDE of the gym.

editorgrrl

I've read the post, and I understand that they suggest 2lbs/wk for those who are 100+ lbs overweight, however I have a deadline to lose a certain amount of body fat.

Then you really should have started sooner.

The less you have to lose, the more slowly it comes off. That's just the way the human body works.

gary241069

Go for Calorie King.
Bump the MFP.
I bet if you tried hard enough. With your experience
you could do a better job without any of them................

Tickwomp

I didn't find out about the deadline until 2 days ago... I'm a disabled veteran and haven't done much in the gym outside of physical therapy. A new job opportunity has opened up and I need to meet the required fitness/BF% to keep the job. I understand how the body works, I have gone off of FAR less calories (involuntarily) and paid the price (fatigue and jacked up CNS). I was asking about the accuracy of MFP vs CalorieKing and their suggested intake amounts.

Tickwomp

I think I figured it out. I burned 330 calories today (according to MFP) so 1590+330= 1920. That lines up with what CalorieKing says when I figure that it doesn't account for specific training, only activity level (which is higher than MFP's 'normal activity' level)

Tickwomp

Go for Calorie King.
Bump the MFP.
I bet if you tried hard enough. With your experience
you could do a better job without any of them................

Thanks, I think I'm just going to customize MFP goals with a +400 intake.

WalkingAlong

There's no reason you can't shoot for 2 lbs. per week of loss, which is why MFP allows it but not more. That's a very common general recommendation-- 'aim for .5 - 2 lbs/week'-- or sometimes you see 'aim for 1% of your body weight per week'.

Good luck!

Tickwomp

I agree. I have done way better than 2 lbs per week before, but it was basically all water weight. I mean, I used to cut 10 pounds in a day then rehydrate that night. I'm not really going for weight this time, but rather BF% (1% a week is what I've seen, too)

This thread was just me not paying attention. I see now that MFP DOES want me to eat 1900-2100 cal a day just like CalorieKing said, I just have to input my workouts before it adjusts. I also just found out that strength training can be included under cardio tab so you get a generic calorie increase with time.

gary241069

I'm curious here. Are you trying to get thinner or fitter? They're not the same thing.
I recon you should be working more on your protein, which will make you stronger
rather than worry how heavy you are. Fitness comes from strength, not weight loss.
I would expect a soldier to know this. It's embranded with your training

Tickwomp

I'm curious here. Are you trying to get thinner or fitter? They're not the same thing.
I recon you should be working more on your protein, which will make you stronger
rather than worry how heavy you are. Fitness comes from strength, not weight loss.
I would expect a soldier to know this. It's embranded with your training

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way with the government. You can be a strong man competitor who runs marathons and if you are over weight or body fat, you lose your job.

I started in the USMC then moved to the Army, now I'm on the civilian/private side. I believe that strength + mobility = durability. I could care less about "thinner", but body fat% is a factor. You can be heavier and physically larger with lower body fat, obviously.

My protein intake is pretty much 1g per lb. (I do 45/40/15)

Long story short, I'm after body fat % first (I must be <13% for this job) and strength/endurance second (body weight % strength tests).