Has anyone plugged their into this site?

olivia3263

http://www.dietitian.com/calcbody.php

I did, and with my activity level, it tells me to eat A LOT lower than I have been. I have about 15 pounds to go - I'm in the healthy weight range and have a pretty muscular build, so I know it's going to be slow, and I may find I need to stop before I hit the number in my head (but I know I'm not quite there yet).

So on MFP, I have my activity level set to "sedentary" to lose 1 pound a week - leaving me 1370 to net everyday. I have been eating my exercise calories mostly - I run 50 minutes 5 days a week, at least 90 minutes on saturdays for my long run, and rest on sundays, and I use calories burned using a heart rate monitor - so I usually end up near 1800 - 2000 actual calories. My weight has been fluctuating between the same 4 pounds for a while now, so it's really hard to tell if it's staying the same, or going down a little.

Anyway, I plugged my information into this other program - sleep 7 hours, sitting 10 hours, light activity 6 hours (I'm a teacher and on my feet most of the day), 1 hour of hard exercise. It tells me I need to eat 1523 calories a day to lose 1 pound a week. That's 300 calories less than what I've been eating. I tried it yesterday and today and while it's doable, I don't know if it's safe because I'm netting 1000 - 1100 (definitely under 1200). Plus, at this point, I'm ok with it going slower, but this site now has me really confused. Slow is ok, but no movement is no good, so if I need to be eating 300 calories less, maybe I should...

Has anyone else tried this? What were your results?

moriaht

I just did it and it told me exactly what MFP tells me!

Kelly_Wilson1990

I did and it told me more calories but it would not let me use the same calorie/carb/fat ratios.

Enforcer25

I haven't tried this, but I thought i read where you shouldn't go under 1200 calories. Will plug in my info later, thanks for the link.

FunSizedK

It tell me the same!

caroltina

Just did mine and mine says on the 1200 Mark - I am 224 lb and 5:4, teacher too and train 5 times a week very hard. I know I'd be ill on this.

ct1986

Mine tells me to eat about 1500 more than MFP

Corruptkitten

Both sites tell me the same 1,200

TXBlockhead

My question is if you are on your feet most of the day why do you have your activity level set as sedentary? I really sit 8 hours a day, I work in a phone bank so I have to. I am wondering if changing that would make a difference.

Michelle9939

I just did it and it told me to eat about 30 more calories a day. So not much difference.

rmartin72

Thank you for sharing this information

olivia3263

When i plug in as 7 hours sleeping and 17 hours sitting (sedentary) - it gives me a little more than MFP, but not much - (1383 vs 1370). I think it's the exercise that's throwing this out of whack for me. I use a heart rate monitor, and it gives me significantly lower calories than MFP, or any online calorie tracker. Maybe I'll try only eating back some, but making sure to net at least 1200 - see if that does anything. MFP was working well, but bouncing back and forth between the same numbers all the time gets old. Oh well.

thanks for checking

Bri_and_Oli_Mum

I got 1200cal same as what MFP said, but I love all the other info it told me.

johnhowson

If you are running 50 mins per day firstly well done that is an amazing achievement. I have found that the way you measure your calorie burn on a run can make a big difference. The figures from my Garmain, MFP and runtastic.com website all vary a load. I have been using the figures from the Garmain monitor which were generally below those given by MFP.
I found that when my calories fell too far and I began feeling exhausted - just had to start eating more to compensate (which surprisingly I found hard work!) .

FairyMiss

i could not even caculate on that site as it require a rediculous amount of carbs

souki19

i just did it and basecally it told exactely what MFP tells me when i add the excersice

wickedcricket

I don't like it at all - it says at 1200 cal I will lose 0 lbs per week and doesn't recommend lower than 1200 - so wtf does that mean?! Just stay this size?
no help

wolfchild59

That site told me to eat one calorie less than MFP does. But, that site is already factoring in my one hour of cardio per night and doesnt seem to say if the amount its giving is a net or total. Whereas MFP tells me to eat back what I burn during that run in addition to my net each day. So if the number that site gives me is supposed to be my total, that would be a pretty big caloric difference each day.

colgosling

I've just used it out of curiosity and it gave me exact calorie intake as MFP - am happy with that

anacsitham5

Mine is currently 1200 calories through MFP. The other site told me 1654. It wouldn't let me set my body fat goal to 21%, it had to be between 1-19%....1% is not good at all I can't believe it would let you choose something that low. It also wouldn't let me put my protein at 35%, which mine is always well over that each day. I will stick with MFP.

chef970

It's just about the same, so I will stick with MFP until something better comes along...thanks for the insight, though. It was worth checking out.

tameko2

Mine is currently 1200 calories through MFP. The other site told me 1654. It wouldn't let me set my body fat goal to 21%, it had to be between 1-19%....1% is not good at all I can't believe it would let you choose something that low. It also wouldn't let me put my protein at 35%, which mine is always well over that each day. I will stick with MFP.

yeah I tried to do the same, what the heck is up with that. so then I put in 19% and it thinks I will be 19% at 160 pounds -- I do NOT think so buddy! I'm 5'6" and female. I actually think that aspect is just plain bugged someone misinterpreted the requirements or is miscalculating or something.

I do however LOVE the way the activity logging there is set up - I prefer it to the way some sites ask if you work out moderately 1 day a week vs 5 days a week - that's SO generalized.

olivia3263

My question is if you are on your feet most of the day why do you have your activity level set as sedentary? I really sit 8 hours a day, I work in a phone bank so I have to. I am wondering if changing that would make a difference.

I set it to lightly active when I first went on here, and it helped me break another plateau, but when I kept eating at that higher level - (ended up after exercise being from 2000 - 2200) I ended up gaining a couple pounds.

I was trying to stay under 1900, but this now has me moving at a snail's pace. I know I'd probably do better (in terms of numbers) if I ate less, and did lower impact exercises like walking or something, but I love running and I'm training for a half marathon in October - my first! I can tell that eating at around 1500 and 1600 calories (for the past 2 days) is working better in terms of weight loss, but I don't know if I can keep it up long term. I guess I'll have to settle for being a snail.

In terms of that particular calculator, I think it is pretty much the same as MFP if you set it for sedentary, but for any other sort of activity added, it's very subjective. And yes, running calories burned is VERY unclear - with differences of up to 500 calories, depending upon which site or method you use. I think what I was doing before was fine, I just need to listen to my body, and resist the desire to just be at my goal weight already.

Thanks for trying it out though, guys. That helped.

kandrews24

For what is is worth, the Weight Watcher program (with many doctors on staff) allows folks to eat as few as 1,000 calories daily (and eith their exercise calories or not), especially if they are near goal. But they meet with folks one on one from time to time. MFP (probably to be on the safe side - liability wise), instructs folks not to go below 1200.

Cait_Sidhe

Your weight goal was calculated to less than 1,200 calories. Your expected weight loss per week has been re-calculated. At 1,200 calories per day you can expept to lose 0.2 pounds per week.

I really hope this isn't true.