Different sources give me different calorie needs? Why?

twogirlsmama

I have been doing research and I am perplexed as to why MFP gives me 1770 calories per day to reach my goal and another source tells me 1976 calories per day. I want to do this slow and steady so I can make lifestyle changes, not just drop and put it all back on later. Advice please?
:sad:

MikeSEA

Most all sites like MFP use some sort of equation to calculate BMR and then factor in an activity level modifier etc to come with a total of how much you're likely burning in a day.

It's possible this alternate source is using a different equation than MFP. Here's the kicker. Even if they all agreed, they could be wrong. You could be an exception to an equation that works for a lot people. The only real way to determine your maintenance is by carefully measuring and logging your food and monitoring weight over time.

Alternatively you could get something like a body bug, but there's still a margin of error there.

EDIT: If you haven't already read it, this is a good read on basics: http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/

kennethmgreen

I understand the desire to get it "right" - worrying about exact calorie numbers. But the truth is, unless you are hooked up to monitoring machines in a lab environment, none of the numbers are going to be exact. It's all about narrowing the margin of error, monitoring over time.

Every time you enter food into MFP, it is an estimate of calories. Every time you enter calories burned into MFP, it is an estimate. The accuracy ranges, and you have to make guesses with the best information you have. Foods listed as "one serving" are probably less accurate than food listed in grams.

A heart rate monitor, while a great tool, is still only an estimate to monitor calorie burn. HRMs are usually more accurate than the sensors on gym equipment, but they are still educated guesses. Generally speaking, the more data points you can enter, the more accurate your HRM readings will be. I wouldn't consider one that didn't allow entering the basics like height, weight, age and gender. The more expensive ones can measure/allow you to enter additional data points, which translates to a more accurate calorie burn estimate. But it's still just *more* accurate - not 100% accurate.

It's likely your other source is using a different formula from MFP. Remember that MFP calculates your daily exercise as you enter it, whereas many other fitness/weight loss sites calculate your exercise calories based on your weekly estimate of exercise. (so if you say you work out for 60 minutes 3x a week, those calories are factored in). Could it be that your other source is factoring in your exercise calories? Did the source ask you about exercise?

If you plan to use MFP for your weight loss tool, I suggest going with what MFP gives you for now, then making adjustments as needed. Just remember not to make adjustments too quickly. You should give you body a couple of weeks to adjust to any change. Good luck. Try not to obsess on the numbers.

MelissaGraham7

I think that is why I always use 3 or more different sources for whatever I am determining, whether it is caloric content, calories burned, BMR, TDEE, etc. and then I average the 3 figures to get the figure I use. I have elaborate spreadsheets out the kazoo. LOL. As said above, it is always just a representation so you have to pick something but be consistent. Probably the main thing is to over estimate your calories and underestimate the calories burned. Most important is probably going to be measuring what you are eating so that whatever source you are using for calories is closer to being accurate. For TDEE and BMR there are great sites out there including this one: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html and for calories burned here's one: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Consistency and measuring. Your 2 most important tools. If you are losing, you are doing it right. :flowerforyou: