Confusing

MDWilliams1857

I will try not to let this turn into a super long post/rant. But here it goes. I changed my MFP screen name a little while back so my current profile says Ive lost 21 pounds but I have actually lost 48 pounds in about 8 months or so. You would think that someone that has lost almost 50 pounds would have a pretty good understanding of these things but I guess not, at least with me. But here is my post/rant/questions. I wish MFP would tell you what number they came up with for your BMR and your TDEE. You put your info in and they tell you how many calories to consume for your desired weight loss but they dont give you your BMR and TDEE that was used. So basically, Im male, 5'11, 240 pounds, 36 years old. I work out 5 days a week. 4 days I do a combo of body building and cardio and on the 5th day I do straight cardio. When I put all my info into MFP, it tells me that to lose 2 pounds a week I need to consume 1750 net calories. Now when i use another calculator, such as scoobysworkshop, I put in the same info and it tells me that my BMR is 2192 and my TDEE is 3398 and if I consume 2548 its a projected weight loss of 1.7 pounds a week. So how can they be that far off? How can MFP say that 1750 is 2 pounds a week but the other says that 2548 is 1.7 pounds a week. Thats 700 more calories a day for basically the same weight loss. I went to fitnessfrog and it says my TDEE is 3437. So if I use their numbers thats 2437 calories a day for 2 pound a week loss. So Sccobysworkshop and fitness frog are about the same while MFP is way lower. Now I say all this because I had my calories set at 2350 for the last two weeks and I only lost 1 pound. I hear people say all the time to up your calories a little in some cases to lose weight so I thought well scooby says I need 2500 so maybe Im eating a little light for the amount of exercise I do. But then MFP says Im eating way too much. I dont know whether to drop my cals or raise them. My gut says to drop them down. Im just not sure that with the heavy weight lifting that is a good idea. Any thoughts?

I should note a couple things. First, MFP is telling me to eat less than what the others say my BMR is. If my BMR is really 2192 then eating 1750 while doing the weight lifting and cardio cant be good. I understand these are all just estimates and no calculator is 100% but these differences arent little. Second, I do a 4 day split with my lifting and I lift heavy. So its quite possible that I lost a pound of fat while gaining some muscle. I just feel like sometimes people use that as a cop out when they dont lose weight. They figure, oh well, I must have gained muscle. I dont want to use that as a cop out. I dont have a skin fold caliper so I have no way of testing to see if body fat went down and LBM went up. Third, my diet is not the greatest. Im working on it, But I do stay within my calories and hit pretty close to my macro goals. Im still working on getting a healthier diet but as far as calories and macros, Im pretty close.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read all this if anyone actually did. Whats your thoughts? Drop cals? Raise cals? Keep them the same see what happens in another two weeks?

yarwell

You put your info in and they tell you how many calories to consume for your desired weight loss but they dont give you your BMR and TDEE that was used.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator will show the BMR

you can deduce the TDEE by adding 500 cals/day for 1 lb/week to the calorie goal. So if MFP said 1750 for 2 lbs/week it has your TDEE at 2750.

MFP takes your TDEE for "normal living" and exercise is then logged and added on to your food goal, so one source of the difference is that MFP would say 1750 for a no-exercise day but on a day where you burned 800 calories it would want you to eat 2550.

I would stick to a regime for a month and see what the loss rate is, then change accordingly.

MDWilliams1857

So MFP has my BMR as 2048 but yet tells me to eat 1750 to lose two pounds a week. I didnt think we should eat under our BMR. Im just dont understand why it was only one pound in two weeks. I looked back through my log and was between 2100-2300 calories almost everyday. Its just confusing and aggrevating. Thats a lot of work for 1 pound of weight loss in two weeks.

donnab83

Bump!
I'm having the exact same problem! I was at 1400 & losing, then realised that it's below my BMR, so upped & now not loosing!
Would love to see the responses u get! Hope u can figure this out!

Koldnomore

So MFP has my BMR as 2048 but yet tells me to eat 1750 to lose two pounds a week. I didnt think we should eat under our BMR. Im just dont understand why it was only one pound in two weeks. I looked back through my log and was between 2100-2300 calories almost everyday. Its just confusing and aggrevating. Thats a lot of work for 1 pound of weight loss in two weeks.

It's because you picked to lose 2lbs a week weight loss, that makes MFP weird - it's the same 'problem' when it gives everyone 1200 calories. Your better off imho to calculate your requirements using a custom method. There are a bunch of links in the stickies at the top.. You could do the "roadmap" method or the "eating for future you" method or a bunch of others. MFP and Scooby are within 50 of my BMR for me. 1594 vs1642, I eat 1700 calories and lose 1-3lbs a week without working out at all. The exercise is what's messing up your numbers on MFP not the 'base'

If you work out as much as you do then your 2100-2300 calories is not nearly enough. I'd use those numbers as your base and UP your calories. Eat back at least half of what you work out and give it at least 3 weeks.

yarwell

So MFP has my BMR as 2048 but yet tells me to eat 1750 to lose two pounds a week. I didnt think we should eat under our BMR.

There is no scientific or logical reason to not eat under your BMR. If you follow that line of thinking you constrain your loss rate to what can be achieved by activity and exercise when most people lose weight by eating less. Not eating below your BMR is not something built into MFP's calculations.

If you only lost 1 pound in two weeks the maths approach says you had an actual calorie deficit of 3500 cals / 14 days = 250 calories per day, so whatever you ate on average you used 250 more. This might seem unlikely, but you may be overestimating exercise and underestimating food intake. 2350 eaten + 250 lost = 2600 TDEE by energy balance.

BMR estimates are estimates +/- 10% and 30% of people are outside of that - you may be one of them. I'm not sure if your 240 lbs is muscular or fatty - try the fat2fitradio site for % fat estimates and the Katch-McArdle BMR formula that uses %fat.

Koldnomore

Bump!
I'm having the exact same problem! I was at 1400 & losing, then realised that it's below my BMR, so upped & now not loosing!
Would love to see the responses u get! Hope u can figure this out!

Depends on your BMR, If you upped all in one shot then you may gain a little from it but if you give it another couple weeks its should go back down. I went 1200 - 1400 - 1650/1700 without gaining but I did it over a couple months.

MDWilliams1857

Yarwell, you bring up another point I meant to ask about in the original post. I use a Polar F6 HRM to get my calories burned. I know that no matter what you wear, none of them are 100% accurate. Its all best estimates. But Polar has a reputation of being pretty good. I have worried about over-estimating calories burned during exercise. I do work out hard and I do cardio and weight training at the same time. So I might do a set of bench press, then rather than sit for 2-3 minutes to rest, I will do sprints or jumping jacks or jump rope. That way my arms and chest can rest but Im still moving and getting my cardio in. I usually workout between 1.5 and 2 hours. Sometimes my HRM gives me a calorie burn of 1400-1500. Im sure I do burn alot as I am still 240 pounds with a lot of body fat. But I also know that in those two hours I would have burned calories anyway so not all 1400 can really be counted. Is there a rule of thumb as to what percentage of calories burned to log? Should I only log maybe 65% of those 1400 or something like that?


By the way thanks to you both for responding.

70davis

Bump

csplatt

i asked myself the exact same thing. my numbers were different when i calculated as well.

jamface11

Yarwell, you bring up another point I meant to ask about in the original post. I use a Polar F6 HRM to get my calories burned. I know that no matter what you wear, none of them are 100% accurate. Its all best estimates. But Polar has a reputation of being pretty good. I have worried about over-estimating calories burned during exercise. I do work out hard and I do cardio and weight training at the same time. So I might do a set of bench press, then rather than sit for 2-3 minutes to rest, I will do sprints or jumping jacks or jump rope. That way my arms and chest can rest but Im still moving and getting my cardio in. I usually workout between 1.5 and 2 hours. Sometimes my HRM gives me a calorie burn of 1400-1500. Im sure I do burn alot as I am still 240 pounds with a lot of body fat. But I also know that in those two hours I would have burned calories anyway so not all 1400 can really be counted. Is there a rule of thumb as to what percentage of calories burned to log? Should I only log maybe 65% of those 1400 or something like that?


By the way thanks to you both for responding.

I just used my sedentary TDEE and divided by 24 to find the calories I would burn in an hour doing nothing. For me it works out to be 70cal/h and then I would up this to 80-90 to give myself a buffer zone.

MDWilliams1857

Yarwell, you bring up another point I meant to ask about in the original post. I use a Polar F6 HRM to get my calories burned. I know that no matter what you wear, none of them are 100% accurate. Its all best estimates. But Polar has a reputation of being pretty good. I have worried about over-estimating calories burned during exercise. I do work out hard and I do cardio and weight training at the same time. So I might do a set of bench press, then rather than sit for 2-3 minutes to rest, I will do sprints or jumping jacks or jump rope. That way my arms and chest can rest but Im still moving and getting my cardio in. I usually workout between 1.5 and 2 hours. Sometimes my HRM gives me a calorie burn of 1400-1500. Im sure I do burn alot as I am still 240 pounds with a lot of body fat. But I also know that in those two hours I would have burned calories anyway so not all 1400 can really be counted. Is there a rule of thumb as to what percentage of calories burned to log? Should I only log maybe 65% of those 1400 or something like that?


By the way thanks to you both for responding.

I just used my sedentary TDEE and divided by 24 to find the calories I would burn in an hour doing nothing. For me it works out to be 70cal/h and then I would up this to 80-90 to give myself a buffer zone.

Cool, I didnt even think about doing it that way. Good stuff. Thanks.

cmriverside

So if you know how much you eat, and how much you workout, and if ou do the same thing for 2 weeks and you aren't losing quickly enough (your words) - try eating what MFP suggested - see if it works. Give it three weeks. The HRM is still a good tool, it will be consistent for YOU, and that's the important thing. You have to use something for numbers. Pick a method, stick to it, adjust accordingly. Just don't make a lot of changes at once, then you don't know what worked.

Measure and weigh your food. Measure and weigh your body. Keep records. That's all any of us can do. There are no exact numbers for any of us outside of a laboratory setting.