Calorie calculators- mfp vs scooby

Options
tempest501
tempest501 Posts: 329 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have just recently broke through a 3 week plateau, I made a post and someone suggested taking a break from dieting. So I increased cals and was more or less eating just below maintain. It seems to be working as started losing a couple of days later. The thing is I was recommend a site called scooby workshop. Brilliant website but when I used his calc it said I should be eating a good 300 cals more per day.

I am a little confused now and wondered what others think?

Try in advance for replys.

Replies

  • SuffolkSally
    SuffolkSally Posts: 964 Member
    Options
    I don't know the website (curious to have a look tho!) but maybe if you've just found a level that works for you then stick with it?
  • pickledginger
    pickledginger Posts: 172
    Options
    If what you're doing works, I'd stick with it. That's what matters. Congrats on your progress!
  • mem50
    mem50 Posts: 1,384 Member
    Options
    I went there. I don't know if I could get an accurate calorie #. I plugged it in and it said over 3000 calories a day. MFP says 1750 or so for me right now. I don't think I could eat that many calories every day and keep my weight normal. I would have to say I'm going to stick with what MFP says.
  • tempest501
    tempest501 Posts: 329 Member
    Options
    Sorry guys meant to link the site

    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Calculators like that take into account calories burned through exercise while MFP doesn't. That's why MFP wants you to log exercise and adds it back to your daily allowance. They should work out pretty much the same in the end.
  • SuffolkSally
    SuffolkSally Posts: 964 Member
    Options
    I just had a look, and the figures come out about what MFP says. Unlike MFP though it includes your daily activity level; you don't by any chance have, as I do, your MFP level set to sedentary and then add in your exercise separately?

    I set scooby to sedentary and it it gave me 1535, and then to lightly active which gave me 1760. On MFP I'm working to 1500, set to sedentary, but I prefer to add my exercise separately as a form of motivation, and then it usually works out between 1600-2000 a day depending what I've done. I then eat most of those calories back.
  • tempest501
    tempest501 Posts: 329 Member
    Options
    Calculators like that take into account calories burned through exercise while MFP doesn't. That's why MFP wants you to log exercise and adds it back to your daily allowance. They should work out pretty much the same in the end.

    Ok we'll I will just keep between what mfp says for diet and maint for now as it seems to be kick starting my loss again , then back to more of a reduction. I am nearly under 16 % bodyfat now and really want to hit 10-12 and then s tart working on building some muscle, hopefully.
  • tempest501
    tempest501 Posts: 329 Member
    Options
    I just had a look, and the figures come out about what MFP says. Unlike MFP though it includes your daily activity level; you don't by any chance have, as I do, your MFP level set to sedentary and then add in your exercise separately?

    I set scooby to sedentary and it it gave me 1535, and then to lightly active which gave me 1760. On MFP I'm working to 1500, set to sedentary, but I prefer to add my exercise separately as a form of motivation, and then it usually works out between 1600-2000 a day depending what I've done. I then eat most of those calories back.

    I log my exercise too, maybe I was just getting confused lol. Mfp has been working for me so far only reason I started questioning was I hit a wall for 3 weeks. I guess just getting frustrated as I am so eager to get started on building muscle.
  • daylily2005
    daylily2005 Posts: 203 Member
    Options
    There's no reason to wait to start building muscle. Go ahead and start right now!
  • DamnImASexyBitch
    DamnImASexyBitch Posts: 740 Member
    Options
    I wouldn't trust that other one. It says I should be eatting nearly 3000 calories. That's insane and why I got fat in the first place. MFP reccomends about 1400 and I've lost with it and continue to lose.
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    Whether I use TDEE based numbers (2300) or MFP's calculations (1700-1800 plus exercise calories), it's pretty close for me. MFP actually estimates a little bit low for me, though... Other than my exercise I'm at barely lightly active, but I'd need to be active + exercise calories to get the right amount.

    I just find it easier to eat based on TDEE and not have high days and low days based on my daily exercise.
  • Flowers4Julia
    Flowers4Julia Posts: 521 Member
    Options
    First of all! Congratulations on breaking a 3 week plateau! :drinker: They are the worst :noway:

    I am not a fan of the sight you mentioned (not accurate for me me at all!), but I do like Fat2Fit.com or Shapesense.com calculators. They seem more reasonable.

    Also, I tend to claim myself as sedentary....and then eat my exercise calories back....figuring out what activity level you are is also tricky and can tend to mess things up.

    I do love MFP, but, not so fond of how they go about calculating my numbers. If you already know your body fat % then, use the other calculators...

    Hope this adds to the thread! :wink:
  • erinkeely4
    erinkeely4 Posts: 408 Member
    Options
    That site doesn't have an option for maintaining my weight and muscle mass, which is my goal...

    I maintain at about 1480, maybe 1500. MPF says I should do 1460. So it's close.

    I log ALL exercise, and eat my exercise calories back.
  • danasings
    danasings Posts: 8,218 Member
    Options
    I used scooby to calculate my maintenance cals for a 2 1/2 week diet break. I subtracted ten percent, just to make sure I didn't overestimate...and I lost four pounds over the next 3 weeks. I'm not sure how accurate any of those sites are, really. I think it's trial and error over long periods of time that get you to figure out what TDEE actually is. I now think I had been underestimating my activity level. So my two cents is...I don't know!! :)
  • tempest501
    tempest501 Posts: 329 Member
    Options
    Thanks for all the great replies guys and advice. I will check fat2fit.com and shape sense too just so I can compare those as well. Still think I need to get down to 10% before really trying to build my body up as want to try and lean bulk rather than getting fat again, also it's the first time I have ever tried to do something like this. It is a long road but at least I don't consider myself overweight now and that it something I am really pleased about.
  • traceygl1967
    traceygl1967 Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    Calculators like that take into account calories burned through exercise while MFP doesn't. That's why MFP wants you to log exercise and adds it back to your daily allowance. They should work out pretty much the same in the end.

    confused here if MFP doesnt take into account excercise calories why does it ask if you are sedentary, lightly active ect ?
  • LadyPakal
    LadyPakal Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    General lifestyle vs extra exercise.
    General life can be sitting at a desk or standing/walking about serving in a restaurant. The calorie limit you are given takes this into account.

    The extra calories from exercise are not necessarily going to be the same every day, so you add these in separately.
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,650 Member
    Options
    Calculators like that take into account calories burned through exercise while MFP doesn't. That's why MFP wants you to log exercise and adds it back to your daily allowance. They should work out pretty much the same in the end.

    confused here if MFP doesnt take into account excercise calories why does it ask if you are sedentary, lightly active ect ?

    I understand the confusion on calorie levels and activity levels. I THINK that perhaps the activity level you choose when you set up MFP is based on your everyday lifestyle. Do you have a desk job and spend a lot of time on the couch at home? Then you should choose sedentary. If you have a very physical job where you are walking a lot or carrying heavy boxes around, then you would choose a higher activity level. Then when you do deliberate exercise, i.e running, cycling, aerobics, etc, then you enter that in your exercise log to earn extra calories. (caution- database can calculate up to 50% more calories than you actually burn, so be careful eating back calories. Many people only record/eat back half what MFP shows)
    So if you set your activity level to lightly or moderately active, based on your exercise habits, then you shouldn't add back any extra exercise calories earned. It is already added into your calorie goal.

    At least this is how I understand it working.
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,650 Member
    Options
    I have learned recently that if you have a higher or lower than average BF%, then you should use a BMR calculator that takes into account your BF%, not just your height and weight. The Katch-Mcardle calculator does this.

    I checked the Scooby site and saw a link that said "World' Most Accurate Calorie Calculator" I clicked on it and it had a calculator where you entered more info, i.e. BF% and an option to use the Katch-Mcardle BMR calculator. This gave me a really accurate BMR and maintenance number.

    Keep in mind that if you are overweight, your BF% is probably higher than you think it is. An average 5'6" woman has a lean body mass of 100-110 pounds, so if you weight 200 pounds, your BF% is around 45-50%. If you have been lifting heavy, consistently for a year or more, your percentage probably will be lower. 50% BF sounds extremely high, until you realize that 25-30% is considered Healthy for women.

    In my case, the Katch Mcardle calculates my maintenance level at 300 calories per day less than the MFP calculator. And my weight loss/gain experience agrees with the KM numbers.
  • tempest501
    tempest501 Posts: 329 Member
    Options
    I have learned recently that if you have a higher or lower than average BF%, then you should use a BMR calculator that takes into account your BF%, not just your height and weight. The Katch-Mcardle calculator does this.

    I checked the Scooby site and saw a link that said "World' Most Accurate Calorie Calculator" I clicked on it and it had a calculator where you entered more info, i.e. BF% and an option to use the Katch-Mcardle BMR calculator. This gave me a really accurate BMR and maintenance number.

    Keep in mind that if you are overweight, your BF% is probably higher than you think it is. An average 5'6" woman has a lean body mass of 100-110 pounds, so if you weight 200 pounds, your BF% is around 45-50%. If you have been lifting heavy, consistently for a year or more, your percentage probably will be lower. 50% BF sounds extremely high, until you realize that 25-30% is considered Healthy for women.

    In my case, the Katch Mcardle calculates my maintenance level at 300 calories per day less than the MFP calculator. And my weight loss/gain experience agrees with the KM numbers.

    Ty ill check that calc out to check my cals with bf

Categories