MFP suggests 3978 calories; what say you?

albertobrian

I'm 6'3", about 173-175 and my Body Fat % is, I think, 16.83. I've had a bit of a problem under eating before and that's why I got on MFP (my set goal on MFP is stay at my current weight). However, when I factor in an exercise day, MFP suggests way more than most of y'all who seem to stick with an intake of 2000-2500.

I'm a grazer who never doesn't eat huge meals on my own - if you put it in front of me, I will put it away, but if I'm on my own I typically have pretty sensible meals (clean) and snack throughout the days on nuts, veggies, or pita chips and hummos. That doesn't get me even close: my first day of input tracked my intake at 1,973 calories. MFP said my goal, however, should have been 4,052 calories.

What does MFP tell you to do? What's your goal set at for those of you who are not trying to lose weight or focus on putting on mass? My exercise days are about 2-3 times a week of hard cycling on a tank of a "metro cruiser" bike to and from work 16.2 miles each way, averaging 4ish minute miles (between 3:37 - 4:19 mpm) and one day a week of jogging with my cousin on a short hills route by the house 2 miles + stadium stairs. Today I over ate (kinda forcing myself to take on more than normal) but I felt great on my ride and set a new pace record despite riding into a strong headwind almost the entire way. I even jogged for a mile after getting home to cool down afterward.

This is my first time on a forum or asking for advice/help so I'm really curious about others here will have to say. Hi!

~A

myfitnessval

i have a friend who also cycles and he uses those calorie/energy gel packs to use during his ride. you have to think of it this way, if youre going to train heavy you need to fuel your workouts with the right kind of fuel ya know? try eating high caloric foods, lots of avocado, cook with olive oils, nut butters, etc. and those little portable gel packs really do help to shore up the ridiculous burns from cycling.

the_green_midget

Hi there! So I'm not at all in the same situation as you because I'm over a foot shorter and trying to lose weight (I eat around 1400-1700 cals/day), but you gave me enough information that I was able to plug your numbers into the BMR calculator on Fat2Fit Radio (my calculator of choice): http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

According to that site, you should be eating 3515 calories if you're "extremely active" (which it sounds like you are!) to maintain your current weight. So unless you have MFP set to be gaining weight, I would say that the numbers you're getting from MFP are too high. If you don't have the program set to gain weight, then it might be that you've already got your activity level set to extremely active and you're also adding exercise calories on top of that?

albertobrian

i have a friend who also cycles and he uses those calorie/energy gel packs to use during his ride. you have to think of it this way, if youre going to train heavy you need to fuel your workouts with the right kind of fuel ya know? try eating high caloric foods, lots of avocado, cook with olive oils, nut butters, etc. and those little portable gel packs really do help to shore up the ridiculous burns from cycling.

I use those for backpacking and longer hikes but hadn't thought about using them for this, to just meet the caloric needs. I'm typically eating pretty well (I think; that's actually an uneducated statement from me) but, yeah, I think I'll indulge my love of avocados more often!

Justkeepswimmin

Hi there! So I'm not at all in the same situation as you because I'm over a foot shorter and trying to lose weight (I eat around 1400-1700 cals/day), but you gave me enough information that I was able to plug your numbers into the BMR calculator on Fat2Fit Radio (my calculator of choice): http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

According to that site, you should be eating 3515 calories if you're "extremely active" (which it sounds like you are!) to maintain your current weight. So unless you have MFP set to be gaining weight, I would say that the numbers you're getting from MFP are too high. If you don't have the program set to gain weight, then it might be that you've already got your activity level set to extremely active and you're also adding exercise calories on top of that?

I think you guys are talking about the same thing differently and are getting confused. The fit2fat number gives him a static number to eat each day, to maintain, even if he didn't exercise that day. It assumes that the exercise the day before or after will cover the lack of need for 3515 on the day "off"/days "off". MFP calculates a reduction off the BMR then lets him eat back the calories. So if he was supposed to be at 4000 it just means he burned more that day, but perhaps the next day he takes off or works less strenuous and it will give him 3000...which averages to 3515. (assuming he was set to maintain and not lose)

Same results arguably, different way of calculating. To each their own. MFP's way works for me b/c it pushes me to work out a bit more or bit harder each individual day so that I CAN eat those calories.

For him, it may be better to stay at a static number and not eat the exercise calories because it's hard to eat that much@!

This is an overs implication of a complex issue/question, but I think you get the idea:)

albertobrian

Hi there! So I'm not at all in the same situation as you because I'm over a foot shorter and trying to lose weight (I eat around 1400-1700 cals/day), but you gave me enough information that I was able to plug your numbers into the BMR calculator on Fat2Fit Radio (my calculator of choice): http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

According to that site, you should be eating 3515 calories if you're "extremely active" (which it sounds like you are!) to maintain your current weight. So unless you have MFP set to be gaining weight, I would say that the numbers you're getting from MFP are too high. If you don't have the program set to gain weight, then it might be that you've already got your activity level set to extremely active and you're also adding exercise calories on top of that?

Thanks so much! This really helps me to reign it in a bit rather than aim for the upper numbers. Yeah, I've got MFP set to maintain my current weight and let it know that I have a desk job so, while I do exercise hard, I'm still only really on my feet during the work out times... I've just started this so I'm learning as I go: I think I'm going to play with the numbers +/- 500 calories and figure out what kind of difference that makes.

I really appreciate you plugging in the numbers though and for the additional resource. Good luck on your goal!

albertobrian

Hi there! So I'm not at all in the same situation as you because I'm over a foot shorter and trying to lose weight (I eat around 1400-1700 cals/day), but you gave me enough information that I was able to plug your numbers into the BMR calculator on Fat2Fit Radio (my calculator of choice): http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

According to that site, you should be eating 3515 calories if you're "extremely active" (which it sounds like you are!) to maintain your current weight. So unless you have MFP set to be gaining weight, I would say that the numbers you're getting from MFP are too high. If you don't have the program set to gain weight, then it might be that you've already got your activity level set to extremely active and you're also adding exercise calories on top of that?

I think you guys are talking about the same thing differently and are getting confused. The fit2fat number gives him a static number to eat each day, to maintain, even if he didn't exercise that day. It assumes that the exercise the day before or after will cover the lack of need for 3515 on the day "off"/days "off". MFP calculates a reduction off the BMR then lets him eat back the calories. So if he was supposed to be at 4000 it just means he burned more that day, but perhaps the next day he takes off or works less strenuous and it will give him 3000...which averages to 3515. (assuming he was set to maintain and not lose)

Same results arguably, different way of calculating. To each their own. MFP's way works for me b/c it pushes me to work out a bit more or bit harder each individual day so that I CAN eat those calories.

For him, it may be better to stay at a static number and not eat the exercise calories because it's hard to eat that much@!

This is an overs implication of a complex issue/question, but I think you get the idea:)

Yeah, I'm definitely more interested in "eating enough" than under consuming but when I started reading that all these athletes were consuming "2000-2500 depending on working out or not" I got worried that I was over-doing it.

I like MFP's way as well of showing what I've burned and therefore what I might consider replacing. Also, I know that, eventually, I'll just get the hang of it and the data will intuitive and MFP will act more as an accountability manager.

It's also true that the more I try and answer these questions the more complex they seem to be!

Thanks for the feedback, too!