"if every day ...", does MFP ever get it right?

Options
orishp
orishp Posts: 214 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I'll admit, I have been eating at a calorie deficit between 700-1000 calories, which might be too low.
Based on that deficit MFP predicts I will drop 1.4-2 lbs/week, so it predicts 7-10 lbs in 5 weeks.

Of course reality is different, I have lost 14-15 lbs in 12 weeks, so just over 1 lb/week.

Could this be related to the fact that I am eating netting below BMR most days, and my metabolism may be slowing down?
If that were the case, then MFP should get it right for those of you whose metabolism is "normal" , does it?
«1

Replies

  • lalapurple62
    lalapurple62 Posts: 42
    Options
    To be perfectly honest ' i dont have a clue' lol i just like it when it says in 5 weeks you will weigh ????? Kinda keeps me motivated.
    Great weight loss BTW
  • Babymomakell
    Babymomakell Posts: 257 Member
    Options
    Nope, cuz most of us dont eat the same and workout the same every day =)
  • naples89
    naples89 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    No you're metabolism isnt "slowing down". Starvation mode isnt a thing unless you are 0% body fat. Something to keep in mind is that MFP estimates are just that, estimates. And it has a wide variation too.

    But it sounds like you are making progress, which is the more important part so keep it up!
  • recoiljpr
    recoiljpr Posts: 292
    Options
    It's just a rough calculation. Even the calories listed on a item (even on the package) vary. Your sodium levels vary which cause water retention, atmospheric pressure, TOM I hate that time, bloating, etc don't you?;-), etc, etc. I'm finding out this is more of an art mixed with a bit of science, then just true numbers crunching IMO.
  • bigdon123
    bigdon123 Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    It is not the same for everyone.one lb. a week is perfectly normal.But if you are not consuming enough calories your body could go into starvation mode and not lose anything. good luck!
  • j_wilson2012
    j_wilson2012 Posts: 293
    Options
    I look at that and I laugh, because I am kicking the system's *kitten*. What is says down there is okay, but In 5 weeks time I want to be under 200. I am going to be halfway there from 220 in two weeks. The program is set for me to lose 2 lbs a week. I am currently losing 3-5 lbs per week. What it predicts is irrelevant. I input information, it give me data. Forums are good help too.

    I work out pretty heavy, and I eat pretty heavy. It is working for me....Seeing the scale range about 4 lbs a day is pretty nice to see (I averagely drop 3 lbs on workouts, it is pretty awesome). You see.....the website is more like.....guidelines. But conform it to your standards. It will be more accurate.
  • Rayman79
    Rayman79 Posts: 2,009 Member
    Options
    No you're metabolism isnt "slowing down". Starvation mode isnt a thing unless you are 0% body fat....

    wtf are you on brother? 0% body fat means you are not in 'starvation mode', it means you're dead!

    I just love people throwing around terms they have no idea about. :huh:
  • naples89
    naples89 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    I was using hyperbole. *facepalm

    But think about it this way. Why on earth would you're body, when starving, store the few calories taken in as fat instead of using them?
  • jynxxxed
    jynxxxed Posts: 1,010 Member
    Options
    Hasn't been accurate so far. I see it as a challenge.
  • sigma54
    sigma54 Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    Mine seems to be reasonably accurate... I don't complete my journal every day though so I only see it once in a while. Most of the time, if I'm near balancing my calories for the day, it gives me a predicted value that is about 1 lb/week. However, I've been losing at about 2 lbs per week so, in my case, it is underestimating. There are lots of reasons why it might over or under estimate including your calculated BMR, your non-exercise daily activity both of which are just estimates. Daily exercise calories and calories eaten for a given day will also have a large impact on the daily estimate... if you have 250 extra calories that you haven't eaten that day, it will assume that you will do that everyday for the next five weeks on top of the 500 calorie deficit (or whatever you chose when setting up your account) that is already built in.

    Anyways, for me I've been seeing greater loss than predicted by MFP. I have my daily calories set to have a deficit equal to 1.2 pounds per week and I'm seeing 2 pounds per week. I eat my exercise calories back. In my case, I think the reason for the difference is that I try to underestimate my calories expended from exercise (even though I have found that the MFP numbers for exercise happen to be close for me). Also, while I put my activity level as sedentary, there are some days where I guess it really is a bit more active than that just from walking to/from the bus, going to/from meetings, etc...

    But as Babymomakell has said, the biggest effect is that "most of us dont eat the same and workout the same every day =) " and small changes in the daily calorie balance for a given day will make large changes to the predicted weight at the end of the 5 weeks.

    I don't think your BMR is likely to have decreased that much (other than from lost tissue -- hopefully mostly fat!!) Are you eating a good amount of protein? If you're worried about BMR slowing down, make sure you are getting enough protein and do some resistance training and your BMR shouldn't be affected too much. Cheers!
  • Moyzilla
    Moyzilla Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    For the first couple of months mine was pretty accurate. Now, it's not even close. I've been stuck at the same weight for about 8 weeks now and that "if every day..." number makes me want to scratch my eyes out.
  • MB_Positif
    MB_Positif Posts: 8,897 Member
    Options
    I've never really paid attention to it.
  • sigma54
    sigma54 Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    I was using hyperbole. *facepalm

    But think about it this way. Why on earth would you're body, when starving, store the few calories taken in as fat instead of using them?

    Because it's worried that things will get even worse... Certainly it will use some or most of it but, at very low body fat %, it would likely start cannibalizing muscle (to use as a source of energy and also greatly reduce calorie requirements) before getting rid of the remainder of the fat... I'm not an expert on human metabolism though (bacterial metabolism is my area of research). You're right in general, though, as this would only be a major issue at low body fat % and serious caloric deficits.

    Even at higher body fat %, some muscle will be lost without enough protein intake (and ideally some stimulus in terms of resistance training). Muscles are relatively non-essential compared to organs so they will be used if the organs aren't able to get their amino acid requirements from external sources.
  • j_wilson2012
    j_wilson2012 Posts: 293
    Options
    I was using hyperbole. *facepalm

    But think about it this way. Why on earth would you're body, when starving, store the few calories taken in as fat instead of using them?

    The storing of the fat is true in all mammals. Whales, sea lions, bears and tigers, apes, and humans. It is just like that. why else do you think bears can hibernate for 4 months?
  • Macrocarpa
    Macrocarpa Posts: 121 Member
    Options
    as j_wilson says - it's data, and how you interpret it.

    For me MFP slightly overestimates calories and grossly underestimates burn calculations.

    For instance, I'm on 1280 target per day which targets a 2lb loss per week.

    For accuracy's sake I weigh and measure *everything* down to about 3 gram tolerance, and include things like cooking sprays and vinegars that go on salad etc.

    I don't use an HRM, but I do use a sports GPS tracker for outdoor exercise, and use the gym machine workout numbers for cardio. MFP underestimates these burn quantities massively (like 30% off on cardio machines and 100% off on some outdoor exercise). My burn counts from the machines and the GPS are always higher than MFP has allowed.

    In the past 10 days I'm down 8lb - this is matched by previous 'intense' periods where I wanted a sustained drop - with a 1280cal diet + 60 minutes cardio per day the lb come off quicker than MFP is forecasting. So even with me inflating the burn figures above what MFP is indicating, I'm still *way* ahead of plan.

    Now I usually lose in fits and starts, but the long term trend from previous 'intense' drop months is that I would lose 25lb in 35 days (5 weeks) which is more than twice the loss predicted. So either I'm burning at a rate far higher than MFP is estimating, my BMR is way higher than expected, or the calorie calculation doesn't work for me.
  • sigma54
    sigma54 Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    I was using hyperbole. *facepalm

    But think about it this way. Why on earth would you're body, when starving, store the few calories taken in as fat instead of using them?

    The storing of the fat is true in all mammals. Whales, sea lions, bears and tigers, apes, and humans. It is just like that. why else do you think bears can hibernate for 4 months?

    Yes, fat is not only used for energy storage but also used structurally (cell membranes for example), for insulation and padding, both thermal and electrical, and for solubilizing essential fat soluble vitamins, as well as a source of fatty acids needed for proper organ function.
  • 47Jacqueline
    47Jacqueline Posts: 6,993 Member
    Options
    I don't know if they ever get it right, but I ate more today than ever before, about 1400 plus calories, and it said I would weigh lower than it has ever said before. Of course i won't eat the same tomorrow, but I thought it was interesting on the first day that I didn't starve myself, MfP said I would weight the least in five weeks.

    Proves to me that we don't have to eat too little to lose weight.
  • mreed911
    mreed911 Posts: 25
    Options
    I'll admit, I have been eating at a calorie deficit between 700-1000 calories, which might be too low.

    I'm on a doctor-supervised 1500 calorie a day deficit (eating back anything I burn exercising) for a net 10,500 (3 lb) per week deficit.

    I work out at least 300 calories/day and my BMR (measured) is 3200, so I'm eating an average 2000 calories/day. In reality, though, I'm eating around 1600, saving 2400 calories to add to a "cheat day" at the end of the week.

    It works out well for me... and I look forward to the end of the week!
  • orishp
    orishp Posts: 214 Member
    Options
    I don't know if they ever get it right, but I ate more today than ever before, about 1400 plus calories, and it said I would weigh lower than it has ever said before. Of course i won't eat the same tomorrow, but I thought it was interesting on the first day that I didn't starve myself, MfP said I would weight the least in five weeks.

    Proves to me that we don't have to eat too little to lose weight.

    I havent noticed this, i thought it was just a mere calorie deficit thing, so the less calories you eat , the lower the prediction.

    Thanks for all the feedback, nice to know that it overestimates for some lucky people. I too try to be as accurate as possible, cals burned are from an HRM, etc... Still it is far off and like moyzilla said,
    makes me want to scratch my eyes out
    LOL
  • queenhiphop
    queenhiphop Posts: 286 Member
    Options
    No you're metabolism isnt "slowing down". Starvation mode isnt a thing unless you are 0% body fat. Something to keep in mind is that MFP estimates are just that, estimates. And it has a wide variation too.

    But it sounds like you are making progress, which is the more important part so keep it up!

    Quoted for absolute truth.

    Perhaps you are holding onto water - I dropped 2lbs in 2 days this week and I think it was to do with my water. Or you could be bloating leading up to your period? Try keeping track of your measurements too - you can lose inches but not drop a pound! It's weird haha xx

Categories