Mypyramid.gov estimates my energy requirements much higher t
Options
nongenius
Posts: 18 Member
Yesterday someone posted a link to mypyramid.gov, the USDA website which has a food tracker and an activity tracker. I put in my information for yesterday, including my best estimate for how I had spent my day. And it came back with an energy requirement of 2900 calories! Way higher than any TDEE I've ever seen for myself, but I've never put in every activity. And I would assume that the USDA website is at least minimally credible. But this website has entries for sleeping, walking through the office, walking while talking, sitting in meetings... even sitting on the toilet!
Can anyone tell me if this is anywhere near correct? I'm 5'4", 161.2 lbs as of this morning. I work in a research lab so there are days when I'm on my feet for hours (yesterday I estimated 3-4 hours of standing while filing, which is the closest equivalent I could get to standing at the lab bench) and I can walk around a fair bit getting materials from different rooms. The amount of activity varies daily, though, as some days I'm sitting on the computer all day or in meetings. I also bike to and from work, a 2.5 mile ride in, a 2.25 mile ride home. And yesterday I did some pushups and situps (week 3, day 1 of 100 pushups and 200 situps). But 2900 still seems like a lot.
On the other hand, I have been pretty stagnant on the weight loss front lately. I had my MFP settings to lightly active, and was trying to keep on track with the calories (1460 + exercise). The past few days I've bumped up to a net calorie intake more like 1600 and I've started losing a little again. So maybe I am burning a little more than MFP says.
Any thoughts?
Can anyone tell me if this is anywhere near correct? I'm 5'4", 161.2 lbs as of this morning. I work in a research lab so there are days when I'm on my feet for hours (yesterday I estimated 3-4 hours of standing while filing, which is the closest equivalent I could get to standing at the lab bench) and I can walk around a fair bit getting materials from different rooms. The amount of activity varies daily, though, as some days I'm sitting on the computer all day or in meetings. I also bike to and from work, a 2.5 mile ride in, a 2.25 mile ride home. And yesterday I did some pushups and situps (week 3, day 1 of 100 pushups and 200 situps). But 2900 still seems like a lot.
On the other hand, I have been pretty stagnant on the weight loss front lately. I had my MFP settings to lightly active, and was trying to keep on track with the calories (1460 + exercise). The past few days I've bumped up to a net calorie intake more like 1600 and I've started losing a little again. So maybe I am burning a little more than MFP says.
Any thoughts?
0
Replies
-
Yes, that is because they want you to keep eating that sugary, stuff - filled with empty carbs, HFCS, sodium, white flour or fake whole grains.................
And the sad part is, a lot of people will believe it because it is a government website............So the diabetes epidemic and obesity epidemic will continue to get worse.0 -
2,900 sounds really really high to me. that would mean you would need 2400 calories a day to loose a lb a week. That doesn't sound right in the slightest bit. That being said I have heard MFP (OPINION ALERT) sets calories a little bit lower than a lot of other websites. Try some different things and see what works for you.0
-
Hmm... I'm pretty sure they don't want me to eat sodium laden foods as that's something that was pointed out as a negative when I analyzed yesterday's diet. Although, their system is lacking a fair bit in identifying what's good and bad. It's smiley faces! Who uses smiley faces?
Anyways, these are their dietary recommendations for me:
Milk Recommendation 3 cup equivalent
Meat and Beans Recommendation 6.5 oz equivalent
Vegetables Recommendation 3 cup equivalent
Fruits Recommendation 2 cup equivalent
Grains Recommendation 8 oz equivalent
And their nutrient intake recommendations (this is from today, for which I've input my activity from 12AM-9AM, which includes sleep, breakfast and my bike ride in):
Nutrient Recommendation orAcceptable Range
Food Energy/Total Calories (kcals) 2321
Protein (gm) 46
Carbohydrate (gm) 130
Total Fiber (gm) 25
Total Fat (gm) 11.5 - 20.2
Saturated Fat (gm) < 5.8
Linoleic (omega 6) (gm) 12
Alpha Linolenic (omega 3) (gm) 1.1
Cholesterol (mg) < 300
Vitamin A (mcg RAE) 700
Vitamin C (mg) 75
Vitamin E (mg a-TE) 15
Thiamin (mg) 1.1
Riboflavin (mg) 1.1
Niacin (mg) 14
Folate (mcg, DFE) 400
Vitamin B6 (mg) 1.3
Vitamin B12 (mcg) 2.4
Calcium (mg) 1000
Phosphorus (mg) 700
Magnesium (mg) 310
Iron (mg) 18
Zinc (mg) 8
Selenium (mcg) 55
Potassium (mg) 4700
Sodium (mg) 1500 - 2300
Please let me know what parts of this you disagree with and why.0 -
161 lbs x 14 to 16 cals a day per lb to maintain current weigh of 161 is 2254 to 2576
So, basically to maintain a weight of 161 is a caloric intake 2254 to 2576 and they probably figured your activity level to be 500 to 700 cals per day0 -
2,900 sounds really really high to me. that would mean you would need 2400 calories a day to loose a lb a week. That doesn't sound right in the slightest bit. That being said I have heard MFP (OPINION ALERT) sets calories a little bit lower than a lot of other websites. Try some different things and see what works for you.
I agree with you on both counts. All the online TDEE calculators I've ever done have pointed to a 2200-2300 energy expenditure in a day, but that's assuming I've picked the right activity level. And for the most part, all the places that have such choices suck at defining them. I don't consider my job sedentary, but I don't consider it especially active either. I know I gained weight when I was writing my thesis and spent most of my days sitting on my butt writing, even though I didn't change my diet. So I know I'm burning more calories by standing and walking around, but is that lightly active? Moderate? I have no idea.
But even at 2300 that would mean I should be eating 1800, not the 1600 or 1460 that MFP gives me at different activity levels. Of course, that's assuming I'm picking the right level here too.
I suppose getting an HRM would help solve this issue, and that's something on my to do list.0 -
It's smiley faces! Who uses smiley faces?
It's probably for children or broken down for people who are at a lower reading level0 -
161 lbs x 14 to 16 cals a day per lb to maintain current weigh of 161 is 2254 to 2576
So, basically to maintain a weight of 161 is a caloric intake 2254 to 2576 and they probably figured your activity level to be 500 to 700 cals per day
Are you saying my BMR or RMR should be 2254 to maintain? That's way higher than every BMR/RMR calculator I've ever used. Where did you get those figures from?0 -
It's smiley faces! Who uses smiley faces?
It's probably for children or broken down for people who are at a lower reading level
Hah! This is a very good point. But if that's their intention, they should make their website easier to use. I personally found it a bit unwieldy.0 -
161 lbs x 14 to 16 cals a day per lb to maintain current weigh of 161 is 2254 to 2576
So, basically to maintain a weight of 161 is a caloric intake 2254 to 2576 and they probably figured your activity level to be 500 to 700 cals per day
Are you saying my BMR or RMR should be 2254 to maintain? That's way higher than every BMR/RMR calculator I've ever used. Where did you get those figures from?
I read in a weight loss book how to figure out how many calories it takes to maintain your current weight. You multiply 14 to 16 cals per pound...Thats not your BMR...That's how many calories you are ingesting to maintain that weight. Most people on average have BMR of approximate 1200, which is the guidelines that you see. There's a difference.0 -
It's smiley faces! Who uses smiley faces?
It's probably for children or broken down for people who are at a lower reading level
Hah! This is a very good point. But if that's their intention, they should make their website easier to use. I personally found it a bit unwieldy.
I have never used it...but, my kids did have some projects where they had to access the site0 -
161 lbs x 14 to 16 cals a day per lb to maintain current weigh of 161 is 2254 to 2576
So, basically to maintain a weight of 161 is a caloric intake 2254 to 2576 and they probably figured your activity level to be 500 to 700 cals per day
Are you saying my BMR or RMR should be 2254 to maintain? That's way higher than every BMR/RMR calculator I've ever used. Where did you get those figures from?
I read in a weight loss book how to figure out how many calories it takes to maintain your current weight. You multiply 14 to 16 cals per pound...Thats not your BMR...That's how many calories you are ingesting to maintain that weight. Most people on average have BMR of approximate 1200, which is the guidelines that you see. There's a difference.
Okay, so that's like a sedentary level TDEE? Then add in 700 calories for walking, standing, talking, biking, etc? So MFP really underestimates then. It lists my daily energy expenditure at 2100 calories on the Active level.0 -
It's smiley faces! Who uses smiley faces?
It's probably for children or broken down for people who are at a lower reading level
Hah! This is a very good point. But if that's their intention, they should make their website easier to use. I personally found it a bit unwieldy.
I have never used it...but, my kids did have some projects where they had to access the site
I think their webmaster must be on vacation this week or something. I had a number of server access errors last night and when you go to analyze physical activity it lists all the activities you've put in with a description of the activity level (only Moderate or vigorous activities get added to your calorie requirements), and time. But it looks blank. I only realized that's what it was supposed to be because I accidentally highlighted the page and suddenly saw words.0 -
[/quote]
Okay, so that's like a sedentary level TDEE? Then add in 700 calories for walking, standing, talking, biking, etc? So MFP really underestimates then. It lists my daily energy expenditure at 2100 calories on the Active level.
[/quote]
I think that sounds reasonable; especially, if you were to log your intake that's prior to starting on this website. Many people are shocked at the amount of calories ingested.
I haven't looked into how MFP calculates their data; so, I would have to question this accuracy. I have heard on other posts that MFP is more conservative in numbers.0 -
think their webmaster must be on vacation this week or something. I had a number of server access errors last night and when you go to analyze physical activity it lists all the activities you've put in with a description of the activity level (only Moderate or vigorous activities get added to your calorie requirements), and time. But it looks blank. I only realized that's what it was supposed to be because I accidentally highlighted the page and suddenly saw words.
Well, maybe because the olympics are on....LOL0 -
Okay, so that's like a sedentary level TDEE? Then add in 700 calories for walking, standing, talking, biking, etc? So MFP really underestimates then. It lists my daily energy expenditure at 2100 calories on the Active level.
I think that sounds reasonable; especially, if you were to log your intake that's prior to starting on this website. Many people are shocked at the amount of calories ingested.
I haven't looked into how MFP calculates their data; so, I would have to question this accuracy. I have heard on other posts that MFP is more conservative in numbers.
I've actually got the opposite problem. I was shocked to see how few calories I've been ingesting. I've been trying to battle weight off and on for a long time. And I guess when I go off I go really far off. But I've been trying to eat well and healthy and exercise since September and wasn't seeing much in the way of results. The first week I logged in I was shocked to see that I was only eating in the range of 1000-1500 calories every day. If I need 2200 to maintain, that's a deficit of 700-1200 calories! Too much! And I was biking on top of that. It took me about two weeks to wrap my head around eating more to lose more. I think that's the situation I'm in now. I've not seen any results sticking to MFP guidelines so I've been trying to figure out how accurate they are and the conclusion I'm coming to is that I need to eat more to lose more. I've just got to make sure I don't eat too much more.0 -
I wouldn't blindly follow Mypyramid.gov. The original food pyramid was made by politicians who used the logic "eating fat makes you fat" without any research to back it up.
The whole scheme is mired in politics, from dairy farmers to corn farmers wanting you to eat more of their stuff so they make more money. You can find a lot of information about the food pyramid and its history in science journals and in the archives of the New York Times and Time magazine.
So if you want to use it just do so with a grain of salt (pun intended).0 -
I wouldn't blindly follow Mypyramid.gov. The original food pyramid was made by politicians who used the logic "eating fat makes you fat" without any research to back it up.
The whole scheme is mired in politics, from dairy farmers to corn farmers wanting you to eat more of their stuff so they make more money. You can find a lot of information about the food pyramid and its history in science journals and in the archives of the New York Times and Time magazine.
So if you want to use it just do so with a grain of salt (pun intended).
I'm not saying I want to blindly follow the food pyramid. But I also don't want to blindly follow MFP. I don't think either is right. One seems too high and one seems too low. I'm just trying to figure out what's best for me and to understand how they can be so different.
Food science, like all science, is constantly changing their ideas of what is true and what is not.0 -
Okay, so that's like a sedentary level TDEE? Then add in 700 calories for walking, standing, talking, biking, etc? So MFP really underestimates then. It lists my daily energy expenditure at 2100 calories on the Active level.
I think that sounds reasonable; especially, if you were to log your intake that's prior to starting on this website. Many people are shocked at the amount of calories ingested.
I haven't looked into how MFP calculates their data; so, I would have to question this accuracy. I have heard on other posts that MFP is more conservative in numbers.
I've actually got the opposite problem. I was shocked to see how few calories I've been ingesting. I've been trying to battle weight off and on for a long time. And I guess when I go off I go really far off. But I've been trying to eat well and healthy and exercise since September and wasn't seeing much in the way of results. The first week I logged in I was shocked to see that I was only eating in the range of 1000-1500 calories every day. If I need 2200 to maintain, that's a deficit of 700-1200 calories! Too much! And I was biking on top of that. It took me about two weeks to wrap my head around eating more to lose more. I think that's the situation I'm in now. I've not seen any results sticking to MFP guidelines so I've been trying to figure out how accurate they are and the conclusion I'm coming to is that I need to eat more to lose more. I've just got to make sure I don't eat too much more.
Right, you could be in the "starvation mode". So, don't get worried if you go up in calories after eating the appropriate amounts of food...that's your body recovering from so-called starvation and changing metabolism. It's amazing how the body will adapt and change to protect it's vital organs. So, it will super conserve energy to keep vital functions working thereby slowing metabolism. Good luck!!0 -
I wouldn't blindly follow Mypyramid.gov. The original food pyramid was made by politicians who used the logic "eating fat makes you fat" without any research to back it up.
The whole scheme is mired in politics, from dairy farmers to corn farmers wanting you to eat more of their stuff so they make more money. You can find a lot of information about the food pyramid and its history in science journals and in the archives of the New York Times and Time magazine.
So if you want to use it just do so with a grain of salt (pun intended).
That is what I was saying.
It is nothing more than them wanting everyone to keep eating that crap that is in the grocery stores..........
8 oz of grains is way to much. And 130 grams of carbs per day, I would be ballooning up in weight like you wouldn't believe.
The food pyramid I follow is my profile pic........................0 -
Okay, so that's like a sedentary level TDEE? Then add in 700 calories for walking, standing, talking, biking, etc? So MFP really underestimates then. It lists my daily energy expenditure at 2100 calories on the Active level.
I think that sounds reasonable; especially, if you were to log your intake that's prior to starting on this website. Many people are shocked at the amount of calories ingested.
I haven't looked into how MFP calculates their data; so, I would have to question this accuracy. I have heard on other posts that MFP is more conservative in numbers.
I've actually got the opposite problem. I was shocked to see how few calories I've been ingesting. I've been trying to battle weight off and on for a long time. And I guess when I go off I go really far off. But I've been trying to eat well and healthy and exercise since September and wasn't seeing much in the way of results. The first week I logged in I was shocked to see that I was only eating in the range of 1000-1500 calories every day. If I need 2200 to maintain, that's a deficit of 700-1200 calories! Too much! And I was biking on top of that. It took me about two weeks to wrap my head around eating more to lose more. I think that's the situation I'm in now. I've not seen any results sticking to MFP guidelines so I've been trying to figure out how accurate they are and the conclusion I'm coming to is that I need to eat more to lose more. I've just got to make sure I don't eat too much more.
Right, you could be in the "starvation mode". So, don't get worried if you go up in calories after eating the appropriate amounts of food...that's your body recovering from so-called starvation and changing metabolism. It's amazing how the body will adapt and change to protect it's vital organs. So, it will super conserve energy to keep vital functions working thereby slowing metabolism. Good luck!!
There is no such thing as starvation mode..............that is a pure myth.
You should really research intermittent fasting as it is a very common practice.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions