Scooby's or Fat to Fit

Bonny619
Bonny619 Posts: 311 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Both give me a pretty different calorie goal. Is one considered more accurate?

Fat to Fit gives me more cals to eat, around 1800 to maintain at my goal of 125 and Scooby's with a 15% decrease gives me about 1550 to eat and with a 10% decrease gives me about 1644 to eat.

Female
34
155 pounds
60 inches
lightly active
goal weight 125

Replies

  • Bonny619
    Bonny619 Posts: 311 Member
    bump
  • Bonny619
    Bonny619 Posts: 311 Member
    bump
  • NaBroski
    NaBroski Posts: 206
    Any formula is going to be a rough estimate at best. Pick a number and adjust as needed.


    PS: Scooby is a blithering idiot.
  • zhvah18
    zhvah18 Posts: 158 Member
    No, if you do the math...15% of 1800 is 270. 1800-270=1530. If 1800 is to maintain then both sites gave you nearly identical numbers.
  • Bonny619
    Bonny619 Posts: 311 Member
    No, the 1800 is what fat to fit states someone who is 125 pounds, with my height and my activity level needs to maintain...so to eat like the 125 pound person you want to be. My TDEE wasn't 1800 on fat to fit.
  • Bonny619
    Bonny619 Posts: 311 Member
    Or maybe it was but for a 125 pound person...now I'm getting confused.
  • k_saenz
    k_saenz Posts: 126
    I always get 2000 plus on sites like that, but MFP gave me 1700 so I've been wondering about it too. I just changed it to 1900 today and going to try that for a couple days and see if anything changes
  • zhvah18
    zhvah18 Posts: 158 Member
    No, the 1800 is what fat to fit states someone who is 125 pounds, with my height and my activity level needs to maintain...so to eat like the 125 pound person you want to be. My TDEE wasn't 1800 on fat to fit.

    Right but if you went by scooby you wouldn't be eating at a cut forever. When you reached 125 you'd up your calories to maintenance which would be 1800. I do understand what you're saying. I've ran the numbers through many sites including those two many times for myself and when you look at them closely they're all saying pretty much the same thing.
  • zhvah18
    zhvah18 Posts: 158 Member
    I always get 2000 plus on sites like that, but MFP gave me 1700 so I've been wondering about it too. I just changed it to 1900 today and going to try that for a couple days and see if anything changes

    Because those sites take into account your exercise. MFP doesn't and expects you to eat back those calories from exercise.
  • LouiseH238
    LouiseH238 Posts: 199 Member
    No, the 1800 is what fat to fit states someone who is 125 pounds, with my height and my activity level needs to maintain...so to eat like the 125 pound person you want to be. My TDEE wasn't 1800 on fat to fit.

    Right but if you went by scooby you wouldn't be eating at a cut forever. When you reached 125 you'd up your calories to maintenance which would be 1800. I do understand what you're saying. I've ran the numbers through many sites including those two many times for myself and when you look at them closely they're all saying pretty much the same thing.

    OP, I ran your numbers through F2F and your current TDEE is approx. 1995. Your TDEE at 125lb would be about 1800.

    Going by F2F TDEE-20 would be about 1596. TDEE-15 would be about 1696. Scooby's estimate puts your current TDEE lower and therefore also cuts your calories more. The numbers aren't that different and I'd say just pick the one you like, try it for a month and see how much you lose. That will give you a clue as to what your actual TDEE is, as neither site is going to be truly accurate.
  • Bonny619
    Bonny619 Posts: 311 Member
    Oh ok! SO I was just misunderstanding the point of Fat to Fit then. I was under the impression you were just suppose to eat at the maintenance level of the weight you want to be, not then drop 20% or whatever from it.

    Makes sense now! Thanks guys.
  • LabMonkeySteph85
    LabMonkeySteph85 Posts: 64

    PS: Scooby is a blithering idiot.

    Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?
  • da_bears10089
    da_bears10089 Posts: 1,791 Member
    Oh ok! SO I was just misunderstanding the point of Fat to Fit then. I was under the impression you were just suppose to eat at the maintenance level of the weight you want to be, not then drop 20% or whatever from it.

    Makes sense now! Thanks guys.

    Dan always suggests that when you set it up on Fat to Fit that you put your current weight for your GOAL weight also so that you know what your current TDEE is. Then you take off 20% from that number. Then you re-evaluate your TDEE every 10lbs lost or so.
  • Bonny619
    Bonny619 Posts: 311 Member
    Perfect! Thank you!
    Oh ok! SO I was just misunderstanding the point of Fat to Fit then. I was under the impression you were just suppose to eat at the maintenance level of the weight you want to be, not then drop 20% or whatever from it.

    Makes sense now! Thanks guys.

    Dan always suggests that when you set it up on Fat to Fit that you put your current weight for your GOAL weight also so that you know what your current TDEE is. Then you take off 20% from that number. Then you re-evaluate your TDEE every 10lbs lost or so.
  • AmyRhubarb
    AmyRhubarb Posts: 6,890 Member
    Oh ok! SO I was just misunderstanding the point of Fat to Fit then. I was under the impression you were just suppose to eat at the maintenance level of the weight you want to be, not then drop 20% or whatever from it.

    Makes sense now! Thanks guys.

    Dan always suggests that when you set it up on Fat to Fit that you put your current weight for your GOAL weight also so that you know what your current TDEE is. Then you take off 20% from that number. Then you re-evaluate your TDEE every 10lbs lost or so.
    This is the method I have followed, and it's worked (and is still working) beautifully for me. :smile:
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    Any formula is going to be a rough estimate at best. Pick a number and adjust as needed.


    PS: Scooby is a blithering idiot.

    Yeah he is.

Categories