MFP method actually work for anyone?

I would imagine it works for lots of people, hence the popularity of the website.

When I stick to the program I consistently lose 1 lb a week which is just what it is set at.

I am losing twice as fast (though it still only 1- 1.3 pounds a week) using MFP as I was on my own. Curious if you are watching your macro goals (protein/carbs/fat) as I have found that when I go over on my carbs I tend to have a smaller loss. You can set your macro goals differently based on what works for you but I definately had to customize those goals to increase my protein percentage and lower my carb percentage.

I really didn't check to see if I was losing at the MFP rate but I have lost 16 and I am an old dude who doesn't get much exercize (although I have been better since MFP). Just keep logging accurately and you should see results. Be patient.

MFP originally had me set at 1200 calories a day, and I quickly lost about 12 pounds doing that. However, I soon realized that it was not maintainable for me to be eating so little, and I've since upped my calories to TDEE-15% (1575) and although I'm not losing as fast as I was before, I definitely feel a lot better:)

I have been using it for about 5 months and have lost 25 pounds so far. It works.

Erm...I would say yes considering the number of people on here and the success stories.
As for myself: 40lbs gone

never mind.

It could be that some estimate is off. Which is what it is when your calorie goal is set. To make matters worse the estimate is based on estimates so it's no wonder they can be off. I doubt it's wildly off even with those factors. So, if you say you are sedentary there is an assumption that even at that level a certain amount of activity is being done on a daily basis, hygiene, cooking, walking to your car, walking up to your office or place of work, walking across parking lots etc...But, some people are retired or homemakers and don't even leave their homes that much so they might be even less active than what is assumed and might burn 200 or more less calories than is assumed. Then their is the BMR, that is really a wild *** guess. It's based on your height, weight, age, and gender and they can only go by averages if you have any kind of medical issue like an under active (even a low normal) thyroid your metabolism could be lower.

So, the bottom line is that your activity level could be an over estimation that results in a 200 or slightly more estimation. Your BMR could be a 300 calorie or so overestimation. But, since you are losing some weight, it's unlikely those estimations are off by 500 calories, but they could be off by 250 a day. It's something you are going to have to A. get better estimates of your TDEE with a fitbit or other metabolic measuring device or B. experiment for a couple of months to figure out what your TDEE really is or C you could go straight to moving a bit more and cutting just a very slight amount from your calorie intake, like 100 or less.

One other thing that can happen I have seen this a whole lot is people who are already at a healthy weight trying to lose 5-20 more pounds. When you are already at a healthy weight your body will mutiny when you try to lose.

I'm just curious if it's worked for anyone or if you've had to alter it to work for you? Mine is set to lose 1lb a week and let me tell you, I'm not losing near that. I lost .3 last week and nothing this week. I eat back some of my exercise calories, not all of them usually because I don't want to eat back that much because I'm not that hungry. I also use a hrm to track and measure my food. I have tried TDEE in the past and that was way too much food and I gained weight.

The thing that jumps out at me is the HRM.

If you're using the HRM to calculate calories burned during exercise, I'd guess that it's significantly overestimating calorie burns. HRMs are notorious for doing that in people who don't have very high levels of cardiovascular fitness.

HRMs are not calorie calculators, and relying on them often leads to this.

I'd say knock 30% off your HRM numbers before you enter them.

Also, open your diary and we might see where you're going wrong.

Well, there is over 3 million members. It must be working for someone.

Wored great for me......consistently lost 1/2 lb or so per week until I got to my goal and I have been maintaining ever since. Important to accurately track your food and calories burned through exercise in order for it to work.

I'm just curious if it's worked for anyone or if you've had to alter it to work for you? Mine is set to lose 1lb a week and let me tell you, I'm not losing near that. I lost .3 last week and nothing this week. I eat back some of my exercise calories, not all of them usually because I don't want to eat back that much because I'm not that hungry. I also use a hrm to track and measure my food. I have tried TDEE in the past and that was way too much food and I gained weight.

The thing that jumps out at me is the HRM.

If you're using the HRM to calculate calories burned during exercise, I'd guess that it's significantly overestimating calorie burns. HRMs are notorious for doing that in people who don't have very high levels of cardiovascular fitness.

HRMs are not calorie calculators, and relying on them often leads to this.

I'd say knock 30% off your HRM numbers before you enter them.

Also, open your diary and we might see where you're going wrong.

This keeps getting more and more confusing to me. So many ppl say you should have a HRM to determine calories bunred. Im not expert so I am not arguing your point, but it just seems like there are so MANY variables involved depending on how you look at it

Ohh. Was the question do we lose at the suggested rate?

Um. Well when I was using MFP setting I was losing a over a pound a week. But then I got hungry and quit, lol. But that wasn't the fault of the site, it was clearly my fault for not setting my activity level higher (Lesson I took from that: If you work out five nights a week you are not sedentary.).

I'm just curious if it's worked for anyone or if you've had to alter it to work for you? Mine is set to lose 1lb a week and let me tell you, I'm not losing near that. I lost .3 last week and nothing this week. I eat back some of my exercise calories, not all of them usually because I don't want to eat back that much because I'm not that hungry. I also use a hrm to track and measure my food. I have tried TDEE in the past and that was way too much food and I gained weight.

The thing that jumps out at me is the HRM.

If you're using the HRM to calculate calories burned during exercise, I'd guess that it's significantly overestimating calorie burns. HRMs are notorious for doing that in people who don't have very high levels of cardiovascular fitness.

HRMs are not calorie calculators, and relying on them often leads to this.

I'd say knock 30% off your HRM numbers before you enter them.

Also, open your diary and we might see where you're going wrong.

This keeps getting more and more confusing to me. So many ppl say you should have a HRM to determine calories bunred. Im not expert so I am not arguing your point, but it just seems like there are so MANY variables involved depending on how you look at it

HRMs are not good at calculating calories. Heart rate simply isn't a very good proxy for calorie burn. For one thing, there are a number of variables that affect heart rate without affecting calorie burn (think anxiety, drugs like caffeine, etc). For another, cardiovascular efficiency matters. The HRM has to simply guess how good your CV system is at delivering oxygen to your tissues. It really has no idea. Ever notice how your heart rate at a given speed on the treadmill goes down over time? Well you're burning the same calories (assuming your weight is the same) but your HRM will measure fewer calories burned.

HRMs seem more or less calibrated to people who are rather fit. I see HRMs greatly exaggerating calorie burns for a LOT of people.

People automatically think that since the HRM is measuring something directly, it's automatically accurate. It's not.