Why would you want to be under your calorie goal

Depends on the person. Now that I'm eating more protein and not drinking all of my calories, I'm actually having a hard time hitting my calorie goal. It's a personal challenge every day to eat up to my goal. :drinker:

I try to get to within a 100 or so.

Yes, less calories generally means more weight loss.

If you go over your calorie goal you will not meet the pounds you want to lose in a week. I try to eat right at it and sometimes I don't eat my exercise calories back to kick up my weight loss. Also, lets be realistic we cant measure and know 100% exactly the calorie of every piece of food we put in our mouths ( at least I can't) so I leave a tiny buffer.

I have found that eating 1200 calories and when I work out not eating all of my exercise calories back has kept me at a 2 lb a week weight loss and not feeling deprived. But everyone is different!

Me too! I try to get as very close as possible when logging, but it's nearly impossible to account for all the variables. Having a couple hundred calories left helps me feel like I haven't cheated myself.

Many only eat back half or less of their workout calories in order to account for inaccuracies.

I try to get to within a 100 or so.

Generally this.

Until I am more certain of my calorie burning I try to leave a little wiggle room for error.

I see so many of my friends status " so and so just completed their diary and is under their calorie goal". Why would you want to be under? Is it going to make you lose faster?

Well it's rather difficult to hit it exactly.

And most people who are losing weight would rather be a little under than a little over so it doesn't slow their progress.

And most people who are gaining weight on purpose are doing it to gain muscle and if they go too fast more of it will be fat, so they don't really want to go over their goal either.

So most people shoot for a little under.

I see so many of my friends status " so and so just completed their diary and is under their calorie goal". Why would you want to be under? Is it going to make you lose faster?

The calories goal is full of approximations, there are four activity levels which are very broad bands and it doesn't account for current condition. I'll have the same goal as someone with the same height and weight who does no training rather than 30-40 Km per week running.

Intake and expenditure are also approximations, although the level of accuracy can be improved in the right circumstances.

Given that the three options are over goal, on goal or under goal then it's a question of whether one is optimistic or pessimistic with all the inaccuracy. One could take the view that it all mounts up to a reduction in net calories, or it all mounts up to an increase. I'd take the view that it's more likely to add up to a net increase, so give myself a margin at the end of the day.

On days that I'm doing a long run or long ride there is no way I can consume enough to hit goal anyway. Last Saturday I was left with enough space to have a couple of glasses of wine, first in over a month.

I try and be under some days to account for the day (I had quite a few recently...) that I go over. :laugh:

For me, two reasons.

1st I don't eat back all my exercise calories.
2nd I like to eat lower at the beginning of the week, to save calories for the inevitable wine lake later in the week.
:drinker:

(What can I say? I'm working on one thing at a time!)

Well technically, under your goal might only mean 5 calories. I think everyone's focus is to not eat OVER their goal so the opposite would be well... under.

Yes, and what I find dumb about MFP is that if you hit your goal exactly, it doesn't recognize that.

I think of it like "The Price Is Right"... Consistently get as close as you can, without going over, and you win!

Probably different from person to person, but I stopped losing weight when I ate back even some of my exercise calories. So I stopped doing that again this week and lost two pounds. At the end of the day, if your goal is to lose weight, the scale will tell you what's working and what isn't. If it isn't moving, somehow, there's not calorie deficit.

I'm set for a very small weekly loss (couldn't last on the fewer calories allowed for a greater loss) So in reality I'm pleased if my overall calories are between the 2 figures. I also do not eat back all my exercise calories.

The whole process is full of inaccuracies and estimates. That is 100% true. BMR, TDEE, daily activity, food intake, exercise calories, they're all estimates and you can't be 100% sure.
Hence, it's a good idea to have some margin of error.

BUT

If you set your activity level to sedentary AND round up when guesstimating/weighing portions AND aim to stay 100-200 calories under your goal AND not eat back your exercise calories because you want to be on the safe side, you're probably doing it wrong. Choose your fix but don't ham it up

I always try to be a little bit under in case I miscalculated some food.

This is true for me as well. I ususlly leave a little extra in case I get hungry at night since I'm a night owl and/or in case of miscalculations.