Very frustrated with MFP, help!

jdb3388
jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
What in the world am I doing wrong? I have my Net calories set at 1350, so that by the time I eat 2000 and exercise 650 I will be spot on what I wanna be, however, for some reason MFP decided to only allow you to adjust your Macros based on a percentage rather than a number, I can't adjust my Macros correctly. Is there a way to fix this?
«1

Replies

  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    Do the math to figure out the percentages?
  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    1350 is way too low to be your net calories.
    So, there's that.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    I know very few men who should net 1350 calories.
  • 3laine75
    3laine75 Posts: 3,069 Member
    Just hit your original macro minimums then have what you like with your exercise cals.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    1350 is way too low to be your net calories.
    So, there's that.

    Agreed...

    But you have to get ot the closest percentage you can...it wont be exact but close enough.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Also, when I change the percentage, there's the numbers next to it that show what that is in grams. Do you get that, too? Does it show you what the percentage translates to in grams?

    Edit to add. Oh I see, you are frustrated that it gives you different numbers as you add exercise.
  • vjohn04
    vjohn04 Posts: 2,276 Member
    Why such a large deficit?
  • Mischievous_Rascal
    Mischievous_Rascal Posts: 1,791 Member
    http://karoshiethos.com/2013/08/10/bookmarklet-for-more-accurate-goal-percentages-in-myfitnesspal/

    You need to put this in your favorites, and once you get to the screen where you change your goals, you go into your faves and click it. It will switch to 1% increments.
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    How is this hard?

    I know my protein minimum is 130g
    I know my fat minimum is 80g
    The rest is carbs

    So it doesn't matter if MFP uses the percentage. I can use my fancy-brain to see whether I met or exceeded (yay!) my minimums.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    I dont understand, I am actually eating 2000. My TDEE is only 2700. That's not but a 700 calorie deficit on the eating side, and it isn't the point. The point is, my Macros should be 207 Protien, 151 Carb and 72 Fat. I can't get the percentages anywhere even close to that.
  • Rev_Collins
    Rev_Collins Posts: 10 Member
    I a disagree. 1350 (A 650 deficit) is just over 1 lb a week if the settings are on sedentary like me to track exercise calories. 1200 is the threshold. It is considered safe to lose up to 2 lbs. per week.
  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    I a disagree. 1350 (A 650 deficit) is just over 1 lb a week if the settings are on sedentary like me to track exercise calories. 1200 is the threshold. It is considered safe to lose up to 2 lbs. per week.

    For women.
    And no one should be losing 2 pounds a week unless they're severely obese.
  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    Ewps.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    I a disagree. 1350 (A 650 deficit) is just over 1 lb a week if the settings are on sedentary like me to track exercise calories. 1200 is the threshold. It is considered safe to lose up to 2 lbs. per week.

    For women.
    And no one should be losing 2 pounds a week unless they're severely obese.

    Officially speaking, I am obese. I should be losing 2 lbs a week.
  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    I a disagree. 1350 (A 650 deficit) is just over 1 lb a week if the settings are on sedentary like me to track exercise calories. 1200 is the threshold. It is considered safe to lose up to 2 lbs. per week.

    For women.
    And no one should be losing 2 pounds a week unless they're severely obese.

    Officially speaking, I am obese. I should be losing 2 lbs a week.

    Not really.
    210 @ 5'5 merits maybe 1.5 pounds a week at most.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    And for the love of God, I understand how to count and I know how to do all the "fancy brainwork" to make it add up, but thats not the point of having MFP. The point is for it to do all of those things for you so it can show accurate charts and graphs based on the data you've entered.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    So when you go into settings/custom, you can't change the calories to 2000 with the percentages that give you the grams as close to your goal as possible?
  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    And for the love of God, I understand how to count and I know how to do all the "fancy brainwork" to make it add up, but thats not the point of having MFP. The point is for it to do all of those things for you so it can show accurate charts and graphs based on the data you've entered.

    Oh, I didn't realize that was the point of MFP.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    I come up with 40% protein, 29% carbs and 31% fat for you to reach those number of grams, if your goal is 2080 calories.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    I come up with 40% protein, 29% carbs and 31% fat for you to reach those number of grams, if your goal is 2080 calories.

    So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 Net and then just not worry about the exercise putting me under every day? That will throw off my tracking tho?
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

    Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.
  • 3laine75
    3laine75 Posts: 3,069 Member
    I dont understand, I am actually eating 2000. My TDEE is only 2700. That's not but a 700 calorie deficit on the eating side, and it isn't the point. The point is, my Macros should be 207 Protien, 151 Carb and 72 Fat. I can't get the percentages anywhere even close to that.

    Okay - you're eating 2000 altogether but have MFP set at 1350, is that right?

    Jiggle your percentages till you get the protein and fat at what you want it to be (for the 1350) then make sure you get that 207 and 72 - eat what you like with the rest.

    Or set it up at 2000 and don't add your exercise (or make custom exercises with a 1 cal burn).
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

    Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

    I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.
  • Iknowsaur
    Iknowsaur Posts: 777 Member
    So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

    Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

    I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

    MFP does not take designated exercise into account.
    That is why you are supposed to log your exercise and eat back those calories.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

    Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

    I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

    So basically now, to keep everything making sense if you stick to these settings, what would probably make sense is to log your exercises as only 1 calorie. So it won't change any of your targets. Again, if that makes sense to you.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    So do you think I'd be better off changing it to 2000 net

    Whatever makes the most sense to you. Just use those percentages I gave you, is my suggestion. On the days you do indeed eat 2080 calories, you will meet your target grams. If you eat less than that, MFP will adjust the numbers down that day.

    I went in an changed it to "active" rather than Lightly active so that it would raise my daily calories burned, and now all of the numbers add up, the percentages are correct and everything seems like its all in working order, except now when i go to log my exercise its gonna put me down way under my goal calories. I think what the problem is, is that MFP doesn't account for calories burned by exercise into the original equation. So when it tells you to net, it sort of assumes you didn't exercise to get to that net.

    MFP does not take designated exercise into account.
    That is why you are supposed to log your exercise and eat back those calories.

    And that is what i WANT to do, except it doesn't allow me to include the Macros of the calories that I eat back into the percentages.
  • lisajsund
    lisajsund Posts: 366 Member
    2700 seems like it might actually be your BMR, not your TDEE.
    What are your stats?
    Here is the website I use for BMR:

    http://www.fat2fittools.com/tools/bmr/

    It's accurate for me and it gives you an estimated calorie goal based on your "activity" level.

    My husband is 6'4", and his BMR is closer to 2800. Are you tall?

    Agree with most here - 1350 as a net goal for a man is way too low, I would say 1800 is a better number for a net.
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    And for the love of God, I understand how to count and I know how to do all the "fancy brainwork" to make it add up, but thats not the point of having MFP. The point is for it to do all of those things for you so it can show accurate charts and graphs based on the data you've entered.

    Oh, I didn't realize that was the point of MFP.

    Agreed. I didn't realize this free program was designed to prevent OP from doing any thinking on his own.
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    When you go to MY HOME and then GOALS there is box with FITNESS GOALS does that not account for your calorie goals when MFP calculates? I am confused now, I thought it did. So now I need an answer to this question. In the FITNESS GOALS it shows calories burned per week.
  • Chrisabella7
    Chrisabella7 Posts: 8
    No need to be rude to him.

Categories