Very frustrated with MFP, help!

2»

Replies

  • 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.

    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.

    If you don't believe that the whole reason MFP even exists is to gather data and arrange it in a way that makes sense without requiring the user to do much calculating then you're just wrong. That IS, in fact, why the program exists.
  • lisajsund
    lisajsund Posts: 366 Member
    [/quote]

    "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."
    [/quote]

    MFP makes all those calculations for you. No worries. :smile:
  • 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.

    Agreed. I didn't realize this free program was designed to prevent OP from doing any thinking on his own.

    If you don't believe that the whole reason MFP even exists is to gather data and arrange it in a way that makes sense without requiring the user to do much calculating then you're just wrong. That IS, in fact, why the program exists.

    It's actually a tool that people use to track their calories that gives you the option of either setting your own goals or following their guided goals.
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member

    "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."

    MFP makes all those calculations for you. No worries. :smile:

    But it doesnt. If it did it would allow me to add Macros that add up to my Gross Calorie Intake rather than just my Net
  • ironrat79
    ironrat79 Posts: 273 Member
    Why such a large deficit?

    Exactly, I'd starve at 1350
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    Why such a large deficit?

    Exactly, I'd starve at 1350

    Im not eating 1350. Im eating 2000.
  • lemonsnowdrop
    lemonsnowdrop Posts: 1,298 Member
    You need to set your activity level to reflect your daily life. If you have a desk job, it's sedentary, etc. Exercise is accounted for separately, so that MFP will create a deficit for you based on dy to day activities WITHOUT factoring in exercise.
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 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.

    This might help?

    There are 4 calories per gram for protein and carbs, 9 calories per gram for fat.

    207g x 4 = 828 caloires of protein
    151g x 4 = 604 calories of carbs
    72g x 9 = 648 calories of fat

    828 + 604 + 649 = 2080. That's pretty darn close!
  • Mischievous_Rascal
    Mischievous_Rascal Posts: 1,791 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.

    I log all my exercise as one calorie burned, and eat to my calorie allowance. I find it easier, especially using the TDEE method.
  • lemonsnowdrop
    lemonsnowdrop Posts: 1,298 Member
    Why such a large deficit?

    Exactly, I'd starve at 1350

    Im not eating 1350. Im eating 2000.

    But you're not netting 2000. Your exercise puts you under. You might not feel hungry, but you need the fuel for future workouts.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    nvmnd
  • jdb3388
    jdb3388 Posts: 239 Member
    You need to set your activity level to reflect your daily life. If you have a desk job, it's sedentary, etc. Exercise is accounted for separately, so that MFP will create a deficit for you based on dy to day activities WITHOUT factoring in exercise.

    But it doesn't. Everyone keeps saying that it does, but it does not. If I set my goal at 1350 Net, which I plan to eat 2000 and exercise off 650, it allows me to do that and keep up with the calories. But when I got to set my Macros at 207, 150 and 72 (ish) then it wont allow me to go that high, because it doesn't realize that I did actually eat 2000 calories and then burned off 650. It's acting as if I only ate 1350 in the first place. It's basically saying that eating 1350 calories, and eating 2000 calories but burning off 650 are the same thing. As far as calories in-calories out goes, they are the same, but for meeting your Macros they are not the same.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member

    "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."

    MFP makes all those calculations for you. No worries. :smile:

    But it doesnt. If it did it would allow me to add Macros that add up to my Gross Calorie Intake rather than just my Net

    Because MFP is a NEAT method calculator and macros are based on %s with MFP rather than hard keyed grams. When you exercise and add those calories, your protein, fat, and carbs are adjusted to match those %s...it is the way this tool works...there is no way to do what you are wanting MFP to do other than to actually use the TDEE method and customize your goals and not log your exercise (as it would be included in your TDEE) or just log it as one calorie or whatever. Still, you would just have to get the %s as close as possible to the grams you want to hit as you can not hard key grams.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    You need to set your activity level to reflect your daily life. If you have a desk job, it's sedentary, etc. Exercise is accounted for separately, so that MFP will create a deficit for you based on dy to day activities WITHOUT factoring in exercise.

    But it doesn't. Everyone keeps saying that it does, but it does not. If I set my goal at 1350 Net, which I plan to eat 2000 and exercise off 650, it allows me to do that and keep up with the calories. But when I got to set my Macros at 207, 150 and 72 (ish) then it wont allow me to go that high, because it doesn't realize that I did actually eat 2000 calories and then burned off 650. It's acting as if I only ate 1350 in the first place. It's basically saying that eating 1350 calories, and eating 2000 calories but burning off 650 are the same thing. As far as calories in-calories out goes, they are the same, but for meeting your Macros they are not the same.

    You are not using this tool the way it was designed to be used...that is your problem, not the tools problem.
  • wpwarrior88
    wpwarrior88 Posts: 1,503 Member
    Have you considered adding friends and watching what they are doing? It may help give insight to how other people track and log their food intake and exercise output. Not everyone needs to see the same beginning/ending macros numbers to stay motivated/encouraged.

    I believe you have gained the insight you were seeking through this thread, now you need to put it into action for a few days to find which way works the best for you.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    If I set my goal at 1350 Net,

    Did you change your percentages to my suggestions? If so, just trust me. It's gonna be fine. Stop stressing.
  • fatfudgery
    fatfudgery Posts: 449 Member
    I had the same problem a while back. A MyFitnessPal user was nice enough to create this bookmarklet that fixes MFP's macronutrient settings:

    http://karoshiethos.com/2013/08/13/javascript-bookmarklet-for-enhanced-macro-goals-in-myfitnesspal/
  • usernamekelly1
    usernamekelly1 Posts: 1,941 Member
    You can always change to the tdee method, put 2000 calories as your goal and if you still want to track your workouts, input the cal burn as 1 - so they don't screw your macros.

    There is away around getting a more accurate target rather than the 5% increments, I run a grease monkey scripts which allows me to input by 1% increments or I can actually set them to the grams I want, now the macros will still screw up if you add in exercise cals, so I recommend using tdee method if this is a bug bear for you.

    https://userscripts.org/scripts/show/176696

    ETA - someone beat me
  • erikayblue
    erikayblue Posts: 10 Member
    Why is everyone all over this guy for his calories? It shows he has lost over 50 lbs, so if he was starving and not "fueling enough for his next workout," wouldn't he have noticed being depleted by now? It sounds like he has had MANY "next workouts" already. I would normally say 1350 is too low too, but if it's working for him, it's working. That is not what his post was about in any way shape or form.
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 Member
    No need to be rude to him.

    I didn't think anyone here is being rude? Was that comment for anyone specific?
  • 3laine75
    3laine75 Posts: 3,069 Member
    You need to set your activity level to reflect your daily life. If you have a desk job, it's sedentary, etc. Exercise is accounted for separately, so that MFP will create a deficit for you based on dy to day activities WITHOUT factoring in exercise.

    But it doesn't. Everyone keeps saying that it does, but it does not. If I set my goal at 1350 Net, which I plan to eat 2000 and exercise off 650, it allows me to do that and keep up with the calories. But when I got to set my Macros at 207, 150 and 72 (ish) then it wont allow me to go that high, because it doesn't realize that I did actually eat 2000 calories and then burned off 650. It's acting as if I only ate 1350 in the first place. It's basically saying that eating 1350 calories, and eating 2000 calories but burning off 650 are the same thing. As far as calories in-calories out goes, they are the same, but for meeting your Macros they are not the same.

    Do what wbb55 suggested - that looked like the best option for you.
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 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.

    This makes the most sense to me - But I am still wondering about the "FITNESS GOALS" that we set when we create our accounts, does this factor into our set daily calorie goals?
  • lemonsnowdrop
    lemonsnowdrop Posts: 1,298 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.

    This makes the most sense to me - But I am still wondering about the "FITNESS GOALS" that we set when we create our accounts, does this factor into our set daily calorie goals?

    Fitness goals don't serve any purpose but motivation. If you meet then or don't meet them, things won't change.
  • knra_grl
    knra_grl Posts: 1,566 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.

    This makes the most sense to me - But I am still wondering about the "FITNESS GOALS" that we set when we create our accounts, does this factor into our set daily calorie goals?

    Fitness goals don't serve any purpose but motivation. If you meet then or don't meet them, things won't change.

    lol thank you for the answer :smile:
  • lisajsund
    lisajsund Posts: 366 Member

    "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."

    MFP makes all those calculations for you. No worries. :smile:

    But it doesnt. If it did it would allow me to add Macros that add up to my Gross Calorie Intake rather than just my Net

    If your macro goals (%) are set into MFP as custom goals, the calories you add for exercise are still factored in for the % you have them set at.

    It does list your gross calories, your exercise calories and your net calories.
    If you look at the daily graph, it lists the % of what you have logged and compares it to what you have set as your goal. It's already done for you graphically.

Categories