We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

IIFYM vs Scooby - why such a big difference?

jemhh
jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
To preface my question, I know that all of the different TDEE calculators are estimates so I don't expect them to hit my TDEE perfectly. I'm just wondering what is going on that two calculators can be so different.

In the past I felt like the IIFYM calculator was pretty accurate for me but now it gives me a number that is just completely off. This is what I am entering:

Female
38 yrs
5'5.5"
148 lbs
Leaving it at Mifflin-St Jeor
5 times/wk exercise
Results are BMR of 1354 and TDEE of 1980

I put the same info in this Scooby calculator and get the following at these activity levels:
3-5 hrs/wk - BMR 1364, TDEE 2114
5-6 hrs/wk - BMR 1364, TDEE 2353

Based on my experience calorie counting, I maintain somewhere between 2400 and 2500 so the last Scooby number is closest to reality for me, especially when I factor in tracking errors and calorie miscounts for high protein foods. So I'm not changing anything based on these calculators but I do have to scratch my head at how the same input is coming up with such different output when the calculators appear to be built on the same model (i.e., Mifflin-St Jeor formula.)

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2015
    It's the exercise assumption. The "5 times/wk" in the top one is a lot less than "5-6 hrs/wk" in the bottom one. Change the top one to "5 times/wk (intense)" and they're a whole lot closer.
  • SrMaggalicious
    SrMaggalicious Posts: 495 Member
    I use Scooby's calculator, and he's done me well...and I don't feel like I'm starving...and he's got that geeky engineering mind...he's better at math than me. LOL
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    IIFYM site is screwed up every time I've tried to use it lately, but it's always given me a number substantially lower than Scooby -- I think the difference is just different estimates for what "lightly active/3-5 days a week" and the like involve. My numbers also seemed to be closer to Scooby when I had results to compare them with.
  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,255 Member
    edited July 2015
    I have wondered this as well. Someone in another thread suggested using "katch-mcCardle" for the IIFYM calculator -- but you have to know your body fat %. When I use Mifflin St. Jeor, IIFYM and Scooby are still very far apart, with exercise for both set to 3-5 times a week and goal set at losing 25%. For me, Scooby is much lower.
  • ExRelaySprinter
    ExRelaySprinter Posts: 874 Member
    edited July 2015
    They all give out different readings, so i just add them all up and divide them which gives the average number.... and i just use that as my TDEE.
  • pmm3437
    pmm3437 Posts: 529 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    It's the exercise assumption. The "5 times/wk" in the top one is a lot less than "5-6 hrs/wk" in the bottom one. Change the top one to "5 times/wk (intense)" and they're a whole lot closer.

    ^ This ^

    Anything other then sedentary as an activity level for any calculator is going to be based on an assumption/opinion of what the activity level actually is.

    I always calc based on sed anyway, and then track my exercise and let MFP add to baseline for my exercise days.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ExRelaySprinter wrote: »
    They all give out different readings, so i just add them all up and divide them which gives the average number.... and i just use that as my TDEE.

    Once you've been logging for a while you can figure out a more accurate one based on your real numbers (and how you log).
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    It's the exercise assumption. The "5 times/wk" in the top one is a lot less than "5-6 hrs/wk" in the bottom one. Change the top one to "5 times/wk (intense)" and they're a whole lot closer.

    Aha!

    I recently joined an IIFYM group on FB. A lot of the women have had serious transformations in a fairly short amount of time, which they attribute solely to hitting their macros rather than eating at a deficit. One of their rules to live by is using Mifflin-St Jeor and only counting lifting sessions, no cardio, when using the IIFYM calculator. I don't want to completely underplay the benefit of getting enough protein and fat but based on all of that, my guess is that a good portion of the transformations are due to eating quite a bit below their actual TDEEs rather than being religious about macros. If I ate at 20% less than my IIFYM figure, I'd be in a 900 calorie daily deficit, which would mean pretty fast weight loss even at my current weight.
  • _lyndseybrooke_
    _lyndseybrooke_ Posts: 2,561 Member
    I'm all about Scooby's calculator. If I used the IIFYM calculator, I'd be eating 1850 calories a day for maintenance...which is the amount of calories I was eating to lose most of the weight I've lost. Scooby's got me closer to 2150, which is what I've actually maintained on in the past.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    If I remember correctly, the IIFYM calculator translates 1 time of exercise as thirty minutes of exercise.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, the IIFYM calculator translates 1 time of exercise as thirty minutes of exercise.

    Well that would certainly make a difference. I usually consider a workout to be an hour.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,488 Member
    Very interesting. I have always used IIFYM and have found it very accurate when losing and maintaining even though all my workouts are 60 min.
    Cheers, h.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories