going by MFP which recommends 1260 but most days I exceed the recommended number of calories by about 100-200, still putting me at a very slight weight loss.

Sorry, I'm commenting on the wrong stuff. lol

I also use TDEE. I just find it easier and more accurate. There are loads of calculators available online... most have pretty similar results.

cynlyn2010 wrote: »

Just curious how many go by the net calorie suggestion on MFP and how many use another source for their goals.

I don't listen to anything MFP says. Fat is bad according to them and it lies to me every time I complete my diary for the day. I'd have been at goal 6 months ago if it told the truth. I just use a keto calc to find my cal deficit and maintenance calories, then adjust as necessary.

I used the Keto Calculator for a baseline, but at a 20% deficit it only gave me 1182 a day. I upped it a bit by that and try to eat 1/2 my exercise back.

cynlyn2010 wrote: »

@knitormiss , I was using a keto calculator and was losing well with little to no exercise, but I've been stalled for a while. It seems since I started running 3-5 times a week, I'm not losing at all. Looking at my reports on MFP my NET calories are anywhere from 900-1100. According to MFP it says I should aim for 1460 NET. Wondering if by adding too much exercise, I'm shorting my body on calories and maybe that is the reason for the stall? I don't want to give up running because not only am I enjoying it as a stress reliever, but I like the fact that it's helping me tone and it's changing my shape. It's just frustrating to not see any losses on the scale week after week.
I appreciate any input you have

I think that a lot of folks see a pseudo-stall when they add exercise in consistently. Most folks stall or gain for 4-6 weeks, then start steadily losing again. I think for me, most experience I've found shows that when you stall you need to drop calories. I find this mindset frustrating. Most of the time, when adding exercise it's a combination of retained water weight for muscle restoration and a metabolism gear shift to handle the extra activity. How does cutting calories help that? In general, we've lost a sense of patience and waiting for hard work to well, actually work. There is almost no one who legitimately needs that few calories. Ever.

My first stage of advice is always to up one's calories 100 cals at a time or a few carbs to reboot your metabolism the right way. If it's already slowing down, why short it more calories to slow it more?? How does that make sense to anyone? I'm sorry if I seem intense on this, but it's a huge frustration I hold that everyone's reaction is the opposite of logic because we've been brainwashed by industry for a long while...

I am actually amazed that - over the long haul - MFP calorie/weight loss projections are very accurate, and I rarely measure and never weigh my food! I count about half of my exercise calories and put my lifestyle as sedentary although I'm pretty active in the warmer 6 months of the year which I think takes care of any under-estimating of calories I might have. I average about 1600 net calories although in the course of a week I might be between 800 (fasting) - 2200 net daily calories. I think 1200 - 1400 calorie averages are way too low for the long run unless you are very petite. My carbs vary from 20 - 100 grams on most days.

macchiatto wrote: »

@KnitorMiss, can you explain more about rebooting your metabolism? I'm

I don't know the technical aspects behind it, but a lot of times what happens is that by putting fewer calories into our metabolism and asking it to burn more (exercise or whatever), it gradually slows down. To "reboot" the metabolism, you can do a few days at maintenance calories, up by 100 calories a day every third day or so until you see a change... You can try some carb cycling. I don't personally know what your sensitivities are. For me, since I don't count calories and only eat to hunger, my only real adjustment is carbs... I would not add more than 5 intentional carbs a day once a week without close monitoring, and always from good sources, etc.

But if you're stalling or slowing your metabolism, it's better to jump start it and remind it how to burn the calories than to lower calories and slow it more. That's what happens a lot when folks jump into a drastic deficit - you'll burn more at first, more quickly, etc., but once your body realizes you aren't feeding it that extra 750 calories a day, it will slow or even stall until the metabolism levels reach a balance....

Hopefully someone else here can give you the more technical explanation!

I loosely follow MFP, but put much more stock in my jawbone calories. I try to stay a couple hundred under my jawbone burn. I have to watch closely however because I have a period in my past of starvation calorie levels, and my body just won't give up it's weight if I eat too little.