MFP vs Fitbit

When I was up in the morning my FitBit tells me I have around 750 calories to work with for the day (I'm set to lose 1 pound/week in FitBit). That number goes up just existing through the day (I noticed this one day when I was sick and stayed in bed.) it eventually went up over 1000 (not by much), so it will increase through the day. I would look at your calorie trend in FitBit for the past month and see what it averages, and go off that. Most likely it's going to be over 1200 lol. If you only need to lose 10 or 20 pounds, 2 pounds a week is too aggressive to execute in a healthy way.

Very low calorie diet.

In my opinion.

VLCD = Very Low Calorie Diet IMO= In My Opinion

You should not net below 1200 calories, meaning 1200 plus eating back exercise calories burned. I am not familiar with FibBit and how it works, but if it is "telling" you to only eat 800, I think something is amiss.

2 lbs per week is a goal better suited to people who have a lot of weight to lose. I think I've read that if you have 20 to lose, set it to 1 lb and 10 or less to 1/2 lb.

MFP has safeguards built in, to avoid encouraging people to eat a very low potentially unhealthy level. If you put in an aggressive weight loss goal (like 2 pounds per week seems to be in your case) MFP does the math but won't go below 1200. Based on your stats & stated activity level, MFP estimates you'll burn X cals per day. For a 2 pound loss per week, it then subtracts 1000 and gives you a calorie goal to eat. BUT if X - 1000 is less than 1200, MFP tells you to eat 1200.

There is no disagreement here between Fitbit and MFP, but Fitbit does not such a safety measure in place. So it relies on the human user, to know what is right or not for you.

As others have mentioned, your Fitbit calories allowed will increase based on your movement throughout the day. If your average total daily burn is only 1800, then 1/2 to 1 pound per week are realistic goals for weight loss.

800 calories is quite low, even if you are quite small. I know you want to take advantage of your new enthusiasm while it lasts, but do you really want to be that hungry all day going into what I like to refer to as "cookie season?" Chances are good you'll be faced with images of food and real food very frequently, and great hunger is not the dieters' friend. Consider whether you truly want to put yourself through that for the next few weeks, when it so greatly raises your chances of failure in the long run? Could your "kick-start" be just as good mentally if you were to, say, add a couple more days of exercise to your routine, instead of cutting food so drastically? If you were to do that, it might even help you stay on track toward your goals, instead of making it harder to reach them.

Also consider: what if you make that deficit, say, 800 calories per day instead of 1000? That would make your target loss about 1.5 pounds a week, instead of 2 pounds, which would be only about 3 pounds difference between now and Christmas, and, combined with exercise, could give you a much more manageable 1200-calorie number to shoot for. It would still be quite strict and difficult, IMO, but not nearly as likely to be impossible as shooting for 800. And if you find that, even at that level, you are still too hungry to bear, its easier just to nudge it up a little more with a snack, rather than overshooting the 800 calorie goal by 50% or 100% because you got too hungry/grumpy/tired to stick to it. After all, its a busy and often stressful season for most people. A more mindful kick-start to the new year might set you up for major success.

Good luck!

I agree that your goal is much too aggressive.

I dont use that feature of the fitbit as I have used MFP since before I had it. I would agree that those number really sound much too low. Mine seems crazy high, it tells me I burn over 2500 cals even on less active days. If your body only burns 800 calories a day I can only picture that you dont move much, which is a good place to start evaluating your body's needs. Something isnt right, and I say its the fitbit's much too low estimate of your caloric burn.

Follow fitbit for exercise/calorie burns.

Follow MFP for food logging/calorie allotment.

i don't pay a lick of attention to FitBit. I wouldn't pay much attention to MFP calorie goals because they are too low, IMHO. i am not a professional nutritionist or anything like that. I only follow calorie guidelines from USDA choosemyplate.gov.

BTW (my disclaimer) i am not a FitBit fan in any way, shape, or form.

vczk2t15 wrote: »

i don't pay a lick of attention to FitBit. I wouldn't pay much attention to MFP calorie goals because they are too low, IMHO. i am not a professional nutritionist or anything like that. I only follow calorie guidelines from USDA choosemyplate.gov.

BTW (my disclaimer) i am not a FitBit fan in any way, shape, or form.

Actually, I think for me my calorie burn from Fitbit is more accurate than the estimate from the USDA. I think the USDA's recommendation is an overestimation of my calorie needs.