Do you trust MFP?

DonM46 wrote: »

Yes.
I lost 35 pounds in 10 months and have kept my weight +/- 3 pounds of my goal since reaching it in 2011.
I am annoyed by those who say, "Oh, you have to calculate your TDEE," or jump through all kinds of mathematical hoops to do it right.
Poppycock. I have no idea what my TDEE is, & don't want (or need) to know.
Just follow MFP's recommendations & you'll be fine.

Agreed. I don't know why people recommend TDEE to new posters who are already confused.

They should just plug their stats into MFP, chose a reasonable weekly weight loss goal based on how much weight they have to lose, don't underestimate their food or overestimate their exercise burn, and trust the process.

cate320 wrote: »

I don't trust the calories estimates for some of the exercises.

Like, it said I would burn something like 700 calories from jogging IN PLACE for an hour. This seems insane, since jogging in place doesn't feel very exerting at all.

I just don't log my exercises, that way I am not tempted to eat back more calories than I have actually burned.

As far as the daily goals though, it seems pretty accurate because it is math you can do yourself. All of the TDEE calculators I have seen online are very consistent with each other, and after that, knowing that 3500 kcal = 1 lb, it's not hard to calculate what your daily deficit needs to be for your goal.

I bet jogging in place would feel really exerting if you did for an hour.

jandsstevenson887 wrote: »

cate320 wrote: »

I don't trust the calories estimates for some of the exercises.

Like, it said I would burn something like 700 calories from jogging IN PLACE for an hour. This seems insane, since jogging in place doesn't feel very exerting at all.

I just don't log my exercises, that way I am not tempted to eat back more calories than I have actually burned.

As far as the daily goals though, it seems pretty accurate because it is math you can do yourself. All of the TDEE calculators I have seen online are very consistent with each other, and after that, knowing that 3500 kcal = 1 lb, it's not hard to calculate what your daily deficit needs to be for your goal.

I bet jogging in place would feel really exerting if you did for an hour.

I have, it doesn't. At least not nearly as much as jogging outside for even half an hour. I do it while watching TV, since it's usually raining or sweltering hot and muggy where I live.

I trust the concept and I know that if I stick more or less to what MFP recommends I will lose weight - I've done it before.
I don't trust every entry in the database (no, garlic doesn't have 400 cals per clove), but I temper my trust with common sense and knowledge that I've picked up along the way, and that works out OK.

My issue is not with MFP, it's with my own ability to maintain sensible eating habits over the long term, that's what I'd like an app for!

Yes the numbers given worked for me and I ate back all my exercise calories.
I fine tuned the number based on results over a period of time but the initial estimate and method worked fine.

They gave me 1460 calories for sedentary and 1660 for lightly active!! That sounds like ALOT .

Maybe a lot for one meal - not for a day!

newmeadow wrote: »

Also, I notice people who come and announce they want to loose weight seem to disappear after a few months. Those who announce they want to lose weight seem to stick around longer and lose weight.

Good one!!!!

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

nm212 wrote: »

I've been having alot of trouble eating 1200-1300 calories a day, with low impact exercise. I used to do intense workouts and was fine cause I could always eat back my calories and still lose! However, I have a foot injury and had to switch to swimming. I only burn about 250 calories for 30 min and it's super hard for me to get through that! So I'm always still hungry and don't feel like I can eat my calories back cause I didn't burn much. (Still learning)

I decided to see what MFP suggests if I switch to lose .5 lb a week instead of 1 lb. They gave me 1460 calories for sedentary and 1660 for lightly active!! That sounds like ALOT .

Any suggestions here on your experience with this? Can I trust these numbers and still lose weight? I'm willing to lose it slower if I could eat more...

Please help! And yes I know about BMI and TDEE numbers and all that, but I'm asking about MFP system here.

Thanks for any help, Nicole

I don't understand what you want. You say 1200-1300 is too little and you're always hungry but 1460 "sounds like ALOT." Split the difference and try 1380??

1460 doesn't sound like a lot to me. It's about what MFP recommended I start with for 1 lb. a week, and I ended up losing two pounds a week for months.

Are you losing on 1200-1300 calories a day? Would you be OK losing a little more slowly if you could have a few more calories?

Christine_72 wrote: »

Has anyone found that MFP has underestimated their calories??

If you mean "underestimated the calories that a user needs for maintenance," then yes. I have a desk job, but I had to kick my activity level up to active (not lightly active) to get a net calorie maintenance estimate that was close to what my actual results indicated.

Yeah, me too - I'm retired, sedentary outside of the things I explicitly log as exercise, and had to set my activity level to "active" in order to get MFP to give me a calorie goal that would match up with the loss rate I set.

To answer OP, and echo some others: The overall MFP process has certainly worked well for me. I'm down around 65 pounds (roughly 1/3 of my bodyweight) and heading into maintenance.

For calories to eat for a given loss rate, MFP (and any other calculator) is giving you estimates based on population averages. Statistically, there's not a huge variation around the mean in healthy adults, but there is a bit. Start from the MFP (or other calculator) estimate, be consistent and accurate for a month or two, watch your loss rate, and you'll figure out whether you need to adjust your calorie target.

Slower loss rate may be better, if it means you can be consistent over the long haul.

There are other aspects of MFP you could trust/not trust, too:

• Food database - largely crowdsourced, so uneven. At first, check your entries against USDA, Self Nutrition DB, or something more authoritative like that, or use the verified entries (green check mark). This seems time-consuming, but you'll build up a recent/frequent foods list and it gets quicker fairly soon.
• Exercise database - Many people find that it overestimates. If you have a Fitbit, or a heart rate monitor (for cardio use, not all day), and you tell it your correct statistics, it should be more accurate.
• Default macro allocations - Meh. It's fairly consistent with mainstream sources, but opinions vary. At very low calories, I think the default for protein is low, for women who are working out, and in a calorie deficit, but that's just my opinion.
• Bug-free software - MFP? HaHaHAA! I spent 30 years in IT; this is not the most error-free software in the world. Haven't mostly had problems with the core weight-loss code, but the social-networking pieces are flakier, IME.