Anyone else found MFP goals and lbs lost to be way off?
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.0 -
ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
How short?
Did you check to make sure your current height and weight were entered correctly? And you said for sure MFP thinks your sedentary NEAT maintenance calories are 1450? and that you for sure selected 1 lb/week?
It says this every single day? 112 lbs? Or one time it said that? And you are 1100 that day and exactly 1100? No exercise at all?
I would clear everything out and re-enter everything, log everything for a couple of days and see if you get that same projection. To me it sounds like some data point is wrong in your set up and you've been chasing a red herring thinking that it was the difference between NEAT and TDEE.
If still wrong and still bothered then email tech support and ask them.
1 -
ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
Because MFP does not dip below 1200 calories; that's the minimum threshold. Try putting in that you want to lose two pounds per week and MFP will still most likely give you 1200 calories. Now I'm curious, how tall are you exactly? This matters as well.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
How short?
Did you check to make sure your current height and weight were entered correctly? And you said for sure MFP thinks your sedentary NEAT maintenance calories are 1450? and that you for sure selected 1 lb/week?
It says this every single day? 112 lbs? Or one time it said that? And you are 1100 that day and exactly 1100? No exercise at all?
I would clear everything out and re-enter everything, log everything for a couple of days and see if you get that same projection. To me it sounds like some data point is wrong in your set up and you've been chasing a red herring thinking that it was the difference between NEAT and TDEE.
If still wrong and still bothered then email tech support and ask them.
I'm 4'10
Yes they're all entered correctly, I've double and triple checked.
No not every day, because when I was 113lbs it would say I'd be 112.6 in 5 weeks. Yeah I'm always 1000-1100.
Nope no exercise.
Yeah I might email them because I've changed and re-entered all my stats numerous times and it is still doing it.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
Because MFP does not dip below 1200 calories; that's the minimum threshold. Try putting in that you want to lose two pounds per week and MFP will still most likely give you 1200 calories. Now I'm curious, how tall are you exactly? This matters as well.
I'm 4'10
It does let you get projections for 5 weeks if you dip below 1200, it just won't let you get them if you are below 1000. If I change my activity level to active (even though I'm not remotely active) and input my calories at 1000 and complete my entry it says I'll be 5lbs lighter in 5 weeks, which is on par with my actual weight loss.0 -
Maxematics wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
Because MFP does not dip below 1200 calories; that's the minimum threshold. Try putting in that you want to lose two pounds per week and MFP will still most likely give you 1200 calories. Now I'm curious, how tall are you exactly? This matters as well.
I'm pretty sure she said previously MFP thinks sedentary maintenance cals are 1450 so even providing her the lowest goal it will give (1200) that should be a projected deficit of 250 cals and the 1100 would be more.
I think the 1450 was not with an activity level of sedentary. I think MFP thinks baseline is a little over 1200 and the 1100 Shes logging is just a 100 cal deficit.
What system did the 1600 TDEE come from OP, because as petite as you are and you keep saying absolutely no exercise, that seems a little high from somewhere like Scooby or another system. I'm 4 inches taller and 10 lbs heavier and most give me a projection of 1650 with no exercise. I am quite active so my TDEE is actually 2200 but your numbers (not even the ones you think MFP is calculating incorrectly) don't make sense.1 -
The daily projection when you close your diary is pretty useless for everyone, unless they eat exactly the same amount every single day, and unless MFP's estimate of their calorie needs is utterly spot on.
Every single calculator out there (NEAT, TDEE, BMR, etc.) relies on studies of some group of research subjects, and a statistical approximation that best fits the whole group of them. Basically, it's an average. It turns out that most research subjects' NEAT-for-a-given-activity-level/BMR/TDEE-for-a-given-activity-level clusters pretty closely around that average (i.e, standard deviation is fairly small - of course there's research on this, too).
Different studies look at different clumps of research subjects, so the results between studies (therefore calculators) differ a little bit, too. Again, they're usually close to one another, for most specific cases.
Generally, if I understand it correctly, a sedentary NEAT estimate for a given size/weight/age person ought to be fairly similar to the sedentary TDEE estimate for that same person, because the difference between the methodologies is mainly whether exercise is included or not.
That said, some number of people are not as close to the averages from the research - they're out on a shallow end of the bell curve, and the calculators give them inaccurate estimates.
MFP gives me an inaccurate estimate. So does every other calculator I've tried. Before the "not a special snowflake, not logging correctly" chorus starts: For (lucky) me, the calculators so far seriously underestimate my calorie budget. I had to tell MFP my activity level was "Active" in order to get it even remotely in the ballpark of calculating loss or projections. (I'm actually quite sedentary outside of intentional, separately-logged, eaten-back exercise.)
So, set your calorie goal manually (I think you have), fiddle with your MFP activity level to get the projection as close as you can (even if you have to misrepresent your activity level), then if it's still wrong, ignore it. That's what I've done during a year of weight-loss plus maintenance, and it works fine.
Consider using a weight trending app, if you aren't already, to get projections - Happy Scale, Trendweight, Libra, others. They just look at weight fluctuation, not NEAT/TDEE (for Libra for sure, that's what I use; and I believe also for the others). But they're not a magic crystal ball, either.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
Because MFP does not dip below 1200 calories; that's the minimum threshold. Try putting in that you want to lose two pounds per week and MFP will still most likely give you 1200 calories. Now I'm curious, how tall are you exactly? This matters as well.
I'm pretty sure she said previously MFP thinks sedentary maintenance cals are 1450 so even providing her the lowest goal it will give (1200) that should be a projected deficit of 250 cals and the 1100 would be more.
I think the 1450 was not with an activity level of sedentary. I think MFP thinks baseline is a little over 1200 and the 1100 Shes logging is just a 100 cal deficit.
What system did the 1600 TDEE come from OP, because as petite as you are and you keep saying absolutely no exercise, that seems a little high from somewhere like Scooby or another system. I'm 4 inches taller and 10 lbs heavier and most give me a projection of 1650 with no exercise. I am quite active so my TDEE is actually 2200 but your numbers (not even the ones you think MFP is calculating incorrectly) don't make sense.
If I run her stats through Fitness Frog's TDEE calculator, I get a TDEE of 1603 at Sedentary if she's 16 years old, 1591 at 18 years old.
I just ran her numbers through MFP with the guided setup and look what happens:
Even though I chose to lose 1 pound per week through the guided setup, MFP's projection is still 0.5 pounds per week regardless of my choice, so there you go OP. That should answer the question.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
Because MFP does not dip below 1200 calories; that's the minimum threshold. Try putting in that you want to lose two pounds per week and MFP will still most likely give you 1200 calories. Now I'm curious, how tall are you exactly? This matters as well.
I'm pretty sure she said previously MFP thinks sedentary maintenance cals are 1450 so even providing her the lowest goal it will give (1200) that should be a projected deficit of 250 cals and the 1100 would be more.
I think the 1450 was not with an activity level of sedentary. I think MFP thinks baseline is a little over 1200 and the 1100 Shes logging is just a 100 cal deficit.
What system did the 1600 TDEE come from OP, because as petite as you are and you keep saying absolutely no exercise, that seems a little high from somewhere like Scooby or another system. I'm 4 inches taller and 10 lbs heavier and most give me a projection of 1650 with no exercise. I am quite active so my TDEE is actually 2200 but your numbers (not even the ones you think MFP is calculating incorrectly) don't make sense.
Every TDEE calculator I have used as given a TDEE of between 1570 and 1620 calories with "little to no exercise" selected. And it is accurate because when I eat at 1600 I don't gain any weight at all. And if I eat 500 below I lose lb per week on average. So clearly that is my TDEE.
And yes with sedentary selected it says maintenance is 1450, yet the calculations for weight loss projections make it seem it thinks like you said I'm actually around 1200 or something. Even though it clearly says when I ask for it to show me maintenance calories 1450.
Something is clearly wrong with the calculations, they don't add up.0 -
ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »OP, you do not have to change any settings to use TDEE instead of NEAT. Just calculate your TDEE, deduct your deficit, then enter that number as your calorie goal and do not log exercise. Mfp will then work to your TDEE figure.
Loads of people do this.
That is not what I am talking about. I already input my own calorie goal using my TDEE calculated on another site. That is not the problem. The problem is MFP saying if I eat at my calorie goal I would only be losing 0.4lbs per 5 weeks, which is not the case. At my calorie goal and TDEE I'm losing 1lb per week as I eat 500 below my TDEE a day. That is the problem, the weight loss projections are completely off BECAUSE it is not using MY TDEE.
Can you take a screen shot of what projection you are seeing, because what you are saying also doesn't make sense based on what you posted up thread. You said that MFP calculates your sedentary maintenance at 1450, right? And if your calorie goal is 1200 then that would be a deficit of 250 cals from MFP projection and it should project a rate of loss of 0.5 lb/week or 2.5 lbs in 5 weeks.
Exactly, so it makes 0 sense. And that is without even taking into account that MFPs maintenance for me is 1450 instead of my actual maintenance of 1600.
My laptop is ancient and doesn't take screenshots sorry.
Without seeing the same thing you are seeing it is difficult for people to help you.
You could provide us just the numbers:
Current weight
Goal weight
Rate of loss selected
Net calorie goal provided by MFP
Total calories consumed
Exercise calorie adjustment
Net calorie result
Exactly what MFP says when you close out your diary. You keep saying 0.4 lb/5 weeks but that's not what it normally says. Mine says "if every day was like today, you would weigh x in 5 weeks". Are you saying that what MFP says is 0.4 lb less than the current weight I'm asking for above?
Current weight: 112.4lbs
Goal weight 90lbs (I'm extremely short, so this isn't tiny)
rate of loss selected =1lbs per week
Net calorie goal provided = 1200
Total calories consumed =1100
No exercise calorie adjustment as I don't work out.
Net calorie result = 1100
Yeah sorry I know that is how MFP says it, but yeah it is saying I would be 112lbs (0.4lbs lighter) in 5 weeks.
it makes no sense.
Because MFP does not dip below 1200 calories; that's the minimum threshold. Try putting in that you want to lose two pounds per week and MFP will still most likely give you 1200 calories. Now I'm curious, how tall are you exactly? This matters as well.
I'm pretty sure she said previously MFP thinks sedentary maintenance cals are 1450 so even providing her the lowest goal it will give (1200) that should be a projected deficit of 250 cals and the 1100 would be more.
I think the 1450 was not with an activity level of sedentary. I think MFP thinks baseline is a little over 1200 and the 1100 Shes logging is just a 100 cal deficit.
What system did the 1600 TDEE come from OP, because as petite as you are and you keep saying absolutely no exercise, that seems a little high from somewhere like Scooby or another system. I'm 4 inches taller and 10 lbs heavier and most give me a projection of 1650 with no exercise. I am quite active so my TDEE is actually 2200 but your numbers (not even the ones you think MFP is calculating incorrectly) don't make sense.
Every TDEE calculator I have used as given a TDEE of between 1570 and 1620 calories with "little to no exercise" selected. And it is accurate because when I eat at 1600 I don't gain any weight at all. And if I eat 500 below I lose lb per week on average. So clearly that is my TDEE.
And yes with sedentary selected it says maintenance is 1450, yet the calculations for weight loss projections make it seem it thinks like you said I'm actually around 1200 or something. Even though it clearly says when I ask for it to show me maintenance calories 1450.
Something is clearly wrong with the calculations, they don't add up.
That's because MFP is assuming your starting point is 950 calories based on what it is you're saying and what it is I posted above.0 -
Wonder if the projection is off due to the op's height. Maybe it can't project properly in people under 5 feet or something like that.0
-
Colorscheme wrote: »Wonder if the projection is off due to the op's height. Maybe it can't project properly in people under 5 feet or something like that.
Look at the screenshot @Maxematics posted above. This is exactly what the OP should be seeing, but she's not for some reason...0 -
ninjachicken4000 wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »Also OP, how tall are you? MFP will give you the bare minimum to loose weight. So if you put in 2 pounds, and it basically tells you that you will loose .5 or .6 pounds in five weeks, it is giving you the bare min recommended regardless if you chose 2, 1.5, or 1 pounds a week.
So to be clear if you want to loose 1 pounds and it still says .5 or .6 MFP will not allow you go under the 1200 recommended calories for woman, or 1500 calories for a man.
You can choose to use your own TDEE custom method and not use MFP NEAT setup if you choose.
The app is working as designed, if you have a particular issue with your account, all you have to do is log your issue with MFP Customer/Technical Support. They do respond to open support cases.
Thanks, it seems it not letting me choose 1lb per week because it uses NEAT and I'm not inputting exercise as I am sedentary. So basically NEAT is not a good system for me. But I don't mind so much, I was just wondering why this was happening. I'll still be using the food log as it's great.
I am assuming that you are getting the min 1200 or 1500 (i do not know your gender) calorie goal?
You can use the custom setting and run your stats using for example the IIFYM calculator to get your TDEE, etc.. and set it up that way. There are many folks here on MFP that do not like to use NEAT at all.
I actually eat 1100 (and yes this is totally fine for me and my doctor has OK'd it, I am a very small in height woman so don't need as much) to lose 1lb per week as TDEE is 1600. But even at 1200 it doesn't show me losing weight at the rate it should because of the whole using NEAT system (which I don't understand at all why MFP uses NEAT and not TDEE)
Yeah I use my own method anyway of how much I should eat anyway and keep track of my weight, it would just be nice if MFP would let you use TDEE so it could be altogether in one place. Oh well.
MFP is giving you the bare min it will allow you to setup which for female that is 1200. I too am a very short woman and have the same issues with MFP only giving me ounces to loose.
MFP will let you setup 1 pound or 2 pounds in the entry fields when setting up your stats and goals, what it will NOT do is allow you to go below 1200 calories. SO regardless if you enter 2, 1.5 or 1 that is too many pounds that put you under the 1200 REQUIRED min it will allow to you eat. This is setup by design.
So with doctor approval and supervision using the TDEE for setting up an 1100 calorie goal is certainly fine.
Like I said, even if I'm inputting 1200 calories it is still projecting the wrong weight loss goals because it is using NEAT (so it thinks I'm burning way below what I am). NEAT is system I have never used that just seems like a complete hassle to me. TDEE is much better as it's all inclusive and no fuss.
I've just changed my activity level to very active (even though I'm sedentary) on here to more accurately represent my actual TDEE. So at least I can see somewhat of a normal weight loss goal, even if not perfect.
I can see how it would be good if your activity level is steady but for people like me whose activity is all over the place, it makes it much easier to know when I need to eat more or when I need to cut back.0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »ninjachicken4000 wrote: »Also OP, how tall are you? MFP will give you the bare minimum to loose weight. So if you put in 2 pounds, and it basically tells you that you will loose .5 or .6 pounds in five weeks, it is giving you the bare min recommended regardless if you chose 2, 1.5, or 1 pounds a week.
So to be clear if you want to loose 1 pounds and it still says .5 or .6 MFP will not allow you go under the 1200 recommended calories for woman, or 1500 calories for a man.
You can choose to use your own TDEE custom method and not use MFP NEAT setup if you choose.
The app is working as designed, if you have a particular issue with your account, all you have to do is log your issue with MFP Customer/Technical Support. They do respond to open support cases.
Thanks, it seems it not letting me choose 1lb per week because it uses NEAT and I'm not inputting exercise as I am sedentary. So basically NEAT is not a good system for me. But I don't mind so much, I was just wondering why this was happening. I'll still be using the food log as it's great.
I am assuming that you are getting the min 1200 or 1500 (i do not know your gender) calorie goal?
You can use the custom setting and run your stats using for example the IIFYM calculator to get your TDEE, etc.. and set it up that way. There are many folks here on MFP that do not like to use NEAT at all.
I actually eat 1100 (and yes this is totally fine for me and my doctor has OK'd it, I am a very small in height woman so don't need as much) to lose 1lb per week as TDEE is 1600. But even at 1200 it doesn't show me losing weight at the rate it should because of the whole using NEAT system (which I don't understand at all why MFP uses NEAT and not TDEE)
Yeah I use my own method anyway of how much I should eat anyway and keep track of my weight, it would just be nice if MFP would let you use TDEE so it could be altogether in one place. Oh well.
MFP is giving you the bare min it will allow you to setup which for female that is 1200. I too am a very short woman and have the same issues with MFP only giving me ounces to loose.
MFP will let you setup 1 pound or 2 pounds in the entry fields when setting up your stats and goals, what it will NOT do is allow you to go below 1200 calories. SO regardless if you enter 2, 1.5 or 1 that is too many pounds that put you under the 1200 REQUIRED min it will allow to you eat. This is setup by design.
So with doctor approval and supervision using the TDEE for setting up an 1100 calorie goal is certainly fine.
Like I said, even if I'm inputting 1200 calories it is still projecting the wrong weight loss goals because it is using NEAT (so it thinks I'm burning way below what I am). NEAT is system I have never used that just seems like a complete hassle to me. TDEE is much better as it's all inclusive and no fuss.
I've just changed my activity level to very active (even though I'm sedentary) on here to more accurately represent my actual TDEE. So at least I can see somewhat of a normal weight loss goal, even if not perfect.
I can see how it would be good if your activity level is steady but for people like me whose activity is all over the place, it makes it much easier to know when I need to eat more or when I need to cut back.
TDEE wouldn't work for me either, especially lately, it's been cold, windy and rainy every day this week and I've done half of my usual exercise, I'm going stir crazy!!0 -
OP, in all honesty, the 5 week projection is useless. A computer formula cannot look into a crystal ball and tell you what you will weigh in 5 weeks. Thousands of people have been successful with MFP, and I doubt more than a handful have paid any attention to the projection. You know how many calories you want to eat, use the diary and database to reach your goals and ignore the projection like everyone else does. It's just a gimmick they tack on to be entertaining, like having a psychic at a party.
Don't change your stats to make the projection right! You are changing variables that are real for something useless. Input everything accurately, eat the calories you know you need to eat, and be successful. The number actually on the scale in 5 weeks is far more important than the MFP parlor trick projection. Good luck!1 -
OP, in all honesty, the 5 week projection is useless. A computer formula cannot look into a crystal ball and tell you what you will weigh in 5 weeks. Thousands of people have been successful with MFP, and I doubt more than a handful have paid any attention to the projection. You know how many calories you want to eat, use the diary and database to reach your goals and ignore the projection like everyone else does. It's just a gimmick they tack on to be entertaining, like having a psychic at a party.
Don't change your stats to make the projection right! You are changing variables that are real for something useless. Input everything accurately, eat the calories you know you need to eat, and be successful. The number actually on the scale in 5 weeks is far more important than the MFP parlor trick projection. Good luck!
To the bolded: Maybe.
You shouldn't change your profile to make the projection right in a day by day sense, but if there's a systematic pattern, perhaps you should, because MFP is using the same profile data when it calculates your calorie level needed to achieve a certain deficit.
For example, the 5-week projection today told me that I will be at the same weight in 5 weeks if I eat just like today, every day. That means MFP believes today's eating equals my maintenance calories.
I know from experience that if I eat this amount every day, I'll lose weight at nearly half a pound a week. It might be rational of me to increase my MFP activity level setting, under those circumstances, so that if I later want to change my target loss rate, MFP will give me a closer-to-reality estimate . . . even if I'm (say) setting my activity level to "active" when I'm actually sedentary in real life, i.e., lying to it.
The MFP calculations are fairly accurate for most people, but there is some moderate distribution around the mean, so it's wrong for some of us.
I agree with you that the 5-week thing is pretty useless in itself, though, and that there's no reason to change anything just for it.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions