Are the MyFitnessPal calorie and weight projections actually accurate?

Options
2»

Replies

  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    Options
    They're accurate if you are a statistically average person who logged with 100% accuracy and calculated your energy output perfectly.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    They're as accurate as a Magic 8 Ball.

    Weight gain/loss patterns aren't linear. This doesn't mean that the idea behind calories in/out is flawed it just means that it's more complex than a simple little thing that pops up based on one day's data.
  • WendyLaubach
    WendyLaubach Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    I got curious a month or two back about whether I'd ever hit the projected 5-week loss mark, because it always seemed too optimistic. I started putting my projected weight on my calendar 5 weeks out. Sure enough, when I got there, I typically weighed 5 lbs. or so more than it had projected. I suppose I'm undercounting my food or overcounting my exercise, or should have chosen a more "sedentary" base rate, or all three. It doesn't bother me. As long as I'm losing reliably, I don't need the program to predict accurately for me.
  • b3achy
    b3achy Posts: 2,092 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    The weight projections are wildly inaccurate and I'm still trying to figure out the algorithm they are using to make them. I've tried a number of different things and nothing really makes sense yet based on the numbers it provides me, especially since I'm not sure it takes into account whether or not you are already eating at a deficit. I want to dig more into it at some point. However, I suspect it's more for fun or as a general guideline than accuracy.

    I'm not a huge fan of the calorie intake estimates either, so I built my own estimate that is working for me. Seems like too many females are given the blanket 1200 minimum calories, so I researched and figured out what was best for me. I'm sure it's good enough to get results for those that don't want to really understand what all the calculations are behind it, and just want an app to give them a number. But I personally prefer to understand a little bit more of the calculations and try to do something a little bit smarter for myself (which is more of a TDEE estimate than the MFP NEAT estimate). But to each their own.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,994 Member
    Options
    aliem wrote: »
    I agree. That does not seem right. That's less than 2000 calories over 5 weeks (55 calories*7 days*5 weeks). That's not 4 pounds. However, I have not found the you will weigh X amount in 5 weeks very accurate. It is an estimate and probably the least accurate of the estimates on the site. It can't factor in water weight, muscle or fat gain/loss. In general, it takes a net loss of 3500 calories to lose a pound. But if you eat less salty foods, you might retain less water and see a huge loss. Alternatively, you could work out a bunch and gain some muscle, which weighs more than fat. So you would see less loss on the scale, but more loss in inches. Bodies are complicated. If you are eating in a deficit, you will get there eventually.

    But you're assuming that she was at 1200 before she ate the last "food that put her over" at 1255 (but she never said that). For all we know, she was at 900 calories consumed or net for the day, looking at a projection of weighing 146 pounds in five weeks, and ate a 355-calorie snack or meal, and landed at 1255 calories consumed or net for the day, and was then looking at a projection of weighing 150 pounds in five weeks. That's a daily swing of 355 calories, X 7 days X 5 weeks, for a five-week difference of 3.55 pounds, which MFP would round to 4 lbs for that projection feature.

    In short, OP hasn't given us enough information to know whether the projection feature was malfunctioning.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    Options
    b3achy wrote: »
    Seems like too many females are given the blanket 1200 minimum calories, so I researched and figured out what was best for me.

    I think that happens because too many people choose the "lose 2 pounds/week" option and sedentary. That's a 1000 cal/day target deficit and very few sedentary women burn more than 2200 cals/day.

    I think it would be helpful if the page on which we choose our target rate of weightloss had some data on what rate was recommended base on the amount of weight to lose. (e.g. Someone with only 5 pounds to lose should not be aiming for more than 0.5 pounds/week.)
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    Options
    Not accurate... Especially for me since I enter my own cal goal. I don't think my predictor ever said I would lose weight... It always always says I'm going to gain... Oh noes :D

Categories