Ultimate weight loss calculator & predictor

Options
245

Replies

  • Cylphin60
    Cylphin60 Posts: 863 Member
    Options
    141622mfp wrote: »
    Cylphin60 wrote: »
    I like it. Thank you. The only thing that seem to be really off to me was the suggestion that my ideal weight is between 125 pounds and 169 pounds. The 169 would be pretty close but not the 125. It did seem to work quite well for me on iOS 10 and an iPhone 6 Plus.

    Edit: Very nice job by the way. Much appreciated. :)

    Thanks!! Glad it's working ok on iphone :) The ideal weight range really is just based on the upper and lower limits for a BMI in the healthy range, but of course BMI isn't always the best measure, I've written a note to that effect on the important info page. Thanks so much for your feedback!

    Ah ok, that makes sense. Thank you the explanation:)
  • shanahz
    shanahz Posts: 261 Member
    Options
    Thanks for sharing this!
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    141622mfp wrote: »
    TR0berts wrote: »
    The "extra" fields don't seem to do anything. I get the same results whether I fill them in or not.

    Hmm ok, that's odd. Are you filling in all of the optional fields or just some of them? Some of the calculations require more than one optional field in order to work, so if you're only filling in one or two of the optional fields, there may not be enough data to run the additional calculations.

    Ok, that's better. But, I'd suggest not needing to fill in all of the optional fields. I originally entered a Goal Weight and Finish Date (not the Intended Intake or Goal BMI, as I'm not overly concerned with BMI and didn't feel like guessing a Calorie goal - that's what the calculator is for! ;) ) and didn't get anything extra. The estimated Calorie intake seems like it still should have worked.

    In addition, I'm not sure how you calculate macros, but my fat loss protein goal is quite high - CW 186, GW 180 and fat loss protein goal of 225 g.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    Great work. A couple of things, though. If some of the optional fields are left empty, it would be a good idea to not print their results because some people may find "NaN" confusing.

    Some numbers also need rounding (I'm using a PC):

    t5b3czzg29mw.png


  • Fursian
    Fursian Posts: 522 Member
    Options
    Neat calculator, 141622mfp! :+1::)
  • newstart1988
    newstart1988 Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    141622mfp wrote: »
    Hello! A couple of years ago (my gosh that has gone fast!) I made a huge weight loss calculator that figured out everything from your current BMR to your predicted weight loss over a period of time. (Here’s the previous thread)

    Recently I decided to spend some time working on it, and over the past couple of weeks I've improved the predictor, added some other features (macros etc) and made it look a bit nicer. It also works properly on mobile devices now! (Long overdue!)

    When I first made it, lots of people from the mfp community were kind enough to help me test it for bugs, improve certain aspects and suggest additional features which was a huge help - I hope that you will check it out again and let me know what you think!

    Here's the link http://www.weightloss-calculator.net/

    I’d really love to hear if there’s anything that needs improving, any additional features you’d like to see and of course, if you come across any bugs!

    I loved it! It's sweet and simple! Gets right to the point!☺
  • hellobaconplease
    hellobaconplease Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    No kilojoule option sucks. Not everyone uses calories. Looks cool apart from that!
  • hapa11
    hapa11 Posts: 182 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    I love it--especially the Zig Zag diet option. I had never seen that before.
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    The Macro Planner seems a bit dodgy to me.
    Macro Planner

    To lose fat:

    320 calories or 80 grams of carbohydrate per day.
    720 calories or 180 grams of protein per day.
    560 calories or 62 grams of fat per day.

    To maintain:

    640 calories or 160 grams of carbohydrate per day.
    480 calories or 120 grams of protein per day.
    480 calories or 53 grams of fat per day.

    To build muscle:

    800 calories or 200 grams of carbohydrate per day.
    480 calories or 120 grams of protein per day.
    320 calories or 36 grams of fat per day.

    So I'd eat the same 1600 calories in all 3 cases but the macros determine if I'll lose fat, maintain weight or gain muscle? I don't think so! That's 100% false. Macros don't determine if you'll gain or lose, only total calories do.

    On top of that, like @TR0berts said, the protein/day is also ridiculously high. I'm 53.5 kg, I don't need 120g of protein to maintain, that's 2.2g/kg which is almost double what I really need. And that I need even more, 180g or 45% protein to lose fat? But less to build muscle? At the same calorie level? Hmm...

    Other than this highly misleading part, I do like the calculator.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Options
    Oh, yeah - I hadn't actually noticed that. Yes, the macro planner total Calories is based upon how many Calories one is planning to eat - not for "clean" bulking or slow (10% or 0.5 lb per week) fat loss.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    ecg7qoh83ewh.png


    Love my 2lbs/week calorie limit lol. Sucks being basically BMI 20 and sedentary (I'm not attempting this btw).
  • WickedPineapple
    WickedPineapple Posts: 701 Member
    Options
    Neat calculator. I like the zig zag planner. It looks good until I get to the macros.

    It recommends 169 grams of protein per day to lose fat and 113 grams to maintain or gain muscle. I'm 124.2 lbs... That's way too much protein (at least for the fat loss). Why more protein to lose fat than to gain muscle (and why are maintenance and gaining the same)? Why the low carb (75 g) to lose fat?

    If the calories are all the same, at a deficit, you will lose fat no matter your macros. The categories saying "to maintain" and "to gain muscle" are misleading. You're not going to be doing either in a calorie deficit.
  • olyrose
    olyrose Posts: 569 Member
    Options
    This is great - Especially appreciate the Zig-Zag and macro features!
  • firefoxxie
    firefoxxie Posts: 381 Member
    Options
    I don't see where you can choose zigzag. I always default to 5:2
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    It worked great for me, and the estimations are pretty much the same as what Trendweight predicts. So, it's a winner OP :+1:
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    And i particularly like the comment "I wish i had a time machine too" when I accidentally put in last year as my finish date. Very good :laugh:
  • melissa6771
    melissa6771 Posts: 894 Member
    Options
    I like it! It's not giving me a zig zag plan though. Just calories and then the 5:2 option.
  • firefoxxie
    firefoxxie Posts: 381 Member
    Options
    melissa6771 wrote: »
    I like it! It's not giving me a zig zag plan though. Just calories and then the 5:2 option.

    I added intended intake and goal weight it gave me zig zag

Categories