Myfitnesspal is crazy! It says I would gain on 2000 calories a day...
Options
Replies
-
If you said sedentary, MFP's numbers assume no exercise.
I'd gain on 2000 with no exercise. (This is why you log exercise in MFP.)3 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »Sounds right. I'm 5'7", 219lb and I maintain at 1,400 calories. More than that and I gain.
Wow, really? I'm 5'6", 145 lbs and past menopause and I maintain on about 2000.5 -
5'9" and 158 here. I get in average 14,500 steps a day, and am maintaining on about 2,000.
If sedentary, I need to drop to about 1500/day to maintain.4 -
I would gain on 1800 a day.3
-
Just to throw this out there since there are so many people comparing who maintains at what intake...
If your logging/weight changes show you maintain at 1800 cals (just using this as an example)... they you actually maintain at 1800 cals based on how you log. There IS some margin for error. For some, that error rate could be fairly low, for others it could be fairly high.
The point is that saying "I maintain at 1800 cals" could be misleading. You maintain at 1800 cals based on your logging... which may or may not be the same as 1800 cals for someone else, based on how they log.
Did that make any sense? It was very clear in my head, but I can't seem to put it into words very well.14 -
Just to throw this out there since there are so many people comparing who maintains at what intake...
If your logging/weight changes show you maintain at 1800 cals (just using this as an example)... they you actually maintain at 1800 cals based on how you log. There IS some margin for error. For some, that error rate could be fairly low, for others it could be fairly high.
The point is that saying "I maintain at 1800 cals" could be misleading. You maintain at 1800 cals based on your logging... which may or may not be the same as 1800 cals for someone else, based on how they log.
Did that make any sense? It was very clear in my head, but I can't seem to put it into words very well.
It makes sense to me. 2 people at 5'8 145 could eat the same maintenance and do the same basic activity level and maintain, and one could be logging 1800 and the other 1400
3 -
Just to throw this out there since there are so many people comparing who maintains at what intake...
If your logging/weight changes show you maintain at 1800 cals (just using this as an example)... they you actually maintain at 1800 cals based on how you log. There IS some margin for error. For some, that error rate could be fairly low, for others it could be fairly high.
The point is that saying "I maintain at 1800 cals" could be misleading. You maintain at 1800 cals based on your logging... which may or may not be the same as 1800 cals for someone else, based on how they log.
Did that make any sense? It was very clear in my head, but I can't seem to put it into words very well.
True, but my logging is as accurate as I *think* one can get because my expected losses over time match my calories in data pretty closely. If I'm sedentary, I'm REALLY sedentary, I would be in a small surplus or just maintaining at 2K. When I say lazy, I mean lazy lol1 -
I would also like to point out that people that are stating they would "absolutely gain" if they increased to 2k, that doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily needing to eat more. Every person that is routinely undereating for their current body stature and activity level will see an initial amount of weight gain simply because of adaptive thermogenesis to the much more restricted calorie intake that you have been functioning on, and increasing past that will absolutely make an initial weight gain happen... But very often, as we see here in the forums, people will *think* they need to eat far less than what they actually need, and find that they have much more success when they adjust their levels to a more appropriate intake for their stats and allow a few weeks for adjustment.
That being said, the average woman routinely clocks in for a caloric intake need of under 2000 calories anyway, sedentary up to maybe moderately active. When we see the "based on a 2000 calorie diet" we have to keep in mind that this applies to the full spectrum of population. The nutrition labels can't break it down to biological sex, age and activity level and leave any room for other information, so they use this, because it fits right smack dab in the middle of an average between grown men and grown women and gives a general idea for nutritional content.
For a shorter, slighter woman, a natural intake need of 1600 is entirely possible and healthy, which would indeed mean that eating 2k a day could generate weight gain, particularly if you weren't working out aggressively. People that fit into this category aren't likely to be burning 500+ calories an hour during workouts, you'd have to do quite a bit of activity to offset a 400+ calorie overage in that circumstance.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »What did you put as your activity level? Did you include your exercise? Perhaps you have underestimated your activity level. Also, the calculator just uses population statistics...no calculator takes into account differences in BMR, etc...that would be pretty impossible...it's population statistical data that is used in calculations and these numbers are really only meant to give someone a reasonably good starting point...it's not gospel.
ETA: My wife is 5'3" and 42 years old...she has a desk job, but is also an avid runner and lifts...she maintains on roughly 2,300, so it's certainly not impossible that you wouldn't gain on 2,000, but it's a trial and error thing...just adding that with all of the 2,000 calories would be impossible not to gain comments.
Hi! I am similar in fitness to your wife.. although I am 7 inches taller, and almost 20 years younger. I feel being young and being taller as well as a runner definitely raises the calorie needs a bit. I feel 2300 sounds about right for me too.. these calculators are just guesses after all and it is at best confusing. I recently got a HRM and I hope it will give me an idea (even though it is still just an estimation). I'm not too worried since I don't have much weight to lose at all... I just wish it were more clear.0 -
Just realized I didn't answer the question about activity level... I put sedentary and I add "exercise calories" as I go.1
-
FWIW, I am 62, fairly sedentary, 5' 6.5" and 157 lbs. I maintain at 1500 and lose at 1200. I'm pretty scrupulous about journaling, even when I have a bad day. I find that the app to be pretty accurate about calories provided the database is used with caution.1
-
-
mrsnattybulking wrote: »Just to throw this out there since there are so many people comparing who maintains at what intake...
If your logging/weight changes show you maintain at 1800 cals (just using this as an example)... they you actually maintain at 1800 cals based on how you log. There IS some margin for error. For some, that error rate could be fairly low, for others it could be fairly high.
The point is that saying "I maintain at 1800 cals" could be misleading. You maintain at 1800 cals based on your logging... which may or may not be the same as 1800 cals for someone else, based on how they log.
Did that make any sense? It was very clear in my head, but I can't seem to put it into words very well.
True, but my logging is as accurate as I *think* one can get because my expected losses over time match my calories in data pretty closely. If I'm sedentary, I'm REALLY sedentary, I would be in a small surplus or just maintaining at 2K. When I say lazy, I mean lazy lol
Sure. You maintain at xxx cals with pretty tight logging. But if someone else, whose logging could be all over the board, with similar stats/activity levels, could try maintaining at that same intake and have very different results. Not because the math is wrong, but because they aren't eating what they are logging.
That was the point I was trying to make, and why comparing intakes/calorie targets can be problematic.2 -
2000 calories sounds like a lot to me! I do cardio exercise 5-6 times per week and 1800 is a lot.1
-
Good thing our body gives us the real truth. Start where you want and tweak until you figure it out. It's easy, if over time you gain body fat, it's too much. Amazing how it works.5
-
I'm 5'10" and would gain, slowly, on 2000 if I were sedentary.1
-
Tropicoolblonde wrote: »
It's not a problem with the site, it's a problem with how you use it, or your expectations for progress.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Just to throw this out there since there are so many people comparing who maintains at what intake...
If your logging/weight changes show you maintain at 1800 cals (just using this as an example)... they you actually maintain at 1800 cals based on how you log. There IS some margin for error. For some, that error rate could be fairly low, for others it could be fairly high.
The point is that saying "I maintain at 1800 cals" could be misleading. You maintain at 1800 cals based on your logging... which may or may not be the same as 1800 cals for someone else, based on how they log.
Did that make any sense? It was very clear in my head, but I can't seem to put it into words very well.
It makes sense to me. 2 people at 5'8 145 could eat the same maintenance and do the same basic activity level and maintain, and one could be logging 1800 and the other 1400
Exactly. Then over time, one would come to the conclusion that they maintain at 1800 while the other maintains at 1400.0 -
Tropicoolblonde wrote: »Any idea why? That seems pretty low for weight gain.
Depends on your height, weight, age, activity level. 2,000 would be above maintenance for some but not for others.
Have you checked other calorie calculators to see if the calorie amounts matches up for a sedentary person of your size?
My maintenance calculation for sedentary activity level at my current weight is around 1700 and at goal weight will be below 1600 calories. I've done the calculation with multiple sources and none tell me I will maintain or lose as a sedentary person of my height at 2,000 calories unless I were 100+ lbs overweight. I am not 100+ lbs overweight.
That calculation has nothing to do with how accurate I log and I could be a little off on what I think I eat. Based on my real life results though I do think I would gain weight if I were logging 2,000 calories daily.
If you don't think you'd gain eating 2,000 calories then try it and see what happens.
0 -
Tropicoolblonde wrote: »
Are you talking about the calorie goal MFP gives you? Or the stupid message that pops up when you close your diary for the day? Because that pop-up is a gimmick that is trying to extrapolate what would happen if you ate exactly the same way as today every single day, and is often glitchy. I think most of us assumed you were talking about the calorie goal MFP gave you
0
clearly something is off!
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions