Myfitnesspal is crazy! It says I would gain on 2000 calories a day...

13

Replies

  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    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.

    So are you a runner, or are you sedentary? You can't be both.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,763 Member
    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.
    Just realized I didn't answer the question about activity level... I put sedentary and I add "exercise calories" as I go.

    I'm assuming the 2,000 calories is before your running? Once you've put that in, how many calories do you get?
  • SafioraLinnea
    SafioraLinnea Posts: 628 Member
    If I was sedentary and not breastfeeding I would gain at 2000 calories daily. Daily I eat between 1800 and 2100 depending on my activity level. My TDEE is 2146.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    when the reality is that they may be at 1600 or 1200 or 2000
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    when the reality is that they may be at 1600 or 1200 or 2000

    This is very true. I, for one, weigh EVERYTHING carefully. I have a pretty good grasp on what's going on.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    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.

    So are you a runner, or are you sedentary? You can't be both.

    The activity level on MFP is supposed to be your normal daily lifestyle, not planned exercise. So yes you can be both - you have an office job where you sit all day so you are sedentary, and then you log your runs as exercise.

    I get that. It was a question more for OP's approach/mindset rather than a technical question.

    OP says "I'm a runner... 2000 cals seems low for weight gain" but then goes on to say that she set MFP to sedentary and adds exercise cals. There's a connection there that she's missing.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    True. You need to be sure you have good data, for sure.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    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.

    Dang you're lucky! I'm premenopausal and gain about 1600. Just goes to show how different we all are.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    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.

    Don't we all honey.
  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Sounds right. I'm 5'7", 219lb and I maintain at 1,400 calories. More than that and I gain.

    That seems...... unlikely. I'm 5 inches shorter, 100 lbs lighter, and I maintain on 2200. I'm active, but even if I were sedentary, my maintenance cals would be more than 1400.

    That's what the metabolic test from the nutritionist revealed. I weigh all my food, more than 1,400 with my current activity = I gain. Believe it or not, some people have very slow metabolisms.

    I just got back from 2 weeks on a business trip. I didn't weigh food, but didn't pig out, and I was more active than usual. I gained 10lbs in 2 weeks. I have gained 20lbs in 18 days before.
  • mathjulz
    mathjulz Posts: 5,514 Member
    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.

    Read through the descriptions of each of the activity levels. You may actually be more active, which may make a bit of a difference. I'm a SAHM with 2 young children (and 3 teens) and I set it to lightly active because I am moving a lot while playing with my kids, doing housework, etc. I then add in my deliberate exercise (going to the gym, a workout video, a walk with the dog) on top of that. That might help :wink:
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    jjpptt2 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.

    Also consider the types of food eaten. High fiber foods and foods that require more energy to be digested vs simple easily digested/absorbed foods.

    So like you said 1800 does not necessarily mean 1800.

    Food labels are allowed a 10% margin of error (USA). And ever notice the "about" serving size? The package says about 3 servings, each serving is 1oz and there are 3.3 oz in the package.

    It's just finding the numbers that work for you!
  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    Sounds right. I'm 5'7", 219lb and I maintain at 1,400 calories. More than that and I gain.

    You are either netting calories or logging inaccurately if that is the case.

    I weigh everything, and the 1,400 came from a nutritionist after metabolic testing. She said it was very unfortunate. Like I said above, I can and have gained 20lbs in 18 days before, and just recently went on a trip where I gained 10kbs in 2 weeks. My resting HR is 55, my blood pressure is 107/55 -> my whole system is slow. Not everyone's metabolism is the same.
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    im 5'1 and 39 years old.

    i gain at 1600 cals LOLOLOL
  • PrincessMel72
    PrincessMel72 Posts: 1,094 Member
    My daily calorie goal is 1200 and I would gain like crazy on 2000!
  • Theo166
    Theo166 Posts: 2,564 Member
    Just realized I didn't answer the question about activity level... I put sedentary and I add "exercise calories" as I go.

    You still haven't shared your specific stats, please do so when you ask for help.
    If you exercise regularly, sedentary is the wrong setting.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,251 Member
    edited May 2017
    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.

    7" and 20 years younger make the other person's stats irrelevant to your case.

    You are conflating total daily energy expenditure ("2300 sounds about right for me too") to MFP's Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis amount ("MFP told me I will gain at about 2000") which was probably based on a sedentary setting.

    MFP expects you to log separately your:actual amount of deliberate exercise activity. And the MFP setup ALSO IMPLIES that you should account for the calories involved in your non exercise activities if they do not match what you told MFP!

    To give you an indication, sedentary usually includes about 35 to 45 minutes a day of non sitting activity or about 3500 steps. Once you exceed that, you exceed the calories that are included in the 1.25 activity factor MFP uses for sedentary.

    As an example my sedentary "maintenance" per MFP as a 5ft 8' ~156lb 52yo male is ~1910. In the four months between May 18 and September 18 2016 my average logged intake was 2823 Cal per day. And this wasn't even maintenance as I lost 3.5 lbs based on trending weight during that time period.

    Daily activity can account for a LOT of calories.

    And of course all this assumes accurate logging, something that varies by individual and by activities!
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    Also consider the types of food eaten. High fiber foods and foods that require more energy to be digested vs simple easily digested/absorbed foods.

    So like you said 1800 does not necessarily mean 1800.

    Food labels are allowed a 10% margin of error (USA). And ever notice the "about" serving size? The package says about 3 servings, each serving is 1oz and there are 3.3 oz in the package.

    It's just finding the numbers that work for you!

    The calorie difference between digesting highly processed or whole foods is minimal, at least as far as everything I've seen. And for accuracy one should weigh out their portion and use the grams listing on the package - still not perfect, but way more accurate.