Myfitnesspal is crazy! It says I would gain on 2000 calories a day...
Replies
-
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 -
Tropicoolblonde 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.0 -
Tropicoolblonde 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.Tropicoolblonde wrote: »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?3 -
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 2146.0
-
Tropicoolblonde 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.7 -
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.
when the reality is that they may be at 1600 or 1200 or 20000 -
stanmann571 wrote: »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.
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.0 -
Tropicoolblonde 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.3 -
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.
True. You need to be sure you have good data, for sure.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Dang you're lucky! I'm premenopausal and gain about 1600. Just goes to show how different we all are.0 -
Tropicoolblonde 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.
Don't we all honey.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Mary_Anastasia 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.1 -
Tropicoolblonde 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.
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
0 -
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!0 -
Mary_Anastasia 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.1 -
im 5'1 and 39 years old.
i gain at 1600 cals LOLOLOL2 -
My daily calorie goal is 1200 and I would gain like crazy on 2000!2
-
Tropicoolblonde wrote: »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.0 -
Tropicoolblonde wrote: »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!1 -
OP said it was "crazy" for MFP to suggest she would gain weight on 2000 cals. All those of us who posted our stats were trying to say is that there is a large group of people for whom it would be 100% true, so in general it's not crazy. Obviously her stats, activity level, and logging accuracy could make that number incorrect, but it's not like 2000 calories is too low for everyone. <shrug>5
-
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.1
clearly something is off!
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions