Body weight planner - how accurate is it for your loss?

Options
CarvedTones
CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
edited May 2018 in Goal: Maintaining Weight
It's a tool to help you figure out calories to lose weight, but I thought it would be interesting to see how accurate it is by having those of us in maintenance plug in our starting weights, activity, increase in activity, goal and time frame. You have to set it as starting now and make the goal date as far in the future as it took you to lose the weight.

https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/index.html

I played with the numbers and could not get it anywhere close to accurate. The maintenance numbers were way too high for me. How about you?
«1

Replies

  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    Pretty accurate for my new maintanace from what I can tell so far. I plugged in my old weight and worked backwards. That being said, I might actually be one of the few people that underestimate their activity. I have mfp set to active, and still get movement modifiers from 300 to nearly 700 some days. That's not including my weight lifting and just being on my feet a lot of the day. It also does not take in to account macro intake ratios. Yes, a calorie is a calorie, but a higher protein diet does have a slightly higher effect on tef. In hope I have not jinxed myself.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Options
    It was about 350 calories high for me. Even backing it off to staying sedentary (which I am not), I couldn't get it within 250.
  • maybe1pe
    maybe1pe Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    Mine was pretty accurate. Maybe a little bit low based on real life data. But I could have underestimated my activity. What I consider moderate might really be active, but for me I think it's a moderate amount. So idk.
  • jrwms714
    jrwms714 Posts: 421 Member
    Options
    Super high for me.
  • steveko89
    steveko89 Posts: 2,216 Member
    Options
    Way too high for me. My observed TDEE averages 2406 dating back to last July when I started tracking. By their multiplier activity level of 1.329 gets me that number bang-on, however that's less than their default of 1.4 and I'd consider myself active or very active by their definitions; weight training 4-6x/week, some inconsistent cardio, mowing the grass, golf, etc.

    At their suggestion of 1.7 it spits out 3k, which is at least 500 too high.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    Super high. The calculator does not like very long-term weight loss goals or high % increases in activity.

    It took my 4 years to lose 173#, from 313 to 140. I increased my activity from being a decaying panda to a hyper child. My current maintenance calories are around 1900-2000. I am trying to lose 7# eating around 1750 calories. I walk 9-10 hours a day (slow walking/pacing while watching streamers and movies) plus moderate cardio (Leslie Sansone videos) 3-4 hours a week. Here's what the calculator gave me for calorie goals:

    qd6ak269gzwp.png
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    zyxst wrote: »
    Super high. The calculator does not like very long-term weight loss goals or high % increases in activity.

    It took my 4 years to lose 173#, from 313 to 140. I increased my activity from being a decaying panda to a hyper child. My current maintenance calories are around 1900-2000. I am trying to lose 7# eating around 1750 calories. I walk 9-10 hours a day (slow walking/pacing while watching streamers and movies) plus moderate cardio (Leslie Sansone videos) 3-4 hours a week. Here's what the calculator gave me for calorie goals:

    qd6ak269gzwp.png

    Dang!!! Mine showed me at around 3000 a day based on activity post weight loss 13500 steps a day. I did not include my weight lifting because i think the benefits are beyond calories burned. I also spend a good deal of my day on my feet. I use an activity modifier of 1.7-1.8. So far, so good. I also vape, so that adds 100 cals a day. Huh.... that being said mfp does a decent job of guessing. I just like hall's model because it is based on research of live people with some... I say some..... controlled variables. Still based on self reported intakes. Would have been nice if it would have been a metabolic ward study.

    As an edit I just thought about. It does not take into account body composition. Some one at the same height and weight but one with a bf of 10 vs 20 %, the 10% will burn more calories than the 20%. Just from having extra muscle mass. I sure y'all knew this, just adding it in.
  • bunnyluv19
    bunnyluv19 Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    I used AnnPT77’s formula to find my maintenance calories based on my own data/rate of loss(see sticky above) and it’s been very accurate and helpful!_ty Ann :smile: This calculators# was too high for me by 85 calories.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Options
    I used the Body Weight planner during my loss phase. It was more accurate than MFP for me.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    My Body Weight Planner calorie amounts and weight loss prediction rate are quite close but only because I under-report my activity level and massage the numbers. I was sedentary for the majority of my weight loss and had the activity level set to 1.3. It looks like 1.5 is about right to match my current data but the activity estimator would put me closer to 1.7.

    I do these things when I play with the Body Weight Planner:

    180ish day increments. The margin of error gets pretty wide for calculations further out.

    Add two or so pounds to the starting weight to make up for the huge early drop it gives for the water weight it thinks you'll lose when you start dieting.

    Subtract a pound or so from the ending weight because it expects a water weight rebound when you transition to maintenance.

    Adjust the physical activity level until my "should eat" amount matches my calorie intake goal.

    Ignore the Physical Activity Change section.
  • born_of_fire74
    born_of_fire74 Posts: 776 Member
    Options
    Also very high for me. +250cal over my maintenance so not sure how I could possibly lose anything at that allowance.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    Options
    Funny about all of this, if I set mfp to active and set it at lose .5lbs a week. 250cals a day. Basically what halls model uses as metabolic slow down and ate back my exercise calories, it is almost exact. Wow.... I have too much free time on my hands. Any ladies looking for a slightly neurotic 36 yo who weighs and measures his food and will take his scale to certain places.... hit me lol j/k
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    Options
    It is about 650 Calories too high compared to what I
    am finding in reality. That is about 150 calories a day higher than most other estimates (which are obviously all high for me, but this is the highest estimate I’ve come across)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    About 600 too high using what I thought was correct level of activity during my leisure time.
    Even knocking it back a level or 2 was still too high compared to current values.

    I do like it's attempt to divide daily work activity from other/exercise activity level.
  • LeslieB042812
    LeslieB042812 Posts: 1,799 Member
    edited May 2018
    Options
    It's WAY too high for me!!! I'd blow up like a balloon on their calorie counts for maintenance. The maintenance calories were about 300 too high, and that's with the standard activity levels which doesn't account for my daily runs and weekend hikes. When I entered 1.7 for activity (which is closer to my actual movement, it was about 500 calories/day too high. Oddly enough, their weight loss prediction was closer to what I experienced, though.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Options
    It's at an NIH related site. No wonder so many are overweight with the info they provide. :wink:
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,055 Member
    Options
    It's closer than most calculators I've used, but still a bit on the low side. Suggests 1913 to maintain, reality seems to be somewhere in the 2100-2300 range.
  • AudreyJDuke
    AudreyJDuke Posts: 1,092 Member
    Options
    Very high calories for me too.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Options
    AudreyJDuke wrote: »
    Very high calories for me too.

    Seems to be true for well over half the people who responded so far.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    it looked about right for me

Categories