MFP vs Real Life Calorie Mismatch

Options
PRINCESSROJA
PRINCESSROJA Posts: 13 Member
in Getting Started
A question on the calorie goals set by MFP. It has me currently at 1200 net to lose a pound a week, and that's really not working for me. Eating healthfully but relatively normally (aka, a square of dark chocolate after lunch, but overall a good mix of protein/fat/carbs with lots of fruits and veggies), I can't seem to get below 1300 or 1400 net without getting ravenously hungry throughout the day. Like today, net 1280, pumpkin oatmeal for breakfast, tomato basil open-face sandwich and banana for lunch, greek yogurt for snack, and steak, grilled veggies, two clementines for dinner, with two squares of dark chocolate today--and I feel empty. I'm technically over by almost 100 calories, but I'm going to have to have a snack before bed or I won't be able to sleep tonight. :sigh:

I haven't had trouble in the recent past losing a pound a week netting higher than 1200, even right around this current week; in fact, if I eat that low (1350 is the lowest I've been able to get it successfully on a regular basis), I plummet down more like 1.5. Trying to eat that few calories is so unsustainable I haven't managed more than a week, so can't tell you what it's like long-term.

So with that said, I'm wondering if I'm underestimating my activity level? I put sedentary, because I do work a desk job, but I'm also pretty active in the sense that I move most days, I teach dance in the evenings, I ice skate in the winter, etc. Those calories do get logged, so they're not disappearing. But still. It's discouraging to see the constant red numbers at the bottom of the page, but I'm also not willing to be so hungry I can't think straight throughout the day (which is what happens when I get hungry). That's thoroughly unsustainable and I won't do it.

Has anyone else noticed this happening, and if so, what did you do?

Replies

  • PRINCESSROJA
    PRINCESSROJA Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    Yes, I agree exactly. I'm specifically trying *not* to white-knuckle it. I'd like to lose one pound a week because I've done it before rather easily and consistently, but I do so hate seeing all the little red "you've gone over" warning signals, when my body is clearly telling me I've undereaten rather than overeaten.

    And I definitely hear you on experimenting for satiation. So far oatmeal is the only thing I've found that works for me and that holds me for several hours on so few calories. I have to eat almost twice as much with other breakfast foods to feel full. Yikes! Mostly I'm trying to balance out picking foods for maximum fullness while not letting that consume my life (aka, I'm not going to stress over a banana). But there's no way I get to even 1300 or 1400 net without being pretty careful and staying true to what works for my body.
  • rsj7799
    rsj7799 Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    If you want to lose a pound a week and you are losing a pound and a half a week, up your calories by 250 a day. You can manually change your calorie goal in the settings, regardless of what it recommends. So if you are losing 1.5 pounds at 1350 net calories a day, try 1600. You may need to re-enter your macro percentages if you are using custom ones as they will sometimes reset to the default.
  • hroderick
    hroderick Posts: 756 Member
    Options
    i exercise so i can eat more. i eat a lot of low cal density foods (salad, fish, chicken, squash, fresh fruit) so i can eat more. i confess, i'm a volume eater and there's a thread for that.

    if you are hungry for anything, then it is real and have something that's not your favorite. if you crave something specific then it isn't real hunger and you need a distraction until it passes.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    You have already come to a solution in a roundabout way. Up your activity level by one to lightly active and see how you go with those additional calories as you are not eating at a sustainable level. If you still find you are hungry and losing quickly than expected then up it again.
  • PRINCESSROJA
    PRINCESSROJA Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    For what it’s with I’m 5’2 and over 40 with a desk job and when I started I was 150 and had about 25 lbs to lose. I chose Sedentary because that’s what it seemed like I was supposed to do based on the way the guidelines were written. I chose 1 lb/week and also got a 1200 cal goal. I was losing, but I also was always over, even with eating back the exercise cals. So I raised my goal, after reading on here that most women, even petite women, don’t need to go that low in order to lose. First to 1400 net, then 1500 net. I kept losing! About 6 months and 18 lbs into it I got a FitBit, realized I was averaging 10k steps a day, got good advice that that’s not Sedentary, so I raised my activity level to lightly active and changed my rate of loss to 0.5 lb/week. That took me to about 1600 net, and I started eating back my FitBit adjustments as well. Kept losing at my desired rate and landed, about 18 months after I started, at my current weight of 118 lbs. I ate between 1600-1900 most of the time I was losing and my TDEE, per my FitBit and my actual results, is 2100-2200 now. I still eat back those exercise adjustments and have been in maintenance for over 3 years now.

    Thank you, that's really helpful to hear that you've had to adjust it a bit also!

    And thanks all! I didn't realize I could manually adjust my calorie goal to a specific number so I might give that a go, or try setting it to lightly active and seeing if that makes a difference.

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Changing the MFP Activity Level will merely effect the size of the adjustment, making it smaller.

    The resulting eating goal will be the same because the base starts higher.

    So that is not the kind of adjustment required that WinoGelato is referencing.

    If you take your weekly Fitbit emailed reports on weekly calorie burn - and realize from math it's perhaps 10% high, you take that off, then take off your desired deficit for eating goal - and manually set MFP's eating goal.

    Doing that on 3 wk running avg system, using only normal weeks (not a sick week, not super active spring cleaning week) should be enough to adjust for changing seasons and circumstances.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,988 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    MFP numbers are based on statistical population and algorithms. With any statistical analysis there will be a curve - some people at the low end outside of the bell and some people at the high end. You may be at the higher end but even with that - selecting Sedentary when you know you aren’t isn’t priming you for the most accurate baseline. I realize you said that you log the activities but each one of those is another assumption/prediction based on same stats and other algorithms.

    Also - what are your stats and how much weight are you trying to lose? Perhaps 1 lbs/week is too aggressive of a deficit and that’s what your hunger levels are trying to tell you...

    For what it’s with I’m 5’2 and over 40 with a desk job and when I started I was 150 and had about 25 lbs to lose. I chose Sedentary because that’s what it seemed like I was supposed to do based on the way the guidelines were written. I chose 1 lb/week and also got a 1200 cal goal. I was losing, but I also was always over, even with eating back the exercise cals. So I raised my goal, after reading on here that most women, even petite women, don’t need to go that low in order to lose. First to 1400 net, then 1500 net. I kept losing! About 6 months and 18 lbs into it I got a FitBit, realized I was averaging 10k steps a day, got good advice that that’s not Sedentary, so I raised my activity level to lightly active and changed my rate of loss to 0.5 lb/week. That took me to about 1600 net, and I started eating back my FitBit adjustments as well. Kept losing at my desired rate and landed, about 18 months after I started, at my current weight of 118 lbs. I ate between 1600-1900 most of the time I was losing and my TDEE, per my FitBit and my actual results, is 2100-2200 now. I still eat back those exercise adjustments and have been in maintenance for over 3 years now.


    In addition to this concept that people exist at different spots on a bell curve (which I definitely agree with), there is also the issue of an algorithm that pretends people are sedentary until they are active enough to jump to being lightly active, with activity factors that jump from one level to the next. In reality, sedentary people are in a range of activity -- obviously someone who walks 500 steps a day as their total activity is more sedentary than someone who walks 3500 steps a day, and, other things being equal, will burn fewer calories, but the algorithm treats them both as sedentary and assumes they burn the same number of calories. The same for each of the other activity levels. And highly active goes from a floor to, essentially, infinity.
  • chubbycatcorner
    chubbycatcorner Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    Feel free to add me. Anyone :)

Categories