Calorie Goal Accuracy

I'm 49 years old and have approx 140lbs to lose. I am trying once again to lose weight using this app. I have a question for those that have yo-yo'd for years on different weight loss journeys...

Do you find the recommended calories set out by MFP to be accurate in what you need in order to consistently lose weight? I am asking because I find myself unable to lose if i eat the recommended calorie intake of 1,960/day. I simply put weight on. Only when I keep calorie intake below 1,500/day do I see any weight loss happening. My concern is if I eat too little, I'll just end up packing the weight back on after I get near or to my goal weight (which admittedly is a long way off from now). However, there is no denying the frustration of stepping on the scale after 4 days and seeing the number several pounds higher than the last weigh-in, after having kept my calorie count in check and as close to the recommended daily intake as possible.

What's the best way to determine your specific caloric needs? How do you go about finding the right amount if the MFP number is not working for you?

Replies

AndreaTamira

So, so far the MFP number is working fine for me, but it IS an estimate and may not be working quite right for you.

Some questions:

Are you weighing all your food or using measurements like table spoons or small/medium/large piece of food? The second could lead to underestimating the calories you actually ate.

Is the fitness level you put into the app accurate? If you are actually sedentary but put in "very active" MFP will think you can eat more calories than you are actually able to while losing weight.

How long have you been doing this? Weight fluctuations within a week can be quite crazy and it can take some time to see a trend. - Being several pounds of fat heavier within 4 days also would mean you would have had to massively, massively overeat. And it does not sound like you are, even IF MFP's estimates are wrong for you.

KirkS70

I use a mixture of weighing my food that can be weighed and also use some guesstimated measurements in tbsp or tsp for things that can't be weighed. I would say the way I'm tracking my intake is not at fault. Though I admit I could be missing the exactness by 5 or 10% either way.

When I do see jumps of 4 or 5 pounds on the scale, it makes me question things. I question if it's the foods I eat, even though their calories are accounted for. I also question if the MFP recommendations are accurate for me specifically.

Perhaps I am expecting there to not be days or stretches of time where my weight is going to rise, as long as I am on it under the calorie recommendations. Maybe that's poor thinking on my part, I dunno?

Thanks for your feedback!

heybales

Here's the deal to think about.

MFP was basing a daily calorie burn on your selected activity level - like vast majority you may have selected sedentary or not very active to be on the "safe side", whether true or not.
This does NOT include exercise, which isn't even mentioned in the descriptions.

You've probably selected a 2lb weekly loss goal, which means 1000 cal deficit off that daily burn MFP estimated.
That is reasonable for now, until down to final 50 lbs to healthy weight.

With those 2 facts - if you are gaining actual fat weight on the number given, and not starting to exercise at the same time causing water weight gain for several reasons - then your food logging is bad.

Because you did not get to where you need to lose weight eating 1960 a day - you ate more than that.
You ever logged a typical day of eating to see how much you must have been eating? You can pick a day in the past to see. If you can recall everything (and studies show you likely won't) it might be an eye-opener.

So you will be aggravated with results and have many problems dealing with any numbers if they don't have some level of best accuracy with them.

Weight loss is NOT linear, true, especially if you are vastly undereating by more than 1000 calories and really stressing your body out.
Again, water weight gain while losing fat weight can make the scale barely or not move.
Always measure many spots too - the scale isn't the best tool even, it's an easy one, but doesn't give a full story.

As to food logging - when you select the database food item to use, have you confirmed it matches the nutrition label in your hand?
Many goofballs have create many bad entries sadly - but once you start logging the right ones and what you commonly use - the Frequent and Recent list are your friends.

But you must weigh everything.
Calories is per gram, not spoons, cups, 3 per package, ect.

But you are exactly right to view the end game now - if you force yourself into extreme diet and eat so little now - where does it drop to when you are closer to goal weight, and burning much less daily moving the mass around?
Or what if you get sick or busy and can't exercise the amount you might start doing?
The goal should really be to eat as much as you can of the things that you can continue eating into the future, at an amount that causes a reasonable rate of fat loss.
More than reasonable - include muscle mass loss in the mix.
Yo-yo diet that away several times - this is going to be so much harder down the road again, and again, and again.
You can do, but really examine what caused it to come back. You know the whole doomed to repeat history idea.

KirkS70

Thank you for the insights. I appreciate your opinion and think I may need to just chill and stay with it, despite what I see on the scale. I'm sure you know how it is though, when you start something, you want to see success. I mean, I started (again) over 2 weeks ago now, I'm ready to not be fat anymore, so what's the hold up? Haha

sijomial

Typically the estimate is more accurate than people's logging.

If you picked 2lbs a week weight loss it doesn't even have to be particularly accurate as 1000 cals a day is a huge number, you may not lose at the predcited weight or in a linear fashion but you should lose weight. Frankly speaking if you aren't losing at least some weight over the course of a month then the cause is highly unlikely to be the estimate is out by 1000+.

Do give it a month but if you aren't losing weight then a long hard look at your logging would be the first step. (Logging everything that passes your lips? Weighing food not using cups/spoons or servings? Using accurate database entries? etc. etc.)

With a lot to lose your focus really has to be sustainability rather than speed.

PS
Have a read of the most helpful threads pinned to the top of the various forums, there's a lot of good information there.

janejellyroll

I found the calorie estimate to be very accurate (and it is still accurate now that I'm maintaining), but I wasn't successful until I became more accurate with estimating my calorie intake (by using a food scale) and my activity level (with a Fitbit). The issue was never with MFP's estimate of how many calories I needed, it was with me underestimating how much I was eating.

flatlndr

Just checking that you are actually weighing and not measuring, doing flat measures (not rounded) for teaspoons, etc., and using actual measuring spoons, and not cutlery teaspoons/tablespoons.

I found a huge difference in consistency/accuracy when I stopped using measuring scoops and started using a digital scale for weights.

For reference, I'm in my 50s and had 100 lbs to lose, and I was losing at 2000 net calories input per day, which is about the same target you were given.

Dogmom1978

I don’t know what you mean by not being able to weigh certain things. The only things I can’t weigh and track accurately are take out foods. I try to not eat take out more than once a week maximum and then I am guesstimating unless I eat at a chain restaurant with available nutrition info. Even then, it’s not super accurate as a serving of mashed potatoes at one outback may weigh more than one at another outback restaurant.

That said, tighten up on the tracking. Did you say what activity level you are? If you put active but you’re actually sedentary, that will effect your weight loss also.

I work a desk job, so sedentary. On weekends and after work I either go for walks, hikes, or my home gym. I enter all of that separately as exercise because it is outside of what MFP calculated based on my sedentary lifestyle.

nanastaci2020

How accurately are you tracking your calories? To lose at 1500 and gain at 1960 is improbably, unless your maintenance calories are 1550-1900 of course.

Using a food scale for all solid food? Even things like a banana, slice of bread/bun, chicken breast? Are you tracking beverages, condiments, cooking oils?

Is much of your food made by other people? <--when this happens, you have a limited ability to know how much of anything you are consuming. Some things are fairly reliable. The amount of ham, cheese put on a 6" sandwich at Subway is controlled for example and will not vary much from store to store. But the amount of cheese put on a pizza at Dominos (or insert other brand here) could easily be more than the amount they are supposed to use. And if your food is made by friends/spouse/parent: is that person keeping accurate track of ingredients and calories for you? If not, then your logging is a guesstimate and could be wrong.

Over how much time did you 'gain weight' when eating 1960? A few days? A few weeks? I am curious because if you change 'programs' after a very short term, it would be hard to know what is working.

MorbettaRD wrote: »

I'm 49 years old and have approx 140lbs to lose. I am trying once again to lose weight using this app. I have a question for those that have yo-yo'd for years on different weight loss journeys...

Do you find the recommended calories set out by MFP to be accurate in what you need in order to consistently lose weight? I am asking because I find myself unable to lose if i eat the recommended calorie intake of 1,960/day. I simply put weight on. Only when I keep calorie intake below 1,500/day do I see any weight loss happening. My concern is if I eat too little, I'll just end up packing the weight back on after I get near or to my goal weight (which admittedly is a long way off from now). However, there is no denying the frustration of stepping on the scale after 4 days and seeing the number several pounds higher than the last weigh-in, after having kept my calorie count in check and as close to the recommended daily intake as possible.

What's the best way to determine your specific caloric needs? How do you go about finding the right amount if the MFP number is not working for you?

cppeace

I've always found I lose on here, even when I eat exactly what they recommend with no exercise. I generally am under, though. You may have to wiggle a bit but 400 calories a day is 2800 calories a week, meaning about 2/3 of a pound of fat. So, if you lost more than that then you should be losing at 1900 as well. It's generally simple math. If you want to lose 2lbs a week you must cut or burn 7000 calories a week. This may be a couple hundred off for some but it's generally accurate.

nanastaci2020

About getting on the scale:

Your weighins need to be consistent in order to accurately track the change. Such as always weighin in at the same time of day, in the same level of clothing, at the same process in your day. Such as wake up, using the bathroom, get undressed & step on scale BEFORE eating or drinking anything for the day. During the day your weight will change constantly. Every time you put food or drink in, or excrete it out, or change your clothing/shoes/etc.: it changes. So comparing in the midst of all of that is not relevant.

Otherwise it is a bit like asking 10 people who each have a watch 'what time is it'? You'll get similar answers but they won't all be exact. My watch says 10:26, yours may say 10:28 and someone in another state may answer 9:27.

Comparing day to day: you may not see a drop EACH day or even each week. Water weight is constantly changing for a number of reasons including (but not limited to) stress, sleep, muscle repair, sodium, the level of carbs you've eaten recently, hormones. And lets face it: our bodies are not 100% efficient. What I mean is the 'work' you do today is not instantly going to materialize as a scale victory tomorrow. That does not mean it is pointless, but that this is a process and it takes time.

To compensate for this, compare weight change over time. If you weigh less now than you did a month ago, then its working. If you have not yet been at it long enough to compare now to a month ago, keep going.

Weight loss is frustrating. My best recommendation for how to help with this aspect is to also focus on things NOT related to weight loss. Such as something that should improve your fitness or stamina. Maybe make a goal to walk X distance total this week. And then to improve it slightly each week. That is a progress level you can monitor, seeing the improvement week to week.

J72FIT

MorbettaRD wrote: »

I'm 49 years old and have approx 140lbs to lose. I am trying once again to lose weight using this app. I have a question for those that have yo-yo'd for years on different weight loss journeys...

Do you find the recommended calories set out by MFP to be accurate in what you need in order to consistently lose weight? I am asking because I find myself unable to lose if i eat the recommended calorie intake of 1,960/day. I simply put weight on. Only when I keep calorie intake below 1,500/day do I see any weight loss happening. My concern is if I eat too little, I'll just end up packing the weight back on after I get near or to my goal weight (which admittedly is a long way off from now). However, there is no denying the frustration of stepping on the scale after 4 days and seeing the number several pounds higher than the last weigh-in, after having kept my calorie count in check and as close to the recommended daily intake as possible.

What's the best way to determine your specific caloric needs? How do you go about finding the right amount if the MFP number is not working for you?

What has generally worked for me is taking my height in centimeters and multiplying by a factor of 12 - 14 when dieting, and 14 - 16 when maintaining. The low end is when I am not too active and the high end is when I am very active. As long as I fall somewhere in the middle the results are fairly consistent. It has been pretty spot on for me and seems to align with MFP numbers.

What I will say is this. You have to give it time. Weight loss is not linear in the short term. There are ups, downs, ebbs and flows. Let your body adjust to the calories, trust the process and look to the long term.

try2again

I have always found MFP's estimate to be extremely accurate. When I lost a large chunk of weight in the past, and my logging was accurate and consistent, my weekly average weight loss was always spot-on. That is, my weekly average weight loss over time. What wasn't spot-on was my daily or weekly weight loss. Large water weight fluctuations are extremely common and are tied to certain foods, exercise, medical conditions, travel, and monthly cycles, among other things. A particularly annoying pattern for me is that, even at a moderate calorie deficit, my weight actually tends to go up the first two weeks of my cycle, only to fall dramatically the second 2. In the end, it all averages out, but if I had only ever gone by my first few weeks of data, I also might have assumed that a reasonable calorie deficit causes me to gain weight, which is not even possible.

I would stick with MFP's number for now. Be accurate, be consistent, and be patient. After 6 weeks or so, if you are not seeing your weekly average approach your goal, then consider lowering your calories gradually until you hit the sweet spot.

nanastaci2020

This will not work for everyone. It does not take into consideration one's current weight. If you have a relatively small # to lose, this will not work! Keep in mind that a larger body uses more energy than a smaller body. And all else being equal, men burn more calories than women due to higher natural muscle content.

My height in CM is 165. 165 x 12 = 1980.

I am 45, female, and 137ish pounds aiming for 128-130. (At my highest recorded weight I was low 180s. I know I was heavier than that at one point, but avoided scales...)

With walking 60+ minutes a day (in addition to normal daily activity) my total daily burn is 1900-2000. So with the x12 method, I'd either maintain or gain slightly. Using a higher multiplier I'd steadily put on weight.

MFP takes your age, height, weight and your stated activity level to estimate how much energy you use daily without exercise. It then subtracts 500 if you say you want to lose 1 pound per week, or subtracts 250/750/1000 if you state you wish to lose .5/1.5/2 pounds per week. Using this method, or finding a Total Daily Energy Expenditure calculator online (which considers daily activity AND any regular weekly exercise) and subtracting 250-1000: is the starting point. Then giving it time to work.

J72FIT wrote: »

What has generally worked for me is taking my height in centimeters and multiplying by a factor of 12 - 14 when dieting, and 14 - 16 when maintaining. The low end is when I am not too active and the high end is when I am very active. As long as I fall somewhere in the middle the results are fairly consistent. It has been pretty spot on for me and seems to align with MFP numbers.

J72FIT

nanastaci2020 wrote: »

This will not work for everyone. It does not take into consideration one's current weight. If you have a relatively small # to lose, this will not work! Keep in mind that a larger body uses more energy than a smaller body. And all else being equal, men burn more calories than women due to higher natural muscle content.

My height in CM is 165. 165 x 12 = 1980.

I am 45, female, and 137ish pounds aiming for 128-130. (At my highest recorded weight I was low 180s. I know I was heavier than that at one point, but avoided scales...)

With walking 60+ minutes a day (in addition to normal daily activity) my total daily burn is 1900-2000. So with the x12 method, I'd either maintain or gain slightly. Using a higher multiplier I'd steadily put on weight.

MFP takes your age, height, weight and your stated activity level to estimate how much energy you use daily without exercise. It then subtracts 500 if you say you want to lose 1 pound per week, or subtracts 250/750/1000 if you state you wish to lose .5/1.5/2 pounds per week. Using this method, or finding a Total Daily Energy Expenditure calculator online (which considers daily activity AND any regular weekly exercise) and subtracting 250-1000: is the starting point. Then giving it time to work.

J72FIT wrote: »

What has generally worked for me is taking my height in centimeters and multiplying by a factor of 12 - 14 when dieting, and 14 - 16 when maintaining. The low end is when I am not too active and the high end is when I am very active. As long as I fall somewhere in the middle the results are fairly consistent. It has been pretty spot on for me and seems to align with MFP numbers.

Sorry, forgot to mention for women 10-12 for dieting and 12-14 for maintenance. For muscle mass and testosterone. Thank you for pointing that out!

nanastaci2020

That is closer to relevant for my scenario but I still prefer a method that takes more about an individual into consideration.

10-12 would give me 1650-1980 for weight loss and 12-14 would indicate 1980-2310 for maintenance.

I have to work to have my TDEE around 1900-2000. Earlier this year when I was not active (which was part of my putting pounds back on when I'd been in maintenance a while) my TDEE dropped to 1400-1500.

J72FIT wrote: »

Sorry, forgot to mention for women 10-12 for dieting and 12-14 for maintenance. For muscle mass and testosterone. Thank you for pointing that out!

J72FIT

nanastaci2020 wrote: »

That is closer to relevant for my scenario but I still prefer a method that takes more about an individual into consideration.

10-12 would give me 1650-1980 for weight loss and 12-14 would indicate 1980-2310 for maintenance.

I have to work to have my TDEE around 1900-2000. Earlier this year when I was not active (which was part of my putting pounds back on when I'd been in maintenance a while) my TDEE dropped to 1400-1500.

J72FIT wrote: »

Sorry, forgot to mention for women 10-12 for dieting and 12-14 for maintenance. For muscle mass and testosterone. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yes it is very individual. What I have found, and especially as you get closer to goal weight (since you're not dealing with extra fat mass to complicate the equations) the numbers wind up being very close.

J72FIT

nanastaci2020 wrote: »

That is closer to relevant for my scenario but I still prefer a method that takes more about an individual into consideration.

10-12 would give me 1650-1980 for weight loss and 12-14 would indicate 1980-2310 for maintenance.

I have to work to have my TDEE around 1900-2000. Earlier this year when I was not active (which was part of my putting pounds back on when I'd been in maintenance a while) my TDEE dropped to 1400-1500.

J72FIT wrote: »

Sorry, forgot to mention for women 10-12 for dieting and 12-14 for maintenance. For muscle mass and testosterone. Thank you for pointing that out!

Take me for example…

Dieting
Height in centimeters x 12 - 14
*1” = 2.54cm
5’10” = 70” = 178cm x 12 - 14 = 2136 - 2492 calories when dieting
5’10” = 70” = 178cm x 14 - 16 = 2492 - 2848 calories when maintaining

Mifflin - St Jeor Formula
Men
180 lbs - 82 kg
5’10” - 70” - 178 cm
48 yrs
10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5
(10 x 82) + (6.25 x 178) - (5 x 48) + 5
820 + 1115 - 240 + 5 = 1700
1700 x 1.2 = 2040 - 250 = 1790
1700 x 1.375 = 2340 - 250 = 2090
1700 x 1.55 = 2635 - 250 = 2385 (178 x 12-14 = 2136-2848)
1700 x 1.725 = 2935 - 250 = 2685
1700 x 1.9 = 3230 - 250 = 2980

175 lbs - 79.5 kg
5’10” - 70” - 178 cm
48 yrs
10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5
(10 x 79.5) + (6.25 x 178) - (5 x 48) + 5
795 + 1115 - 240 + 5 = 1675
1675 x 1.2 = 2010
1675 x 1.375 = 2305
1675 x 1.55 = 2600 (178 x 12-14 = 2136-2848)
1675 x 1.725 = 2900
1675 x 1.9 = 3185

If you look at my range when dieting or maintaining, the 1.55 activity multiplier puts me more or less right in the middle of the range where I multiply by height.

Even if a person weighs 250lbs at 5'10", the numbers are still pretty close...
Mifflin - St Jeor Formula
Men
250 lbs - 113.6 kg
5’10” - 70” - 178 cm
48 yrs
10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5
(10 x 113.6) + (6.25 x 178) - (5 x 48) + 5
1136 + 1115 - 240 + 5 = 2016
2015 x 1.2 = 2418 - 1000 = 1418
2015 x 1.375 = 2770 - 1000 = 1770
2015 x 1.55 = 3125 - 1000 = 2125 (178 x 12-14 = 2136-2848)
2015 x 1.725 = 3475 - 1000 = 2475
2015 x 1.9 = 3830 - 1000 = 2830

KirkS70

The support here is incredible. Lots of great feedback from so many people. I appreciate all of you for taking the time to give me your perspective.

I have an impatience problem more than anything. I'll stay the course and see where I'm at after 30 days. Perhaps I'll update this thread with results in a couple of weeks and you all can have an "I told you so" moment.

Be well!

J72FIT

MorbettaRD wrote: »

The support here is incredible. Lots of great feedback from so many people. I appreciate all of you for taking the time to give me your perspective.

I have an impatience problem more than anything. I'll stay the course and see where I'm at after 30 days. Perhaps I'll update this thread with results in a couple of weeks and you all can have an "I told you so" moment.

Be well!

Patience is, IMO, the most important factor in the equation. That and consistency. Good luck!