Calorie goal not acurate?

Amplifying PAV's 4th paragraph, from his spot-on entire post:

Calculator estimates of calorie needs, MFPs or others, just give the average calorie requirement for the population of demographically similar people . . . but we're not a population, we're individuals.

Most people are close to average (by definition, right?). A few people will be meaningfully far off, either high or low. A very few rare people can be surprisingly far, still potentially in either direction. That's pretty much just how statistics work.

PAV is right, too, that there are many potential sources of discrepancies attributable to how well we understand and use the estimating tools. Those are worth considering, as more probable sources of discrepancies most people might see.

Still, everyone is best off IMO to think of MFP's (or some other so-called "calculator's") calorie estimate as a starting point. Follow it for 4-6 weeks, then adjust based on actual personal weight-change results. (For pre-menopausal women, they should compare body weight at the same relative point in at least 2 different menstrual cycles, because hormone-related water weight shifts can be dramatic, and aren't the same from one woman to the next.)

However, the one case where I'd strongly suggest adjusting more quickly than that 4-6 weeks is if one is both losing ultra-fast, and feeling pretty bad (very hungry, weak, fatigued, or that sort of thing). Too-fast weight loss can be a health risk; better to lose a little slower, even if that first short time period ends up being misleading.

So, if you've already adjusted and are losing fine at a higher calorie level, the issue is not whether the calculators are accurate . . . it's more about whether you're average, or close to average. Reasons why one is non-average may not be obvious, either.

I had a similar experience, 6+ years ago when I started calorie counting: MFP gave me a goal of 1200 calories plus exercise, and I ate the whole 1200 plus all my carefully-estimated exercise calories. I lost too fast, got weak and fatigued, and even though I adjusted quickly, it took several weeks to recover fully. I lost fine at 1400-1600 plus all exercise calories, so gross calorie intake of 1600-2000 most days.

Even now, MFP thinks I'd maintain at something like 1500 + exercise. That whole 6 years of experience, most of which has been maintenance, confirms that I maintain at 2000 or a bit higher, still plus exercise, so 2200-2500 or so most days, at 5'5", mid-120s pounds, age 66. MFP's fine, its estimates work for lots of people, I'm apparently just not average. (I'm happy that I'm non-average in the "can eat more" direction, TBH!)

Believe your results, but (IMO) don't assume that they'll generalize to others. Most people are close to average. Only a few are quite distant from it.

If you lose 0.5-1 pound a week averaged over many weeks, consistently eating 1650, the implication is that your current-weight maintenance calories are somewhere in the 1900-2150 range, which isn't all that improbable (even if non-average).

I admit, I'm also wondering if you may've selected a 2 pounds a week goal at first, when that was too aggressive for your current size, because MFP is willing to go as low as 1200 for women, but no lower, including women who'd be better off losing a bit more slowly, in terms of sustainability and best odds of continuing good health. I'm not being accusatory in saying this, because it's a common assumption that 2 pounds a week is a great goal for everyone, but most of the successful people here have slowed down below that, at least by the time they got within 25-50 or so pounds of goal.

P.S. As a generality, which doesn't apply to you because you're doing fine at a higher calorie level, sometimes people being very hungry at first, but without the "losing fast" evidence, can have to do with something other than the calorie estimate. Some possible roots of hunger/appetite, but without fast loss, include non-filling food choices, less than ideal nutrition, unpersonalized timing of eating, unpersonalized choice of diet plan, very inadequate sleep, very high stress, among other things - or some combination of those.

P.S. also realize that the first two weeks on a diet you are likely to loose a lot of water, so loss may appear extra-rapid. There are several reasons for this. When your body stores glycogen, water molecules accompany the glycogen. Any diet is likely to deplete glycogen stores, especially low-carb diets. If you are eating healthy or avoiding processed foods, you may find yourself eating less salt. A sudden change to lower salt diet will cause you body to temporarily shift fluid and get rid of water to maintain the same sodium concentration in your blood. This is only temporary - your kidneys will then start keeping more sodium and your fluid balance will return to normal.