MFP Goals vs. TDEE Estimates

postuff
postuff Posts: 5 Member
edited October 2022 in Health and Weight Loss
Hello everyone. I read the forum religiously, but don't post much. Since the beginning of May I've lost close to 40 lbs. Thought it was time to reduce my weekly loss goal to half a pound. I have around 25 lb more to lose to get to the upper end of "normal." Comparing my new calorie estimate to the sailrabbit TDEE calculator I find it's within one calorie of matching. That seems odd, as my understanding is that MFP does not add extra exercise calories and the other calculators attempt to do so. I know this is all an
estimate, just wondering what gives.
Maybe it has to do with the differences
in daily activity level estimates... Can anybody educate me here a little? 🙂. g1pxr602tabs.jpg
85w1s8nkdes1.jpg

Replies

  • DFW_Tom
    DFW_Tom Posts: 220 Member
    These online estimators are great when you first start weight loss. Any of them will give you a decent starting point that you can adjust as needed to stay close to your goals on the scale. Now that you have lost 40 lbs, you should have a very good baseline from actual results to adjust your macros with.

    Non-Exercise Activities that change from week to week can play havoc with estimates. I've given up on looking at online estimates and base my TDEE on a 6 week average of calories consumed and weight loss/gained. Far from perfect, especially as the blast furnace temperatures of this summer ended and I'm outside and a lot more active some weeks now, but it works well enough for me.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    postuff wrote: »
    Hello everyone. I read the forum religiously, but don't post much. Since the beginning of May I've lost close to 40 lbs. Thought it was time to reduce my weekly loss goal to half a pound. I have around 25 lb more to lose to get to the upper end of "normal." Comparing my new calorie estimate to the sailrabbit TDEE calculator I find it's within one calorie of matching. That seems odd, as my understanding is that MFP does not add extra exercise calories and the other calculators attempt to do so. I know this is all an
    estimate, just wondering what gives.
    Maybe it has to do with the differences
    in daily activity level estimates... Can anybody educate me here a little? 🙂. g1pxr602tabs.jpg
    85w1s8nkdes1.jpg

    What activity level did you select for each calculator?
  • postuff
    postuff Posts: 5 Member
    MFP active / sailrabbit moderately active. The TDEE calculator seems to give a more thorough description. 72iqxab2p467.jpg
    rt7mahjhzard.jpg
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    postuff wrote: »
    MFP active / sailrabbit moderately active. The TDEE calculator seems to give a more thorough description. 72iqxab2p467.jpg
    rt7mahjhzard.jpg

    You're getting a similar number because your selected activity levels are similar. If I do mine, my activity levels are completely different between the two calculators. When I use a TDEE calculator like Sailrabbit I set my activity level to moderately active to account for my regular exercise. When I use MFP it is set to sedentary because I have a desk job and my day to day hum drum is sedentary so my initial calorie target is smaller than with a TDEE calculator...but total calorie target is pretty close to a TDEE calculator once I log exercise on MFP and get additional calories to consume to account for that activity.
  • postuff
    postuff Posts: 5 Member
    I'm trying to understand but that's not making sense to me. I'm on my feet moving and lifting at work approximately 8 hours five days a week; I would call it active but not hard labor, and would say my mfp activity level is set correctly as possible. Are you saying that I should change my activity level in the other calculator to very active 7 days a week to compensate? Again not a big deal, and I do understand that these are just estimates. I'm just curious why the numbers are so close.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    postuff wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand but that's not making sense to me. I'm on my feet moving and lifting at work approximately 8 hours five days a week; I would call it active but not hard labor, and would say my mfp activity level is set correctly as possible. Are you saying that I should change my activity level in the other calculator to very active 7 days a week to compensate? Again not a big deal, and I do understand that these are just estimates. I'm just curious why the numbers are so close.

    If your activity level in both calculators is just your day to day work then the numbers should be very close. The only difference between MFP and a TDEE calculator is where and how exercise is accounted for.

    As to adjusting the activity level, that would depend on what you're including in your activity level. If you exercise regularly but only accounting for your day to day work in your activity level in a TDEE calculator then you are underestimating your total activity because you're not accounting for the exercise portion.

    The methods are really 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. For example, a TDEE calculator gives me around 2800 calories as my TDEE and 2300 to lose 1 Lb per week at moderately active (that includes my day to day as well as exercise). MFP estimates my non-exercise NEAT to be around 2400 calories per day so I get 1900 calories to lose 1 Lb per week...but with MFP my activity level is set to sedentary given my desk job. With exercise though, my average total calorie intake to lose 1 Lb per week with MFP is around 2300 calories after I log my exercise and get additional calories...basically the same total calories a TDEE calculator gives me...just accounting for exercise up front with TDEE and on the back end with MFP.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,261 Member
    postuff wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand but that's not making sense to me. I'm on my feet moving and lifting at work approximately 8 hours five days a week; I would call it active but not hard labor, and would say my mfp activity level is set correctly as possible. Are you saying that I should change my activity level in the other calculator to very active 7 days a week to compensate? Again not a big deal, and I do understand that these are just estimates. I'm just curious why the numbers are so close.

    In both cases, the weight loss calorie goal is calculated as

    Goal = ((estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) x activity-level multiplier) - calorie deficit).

    Base maintenance calories would be the same formula without subtracting deficit.

    You happen to have picked activity levels in each calculator that seem to have a similar activity-level multipliers. In Sailrabbit, it shows you the multiplier value. In MFP, it can be found somewhere in the help documentation, I think. Simplistically, the results are the same because arithmetic. ;):D

    If you do a material amount of intentional exercise, you're presumably choosing an incorrect activity-level descriptor in one or the other. If you don't do a material amount of intentional exercise, you'd expect/want the output estimates of both methods to be similar. I don't know what's right for you.

    IMO, DFW_Tom gave you good advice: Use the calculator estimate as a starting point.

    Use MFP if you plan to log exercise separately and eat more on exercise days (or to spread those calories over multiple days at will, rather than averaging them in across all days). Use a TDEE calculator - Sailrabbit is a good one - if you want to average in intentional exercise and have the same calorie goal every day.

    Follow the starting estimate for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles if that applies). After that, use your calorie intake totals and weight-change totals to do some arithmetic and make your own personalized estimates.

    Worrying about artifacts of the so-called calculators isn't necessary or helpful IMO. Hyper-precision of the starting estimate doesn't much matter, if you take the long view of personalized weight management.

  • postuff
    postuff Posts: 5 Member
    Thanks for your explanations Ann, wolfman and Tom. So if I don't do much exercise out of the daily routine the numbers should be very comparable. I get it... probably should have gotten it from the get-go. Cheers. 🙂

Categories