Is the amount of Calories in this app correct ?

MFP's estimate is crazy-low for me . . . like 25-30% low, which is a discrepancy of several hundred calories.

Any calculator - including MFP's - or even fitness tracker is just giving a person an estimate based on averages for similar people, but we're each individuals who may vary from average. Most people will be close - that's the nature of a statistical average - but a few can be surprisingly far off, high or low. We find out where we fall by believing a research-based source like MFP, following it as closely as practical for 4-6 weeks (at least one full menstrual cycle for those who have those), then comparing actual results to intended results.

If a person needs to personalize their calorie goal after that experiment, they can just type it into the goals part of MFP by hand.

Faster weight loss isn't necessarily better weight loss, because fast lost increases health risks, can can be hard to stick with long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight.

As I said, I'm a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, so unusual, but if I ate 1750 gross calories daily, I'd loose around a pound a week . . . at 69 years old, female, 5'5", 130 pounds this morning. If you're younger, heavier, taller, more active, etc., 1750 could be fast loss, no way I could even guess without knowing more about you. It's not crazy on the surface of it, certainly.

The fairly common idea that all women need to eat like tiny delicate little birds, always less than 1200 calories for everyone . . . that's pure myth, and can be unhealthy for some.

No, not really. Only average around 5 thousand steps, get maybe 300 +/- exercise calories on exercise days. Garmin sees me as burning 1600-1700-some calories on average over recent years. I've been eating 1850 + exercise, more sometimes, and staying within a few pounds range, same jeans size, for 9+ years . . . and I don't overestimate food calories "just in case". It's mysterious, but I'm not going to ask a lot of questions. 😉😆 I have some theories.

I found the app’s calorie goals a bit off for me too, so I used Coach UK to get a better estimate based on my actual activity level. It gave me numbers that felt more realistic than just picking “active” or “sedentary” at setup. I just used that as a guide and then adjusted based on how my body responded over a couple of weeks.

I'm not sure how a person knows the calories are off for them without a 4-6 week or full menstrual cycle trial, or why a basic 5-activity-level TDEE calculator would be dramatically more reliable than MFP's built-in 4-level one?

I hope the OP of this thread understands that most outside calculators, including the one linked, are TDEE calculators (intended to include exercise calories), where MFP is estimating BMR+NEAT (calorie burn excluding intentional exercise). MFP intends exercise calories to be logged/eaten when exercise actually occurs.

It's not that either method - TDEE or BMR+NEAT with separately-logged exercise - is wrong, or that MFP totally can't be used as if it were a TDEE calculator . . . but the results will tend to be somewhat different between the two, which can be confusing for new folks.

Under the covers, most of these so-called calculators use one of the same small handful of research-based estimating formulas, but just use a very slightly different set of multipliers to estimate activity level. If people want double-checks, I prefer this site below, because it lets a person compare multiple different research-based formulas, shows the formulas explicitly, and has more and better-described activity levels than most.

https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

It's all estimates, anyway. Honestly, I don't think matters which estimate is used as a starting point, since they all tend to be pretty close to one another for most people, differing by less than most calorie deficit numbers. It's that 4-6 weeks/one cycle trial that let a person personalize the estimate. The trial provides very useful insight.