Hello. I am once again attempting to lose weight. I have concerns

Hi, Jerome -

Since you've been gone, in my understanding MFP has changed to a more recent research-based calorie estimating formula. Most people who've mentioned it have said they get a higher estimate than with the previous formula.

I haven't paid close atttention, because I estimate my calorie needs from my own weight loss history, and don't use MFP's estimates at all. From my limited recall, I was thinking others have reported smaller differences as compared to the 580 difference you mention, but that could be a misimpression on my part.

Are you absolutely certain that your MFP profile data is identical/unchanged from what it used to be? It might be worth double-checking for typos, which are easy to make. (I know you mention key things being identical.)

Last time, how fast did you lose weight when you stuck close to that 1780 for a few weeks? If it was more than a pound a week, half a kilo if you think in kilos, you'd probably still lose on 2360. I usually suggest people believe MFP as a starting point, then test-drive the estimate with reasonable consistency for 4-6 weeks to validate it. However, in your case, if 1780 didn't give you too fast weight loss last time - like more than 1% of current weight per week - and you didn't find it too hard to stick with 1780, you could choose to input 1780 as your goal now, and eat to that level.

The drop in calorie needs purely from being 10 years older usually isn't huge. (Calorie impact of changing lifestyle details over 10 years can be more significant, of course, but that varies individually.) The impact of 10 years older on my starting weight is only about 100 calories per day, according to standard formulas, but I'm sure I'm shorter/smaller than you are. Still, I'd guess the age decline wouldn't be huge.

Best wishes!

Do you log exercise or have a fitness gadget linked? If yes, by any chance is your settings marked the option to add back in the exercise calories now but not before?