Why is MFP different?

zsaoosh
zsaoosh Posts: 402 Member
edited November 2024 in Motivation and Support
On every other site I have recently seen it says my needed calories are hundreds less then what MFP is saying. They also say that my calories burned during exercise are way less...am I setting myself up for failure? Is anyone else using other tools out there?

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    This works. If you set your goals accurately.
  • johncaraher
    johncaraher Posts: 44 Member
    Pure speculation on my part... but maybe they assume you'll err on the low side in logging your calories? Whereas this site assumes you are accurate? The numbers I've seen here seem consistent with other sources I've looked at.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    we're special. :wink:

    The calories here are so much lower than what I actually need/use. You could try it for a few weeks and revisit/revise from there. :smile:
  • MaximalLife
    MaximalLife Posts: 2,447 Member
    On every other site I have recently seen it says my needed calories are hundreds less then what MFP is saying. They also say that my calories burned during exercise are way less...am I setting myself up for failure? Is anyone else using other tools out there?
    The MFP calorie burned numbers were just too high for me.
    I needed to tweak them to find my zone.
  • xstealth12x
    xstealth12x Posts: 43 Member
    Hahaha i started this exact topic earlier today, except my experience is that MFP seems to put lower goals than what other calculators come up with. But you are right to be weary of calories burned. Some of the MFP preset calorie goals seem a little bit high. I'd recommend just watching your own numbers (waist, weight, etc.) and if something's working, keep doing it!
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    I'm a little surprised to hear this. I would imagine MFP's calorie target would be lower than most other sites since the exercise calories are added back in later, whereas most or all other sites show the full estimated TDEE.

    Are you sure all the stats and settings are the same in both places?
  • HMonsterX
    HMonsterX Posts: 3,000 Member
    Or just get a HRM to stop the guessing game.
  • slayerdan
    slayerdan Posts: 193
    Sometimes MFP will give me a 1000 calorie burn but the amchine at the gym will log me as a 350 calorie.....I add them and use the average, although from the sports nutritionist I spoke with, MFP was closer.

    In terms of miles, an average of 100 calories a mile is acceptable when running, jogging, cycling. Of course this will be higher if youre heavier, but if you use a lower average to be safe, then your caloric deficit will be greater than you anticipate which will give you an invisible cushion.

    get a HRM.
  • blueretro
    blueretro Posts: 17
    I find the MFP estimate almost matches my Heart rate monitor so no issues for me.
  • Rae6503
    Rae6503 Posts: 6,294 Member
    MFP is too low for me. Tells me 1900 or so for maintenance and really it's 2250.

    Try it and see if it works.

    MFP's exercise burns are a little high, though. I used them for weight lifting but use a heart rate monitor for anything cardio.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories