Eat More 2 Weigh Less

Join

Why are MFP's numbers so far off

fiveohmike
fiveohmike Posts: 1,297 Member
edited December 2024 in Social Groups
Hey guys,

Just wondering why MFP (regardless of having ot eat back exercise calories), is so much lower then TDEE calculators?

Replies

  • SweatpantsRebellion
    SweatpantsRebellion Posts: 754 Member
    I would like to know that myself. What kind of formula does this site use? While I get a bit of inconsistency with the various online calculators, they're all still in a higher range whereas MFP is much lower.
  • fiveohmike
    fiveohmike Posts: 1,297 Member
    I would like to know that myself. What kind of formula does this site use? While I get a bit of inconsistency with the various online calculators, they're all still in a higher range whereas MFP is much lower.

    The one thing I do know, is your daily calorie goal on MFP does not include the exercise calories which you have to eat back.

    However, even with those calories, MFP + Exercise calories still do not come close to TDEE calcs....

    Just curious is all.
  • ladyace2078
    ladyace2078 Posts: 460 Member
    I have wondered too. I know when I was on bedrest and exercise restriction before/after surgery, MFP worked great. I was truly sedentary and I wasn't exercising. As long as I ate all my calories the program recommended I lost the weight at the expected pace it said I would. It was only when I went back to work, was living my normal life, and started an exercise program that it stopped working for me. This was also about the same time that I got close to my goal weight.

    I would really like to have more control over the inputs, rather than have MFP black box tell me to eat a certain number of calories.
  • missdimpley
    missdimpley Posts: 192
    I wonder the same thing.. I mean.. why do doctor, MFP, etc give us 1,200 to start with.. This is CRAZY!
  • HeidiHoMom
    HeidiHoMom Posts: 1,393 Member
    Because 1200 gets you immediate results.

    Because they aren't educated in proper nutrition.
  • gemiwing
    gemiwing Posts: 1,525 Member
    You can actually get pretty close with MFP numbers to the TDEE calcs out there. Change your loss from two pounds to .5 pounds a week, select the RIGHT activity level (most of us goof this up) and then the numbers get close. Having a HRM helps too.

    Using a TDEE calc is one way and works very well to see where we should be when we've been off for so long. I needed to see those numbers presented that way. Once I did- I could tweak MFP to suit it if I wanted to- but it's easier to just go off the TDEE calcs and eat the same everyday. Avoids the trap of 'exercise all the calories away' which doesn't work.
  • Sunbeam0904
    Sunbeam0904 Posts: 53 Member
    Gemi's right - u can use MFP's numbers. They just allow for people with different goals, which is part of what makes the site so great! Like for me - at 215lbs/62"/30 y/o and moderately active, my BMR is 1735 and my TDEE comes out to 2300 at a 15% cut. When I set MFP to lightly active and 0.5lb loss/wk it gives me 1970 cals/day and I then can eat back all my exercise cals which give me an extra ~250-300 cal/day when I workout , depending on the day. So, basically, for me it works out to about the same.

    But I think from what I've heard there's a bigger difference when you weigh less, not sure why. Since I love the feeling of getting more calories for more exercise or for just getting off my butt I kind of lean towards the MFP method. And that way I can eat even more if I workout more. hehe. But being part of EM2WL has made me comfortable with the 0.5/wk goal and has made me understand that it's just a range and really, just an approximation, bc regardless, the scale may take a long time to move, whether MFP tells me 0.5/wk or not. :-)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories