Myfitnesspal vs OTHERS (Serious Question)
Replies
-
I believe that 1300 is a bit low also but it's not something that I'm interested in adjusting at the moment. My weight loss is going great thus far and I'm losing over 2 lbs per week. Also there hasn't been one day that I've had hunger cravings indicating that it wasn't enough for my body. If or when I plateau I may consider upping the calorie count but until then... I'll continue enjoying my 2+ lbs per week.
How much do you weigh now? I'm not sure you ever said.
Here's my concern and, of course, take my non-scientificy mind for what it's worth....
First, if you eat lower calories long enough, your body gets used to them and you can't really trust it to tell you that you're hungry because it's going to think, "well, he/she's not feeding me anyway. Why waste the energy asking for something he/she's not gonna give me". Also, it's not that healthy to try to lose more than 1% of your weight so 2 lbs would be good if you're 200 lbs.
All I can say is I'm female, almost twice your age, 150 lbs and lose weight just fine on 2000-2500 calories (that's consumed AND with eating all my exercise calories back) a day depending on the day.
I will just never see the need to eat less when you could still lose while eating more.0 -
It depends on what formula the site is using.
Here's an example on Myfitness pal I NET 1400 calories a day. I have it set to moderate activity and then log my exercise....I early roughly 1800 calories a day this way...and I do eat that many.
OTOH If I tell MFP that I exercise everyday it tells me to eat 1800 calories and there's no reason for me to log my exercise. In fact just about every formula on the web gives me between 1800-2000 calories/day if I include my exercise activity.
Denise0 -
No expert here but for a male person of sedentary lifestyle it seems 1300 would be too low and 3300 would be too high. If I were loosing weight too quickly I would be concerned about muscle mass loss and on this web site it cues me that at 1200 cals or less my body may kick into starvation mode. So far, the best thing I have done was to get in touch with a professional team who recommended this web site and help me set goals that fit my needs and whims. Just for comparison sake my goals are higher than yours and I am a sedentary, 50 yo female. Good for you on your awareness level and good luck on your journey. T.0
-
Well, now that *that's* settled, why is a 25 year old guy only eating 1300 calories and that's not even including any exercise calories?
No idea, as the minimum recommended for a male is 1800.
At least MFP has a stop point. One site I went on told me to eat -calories.
I messed about and said I wanted to lose x lbs in 20 weeks and got 1600 cals, then I said I wanted to lose it in 3 weeks and it gave me -534 or something. Many websites are just calculators, they all need a bit of common sense from the user.
Unfortunately if you put unrealistic goals in, you get unrealistic numbers out.
I believe that 1300 is a bit low also but it's not something that I'm interested in adjusting at the moment. My weight loss is going great thus far and I'm losing over 2 lbs per week. Also there hasn't been one day that I've had hunger cravings indicating that it wasn't enough for my body. If or when I plateau I may consider upping the calorie count but until then... I'll continue enjoying my 2+ lbs per week.
That's your preference and I would not try to change your mind.
All I would say is, keep an eye on your lean mass v fat loss.
Go to fat2fitradio and do the military fat calculation. Do it every month, and check your progress.
The problem with having such a large deficit is that you may lose a lot of lean mass, and I'm sure you don't want to end up a smaller squishy version of your current self.
The fat % calc may not be 100% accurate, but as long as you keep using the same calculator you will be able to plot the trend.0 -
I believe that 1300 is a bit low also but it's not something that I'm interested in adjusting at the moment. My weight loss is going great thus far and I'm losing over 2 lbs per week. Also there hasn't been one day that I've had hunger cravings indicating that it wasn't enough for my body. If or when I plateau I may consider upping the calorie count but until then... I'll continue enjoying my 2+ lbs per week.
How much do you weigh now? I'm not sure you ever said.
Here's my concern and, of course, take my non-scientificy mind for what it's worth.... First, if you eat lower calories long enough, your body gets used to them and you can't really trust it to tell you that you're hungry because it's going to think, "well, he/she's not feeding me anyway. Why waste the energy asking for something he/she's not gonna give me". Also, it's not that healthy to try to lose more than 1% of your weight so 2 lbs would be good if you're 200 lbs.
All I can say is I'm female, almost twice your age, 150 lbs and lose weight just fine on 2000-2500 calories (that's consumed AND with eating all my exercise calories back) a day depending on the day.
I will just never see the need to eat less when you could still lose while eating more.
I've never seen the rec to only aim for 1% of your weight per week. I see 'aim for .5-2 lbs/week' everywhere.
That's great you can lose on that range. I'm your age and slightly heavier and my average burn based on Fitbit data is 1990, and that's with making sure I hit 10,000 steps a day. So I would gain on anything over 2000.0 -
I've never seen the rec to only aim for 1% of your weight per week. I see 'aim for .5-2 lbs/week' everywhere.
That's great you can lose on that range. I'm your age and slightly heavier and my average burn based on Fitbit data is 1990, and that's with making sure I hit 10,000 steps a day. So I would gain on anything over 2000.
LOL that's what I brought over from that "yellow banner" site when I used to track my calories and read the forums over there. I've seen the .5-2 lb losses being healthy on here but I think the 1% makes sense since it probably keeps you above your bmr that way. (I know you don't believe in that. Not counting calories on weight watchers and then gaining 30 lbs back after eating what I should have been eating in the first place made a believer out of me.). Truthfully I haven't done the math to see which is better but people will still want the lbs to come off fast no matter how much they have to lose so you have people with only 15 lbs or so wanting to still lose 2 lbs a week and IF that work, it won't be in any healthy way.
I have a fitbit too and go by those numbers but do A LOT of exercise to be able to eat that much since I just plain like to eat. 0 -
Livestrong is crap, I can't believe I paid for it when MFP was here all along!0
-
3500 cals= 1lb of fat. If ur sedentary there is NO WAY you should be eating that much imo.
Ok, I see you did it wrong. I was thinking, wth lol
3500 cals does NOT equal 1 lb of fat. It equals 1 lb and that's very general. I can easily eat 3500 calories or more in a day if I am hiking. You gain/lose by eating more or less than you need. If you eat 3500 calories more than you need, you will gain one pound (generally). If you eat 3500 calories less than you need, you will lose one pound (generally).0 -
Sounds wrong to me. Livestrong is notorious for being very wrong about stuff. I wouldn't trust it.0
-
Okay I have been using the myfitnesspal program for about 2 months and have had great success (30 lbs lost). Tonight while surfing the web I found myself on a popular website similar to MFP that had a calorie calculator. For the sake of not inadvertently promoting another website I will just called this the "YELLOW" website. Well I put in my current weight of 192 and my height (5'8) on the YELLOW website and put that I was sedentary and wanted to lose 2 lbs per week. The Yellow website said that I needed to set a calorie goal of 3350 per day to lose 2 lbs per week. My current calorie goal for losing two pounds per week on my fitness pal is 1300 calories. I have no problem staying below 1300 calories currently, but why the huge difference in opinion? Is the other website just broken or am I missing something?
was the other site in KGs and you entered your weight in lbs, that would make the site think you are 2.2 times heavier than you are. or did you enter gain 2lbs, as that would be 2000 cals higher than to lose 2 lbs.0 -
Just wish that MFP would allow you to save exercises like you save a meal. Also wish that you could share recipes like the other website.
dude, i want a way to condense the foods on here. for example, when I make my morning crepe, i have to go in and plug in each separate ingredient (same for my ezekiel pizzas). it is SOOOO annoying. is there a way to just make it one big food? like add them together? does that make sense?0 -
Livestrong's entire site is filled with problems, glitches, and bad information. They have no credibilty with me whatsoever.0
-
Quote: dude, i want a way to condense the foods on here. for example, when I make my morning crepe, i have to go in and plug in each separate ingredient (same for my ezekiel pizzas). it is SOOOO annoying. is there a way to just make it one big food? like add them together? does that make sense?
Create a recipe and save it 0 -
Just wish that MFP would allow you to save exercises like you save a meal. Also wish that you could share recipes like the other website.
dude, i want a way to condense the foods on here. for example, when I make my morning crepe, i have to go in and plug in each separate ingredient (same for my ezekiel pizzas). it is SOOOO annoying. is there a way to just make it one big food? like add them together? does that make sense?
Save it as a receipe. You can either share with all the good folks on mfp or not.0 -
Yeah I like the articles on there but MFPs community is amazing. Everyone here is really down to earth, chatty, and welcoming. I can't imagine using another program for that reason alone. PLUS the bar scan on my iphone app is so convenient.
What is this bar scan for iPhone and how do I get it?!0 -
I used the "Yellow" site for about eight months. It worked at first for three months and then nothing. I think it works basically the way MFP works, but I'm having much more success over here. For my needs at least, MFP is definitely better. I still go over there for nutrition articles though and think it's a great resource.0
-
I left there because the food logging part was glitchy and it never got fixed!
I would say, tho, that any message board you read on the web is filled with good information and bad information.0 -
Just wish that MFP would allow you to save exercises like you save a meal. Also wish that you could share recipes like the other website.
dude, i want a way to condense the foods on here. for example, when I make my morning crepe, i have to go in and plug in each separate ingredient (same for my ezekiel pizzas). it is SOOOO annoying. is there a way to just make it one big food? like add them together? does that make sense?
Save it as a receipe. You can either share with all the good mfp or not.
Or save it as a meal. I have a few meals saved. Like for breakfast I have a mean that has eggs, toast, bacon, turkey, coffee, juice. I don't always eat all that but i enter the meal then simply click the - for what i didn't eat. Simple simple and I am not sure what you mean by saving exercise as I have 2 exercises saved that I use daily as well.0 -
25 y.o. male, 5'8 & 192 lbs BMR = 1956, TDEE if "very active" (BMR X 1.725) would be 3,374 for maintenance, TDEE if sedentary 2,347 & that's before building in any kind of caloric deficit. So if you're sedentary 1,300 a day would average 2lbs lost per week (I'd die of starvation at that level.....)
Something's not right with that site.0 -
LOL that's what I brought over from that "yellow banner" site when I used to track my calories and read the forums over there. I've seen the .5-2 lb losses being healthy on here but I think the 1% makes sense since it probably keeps you above your bmr that way. (I know you don't believe in that. Not counting calories on weight watchers and then gaining 30 lbs back after eating what I should have been eating in the first place made a believer out of me.). Truthfully I haven't done the math to see which is better but people will still want the lbs to come off fast no matter how much they have to lose so you have people with only 15 lbs or so wanting to still lose 2 lbs a week and IF that work, it won't be in any healthy way.
I have a fitbit too and go by those numbers but do A LOT of exercise to be able to eat that much since I just plain like to eat.
Oh I don't get any info from Livestrong. I agree, that site is full of garbage info. Up to 2 lbs/week is considered standard, and it's not dependent on your size.
I think it's a bit abnormal (but perfectly fine) to do a LOT of exercise in order to eat a lot, so your question on "why wouldn't everyone eat like me" kind of answers itself. I think most people would much rather skip the two hours on the treadmill and the 1000 calories of extra food, all else equal. I know I would.0 -
Restricting your cals to 1300 for a 25 y.o. male, the weight you're losing is probably just as much lean mass as fat, which is not good. But it's your body.0
-
Yeah I like the articles on there but MFPs community is amazing. Everyone here is really down to earth, chatty, and welcoming. I can't imagine using another program for that reason alone. PLUS the bar scan on my iphone app is so convenient.
What is this bar scan for iPhone and how do I get it?!
You just download the "myfitnesspal" app for your iphone. When you go to add food to your diary you'll see an option beside the search box that looks like a bar code. That's what you need to click for the bar code scanner.0 -
Oh I don't get any info from Livestrong. I agree, that site is full of garbage info. Up to 2 lbs/week is considered standard, and it's not dependent on your size.
I think it's a bit abnormal (but perfectly fine) to do a LOT of exercise in order to eat a lot, so your question on "why wouldn't everyone eat like me" kind of answers itself. I think most people would much rather skip the two hours on the treadmill and the 1000 calories of extra food, all else equal. I know I would.
But, that 2 lb maximum *should* be dependent on size. You're talking about netting way lower than you should be just to lose faster. It's nice and motivating to lose faster but I wouldn't say it's healthier. I think it makes sense, as does going down to .5-1 lb a week on here depending on how much more you have to lose It's all a numbers game either way.
Well, no one ever called me normal.
It wasn't really a question but more of a comment about why people wouldn't eat exercise calories back when they're allowed to. Yes, I know...so they lose weight faster. I don't expect people to exercise as much as I do but I mostly just walk for exercise anyway so more calories burnt are also going to take more time.
Also, I don't exercise so much just to eat. Basically, I'm textbook sedentary. If I'm not sitting on my butt at work, I'm sitting on my butt at home. Exercising gets me out of the apt (at least when the weather is nice and it's light out). I never thought I'd say this but I feel better when I can move.
Also, the people saying losing so fast with so little calories have it spot on. The OP should keep his eye on his body fat as well as the number on the scale.0 -
Oh I don't get any info from Livestrong. I agree, that site is full of garbage info. Up to 2 lbs/week is considered standard, and it's not dependent on your size.
I think it's a bit abnormal (but perfectly fine) to do a LOT of exercise in order to eat a lot, so your question on "why wouldn't everyone eat like me" kind of answers itself. I think most people would much rather skip the two hours on the treadmill and the 1000 calories of extra food, all else equal. I know I would.
But, that 2 lb maximum *should* be dependent on size. You're talking about netting way lower than you should be just to lose faster. It's nice and motivating to lose faster but I wouldn't say it's healthier. I think it makes sense, as does going down to .5-1 lb a week on here depending on how much more you have to lose It's all a numbers game either way.
Well, no one ever called me normal.
It wasn't really a question but more of a comment about why people wouldn't eat exercise calories back when they're allowed to. Yes, I know...so they lose weight faster. I don't expect people to exercise as much as I do but I mostly just walk for exercise anyway so more calories burnt are also going to take more time.
Also, I don't exercise so much just to eat. Basically, I'm textbook sedentary. If I'm not sitting on my butt at work, I'm sitting on my butt at home. Exercising gets me out of the apt (at least when the weather is nice and it's light out). I never thought I'd say this but I feel better when I can move.
Also, the people saying losing so fast with so little calories have it spot on. The OP should keep his eye on his body fat as well as the number on the scale.
You are correct and the 1-2lb range is dependent on size.
There is a safe range because there is a range of sizes.
Someone at the heavier end of the scale can lose at the top end of the range, but smaller people should be at the smaller end of the range.
2lb loss is achievable and healthy for a 200lb person, but it isn't so achievable or healthy for a 120lb person. The main reason is that the deficit required to achieve such loss is too large and the calorie intake would not provide enough nutrition.
The 1% you mentioned is perfect, as it takes into account the size of the person.0 -
What provides enough nutrition is the 1200 calories. Your BMR and activity don't burn nutrition. Calories is a unit of energy. Nutrition is a whole other thing.0
-
What provides enough nutrition is the 1200 calories. Your BMR and activity don't burn nutrition. Calories is a unit of energy. Nutrition is a whole other thing.
Deducting 1000 would probably put them under 1200.
Not enough nutrition.
That's why the smaller person should not aim for 2lb, they should be deducting 250-500.0 -
Or upping their activity to increase their deficit to the 1000 rec. max. 0
-
Or upping their activity to increase their deficit to the 1000 rec. max.
I agree you'd expect that to work, as the maths says they've got a 1000 deficit, but for some reason it doesn't always seem to work.
Even the experts get stumped by it.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html0 -
Calories = a unit of energy, right?
So if you eat 1200 calories you may be ok nutritionwise but if you eat 1200 calories and burn an extra 500, probably not so much.The 1% you mentioned is perfect, as it takes into account the size of the person.
Thanks for that. I'm really the only person I've ever seen on here touting that piece of advice.0 -
Calories = a unit of energy, right?
So if you eat 1200 calories you may be ok nutritionwise but if you eat 1200 calories and burn an extra 500, probably not so much.The 1% you mentioned is perfect, as it takes into account the size of the person.
Thanks for that. I'm really the only person I've ever seen on here touting that piece of advice.
You aren't alone.
Last time the question was asked on here regarding the maximum healthy loss, one of out resident trainer/nutrition experts replied with the 1%.
I think it was Ninerbuff, but it was a while ago.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions