BBum69 Member

The scales used by food packagers are far more accurate than kitchen scales, and are calibrated regularly. There are other variables that affect the calorie count, but that requires lab testing to find out and destroys the food in the process. I agree with you, it averages out over time. I go by labels when they are there…

I log everything, but I count by the week, so what happens on any one day doesn't matter very much. Extra calories eaten on Tuesday can be walked off on Thursday, or the other way around. It's so much easier than trying to hit daily targets.

Processing makes food more calorically dense. If you are staying within your calorie goals without feeling hungry then that's not a problem. If you are struggling with hunger, then eating more unprocessed food can help satisfy with fewer calories.

I know.

No, it isn't a glitch, or a resurgence of that.

No, there are certain settings that allow you to have full control of the calorie and macro goals. That is a feature, not a bug. It's just that the overwhelming majority of users here don't know about, or how to use, the advanced settings so they assume that 1200 and 1500 limits of the "training wheels" settings are actual…

Right, if you want to go back to default, just change your activity level to something else, then change it back to active. It should go back to auto calc.

That's on the website, not the app.

Under the "Nutrition Goals" header, tap the "Calorie and Macronutrient Goals" tab. Then tap "Calories".

The program auto calculates to a minimum of 1200 for a female, 1500 for a male, but the low limit for a manual set up is 100. You can change it manually under the "Goals" tab. Or, if you change either the amount that you want to lose per week or the activity level settings, and then change it back, it will recalculate for…

Please read the tenth comment of this thread.

Because someone who boasts about a maintenance of 3000 (and thinks that is pretty active?) acts like we are talking about 130 calories over 20 years. We aren't. We are talking about a difference of 130 calories PER DAY, EVERY DAY, and getting larger. If you would have read any of the posts before you started pecking away,…

And you act like 130 kCal per day is trivial, it isn't. Of course you can monitor your weight and adjust accordingly, that's what pretty much everyone on this site is trying to do. But those adjustments will include accounting for the 130 fewer calories per day spent on metabolism. As far as your personal TDEE being 3000…

Run.

That's 130 kCal PER DAY! Or 47,450 kcal per year, 13.5 pounds of fat.

My apologies, in my previous post I only mentioned the BMR calculation. The "lifestyle" setting would multiply that by 1.2 for sedentary. So 8.2 Kcal for a male, 5.6 for a female.

Yes, sort of. The calculation is 6.8 calories less per day for each year of age for a male, 4.7 less for a female. However, your body won't age one year in two days, so what is working today will probably work next week too.

The dry, low pressure air tends to make people feel more thirsty than they would in a similar situation at ground level, like taking a bus, even for a few hours after the flight. So they drink more water.

Eating that many calories per day is not impossible, in fact, it would be easy to do. It is the conversion of those extra calories to stored fat that would be highly unlikely, and probably not possible for a 215 pound person to do in 10 days. Our bodies are simply not that efficient.

I'm 5'8" and started on 7/30/2017 at 260 pounds, with a goal of 160 pounds by 7/1/2018. This morning I weighed 190.8 pounds, so I think it's an achievable goal. But as they say, the first 10 pounds are easy, the last 10 pounds are impossible.

I'm glad you went there, this is the stuff that makes it worth talking about! I used the original Harris-Benedict equation for BMR, but it really wouldn't matter which one I used because the multiplier that establishes the NEAT portion of the calculation is a separate variable, and is derived from an average of actual…

I agree, but a conversation that includes the differences might be beneficial, if not to us, then maybe to the community. Besides, it's not like the forums are flooded with people wanting to geek out about spreadsheets, sooo... In addition to the daily inputs (3) that help me to meet my "end of this week" goals, I also…

I did the same. It was disappointing enough to find out that the new, cooler looking, scale was going to tell the same lies as the old one. I can't imagine getting a new one that lies by 9 pounds more than the old!

That makes sense. I am using my spreadsheet for weight reduction, and for both tracking and predicting my progress, so it is important that I use it daily.

So you log your data into MFP, then about once a month or so you import the data into your spreadsheet?

If the "healthy" food that you are eating isn't something that you want to snack on, or the "treats" that you eat aren't nutritious, then there is room for improvement.

That is a common misconception here on MFP. NEAT is not BMR plus calories from normal daily activity, it is just the additional calories. So if your BMR is 2000 kcal/day, and you set your lifestyle activity level to sedentary, MFP calculates your TDEE at 2400. Your BMR is still 2000 and your NEAT is 400. If you add…

I keep track of my under/over every day, and a running under/over count for the week.