Is Mfp Correct In Its Calculation In How Many Calories You Need To Maintain?

[Jenny12 361]

Hi Vets! Having a little difficult time in maintaining. What a problem to have, right? Ha. Anyway, I am very curious if My Fitness Pal is correct in calculating how many calories you need to maintain. It allows you to add the type of work you do as well as your activity level. Instead of making my own numbers today for nutrition, I let it decide for me and it says a little over 1500 calories to maintain. I'm not eating this much ever. Maybe 1100-1200. I am 5'2" and 118 lbs. I was ok to maintain at 120 but have dipped down to 118. Nothing to be too concerned about, just trying to balance this out. So please let me know if MFP is correct with its numbers for you? And if not, what is the difference? Thank you!!!

[gamergirl 4,609]

not a vet but MFP lies like a dog. I'd be wasting away to nothing if it was correct!

I do know that there's a lot of research to suggest that those of us who have dieted and lost weight have a slower metabolism than those who have never had to lose weight, sometimes up to 40% lower.

Me, I'd raise 100 calories a week and see where you start to gain weight, and work out your maintenance level that way, by looking at net calories.

[Butterthebean 8,146]

No it's not correct. It has been documented that persons who were once overweight but lost need less calories to maintain than someone of the same weight who was never overweight. MFP doesn't account for that. Not to mention, we're all different. Our bodies do not all work the same way.

If you want to know exactly, you can have your resting metabolic rate tested and you will get the exact RMR number.

[Jenny12 361]

Is that expensive? I was only overweight for about 4 years, so I wonder how much damage was actually done to my metabolism.

[NtvTxn 1,262]

Hi Vets! Having a little difficult time in maintaining. What a problem to have, right? Ha. Anyway, I am very curious if My Fitness Pal is correct in calculating how many calories you need to maintain. It allows you to add the type of work you do as well as your activity level. Instead of making my own numbers today for nutrition, I let it decide for me and it says a little over 1500 calories to maintain. I'm not eating this much ever. Maybe 1100-1200. I am 5'2" and 118 lbs. I was ok to maintain at 120 but have dipped down to 118. Nothing to be too concerned about, just trying to balance this out. So please let me know if MFP is correct with its numbers for you? And if not, what is the difference? Thank you!!!

It is not correct, it tells me I should have 1500'ish, (slightly over) and at 1500 calories per day, I'd gain. I need LESS than 1300 really....more like 1225 - 1250 to maintain. I manually enter my caloric and Protein numbers. MFP is not taking into consideration we are WLS patients. I've been maintaining successfully for 3 years, you'll get the hang of it!!!!

[NMJG 1,266]

I agree with the other posters, it's not accurate and everyone is different. It's a great tool for logging your food and Water and exercise, but forget about all the other phooey it serves up, and don't bother with that "net calories" deal, either, IMHO.

[swizzly 901]

MFP tells me about 1500, but I eat usually 1800-2000 to maintain, 1500 to lose (slowly, very slowly LOL).

[M2G 1,836]

Is that expensive? I was only overweight for about 4 years, so I wonder how much damage was actually done to my metabolism.

I paid a fitness sports guru $35 to do mine. He was working with my surgeon at the time and it was a few years ago when I was about 14 months post-op. He had a big fancy scale that you stepped on barefoot and had handles that you grabbed onto with bare hands. It sent a bio-impedance through my body and spit out a sheet of paper with information in regards to my weight, muscle mass, my Water mass, etc. It also calculated the amount of muscle I had in each arm, each leg, and my torso. It calculated my RMR to be at about 1,450 calories which I personally have found to be quite true. Anything much more than that for me = gain.

As far as your metabolism, well, I can't answer that one for you. I will say that having WLS does *something* to us from a metabolic standpoint, but the science behind it, well, I'm not even sure that the "experts" can pinpoint exactly what changes. But I do know that I signed up for WLS with the idea that I would be eating LESS food for the rest of my life, so I can't really expect to eat a lot and NOT gain weight.

I think it's probably worth finding someone who can give you an accurate reading. There are lots of places (AND LOTS OF WAYS) to calculate your RMR, but the short answer is that MFP, Livestrong, CC, SparkPeople, etc DO NOT factor in whether or not you've had WLS.

[LindaS 316]

MFP is not accurate in what I should be eating nor is it accurate when it predicts what I will weigh in 5 weeks.

It wants me to eat much more than I can eat in order to maintain. It thinks I will lose much more than I will actually lose.

I use MFP to help me track my Protein intake. My goal for that is 70 a day. I also use it to record exercise and Water intake. I like that I can check the amount of calories, carbs and sugar in something I plan to eat because it helps me make great decisions.

I am very leary, however, about the amount of calories ingested and the amount of calories burned. I think there is too much wiggle room for these to be accurate enough for me to ever consider eating my exercise calories. I feel this way about any calorie counting and not just that at MFP.

If the calorie amount is printed on something, the actual calories can be 10 percent higher or lower and still be within range, according to labeling laws in the U.S.

The predictions for how much calories are being burned by exercise often depends on effort as well as size of the person, and effort is just too unpredictable. It allows for too much variance.

I used MFP every day for almost two years, and I am again back to using it daily. It is a great tool, but it doesn't know everything.