I am a fairly small person who needs to lose 10 pounds and under the new system it tells me that would take close to a year -no thank you.  I certainly like the additional calories per day but just through my own experimenting have found that I would GAIN weight consuming the additional 650 calories per day.  I for one like the old system better and am glad I found this site before this change was made otherwise I would be very discouraged right now.  Thank you however, for always trying to update and provide the latest information

Someone might want to double check the new equations... according to the burn meter tool, I now burn the same whether I set myself to sedentary or light.

The new equations are telling me I have to eat 1260 less calories a day  to burn 1.5lbs a week while I am currently losing 2 lbs a week at 1500 calories.  This is versus the 1660 cals the old equation gave me. 

I agree with "notlosing" and that had I just found this website and used that equation, I would be very discouraged as well.  Thanks for trying to get us updated information though.

I'm rather discouraged by the amount of exercise required to Achieve moderately active! 20+ hours per week??? At 19 hours with an hour of moderate exercise and an hour of vigorous, too--  still lightly active...??!!

To Achieve Moderately active with 19 hours of brisk walking, I had to add 10 more hours of moderate activities to Achieve only Moderately Active...??!!

I Believe the newer equation is more accurate-- but the answers are coming out crazy!

I use this calulator... it makes sense to me...

http://www.phord.com/cc/

To get more info from it, find the bmi it figures for you the first time you try it, then repeat with that bmi as a pretty good guess for most of us... you'll find it expands your understanding...

Original Post by: 2beittybitty

I use this calulator... it makes sense to me...

http://www.phord.com/cc/

To get more info from it, find the bmi it figures for you the first time you try it, then repeat with that bmi as a pretty good guess for most of us... you'll find it expands your understanding...

And just to point out - the calculator that 2beittybitty posted also uses the Mifflin equation, and tells me that I burn significantly more than CC is now telling me.  I've double checked it with several other websites, and CC is remarkably off compared to all of them.

The Mifflin equation might be more accurate than the Harris Benedict equation, but there is something wrong with the activity multipliers CC is now using.

I put in a target date of 9/30/09 and it keeps telling me I should reach my wieght on 12/31/69???  WTF???

The new formula was closer for me than others.  I like that I customize the activity area, since the old descriptions put me somewhere in between. However, I have found the following formula more effecit for determining how many calories to eat each day. First, I made a list of my common daily, activities and their calories per minute (time consuming put worth it). Then, I add those calories i use in a day to 1250. Then subtract 500-700 calories.  Once I got this formula, and started feeling good-happy about myself (I think that may be the win-win factor for my weight loss), I've been loosing steadily. I can do the same thing on a day I'm feeling crappy and when I'm feeling great, no change in activity or food but I loose weight the day I'm happy and don't or gain days I'm feeling blue. My husband has a more complicated formula for himself, which works for him. The best thing about this website is that it provides individuals information so we can experiment, adjust and find what works best for him/her. The thing about formulas, is that they are only thories, which are never applicable to EVERYONE. There is no one size fits all for the human body.

Original Post by: amethystgirl

Someone might want to double check the new equations... according to the burn meter tool, I now burn the same whether I set myself to sedentary or light.

Me too. It also tells me what I need to do to reach my goal by December 31, 1969 (instead of 2009, which I entered). And it cuts my calorie target by almost 200 per day, when I've been losing 1.9 lbs/wk under the old target.

Something tells me this tool was not ready for prime time.

Wow, yes...this can't be right!  I"m a competitive tennis player, and now I'm only supposed to eat 1300 calories a day?  That would have me gnawing my arm off by lunch!

Also, CC won't seem to let me change my activity level from light to moderate...keeps 'defaulting' back to light???

I think the activity levels have changed.  It appears that running seven hours per week and lifting weights/briskly walking/etc an additional 14 hours per week only makes you "moderately active".

If I use the number generated using "moderately active," I'm told to eat 1866 calories per day to maintain my weight.  That's maybe 100 calories more than what I was eating to lose.

I haven't been counting calories much since I hit my goal weight, but I know I lose a bit if I eat less than 2200, and I don't seem to be gaining eating 2300-2400.  To reach that level, I have to say I'm "exceptionally active."

Cycling to and from work, 3 hours swimming and 2 hours waterpolo a week plus 4hrs running, 2hrs cross trainer, weights and general cycling= 1350 calories a day. Thats almost 2000kcals a day deficit. I'll collapse if i try to keep going on that!! Plus i'd hardly call it moderately active...

I agree something is amiss w the formula.  How can I need 1200/day lose whether I'm sedentary, lightly or moderately active?  Plus my doc advised me that I should be eating 1600 for my lifestyle to lose the weight I want.  I was hoping the new calculator would be more accurate but not. 

Since I don't adhere to the calculator (I love the posts and other aspects of site) it really won't affect me, but so many to use that as a guide and it's going really throw people off...in a bad way. 

Hope it gets fixed soon

{{{Laughing!}}}

Me, either, lol!!!

Wow! Littletippytoes!!!

Hi Everybody,

Thanks for the feedback!  Keep those comments coming.  We are addressing the problem now.

Mary

Glad to hear it, Mary.

I posted this in the forums, but just to make sure it gets addressed too (or get it explained)...

I just saw that they have ways to calculate your activity level - now this has always been a source of confusion, and so I'm glad that there is an attempt to better define what those activity levels mean.

But according to the tool to figure it out, if I spend 7 hours a week (so an hour a day) of Moderate Activity, I'm still only lightly active? Even when I add an additional 7 hr/week of light activity, I'm still lightly active.

I'd also question that weight lifting is counted as equivalent to cooking, and less strenuous than "leisure biking".

Me, too--Amethystgirl!

The groups are using unequal items... Weight lifting for real-- not the common light weights-- is more... My other calculator defines activities more clearly to me...

Even a light activity--if you briskly walk 19 hours a week!-- should count as more than light activity...  

Thanks for Notifying us, Mary!!!

I'm not too excited about the new formula.  When I'm "sedentary", it allows me to have 1264 calories a day.  However, when I'm "lightly active", it allows me to have 1259 calories a day.  How is that?  I think I may miss the old system!

Okay, I'm a mathematical person.  The calculator does not add up to what is calculated. Remember: Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally

i.e. 40yr old, 230lb (not me) 5'2"

10x104.3 + 6.25x157.48 - 5x40 - 161

1043 + 984.25 - 200 - 161 = 1666.25

I'm not sure what they are doing to calculate, but it's not following the mathematical rules.  Stick to what is working for you without starving yourself.

Biggest loser said that it takes 100 cal to maintain 10lbs.  For example, to maintain 230lb body, you need to eat an average of 2300.  Also, in my research, in order to lose 1-2 lbs a week, you need to eat 500 calories less.  This coincided with the sites original calculations.  Hmmm.

atamim - the formula is for BMR, which is what you burn just being alive (in a coma, essentially), and is not what you would need to maintain. So a 230lb person would have a BMR of 1666, but would actually burn more in a day, even if they were sedentary - closer to 2000, and more if they are active.

The tool provides what a person would burn after incorporating the activity multiplier. However, a glitch is making the calculations for sedentary and light the same.

Just to be clear, the calorie burn tool does not, nor has it ever, provided a calculation of BMR. The most recent switch has changed the formula for BMR (from Harris Benedict to Mifflin) but as far as I can tell, the problem lies in the activity multipliers, not the BMR equation (and from my reading, I think that Mifflin is the more appropriate equation, over H-B)

dont like new system at all...I was losing weight following old system just fine, now the new system has me eating about 500 less calories.  dont' make sense

I've posted in the forum already, but I guess this is where it needs to be said.  On CC, my burn is listed at 1620 at lightly active.  When using the phord calculator (which uses the Mifflin calculation) at more than lightly active (which is where I fall being conservative) it says I burn 1952/day.  When I list myself at moderately active on CC I'm still coming in at 1820????  Moderately active using the phord calculator (again, using the same equation CC says they have switched to) it says I burn over 2100 cal/day.  This is a HUGE discrepancy.  I mostly use this site to monitor my daily intake/burn.  So, who's right?  

Also, on the phord calculator using the mifflin caluclations there are more than four activity mutlipliers.  There's sedentary, lightly active, a little more than lightly active, moderately active and very active.  I workout 5 to 6 days a week, but I listed myself in between moderately and light which I think is probably more accurate. Why does CC only have four multipliers when using the same equation?

Wow! I'm definitely surprised!  :(  I burn 170 less calories per day with this new formula.  Those calories really can add up.

I sure do hope this isn't correct, because I lost weight and have been maintaining just fine using the old calculations and now feel like I won't be able to trust this one.  It has me burning less - it's significant enough for me - from one day to the next I'm burning 100 or more calories less? 

Do remember CC's not accurate for under 21's, so if you are under 21, work it out using this calculator or another designed for those your age!: http://www.bcm.edu/cnrc/bodycomp/bmiz2.html

Man this new equation has me depressed. Apparently I CAN NOT handle the truth. Lmao. :P

*cries.

I understand why they changed the formula, based on this article, but they're probably just having problems implimenting it:

Comparison of Predictive Equations for Resting Metabolic Rate in Healthy Nonobese and Obese Adults: A Systematic Review

Oh yeah, this is going to KILL the smaller people. Ugh. Certainly the old numbers couldn't have been that bad. I lost 50 some odd pounds using them! Blah....ah like I said I can't handle the truth. Ha Ha.

Why the sudden change, CC?

No where in this information is it mentioned that the hypothyroid person's results can be different. 

It is very difficult for a hypothyroid person to lose weight therefore these formulas could cause such a person to become very discouraged. 

I am such a person.  I have been on a strict 1500 calories a day diet since December, 2008 with rigorous exercise 6 days a week.  To date I have lost 12 pounds, that is 2.67 pounds per month.  This kind of result certainly throws your formulas out the window.

I'm not sure about the new calculators.  The burn rate is exactly the same for "sedentary" and "light"-1500.  My recommended calorie intake is 1200.  At that rate it will take almost 2 weeks to lose one pound and forever to reach my goal.  Is it working correctly?? If so, it's slightly depressing...

Other calculators put me around 1600 daily and recommend eating 1100 which is what I have been doing (very short, small boned).  

*i know i will lose faster with exercise (i am at 3x per week) but it looks like i'll have to do it every day, not the easiest for me*

Wow, it's finally accurate for me!  Every calorie estimate I've ever used has always told me I burn 1850-1900 cal/day (w/ light activity, before exercise), but my inability to lose weight led me to track everything obsessively to try and find the problem.  When I calculates how much I lost vs. how much I ate over several months, it turned out my burn rate is only 1530 cal/day.  So no wonder every calculation that suggests I eat 1600 cal/ day to lose weight doesn't work at all! 

I just put my info into the new system and it estimates my burn rate at 1520cal/day.  That is shockingly close to what I've found is true for me.  It is a blow to see that I really need to keep my calories at 1200/dat (which as you know, is a challenge), but it's way less frustrating to have the data back up my experience so I don't think that my metabolism is totally broken or something. 

Although I am very happy to see the revised explinations on how you assess your activity (I had some relation issues with describing light activity as 'gardening' and things like that - I'm a girl who works in an office tied to a desk during the day and hits the gym heavily at night and have never in my life considered 'gardening' a workout or even an option for my lifestyle, LOL).  Basically, I thought the previous explinations were geared more towards housewives and newcomers to working out.  Kudos for the more generous explinations CC.

Here's the issue.  As with several of the above quotes, I too am questioning the activity levels that are coming back.  With my workouts I would definately considerate myself 'moderate', but can't seem to come up with anything more than 'light' on the new scale......Hmmmm....seems suspicious :)

Ooooh, hooray.  Thanks Calorie Count.  As a 5'10" 19 year old female, you have generously offered me 1310 calories a day, even though I rollerblade an hour or more a day; among other things.  This is really annoying because before I was eating 1000 calories or less and NOT LOSING/gaining; so then I was told I would have to eat MUCH MORE to lose. This just seems like a recipe for disaster; with more calories I finally feel alive/energetic and can't imagine dropping that low again.  My metabolism would hate me...even more.

I am 5'4", 46 years old. I weigh in between 113-114. I had started running and dropped down to 110.  I wouldn't mind getting back to 110, but the extra might be muscle because my measurements are smaller than they had been.  When I put my activity at sedentary it tells me I should eat 1400 cal to maintain; when I put it to "light" it tells me I should eat 1400 to maintain.  That's crazy!  And I'm not so sure my activity is "light", as I push myself hard with the run.  I run between 30 -45 minutes and jog 30 minutes 5 days a week.  I also do 25 min of stretching every day and have begun cross-training on my rest-days with a bike.  Eating 1400 when I am burning all the calories and eating 1400 when I'm sick and laying in bed all day doesn't make sense!  I hope this problem gets fixed as I really do like to rely on CC's assessment as a guide! 

I just don't think this new formula is right. I have only 2lbs to go to my goal weight and I've been losing just fine on my calories of 1950 per day and the new formula has cut me down per day by 400 calories. And as for the activity level. I think it's much easier to log each day. I put in about 9 hours a week at the gym, but different stuff each day. The new categories are not very comprehensive and the system keeps throwing me back to light activity every time I select moderate!!

Original Post by: harmonpl

amethystgirl mine does the same thing. I don't think this is accurate. How can I possibly need to eat only 1300 calories on days that I do absolutely nothing vs. the days that I work out extremely hard for almost 2 hours? I think I'll stick to the old way thank you.

Hmmm... weird...it is online for us now, right, because my burn meter says I burn more daily now.  It is giving me an additional 100 calories per day.  Am I supposed to work it out by myself then?

I used the new calorie counter system and I thought it was reasonably accurate with what I have heard from other sources along with my personal trainer.

At 5'6'' with a goal to lose about 10 lbs. The counter suggested that I consume daily about 1200 calories, which was my current goal that I set for myself. It additionally said that with this calorie intake that I would lose about 1 lb a week which is within the healthy range.

Many people really do over exaggerate the physical activities during the week. I try to swim 2-3 times a week for a hour along with jogging 3-4 miles 2-3 times a week, and have a job where a walk and move items often, but I am still classified by the system as lightly active. I think this is about right. If I ran more, or did extensive weight training or laborious swimming maybe then I would be pissed. But for a healthy amount of exercise and a realistic goal. I think this new formula works great.

Everyone needs to truly evaluate and be honest with themselves about what they eat, what foods are going to be worth the calories and what exercise routine is going to work for them. This isn't Biggest Loser - its life and you must accommodate losing weight into living a normal, healthy life and that takes time, patience, and accountability.

I agree with most people here, something´s not quite right with this numbers. In my case, it says I should have 1600 calories, and yet I've been losing consistently on 1800. My old number was much higher, about 2150. Even then I thought it was low, I can mantain at around 2300.

Doesn't make sense to me,....I also would have to add tons of time exercising just to achieve moderate. This formula does not make sense to me.

kelsey, I think that you do not give yourself enough credit. With all that activity, I would condider you moderately, to highly active at least. Also, 1200 calories is VERY low. I am just a quarter of an inch shorter than you and loose weight on anything less than 1500 at a sedentary (0 exercise apart from walking to from car, to classes, as neccesary, etc).  You could likely eat a lot more!! Just make sure you are eating healthy stuff.

So now I figured it out manually and see that I should eat 800 fewer calories daily???  It really doesn't seem correct--I have been losing very well--3-4 pounds a week with 1000 calorie deficit and some aerobic activity by eating 2250 calories, and it wants to say my BMR is 2315. HRm.....

I don't understand what happened to the thread on this topic that was in the weight loss forum?

I just joined and frankly I am veru dissapointed.

Hi Everybody,

Based on your generous input, we can see there are problems with our new way of determining calorie output.  The issue has to do with the way we treated calories burned in activity, not the calories for for basal metabolic requirements.  And so, around 4:00 pm today (5/14/2009), we returned to our old way (i.e. from yesterday and before) of determining the calories burned in activity.  Hopefully, your calorie requirements will make more sense.  What a relief!  I will publish a blog tomorrow morning to explain more.  Thank you for bearing with us.  We will continue to work on ways to make our assessments as accurate as they can be.  

Mary and the Calorie Count Team

Thanks, Mary!!!