Is it okay to eat below my BMR?

kimberlyhurt

I've been tweaking my calorie goal off and on for a while now. It was 1600 for a while 1450 after that and now it's 1200. But my weight loss isn't keeping up the way I thought it would. I actually GAINED a little weight. My workouts have been more or less the same. And I wonder, as crazy as it sounds, am I not eating ENOUGH? My bmr (calculated by scooby's workshop) is 1705. (tdee is 1982). I feel like if I eat that much I'll gain ten lbs faster than you can say yeah, I'll have some more grilled chicken.

Thoughts? Should I eat more? Or keep on trucking? I honestly don't understand the science behind eating more to lose...

yarwell

Eating less than your estimated BMR isn't an issue, it's a mathematical inevitability if you're sedentary and looking to lose 1 lb/week.

No science behind eating more to lose unless there's an undisclosed "and exercise even more than that".

sjp_511

There is a group on here called 'Eat More 2 Weigh Less'. They have some pinned posts on this topic and some very active members that will give you great advice if you post this same question over there.

I think the recommendation is to slowly up calories to the calculated maintenance level, then eat at that for several weeks before going to a reasonable cut.

hesn92

I am sedentary and I have to eat below my bmr to lose 1 lb a week. My bmr is around 1500 and mfp gave me a goal of around 1400. I did that for a while and lost weight just as promised. I upped my calories to 1500 though, just because I wanted to. I like to eat. And I'm still losing, just not as quickly.

kimberlyhurt

Thanks guys, this is really helpful. I'm trying to figure out the best way to do this. It's good to hear what other people are doing.

RockstarWilson

If you are sedentary, you are closest as possible to your bmr, as per the Harris-Benedict equation. Since the bmr is what your body uses just to function, as if you were to, say, sleep for 8 hours and sit still and awake for 16 hours, to lose weight on a sedentary schedule more than likely take you below your bmr, as a sedentary lifestyle only uses 1.2 times more calories than at basal metabolic rate. On the other hand, if you were very active, eating below your bmr might cause some deficiencies.

kimberlyhurt

I'm not sedentary at all really. I teach, so I walk around for most of the day then hit the gym for an hour at least 3 times a week. (more like 4 or 5 most weeks) I wanted to know if the fact that I was eating about 500 below my bmr (not counting the exercise) was slowing my weight loss. I feel like I lost more when I ate more. But that doesn't make much sense....

RockstarWilson

kimberlyhurt wrote: »

I'm not sedentary at all really. I teach, so I walk around for most of the day then hit the gym for an hour at least 3 times a week. (more like 4 or 5 most weeks) I wanted to know if the fact that I was eating about 500 below my bmr (not counting the exercise) was slowing my weight loss. I feel like I lost more when I ate more. But that doesn't make much sense....

That is because your body is a smart cookie, and fully optimizable. I am no expert, so maybe someone can chime in, but the bmr will go down if food intake is drastically reduced from what it normally is. The body will find a more efficient way to operate since it is getting less food. If you are highly active, you are probably burning 1.8 times your bmr, or there thereabouts. So, if the body is trained to receive less food, I think it finds out a more efficient way to operate, whereby preserving energy, and thus preserving weight.

jillmarie125

are you weighing everything? do you log everything you eat/drink?

yarwell

BMR may well go down a bit when you restrict calorie intake, but seldom by more than a small candy bar's worth.