BMR - Eating Below It?

phoenixx866

Hello,

I am approximately 270 lbs, 5'2", female, 24 y/o, mostly sedentary. I do dancing and jogging an average of 3 to 4 times a week for 20 - 25 minutes (it's a start). I saw a post recently about how you shouldn't eat below your BMR, or too much below your BMR, as it is unhealthy. I have an enormous amount of weight to lose and was told it is feasible to lose 2 lb/week at my size, but I will need to adjust when I lose weight. OK, no problem.

MFP calculates me at 1,380 calories a day to lose 2 lb/week. Sometimes I eat at 1,500 calories a day.

However, this is almost 1000 calories below my BMR.

MFP calculates my BMR at 2,380 cal/day.

Other websites: 2008, 1928, 1929, 1931, 2010, 2402.

If I eat at my BMR -- say, 1900 -- won't I not be making any progress? Don't you need to eat below your BMR in order to lose any weight?

Could someone please clarify this for me? Should I eat at 1900 or at ~1400?

Thanks.

cwolfman13

MFP and most other calculators are going to calculate your BMR based on your total weight...so if you're over fat then your calculation is going to be inflated. A calculator that utilized your lean mass only in the calculation is going to be more accurate, though still an estimate and you are going to get a much lower number. You don't need to fuel fat, you only need to fuel lean mass.

Most females have a BMR in the neighborhood of 1300 - 1400 calories.

lemurcat12

In addition to what cwolfman13 said, anyone who is largely sedentary will have to eat below BMR to lose even a lb/week, usually, and there's no reason not to--that's a myth. What it's based on that's true is that your deficit shouldn't be too excessive, but 2 lb/week when you have a great deal to lose isn't. I started at 2 lbs/week and eating under my (assumed) BMR and don't regret it at all (I've lost 95 lbs and am now much more active and close to goal, so eat quite a bit above my BMR).