Eat Below BMR Question

Sued0nim

BMR nicely covered in this thread

I would very much doubt that a 156lb female walking 8 miles is going to burn 900 calories, sorry - I'd take 50-75% of that and then judge your weight loss over time

Dannilee2013

rabbitjb wrote: »

BMR nicely covered in this thread

I would very much doubt that a 156lb female walking 8 miles is going to burn 900 calories, sorry - I'd take 50-75% of that and then judge your weight loss over time

But surely that has a lot to do with the speed or walking and the number and incline of hills. I could undertand your comment if I was guestimating but I am using a Miolink HRM and Garmin which is calculating my calories burned based on my personal data i.e age, height and weight.

I do believe it is pretty accurate because it all adds up. For the last two week I have created a deficit of 500 calories per day from food totalling 3,500 per week. And according to my Mio/Garmin I have created a weekly deficit of 4,000 exercise. Which combined indicated I should lose around 2lb each week and in 2 weeks I have lost almost 5lb.

yarwell

A 1 lb/week deficit puts the sedentary majority under BMR without exercise, simple arrithmetic. It's also more than a 20% deficit but I guess that was plucked from the air too.

Sued0nim

Dannilee2013 wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

BMR nicely covered in this thread

I would very much doubt that a 156lb female walking 8 miles is going to burn 900 calories, sorry - I'd take 50-75% of that and then judge your weight loss over time

But surely that has a lot to do with the speed or walking and the number and incline of hills. I could undertand your comment if I was guestimating but I am using a Miolink HRM and Garmin which is calculating my calories burned based on my personal data i.e age, height and weight.

I do believe it is pretty accurate because it all adds up. For the last two week I have created a deficit of 500 calories per day from food totalling 3,500 per week. And according to my Mio/Garmin I have created a weekly deficit of 4,000 exercise. Which combined indicated I should lose around 2lb each week and in 2 weeks I have lost almost 5lb.

HRM is for steady state cardio ... the number and incline of hills and speed of walking across the time ensures that this is not a steady state exercise .. so yes my advice would be to take a proportion of the burn, monitor your weight loss over 6-8 weeks based on your targeted goal (and your food logging being accurate) and adjust the proportion of exercise calories you eat back after that fact

you need to give it time to even out fluctuations ... the majority of people will lose more weight in the first few weeks of any dieting programme due to water weight changes which can account for around 10lbs of initial weight loss

Remember all the calculators and fitness gadgets are all just estimates .. and it's what your body does that counts

I trust my fitbit and HRM burns because over time my body has shown me that I'm taking the right proportions.

Fitbit to monitor step based activity - I take 100% (5 miles at varying speeds across the day would give me about 350-400 calories above sedentary)

HRM for cardio and gym workouts
- I generally take 100% of steady state cardio plus 50-75% of calisthenics and slightly less weights
- what I actually do is knock a couple of hundred off the total on my polar watch which gives me a good enough estimate

Dannilee2013

Well as what I am doing is working for me I will stick with it, if I feel I need to eat more on more intense workout days I will. At least calculating my TDEE, minus 20% has shown me that I should still be able to eat around 200-300 more calories a day if I need to and still lose.

lemurcat12

Dannilee2013 wrote: »

My BMR is 1438 x 1.2 for sedentary = 1725 + 900 (yesterdays exercise) = 2625 - 20% is 2100. So in theory I should be able to eat 2100 and still lose 1lb a week?

In theory, yes, if your exercise was that consistent or if you want to use the MFP method and eat back exercise rather than using TDEE. (I also don't think the count is likely to be accurate. I run 8 miles and don't burn 900 calories, and also to some degree walking is daily activity so is getting double counted. But it does sound like you are getting a good many calories above your sedentary TDEE, which you should take into account, yes.)

However whilst I fully understand the above calculation, it is based on the exercise on a particular day, surely people don't calculate their TDEE like this on a daily basis?

Well, that's kind of how the MFP method where you add in exercise per day and eat it back works. For the traditional TDEE method you average exercise over the week and that way can eat similarly on workout and non workout days.

If your 5 lbs in 2 weeks includes the beginning of the diet I'd give it time and see what your average is over a month. If this is consistent with what you've been doing, I'd definitely eat more. In fact, given your weight and that a 1 lb goal would be great, I'd probably eat more (although probably not the whole 900 calories) when exercising as heavily as you have been--200-300 more would be smart, I think.

ereck44

I have to run a little over 8 miles to burn 900 calories, measured by heart rate monitor. I do try to eat above my bmr (net) which is 1330 calories per day. I doubt that you are burning that many calories....I think that you can get away with eating below bmr net now and then but should not do it for long periods of time...can't recoup all the protein that you need to rebuild muscle and the body with tear apart antibodies to recoup protein.

middlehaitch

TDEE is a calorie spread over a week. This is good for those who do not use a tracking device, and have consistent routines.

Using MFP's method and either entering your individual days activity, or sync ing with the tracking device, will give you an individual daily goal.

The two do not mesh well ( IMHO). So chose the one method that works best for you and stick with it.

Cheers, h.

Kalikel

OLD THREAD.

OLD THREAD.

OLD THREAD.

THE THREAD IS OLD.

middlehaitch

Doh,
Still if people are reading it, it's valid to a point.
Cheers, h.

MKEgal

Dannilee wrote:

Is it considered eating below your BMR if your exercise brings you under BMR but your food intake is above.
For example today I eat 1800 calories and exercised 900 calories (wearing a HRM) which brings my net to 900.
I exercise a lot and it often bring me under my BMR, which I calculated is 1,439

No, because you've eaten above your BMR.
If your BMR is 1439 and you've eaten 1800, you've eaten above your BMR.

Eating a bit below your BMR will not have a bad effect on your health.
Most of 2014 I ate below my BMR, usually by 200-300 cal/day, and my doctors are all very pleased with
my health, in every way (other than that I still need to lose another 30-ish lb to get to a healthy BMI; but since
I'm 80 down from where I started, I'm not complaining).

My dietician & doctor said to ignore "net". They'd never heard of the concept, and that doctor is an endocrinologist
specializing in weight issues.
And for most people, net is worthless. Most people eat more than they think, and burn fewer calories than they think.
Most of the time, those errors offset each other if you don't eat back exercise calories.
Just eat at your healthy goal. Since you're eating 1800 cal, I'm guessing your goal weight is 180 lb.

Christine_72

So if your BMR is 1450 and you've eaten 1650 calories, but burned off 1000 calories, you're still not eating under your BMR?
So BMR means gross calories, not net?

MKEgal

christinev wrote:

if your BMR is 1450 and you've eaten 1650 calories, but burned off 1000 calories, you're still not eating under your BMR?
So BMR means gross calories, not net?

BMR is how much your body burns to stay alive while you're in a coma.
It has nothing to do with gross or net.

If your BMR is 1450 and you eat 1650, you've eaten above your BMR.

If you eat 1650, burn 1450 by being alive, burn 1000 by being active, you've still eaten above your BMR
but you've created a whopping huge calorie deficit.
If you've got fat to burn, that 800 cal will probably come from there (once you go through blood sugar
& stored glycogen).