BMR vs. TDEE

Tiff1124

Hello. I am hoping you can help me. So I went and calculated my TDEE and BMR and here were my results... TDEE 2289
BMR 1555

My question is, to lose weight I have to eat at a deficit of 1000 cals to lose 2 lbs a week. But that would put my cals at 1298, which is below my BMR. This is all so confusing! Could you help figure this out? I'd like to lose 50 lbs by August for a trip.

momo_t90

I have the same problem. If I try to lose 2 lbs a week that puts me under my BMR. Wish I had a solution for you.

seska422

2 pounds per week is a safe goal for people who start out with a lot to lose. The closer you are to your ideal weight, the less you can safely lose per week.

The recommendation that I've seen is TDEE - 20% so that would put you at about 1830 calories per day for your calorie goal. That's about a pound per week.

Tiff1124

Hopefully someone will come and help us both then

Mycophilia

Your BMR isn't some magical limit that's harmful to cross. Whatever energy your body needs to survive that it isn't getting from calorie intake it will take from fat stores, that's what they're for.

Tiff1124

Well I have about 50 lbs to lose, for me that is a lot

1800?? I can barely get in the 1492 calories that I have set now! This is getting to be too much work lol

Tiff1124

Mycophilia wrote: »

Your BMR isn't some magical limit that's harmful to cross. Whatever energy your body needs to survive that it isn't getting from calorie intake it will take from fat stores, that's what they're for.

Oh. Because I've always heard that you should never go under your bmr because that is the amount of calories you need just to function

TK6299

I did not look at any BMR or TDEE. I locked on to 1200 cal a day and stuck to it. Now that that I have reached my goal, I raised my cal intake to work on building muscle. I wish I could help with a good answer, but I cant. I can encourage you to keep at it and know that you have a ton of people here who support you!!!!

Tiff1124

Thank you! That's why I am here

middlehaitch

If you have 50 lbs to lose 1 lbs a week would be ideal, 1.5lbs pushing it.
If you are just starting and do not have an established exercise routine, use the MFP goal and eat back 50-75% of your exercise calories, adjusting after a month if you are under or over shooting your goal( MFP overestimates).

Cheers, h.

Mavrick_RN

Tiff1124 wrote: »

Mycophilia wrote: »

Your BMR isn't some magical limit that's harmful to cross. Whatever energy your body needs to survive that it isn't getting from calorie intake it will take from fat stores, that's what they're for.

Oh. Because I've always heard that you should never go under your bmr because that is the amount of calories you need just to function

You're right, BMR is a theoretical number that is the best guess of how many calories your body would need to survive if you were in a coma. If you do not ingest that number of calories your body will take it from the calories you already have on board, your fat stores. If you have no fat, your body will metabolize muscle.

cityruss

Dangerous? not if you're consuming the required amout of nutrients.

Boring and painfully little to eat leaving very ltitle fuel for purposeful exercise? Yes.

Eat more. Fuel exercise properly. Enjoy a healthy relationship with food. Take it slowly.

Orphia

Mycophilia wrote: »

Your BMR isn't some magical limit that's harmful to cross. Whatever energy your body needs to survive that it isn't getting from calorie intake it will take from fat stores, that's what they're for.

True.

But undereating can often lead to hangryness and a compulsion to play catch-up and then giving up or gaining it all back before you attain your goal.

CassidyScaglione

I'm happier eating above my BMR than below it, if that helps.... At least i'm not dragging my tail around starving all day.

sjohnson__1

A lot of the advice in this thread is good advice.

OP, if I could add, I'd recommend the slow approach to weight loss. I understand the idea behind wanting to meet your goal quicker - don't we all? - but bear with me as I attempt to explain the logic behind a slower approach...

As you probably are aware, your TDEE will begin to drop the further along you are in your deficit, but it will drop in proportion to the size of your deficit. That is to say, the slower/more conservative the deficit, the less of an effect it will have on your metabolism and TDEE. You might say, "but I don't care about the effect it has on my TDEE right now"... but you will eventually.

Let's say you do lose around 2lbs a week for the first 15 or so weeks, eventually that drop in TDEE will slow down the weight loss if calories and activity level all remain the same and if you don't adjust you're weight loss will plateau. This means at some point you will have two options in order to keep loosing weight at the rate you'd like to lose: (1) increase your activity level (cardio much?) or,(2) DECREASE YOUR CALORIES (or both!)... Neither of which will be something you're going to want to do at that point, as you will likely be very hungry and/or very lethargic. It is because of this metabolic adaptation that I always recommend the slower route in a prolonged caloric deficit. You'll have more calories to play with when your weight loss starts to plateau, and you'll have more energy to ramp up the calorie burn side of the equation if you so choose.

Hope that helps!

Francl27

2 pounds a week is way too aggressive for a lot of people.

LivingtheLeanDream

tk6299 wrote: »

I did not look at any BMR or TDEE. I locked on to 1200 cal a day and stuck to it. Now that that I have reached my goal, I raised my cal intake to work on building muscle. I wish I could help with a good answer, but I cant. I can encourage you to keep at it and know that you have a ton of people here who support you!!!!

Wow for a guy I'm not sure how you managed on 1200 a day.... you could have lost a lot of muscle along with the fat because of a huge deficit (although in your profile pic you look awesome).

OP 1- 1.5lbs a week would mean your deficit wasn't as large - slower loss means less loss of muscle along with the fat.

queenliz99

sjohnson__1 wrote: »

A lot of the advice in this thread is good advice.

OP, if I could add, I'd recommend the slow approach to weight loss. I understand the idea behind wanting to meet your goal quicker - don't we all? - but bear with me as I attempt to explain the logic behind a slower approach...

As you probably are aware, your TDEE will begin to drop the further along you are in your deficit, but it will drop in proportion to the size of your deficit. That is to say, the slower/more conservative the deficit, the less of an effect it will have on your metabolism and TDEE. You might say, "but I don't care about the effect it has on my TDEE right now"... but you will eventually.

Let's say you do lose around 2lbs a week for the first 15 or so weeks, eventually that drop in TDEE will slow down the weight loss if calories and activity level all remain the same and if you don't adjust you're weight loss will plateau. This means at some point you will have two options in order to keep loosing weight at the rate you'd like to lose: (1) increase your activity level (cardio much?) or,(2) DECREASE YOUR CALORIES (or both!)... Neither of which will be something you're going to want to do at that point, as you will likely be very hungry and/or very lethargic. It is because of this metabolic adaptation that I always recommend the slower route in a prolonged caloric deficit. You'll have more calories to play with when your weight loss starts to plateau, and you'll have more energy to ramp up the calorie burn side of the equation if you so choose.

Hope that helps!

Nailed it!!

MommyL2015

If I set mine to 2lbs a week, it would still put me at 1200, which in reality is about .2 to .3 pounds a week. So for me to be able to lose 2lbs per week, I basically have to net 500 cals a day or less, which isn't going to happen. Sometimes, you just have to do what you can do. I couldn't even set mine for that much when I started. While it's not going to kill you to under eat your BMR once in a while, doing so several times a week until you reach your goal weight is not a good idea at all.

StaciMarie1974

Eating under BMR does not matter. The question is can you be satisfied and fulfill your nutritional needs at 1300 cals a day? Maybe, maybe not. That is why with less weight to lose, aiming for 2 pounds per week may not be realistic.

Tiff1124 wrote: »

Hello. I am hoping you can help me. So I went and calculated my TDEE and BMR and here were my results... TDEE 2289
BMR 1555

My question is, to lose weight I have to eat at a deficit of 1000 cals to lose 2 lbs a week. But that would put my cals at 1298, which is below my BMR. This is all so confusing! Could you help figure this out? I'd like to lose 50 lbs by August for a trip.

activeinmysixties

queenliz99 wrote: »

sjohnson__1 wrote: »

A lot of the advice in this thread is good advice.

OP, if I could add, I'd recommend the slow approach to weight loss. I understand the idea behind wanting to meet your goal quicker - don't we all? - but bear with me as I attempt to explain the logic behind a slower approach...

As you probably are aware, your TDEE will begin to drop the further along you are in your deficit, but it will drop in proportion to the size of your deficit. That is to say, the slower/more conservative the deficit, the less of an effect it will have on your metabolism and TDEE. You might say, "but I don't care about the effect it has on my TDEE right now"... but you will eventually.

Let's say you do lose around 2lbs a week for the first 15 or so weeks, eventually that drop in TDEE will slow down the weight loss if calories and activity level all remain the same and if you don't adjust you're weight loss will plateau. This means at some point you will have two options in order to keep loosing weight at the rate you'd like to lose: (1) increase your activity level (cardio much?) or,(2) DECREASE YOUR CALORIES (or both!)... Neither of which will be something you're going to want to do at that point, as you will likely be very hungry and/or very lethargic. It is because of this metabolic adaptation that I always recommend the slower route in a prolonged caloric deficit. You'll have more calories to play with when your weight loss starts to plateau, and you'll have more energy to ramp up the calorie burn side of the equation if you so choose.

Hope that helps!

Nailed it!!

Well said!!!

leahcollett1

ive just had to lower my rate - i have 28lbs to lose, and 1.5lbs was just too agressive for me - i do body combat 4 times a week, so now im set to lose 1lb a week

mwood1234

Play around with this calculator. I love it. Dont give up! You can do this!

https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/

martiniconqueso

I am going to join the dogpile of folks encouraging you to take it slowly. One pound/week is a perfectly admirable goal, and more than likely will be easier to sustain. Try to be in it for the long haul. If you slavishly hit your target every day for 8 months and lose the weight, then declare victory, you will find that victory pretty short-lived.

chrissymfred

mwood1234 wrote: »

Play around with this calculator. I love it. Dont give up! You can do this!

https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/

Thank you! I was looking for something like this to track my exercise.

Tiff1124

Thank you all for the great advice! I am going to stick with 1 to 1.5 a week. I think that is a much easier and more realistic goal, plus I have 8 months to get there I've been seeing a lot of 1500 meal plans that look fairly easy to prepare and will not have me craving burgers and fries by the end of the night.

Tiff1124

mwood1234 wrote: »

Play around with this calculator. I love it. Dont give up! You can do this!

https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/

I love this app! Thanks for sharing it

https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/