Oh Noes! I am eating below my BMR
Replies
-
Excellent post! As always, there's so much reason in this group!
I've been wondering though, how can you judge whether a diet is too low calorie / weight loss is too fast? I know it depends on number of variables, especially starting weight & body fat percentage, but are there any rules that can help you draw the line?
A broad rule of thumb can be found here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
I am actually leaning more towards % of total weight being a better gauge however recently so I may update it for that. For % of body weigh - a high level guide would be the equivalent that represents a loss of 1% of body weight unless pretty lean or significantly overweight (when they would be more like 0.5% and 1.5%, respectively).
I suppose that's per week, right? It sounds reasonable.
I'm asking this mainly because I'm puzzled with someone on my FL who's doing a very aggressive diet (losing ~2kg/week for ~4months now) but is morbidly obese (initial BMI ~55) so any intuition I'd have is useless. With the 1.5% of total weight you suggest that actually translates to ~2kg per week, so maybe that diet is reasonable in this case... Interesting.
Yes, per week.
And when we are looking at people who are morbidly obese, then a high loss is fine, and often preferable for health and motivation reasons. The example you gave is actually one of the reasons I prefer the % of body weight as it kind of auto-regulates that aspect.0 -
Excellent post! As always, there's so much reason in this group!
I've been wondering though, how can you judge whether a diet is too low calorie / weight loss is too fast? I know it depends on number of variables, especially starting weight & body fat percentage, but are there any rules that can help you draw the line?
A broad rule of thumb can be found here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
I am actually leaning more towards % of total weight being a better gauge however recently so I may update it for that. For % of body weigh - a high level guide would be the equivalent that represents a loss of 1% of body weight unless pretty lean or significantly overweight (when they would be more like 0.5% and 1.5%, respectively).
I suppose that's per week, right? It sounds reasonable.
I'm asking this mainly because I'm puzzled with someone on my FL who's doing a very aggressive diet (losing ~2kg/week for ~4months now) but is morbidly obese (initial BMI ~55) so any intuition I'd have is useless. With the 1.5% of total weight you suggest that actually translates to ~2kg per week, so maybe that diet is reasonable in this case... Interesting.
Yes, per week.
And when we are looking at people who are morbidly obese, then a high loss is fine, and often preferable for health and motivation reasons. The example you gave is actually one of the reasons I prefer the % of body weight as it kind of auto-regulates that aspect.
That makes sense, thank you Sara. One last question (sorry for hijacking this thread): in such cases in which a high loss rate is preferable, isn't there an issue regarding vitamin & other micronutrient deficiency, especially since this rate will probably last for months? Is it preferable anyway despite this issue or do deficiencies take longer to develop / can be mitigated with multivitamin supplements? I suppose ideally such a diet should be supervised by a doctor/nutritionist so that it is as nutritionally dense as possible.
ETA: OK, I lied, that wasn't my last question. I promise this is: is there any metabolic effect in such cases?0 -
Excellent post! As always, there's so much reason in this group!
I've been wondering though, how can you judge whether a diet is too low calorie / weight loss is too fast? I know it depends on number of variables, especially starting weight & body fat percentage, but are there any rules that can help you draw the line?
A broad rule of thumb can be found here:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
I am actually leaning more towards % of total weight being a better gauge however recently so I may update it for that. For % of body weigh - a high level guide would be the equivalent that represents a loss of 1% of body weight unless pretty lean or significantly overweight (when they would be more like 0.5% and 1.5%, respectively).
I suppose that's per week, right? It sounds reasonable.
I'm asking this mainly because I'm puzzled with someone on my FL who's doing a very aggressive diet (losing ~2kg/week for ~4months now) but is morbidly obese (initial BMI ~55) so any intuition I'd have is useless. With the 1.5% of total weight you suggest that actually translates to ~2kg per week, so maybe that diet is reasonable in this case... Interesting.
Yes, per week.
And when we are looking at people who are morbidly obese, then a high loss is fine, and often preferable for health and motivation reasons. The example you gave is actually one of the reasons I prefer the % of body weight as it kind of auto-regulates that aspect.
That makes sense, thank you Sara. One last question (sorry for hijacking this thread): in such cases in which a high loss rate is preferable, isn't there an issue regarding vitamin & other micronutrient deficiency, especially since this rate will probably last for months? Is it preferable anyway despite this issue or do deficiencies take longer to develop / can be mitigated with multivitamin supplements? I suppose ideally such a diet should be supervised by a doctor/nutritionist so that it is as nutritionally dense as possible.
ETA: OK, I lied, that wasn't my last question. I promise this is: is there any metabolic effect in such cases?
As I noted in the post, that is a risk. This risk can be mitigated to a degree by a mutli vitamin, which is advisable for anyone dieting in any event. However, someone who is morbidly obese can have a large deficit and still have enough calories to meet their nutrient requirements as their TDEE will be much higher than a leaner persons.
I want to make it clear - we are not saying a VLCD is recommended. That is up to the person and their doctor. All I am getting at is that a larger deficit is not as problematic the larger you are. You do not run the other risks that a leaner person does.
,
Re the metabolic effect. There is no hard and fast answer to that as there are too many variables, however, the more body fat the person has, the lesser the risk of having a metabolic effect, or at least I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise.0 -
As I noted in the post, that is a risk. This risk can be mitigated to a degree by a mutli vitamin, which is advisable for anyone dieting in any event. However, someone who is morbidly obese can have a large deficit and still have enough calories to meet their nutrient requirements as their TDEE will be much higher than a leaner persons.
I want to make it clear - we are not saying a VLCD is recommended. That is up to the person and their doctor. All I am getting at is that a larger deficit is not as problematic the larger you are. You do not run the other risks that a leaner person does.
,
Re the metabolic effect. There is no hard and fast answer to that as there are too many variables, however, the more body fat the person has, the lesser the risk of having a metabolic effect, or at least I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise.
Thanks again, that's clear & it makes sense. Just so that it's clear what I had in my mind, 2kg/week loss means a daily deficit of 2000kcal. For the example I mentioned earlier, a middle aged woman with a mostly sedentary lifestyle, that translates into ~1000-1200kcal as a daily goal. Not a VLCD but quite close.0 -
Thanks for taking the time to explain this - bumping for trying to understand later. :-D0
-
Bump to read again... Thanks.0
-
Thanks for this one, Sara! This is my problem exactly! It helps to know that what I'm doing may not be all that bad for me. :happy:0
-
Now that this thread has been resurrected, I have a question!
Are there any BMR methods that are accruate? I had an RMR done a few years ago - I was hooked up to some sort of breathing aparatus for about 40 min. The result showed my RMR was 1411 cals. Should I be using that as a base calculation?0 -
Now that this thread has been resurrected, I have a question!
Are there any BMR methods that are accruate? I had an RMR done a few years ago - I was hooked up to some sort of breathing aparatus for about 40 min. The result showed my RMR was 1411 cals. Should I be using that as a base calculation?
The test is as accurate as you can get. The issue is...what do you do with it? You need to estimate your activity level to get your TDEE. I would always use actual results to base intake off. Knowing your actual TDEE is useful however to rule out issues when having a challenging time losing weight or to use as a way to estimate appropriate initial intake levels if you do not have enough logging history.0 -
Now that this thread has been resurrected, I have a question!
Are there any BMR methods that are accruate? I had an RMR done a few years ago - I was hooked up to some sort of breathing aparatus for about 40 min. The result showed my RMR was 1411 cals. Should I be using that as a base calculation?
The test is as accurate as you can get. The issue is...what do you do with it? You need to estimate your activity level to get your TDEE. I would always use actual results to base intake off. Knowing your actual TDEE is useful however to rule out issues when having a challenging time losing weight or to use as a way to estimate appropriate initial intake levels if you do not have enough logging history.
Here's my situation - I have MFP set to 1/2 lb week loss which allows me 1450 cals a day plus exercise cals. I'm currently doing NROL4W M-W-F and light cardio T-TH - average burns based on HRM are about 350. Average daily burns on my fitbit are about 1800 (14 months of history- linked to MFP) so I'd consider that my TDEE. I seem to be maintaining on this program.
If I take 20% off my TDEE I only get 1440 cals a day which is basically my RMR. I'm not opposed to eating that low but my concern is fueling my workouts - using the TDEE method that doesn't seem to work.
Is it possible my metabolism has changed that much in two years? It was classified as average at the time. I only started lifting in November - prior to that I would do 40-45 min cardio 4 days week (30DS, stationary bike, running) always eating back my exercise calories. Pretty sedentary other than that.
I guess I'm just not sure what a healthy calorie range for me to eat is. MY BF% is 30 and I do aim for 30% protein every day - weekly averages I'm bang on.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Now that this thread has been resurrected, I have a question!
Are there any BMR methods that are accruate? I had an RMR done a few years ago - I was hooked up to some sort of breathing aparatus for about 40 min. The result showed my RMR was 1411 cals. Should I be using that as a base calculation?
The test is as accurate as you can get. The issue is...what do you do with it? You need to estimate your activity level to get your TDEE. I would always use actual results to base intake off. Knowing your actual TDEE is useful however to rule out issues when having a challenging time losing weight or to use as a way to estimate appropriate initial intake levels if you do not have enough logging history.
Here's my situation - I have MFP set to 1/2 lb week loss which allows me 1450 cals a day plus exercise cals. I'm currently doing NROL4W M-W-F and light cardio T-TH - average burns based on HRM are about 350. Average daily burns on my fitbit are about 1800 (14 months of history- linked to MFP) so I'd consider that my TDEE. I seem to be maintaining on this program.
If I take 20% off my TDEE I only get 1440 cals a day which is basically my RMR. I'm not opposed to eating that low but my concern is fueling my workouts - using the TDEE method that doesn't seem to work.
Is it possible my metabolism has changed that much in two years? It was classified as average at the time. I only started lifting in November - prior to that I would do 40-45 min cardio 4 days week (30DS, stationary bike, running) always eating back my exercise calories. Pretty sedentary other than that.
I guess I'm just not sure what a healthy calorie range for me to eat is. MY BF% is 30 and I do aim for 30% protein every day - weekly averages I'm bang on.
How accurately are you tracking your intake? Are you using a digital scale to weigh everything where possible. Are you logging everything?. Estimation errors can wipe out someone's deficit relatively easily.
Your metabolism will change somewhat due to dieting, but the significant impact is from being at a lower weight - our BMR decreases as we lose weight just due to having less mass to sustain.0 -
How accurately are you tracking your intake? Are you using a digital scale to weigh everything where possible. Are you logging everything?. Estimation errors can wipe out someone's deficit relatively easily.
I do use a scale and measure everything. Everything is logged as well.0 -
How accurately are you tracking your intake? Are you using a digital scale to weigh everything where possible. Are you logging everything?. Estimation errors can wipe out someone's deficit relatively easily.
I do use a scale and measure everything. Everything is logged as well.
What are your stats and your activity level if you don't mind posting them.0 -
I'm 5'7" - 48 years old - this mornings weight was 157. I hover anywhere between 153 & that. My lowest MFP weight was 149.8 last April. RMR done in 2012 was 1411.
As posted above: Here's my situation - I have MFP set to 1/2 lb week loss which allows me 1450 cals a day plus exercise cals. I'm currently doing NROL4W M-W-F and light cardio T-TH - average burns based on HRM are about 350. Average daily burns on my fitbit are about 1800 (14 months of history- linked to MFP) so I'd consider that my TDEE. I seem to be maintaining on this program.
I tried the eat more philosophy the summer of 2012 and put 9 lbs on doing so. That's when I went back to the MFP basics and got down to my low. Now it no longer seems to be working.
I truly believe as an 'aging' woman (cuz I'm certainly not old yet:laugh: ) hormones are playing a huge part. I just haven't figured out how to make them work for me instead of against me.0 -
Bump. Just because ...0
-
I'm 5'7" - 48 years old - this mornings weight was 157. I hover anywhere between 153 & that. My lowest MFP weight was 149.8 last April. RMR done in 2012 was 1411.
As posted above: Here's my situation - I have MFP set to 1/2 lb week loss which allows me 1450 cals a day plus exercise cals. I'm currently doing NROL4W M-W-F and light cardio T-TH - average burns based on HRM are about 350. Average daily burns on my fitbit are about 1800 (14 months of history- linked to MFP) so I'd consider that my TDEE. I seem to be maintaining on this program.
I tried the eat more philosophy the summer of 2012 and put 9 lbs on doing so. That's when I went back to the MFP basics and got down to my low. Now it no longer seems to be working.
I truly believe as an 'aging' woman (cuz I'm certainly not old yet:laugh: ) hormones are playing a huge part. I just haven't figured out how to make them work for me instead of against me.
Sorry - I just saw this.
If you would like help with your intake, can you start a new thread and answer the questions from here in it:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/910257-the-new-and-improved-asking-questions-about-your-intake
Thanks and again, sorry for overlooking this.0 -
I'm with you....but I read every word. Trying to make my brain understand! LOL!tagging to read later. This sounds sciency and confusing
0 -
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post!
I have been a member of this group for a few months now, but I am just getting around to reading the pinned topics.
This explains some of the issues I have been having. About a year ago, I stumbled upon using my results versus my intake to set my goals, and I am finally seeing results again. Slow results.
I also think that the MFP calorie goal "floor" of 1200 can be a problem when we start dealing with lower body weights.
Here is what I mean:
The mifflin st joer calculator seems to sync best with my results. At my current weight (129 lbs and 46 years old. 5'2") it gives me 1410 calories per day for sedentary maintenance. (Now, I exercise regularly, both cardio and strength, but for the purpose of comparison, I will use sedentary, since that is most similar to the MFP method of logging and eating back calories).
So, 1410-250=1160 for a NET goal. So, no surprise that I was having a hard time losing at NET 1200.
And when I was down to 112 lbs and first started re gaining, I was perplexed as to why NET 1200 was not working. Well, at 112 lbs using the same deficit of 250, I would have to NET 1067 to lose. And throw in a few inaccuracies in logging either food or exercise, and it is no surprise that I have struggled!
Now, as to why mifflin st joer seems to be working for me, but not katch, with bodyfat estimate, I am not sure. My bf is around 25-26% (calipers). And I am not a victim of VLCDs. I lost eating around 1300 calories, slowly over a year. So who knows.
So currently, I am setting my NET goal at 1175 and carefully logging. Usually end up eating around 1350. And trying to retain/gain muscle as much as possible. When I get back to 115-120, I hope to maintain between 1500 and 1600.
Anyway, so comforting to read that I am not abnormal.
Can't wait to read more of your posts.0
