Oh Noes! I am eating below my BMR
Options
Replies
-
Where did the BMR hysteria start from, I wonder... Was someone trying to sell something?
There is a problem with people thinking that you have to eat below your BMR to lose weight, which may just be acronym overdose and confusion between TDEE and BMR. While I agree absolutely that the numbers are all approximations, people do risk their health by eating too little, I guess because they feel more weight lost is better than less.
Would you consider putting this on the main boards?0 -
Brava!
Belongs in the pinned post section, for sure.1 -
To be "headless torsos," E.T.P mods seem to have plenty going on upstairs! Thanks for the awesome post and the continuation of free sound advice!1
-
I've chosen two groups to join here on MFP, E.T.P. and C25k, pretty sure I've found all I will likely ever need!0
-
Where did the BMR hysteria start from, I wonder... Was someone trying to sell something?
There is a problem with people thinking that you have to eat below your BMR to lose weight, which may just be acronym overdose and confusion between TDEE and BMR. While I agree absolutely that the numbers are all approximations, people do risk their health by eating too little, I guess because they feel more weight lost is better than less.
Would you consider putting this on the main boards?
I see that mix up between BMR and TDEE all the time here.
This is not really a post about appropriate deficits as there are so many factors to consider. We do address it at a high level in the setting calories and macros thread (and have addressed it in a thread started by a member on here). While I am happy to have this thread linked but to be perfectly honest we do not have the time or the energy to put up with the general derpiness on the main forums.0 -
bump for later.0
-
Excellent post - happy 15,000! And looking great too!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?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).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.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.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
