Body Scan Completed - BMR Question

Options
klsn
klsn Posts: 28 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I had my first body scan today & it calculated my BMR as being 1404. From my understanding this is the amount of calories my body needs if I was to do absolutely nothing all day. In the analysis afterwards the PT told me that I should stick to 1400-1500 calories per day to lose weight. Does this seem right? I thought I would have more calories on top of the 1404. Generally I burn approximately 600 calories each day through exercise (though I’m looking at changing my exercise routine). Can someone please shed some light on this for me?

Replies

  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    What is your age, sex and height?
    How much would you like to lose?
    How are you calculating 600cal burn?
  • maureenkhilde
    maureenkhilde Posts: 850 Member
    Options
    Based on what you state is your BMR next steps would be.
    Harris Benedict Formula
    To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:
    If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
    If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
    If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
    If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
    If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9

    I figured out my BMR and did the calculation and it came out pretty close to what I have been using.
  • maureenkhilde
    maureenkhilde Posts: 850 Member
    Options
    I should have stated that I added it in, then took away what is my daily deficit. And by multiplying that out, I am seeing how I am on average losing 2 lbs per week. I have alot to lose still.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    To be fair, the easiest answer would be to put your stats into MFP and see what it gives you...
  • klsn
    klsn Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    What is your age, sex and height?
    How much would you like to lose?
    How are you calculating 600cal burn?

    Age 46, female, 171cm.

    I only want to lose around 5kg or so, I’m what you’d probably call “skinnyfat”. I’m looking at concentrating on strength training to reach my goals as opposed to mainly cardio which is what I’ve been doing.

    600 calories is measured via HRM on my Garmin.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 519 Member
    edited November 2018
    Options
    FWIW I would never call anyone skinny fat.
    It will prob be a long term change for you which I would imagine to be much more easily managed by trial and error.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    I do think 1400-1500 sounds quite low for 171cm, for the sake of 5kgs going ever so slightly under maintenance or even staying at maintenance with strength training might work better long term
  • klsn
    klsn Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    FWIW I would never call anyone skinny fat.
    It will prob be a long term change for you which I would imagine to be much more easily managed by trial and error.

    Yes, trial & error is what I’ve been doing. Long term change is hard to adjust to. Up til recently I’d been hoping for a quick fix *sigh*
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    klsn wrote: »
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    FWIW I would never call anyone skinny fat.
    It will prob be a long term change for you which I would imagine to be much more easily managed by trial and error.

    Yes, trial & error is what I’ve been doing. Long term change is hard to adjust to. Up til recently I’d been hoping for a quick fix *sigh*

    That’s probably because you’re human :) If you want it to last a lifetime it will prob take more than a few months to achieve.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    While the calculated BMR based on BF% can be potentially more accurate than that based on gender, age, weight, height - it also depends on what formula they are using.

    Some have shown in studies to be rather under-estimated, some are decent. Might as well use it if you can.

    So you can just take the BF% given - and go check your own Katch or Nelson or Cunningham (for RMR) BMR calculation.

    Unless you have just a big difference in BF% compared to average of others same gender, age, weight, height - it's likely to be within 5% of say Mifflin BMR estimate MFP uses.

    Oh, the WHO based formula that MFP uses for activity levels is far better than the Harris levels based on 1919 study which is rather outdated.

    Oh - HR-based calorie burn for the mainly strength training mentioned as workouts - that is not a good estimate.
    600 calories would likely be for 2 hrs for a big guy, a little lady would be no where near that.

    You'll have more accurate estimate using MFP database actually - it's low but that is entirely true.
  • Kdp2015
    Kdp2015 Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    The 600 was tracked using hrm on cardio
  • mitch16
    mitch16 Posts: 2,113 Member
    Options
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    I do think 1400-1500 sounds quite low for 171cm, for the sake of 5kgs going ever so slightly under maintenance or even staying at maintenance with strength training might work better long term

    Not really that low for a BMR for a 46 year old woman... I'm 48, same height, my BMI is on the lower half of the normal range, and online calculators put me at 1350.
  • jmf286
    jmf286 Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    mitch16 wrote: »
    Kdp2015 wrote: »
    I do think 1400-1500 sounds quite low for 171cm, for the sake of 5kgs going ever so slightly under maintenance or even staying at maintenance with strength training might work better long term

    Not really that low for a BMR for a 46 year old woman... I'm 48, same height, my BMI is on the lower half of the normal range, and online calculators put me at 1350.

    I think they meant low for intake , not low for her BMR.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,866 Member
    Options
    klsn wrote: »
    I had my first body scan today & it calculated my BMR as being 1404. From my understanding this is the amount of calories my body needs if I was to do absolutely nothing all day. In the analysis afterwards the PT told me that I should stick to 1400-1500 calories per day to lose weight. Does this seem right? I thought I would have more calories on top of the 1404. Generally I burn approximately 600 calories each day through exercise (though I’m looking at changing my exercise routine). Can someone please shed some light on this for me?

    It doesn't seem right to me. If your goal is to lose 5kg, then targeting a weight loss rate of around 0.25kg per week would be reasonable. That would be a deficit of about 275 calories off your TDEE (BMR + daily life non-exercise activity + exercise burn).

    600 calories from exercise is pretty high; I'm a bit shorter (5'5") and it would take an hour on the rowing machine (at an intensity I can't keep up for a continuous hour despite being moderately fit) to burn that many calories. Devices don't deliver gospel answers (I have a Garmin myself, BTW). You might want to cross-compare with other sources, if you haven't, just to be sure.

    Even so, I think 1400-1500 is too low, since you should be losing slowly for best health outcomes, and when you have a goal of improving body composition. If 1408 and 600 is correct, then something even around 2000ish calories of food daily might be more realistic for an appropriately gradual loss rate. (Cross-check against a standard TDEE calculator or MFP guided profile set-up, recognizing that the TDEE calculators will give you a calorie goal that includes exercise, and MFP will give you one that doesn't.)

    You might get some good tips from this thread:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat
  • klsn
    klsn Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    It doesn't seem right to me. If your goal is to lose 5kg, then targeting a weight loss rate of around 0.25kg per week would be reasonable. That would be a deficit of about 275 calories off your TDEE (BMR + daily life non-exercise activity + exercise burn).

    600 calories from exercise is pretty high; I'm a bit shorter (5'5") and it would take an hour on the rowing machine (at an intensity I can't keep up for a continuous hour despite being moderately fit) to burn that many calories. Devices don't deliver gospel answers (I have a Garmin myself, BTW). You might want to cross-compare with other sources, if you haven't, just to be sure.

    Even so, I think 1400-1500 is too low, since you should be losing slowly for best health outcomes, and when you have a goal of improving body composition. If 1408 and 600 is correct, then something even around 2000ish calories of food daily might be more realistic for an appropriately gradual loss rate. (Cross-check against a standard TDEE calculator or MFP guided profile set-up, recognizing that the TDEE calculators will give you a calorie goal that includes exercise, and MFP will give you one that doesn't.)

    You might get some good tips from this thread:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat

    Thanks for that, you seem to understand where I’m coming from, as I thought around 2000 calories would be appropriate for a slow loss.

    The exercise is spread into two sessions also - 35 mins in the morning & around an hour in the afternoon.

Categories