Why do some people say eat at your BMR to lose weight??

Sparkle097

Let’s says your BMR is 1350 so they would say eat 1350 to lose weight? Is this effective?

lin_be

I think it’s just a lazy way to find out the lowest you can go in your deficit.

deannalfisher

BMR is the minimal amount of calories your body burns in a day that DOES NOT take into account any movement, exercise etc...technically yes, you could eat BMR and lose weight - but i for one would be hangry and it wouldn't be good

TavistockToad

Sparkle097 wrote: »

Let’s says your BMR is 1350 so they would say eat 1350 to lose weight? Is this effective?

because your BMR will definitely be a deficit?

who are these people? i have never heard that be said?

Maxematics

Because some people are gluttons for punishment and assume that if you don't lose 2+ pounds every week that losing weight "doesn't work". I'm not trying to lose weight anymore, but my BMR is 1274 and my TDEE is 2000 to 2300. Whenever I enter a cutting phase again, there's no chance I'm only eating 1274 calories during the process.

jlynnm70

I pretty much do eat my BMR - and I don't starve....but my BMR is 1338 per the calculators - and I seem to eat between 1200-1500 (depending on eating back exercise calories) anyway... - BMR is what you burn sitting in bed watching TV all day (or in a coma).....so any movement at all and eating at BMR puts you at a deficit. It's a lazy way of doing it - but it would work. The more you move the more you can eat....

MikePTY

It's a thing you could do, but the deficit it would create would vary widely per person depending on their activity level and may not be enough for their energy needs. If a person is sedentary with no exercise, eating their BMR would create a reasonable weight loss deficit. But if a person is active with a lot of exercise, eating at their BMR would create too big a deficit that wouldn't be very sustainable. So I think that without taking other factors into account, it's not a very good plan.

kimny72

Sparkle097 wrote: »

Let’s says your BMR is 1350 so they would say eat 1350 to lose weight? Is this effective?

Some people say all sorts of things Depending on how active you are, your BMR could be an okay calorie goal or it could be a catastrophe.

Have you started logging yet, or are you still reading random stuff on the internet trying to figure out what to do? I did that for awhile back in the day, it's a great method of procrastination. It didn't make my weight loss any easier though once I finally got started, just delayed the inevitable.

apullum

People who have been on MFP long enough to know something about healthy and sustainable weight loss generally don't say that. I'm not sure who the "people" are that you're listening to, but I would recommend not taking weight loss advice from them. If someone is even lightly active, eating at BMR may be too few calories for them.

Just eat the number of calories MFP recommends for you. You don't even have to know what your BMR is.

cwolfman13

Sparkle097 wrote: »

Let’s says your BMR is 1350 so they would say eat 1350 to lose weight? Is this effective?

Of course...your BMR is the calories you expend merely existing. That said, it could end up being an overly aggressive deficit.

For example, my BMR is somewhere around 1800 calories...my maintenance calories are 2800 - 3000 depending on activity. If I ate my BMR I'd have a deficit of anywhere between 1,000 - 1,200 calories which would be pretty stinkin' aggressive for where I'm at.

The only way I would personally consider it would be if I was not doing any regular exercise and otherwise was pretty sedentary with a desk job. Active job and regular exercise, no way.

Tacklewasher

I wonder if a sedentary person could eat their BMR + exercise calories. That would give them a deficit of ~20% (depending on the calculation).

Not recommending it, just thinking out loud.


Hmmm.

My BMR calcs out at 1960. So if I'm sedentary I should have a NEAT around 2350. Be a deficit of ~400 cals.

Not really unreasonable for me. Until I hit the gym or go for a run. Of course it would be too much of a deficit if I had a more physical job or when I'm more active outside of exercise.

lalalacroix

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

angelsja

lalalacroix wrote: »

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

I was just about to say similar my BMR is around 1600 mfp puts me below that to lose weight so what gives?

AnnPT77

lalalacroix wrote: »

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

IMO, there's nothing magical about BMR as a hard line one should never, ever go below. It's just another estimate, after all (unless one's been tested in a lab by valid methods).

I'd consider it more a point of skepticism: Unless they're very inactive, someone eating below their BMR is fairly likely to have chosen a too-fast weight loss rate for best health and sustainability.

The calorie level MFP "puts us at" is based on how fast we say we want to lose weight. Sometimes people make less than sensible choices, and sometimes MFP doesn't stop them.

angelsja

AnnPT77 wrote: »

lalalacroix wrote: »

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

IMO, there's nothing magical about BMR as a hard line one should never, ever go below. It's just another estimate, after all (unless one's been tested in a lab by valid methods).

I'd consider it more a point of skepticism: Unless they're very inactive, someone eating below their BMR is fairly likely to have chosen a too-fast weight loss rate for best health and sustainability.

The calorie level MFP "puts us at" is based on how fast we say we want to lose weight. Sometimes people make less than sensible choices, and sometimes MFP doesn't stop them.

Even at 1lb a week loss mfp puts me below BMR and I still have 42lbs to go

kimny72

lalalacroix wrote: »

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

MFP allows you to choose as high as 2 lbs per week, whether that's a good decision or not. For someone very short or already lean trying to get leaner, a 2 lb goal could put them under BMR. MFP just takes your NEAT and subtracts whatever calories you need to get the right deficit, and then abides by the 1200/1500 minimum. It's just a generic math equation. It also relies on you choosing an accurate activity level. If someone very lean chooses sedentary and 2 lbs per week, they will get a number that is probably too low. If they then decide not to eat back exercise calories, that would make it even worse.

In other words, MFP relies on the user to make informed decisions

janejellyroll

lalalacroix wrote: »

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

It isn't automatically unhealthy to eat below your BMI. Some people who aren't very active may have to do that in order to lose weight.

It's unhealthy to eat below your BMR if it creates a deficit that is unnecessarily large. This is going to be the case for many, but not all, people.

deannalfisher

the BMR calculations are also based on best estimates based on different formulas - there are always going to be people outside the standard deviations that those formula's cover

AnnPT77

angelsja wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

lalalacroix wrote: »

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

IMO, there's nothing magical about BMR as a hard line one should never, ever go below. It's just another estimate, after all (unless one's been tested in a lab by valid methods).

I'd consider it more a point of skepticism: Unless they're very inactive, someone eating below their BMR is fairly likely to have chosen a too-fast weight loss rate for best health and sustainability.

The calorie level MFP "puts us at" is based on how fast we say we want to lose weight. Sometimes people make less than sensible choices, and sometimes MFP doesn't stop them.

Even at 1lb a week loss mfp puts me below BMR and I still have 42lbs to go

Then, if you're actually losing no more than that (approximately, on average), being careful to get good nutrition, and being attentive for any worrisome signs of weakness or fatigue but feeling none, you're probably fine eating below your BMR, health-wise. It happens. Not the commonest case, though.

jasonpoihegatama

Your BMR calories is the calories you need just to stay alive to feed your heart / brain / lungs / healthy teeth and hair so on the amount of calories you need if you were just laying in bed!!! Then you have extra calories when your active this includes when you walking / working / exercise / playing

cwolfman13

lalalacroix wrote: »

I guess that really depends on the person and their activity.

My BMR is about 1550 so I don't eat below that even though MFP puts me below that to just lose a pound a week. So I guess I actually do what you are asking. It isn't out of laziness as others have suggested. I'm not even sure why it would be considered lazy.

I actually find this all a bit confusing. We shouldn't eat below BMR because it's unhealthy - I get that. But MFP puts some of us below BMR to lose weight. Why? Does MFP not think it unhealthy to eat under BMR?

MFP doesn't "think" anything...it's just a calculator making calculations based on your inputs as to stats, activity level, and desired rate of loss...and you also have to remember that BMR is just another estimate and most people use the body weight formula which gives them a higher BMR...using BF% formula gives a lower BMR value because you don't need to feed fat mass, you need to feed lean mass.

Beyond that, users time and time again neglect the fact that MFP's calorie targets are before exercise and when you exercise you're supposed to eat more...if people did things correctly and used this tool as designed they would in most cases be grossing BMR calories +.

Beyond that, I think a lot of people put themselves as sedentary and aren't really sedentary. When I started out, I put sedentary because I had a desk job and was losing at a much faster clip than I intended to...I failed to take into account that, yes, I have a desk job...but at the time I also had a 2 year old and infant at home and when I got home, I rarely sat down until 8:30/9 PM because I was busy cooking or cleaning or fixing this or that or chasing my toddler around.

IMO, eating slightly below BMR isn't a huge issue. It becomes a bigger issue when you're eating under BMR and then doing a bunch of exercise and not feeding that properly...this is when you start to see hair thinning and falling out, loss of menstrual cycle, etc.