A very basic question about calories

gettingto65

Hi!
To preface, I have a basic understanding of calories, TDEE, BMR etc. Or at least I thought I did, I’ve read some conflicting information recently so am wanting to clarify. Specifically I’m wanting to work out how many calories I should be consuming to help me lose weight, if anyone would be so kind as to help?

Female
Age: 27
CW: 108kg/239lbs
Height: 5’7
Exercise: Minimal, right now. A 30 minute walk most evenings. Otherwise working at a desk 8-10 hours a day.
GW: 65-70kg/140-155lbs

When I calculate (on various calcs) it has my TDEE at roughly 2260 calories and my BMR at roughly 1880 calories based off my activity level - ie mostly sedentary at the moment.

I am wanting to lose around 1kg/2lbs per week - though I know this varies and will be more at first then slow down.

MFP has my calorie count automatically set to 1235 calories but I’ve always believed I shouldn’t eat under my BMR as my body needs that minimal number just to function?

How many calories would you have me eating to lose weight at a steady but moderate pace?

Thank you and apologies for the novel length message!

Unicorn_Bacon

Bmr is what your body needs to maintain weight if you were in a coma.

You can eat under your bmr because you're losing weight and not in a coma and maintaining your current weight but what you shouldnt do is eat less then 1200 calories


So since mfp gave you a 1200 calorie goal, if you do workout, make sure you eat those calories back because you already have 1000 calories of deficit

sijomial

Firstly MFP isn't a TDEE site - it completely removes exercise from your base calorie goal. Be very cautious about comparing numbers using two different methods. (Although if your only exercise is 30mins of walking then that difference is small.)

It also doesn't set your calorie goal, let alone automatically, that's set by your current stats (out of your control), your activity level (within your control) and the rate of loss you choose (very much your choice).

And it's choosing a fast rate of loss that is driving your daily allowance down to 1235 + exercise calories.
If you don't want a tiny calorie allowance then....

• Don't pick a rapid rate of loss.
• Raise your activity level.
• Do more exercise.

If you don't want to eat under your BMR then you need to accept a slower rate of loss or take steps to make the difference between your BMR and TDEE much wider - that's down to activity and exercise.

BTW - not eating under your BMR is a guideline, your body doesn't know what your BMR is and doesn't shutdown if you go below it. But there may be consequences in under-eating for a prolonged period of time.
In many ways it's quite a sensible guideline though.

It's not really appropriate for people to decide your calorie level as you need to have a serious think about what calorie level is sustainable for the long haul of losing almost 100lbs. Adherence is far more important than speed IMHO unless you have a medical imperative to lose quickly.

DancingMoosie

To lose 2lb/wk you'd need a deficit of 1000calories daily. If your TDEE is 2260 then your MFP estimate of 1235 is basically correct. (2260-1000=1260). If it seems too low, then your deficit is too high and your set rate of loss too high. If you change it to 1lb/wk, then your calories would be somewhere around 1735(closer to your estimated BMR) if that would make you more comfortable.

lgfrie

Yep, as others have noted ....

BMR is not relevant here. TDEE is what matters. Yours is 2260, so if you told MFP you want to lose 2 lbs per week, it's subtracting 1000 calories per day from that 2260, because 1000 x 7 (days in the week) = 7000 = 2 lbs of fat.

In theory, it's that simple - just eat your 1235 calories per day and you will lose 2 lbs per week. In practice, 1235 is not a lot of food and you're probably better off taking it slower than that. I would, personally, start with 1735 to lose 1 lb per week and see how it goes for a while. If you find that a comfortable caloric level, then presto, rinse and repeat for, well, a pretty long time. If you find you can handle the 1735 and want to push things a bit faster, you can adjust the calories in a month, or at any point. My point being, you're more likely to get yourself on a good, solid sustainable path if you don't deprive yourself too much. It's a marathon, not a sprint. In this particular kind of race, sprinters end up at the side of the road, out of the race. A moderate, steady pace works much better. The vast, vast, VAST majority of people who lost the kind of weight you want to lose did it slowly and surely, being careful not to deprive themselves or overdo things with the calorie restriction and tbh for most people 1235 is either overdoing it or very close to overdoing it as far as dieting for more than a couple/few weeks is concerned.

As @KrissCanDoThis noted, be sure to eat back your calories from any workouts.

PAV8888

My personal guideline is to limit deficit to 25% of tdee while obese; 20% when overweight/, normal weight.

As already mentioned, the variables are size of deficit, non exercise activity level, exercise.

And for the purposes of caloric expenditure activity level and exercise have no qualitative difference. in fact, often, less intense/higher duration/easier to consistently implement activities generate the highest cumulative expenditures.

The biggest win and deficit is still the kitchen. But you can only consistently, and with less unwanted side effects, leave uneaten a portion of the pie. I suggest 20-25%; not 44%

gettingto65

Thank you all!!! So very helpful.

I think I will start at 1500-1600, as I only tend to have lunch and dinner naturally and I can get decent meal sizes there. It just means cutting down big time on snacks and swapping flatwhites for long blacks, which I want to do anyway.

I kept reading over and over “don’t eat below your BMR” and basically indicating even a week of under eating it would result in major long term issues. Got quite confusing. I’m also quite deficient in iron so was concerned from that aspect too. But I think my new plan will work and be sustainable.

Thank you again

lgfrie

gettingto65 wrote: »

Thank you all!!! So very helpful.

I think I will start at 1500-1600, as I only tend to have lunch and dinner naturally and I can get decent meal sizes there. It just means cutting down big time on snacks and swapping flatwhites for long blacks, which I want to do anyway.

I kept reading over and over “don’t eat below your BMR” and basically indicating even a week of under eating it would result in major long term issues. Got quite confusing. I’m also quite deficient in iron so was concerned from that aspect too. But I think my new plan will work and be sustainable.

Thank you again

You basically just described my whole diet: big lunch and dinner, radical reduction in snacking (I eat no calories before noon or after 7 pm), and I eliminated flatwhites and all the little snacky side items like the marble pound cake for long blacks with a paper napkin on the side

With diligent calorie counting, it absolutely works and isn't especially difficult - for me, mainly owing to getting a decent sized lunch and big "non diet-y" dinner everyday. Those are the two things I need to keep it going.

Good luck.

Unicorn_Bacon

...lol okay I know I'm gonna sound like an idiot here...but...


Flat whites? Long blacks? Lol..

Unicorn_Bacon

Nevermind I googled it.

I'm not a coffee drinker ( can you tell?)

Not gonna lie, it was sounding a little adult lol

lgfrie

KrissCanDoThis wrote: »

Nevermind I googled it.

I'm not a coffee drinker ( can you tell?)

Not gonna lie, it was sounding a little adult lol

lol