MFP deficit less than BMR?

DrSplifflove

Hi everyone,

My wife and I started using MFP just a few days ago and I have a question regarding MFP's 'recommended' calorie goal.

Here's mine for example. MFP has my goal set at 1930 calories a day. According to a few different online calculators my BMR is 2380. First of all, this is not a deficit large enough to lose a lb a week, yet I set my goal to be to lose 1.5 lbs a week.

Secondly, I see a lot of people online saying to not eat less than your BMR. That your calories, to lose weight, should be more than your BMR and less than your TDEE. Okay, fair enough.

Problem there is my TDEE is 2756. To lose a lb a week I'd need to create a deficit of 500 calories, so 2256, which again is less than my BMR.

Point is, by MFP's recommendation and other sources online, I cannot create a deficit sufficient enough to lose a lb a week without going below my BMR. My wife's numbers end up the same, below her BMR.

I know these numbers are approximate at best, but these are big discrepancies. Am I missing something?? Should I be eating more than my BMR and if so why does MFP suggest otherwise?

lgfrie

Ignore every single person saying you shouldn't eat below your BMR. That notion is completely wrong.

BMR refers to your caloric burn rate if you're in a coma - autonomic processes like breathing, with no physical movement whatsoever. As such, it is a theoretical construct, and an inapplicable one, for anyone not in a coma. TDEE is the number you need; it shows what you actually burn in a day. Subtracting 500 cals from TDEE will yield a 1 lb/week loss; 1000 cals under TDEE will yield 2 lbs.

MFP's Goals tool works well and using its guidance will deliver the weight loss you want. There is no reason to doubt it. If it isn't 100 % spot on but only 95 or 90 %, you can fine tune after a month of seeing how well it works for you. There is a little individual variance, but in most cases, not all that much. For me, the MFP guidance has been over 98 % accurate. That is to say, when I followed MFP's caloric recommendation to lose 2 lbs / week for my first 20 weeks of dieting, I lost 40.6 pounds.

KrissFlavored

Bmr is what the hospital would feed you for calories to maintain your current weight in a coma.

I eat less then my bmr, which is currently 1808 per day, I usually eat 1600 to 1700.. and since I am not a vegetable all those calories I'm burning by not being in a coma, contribute to my deficit

KrissFlavored

You can eat more if you're active.. so if I was really active I'd eat more cause my maintenance would be higher and then I'd be eating above my bmr but my maintenance is only like 2400 or something

cmriverside

It's a little over 100 calories between some random online calculator that tells you your BMR is 2380 and the 2256 you think you should hit.

Myfitnesspal uses NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Level) NOT TDEE and NOT BMR to figure your calories. Other calculators use different algorithms.


You likely have quite a bit of weight to lose? That's when the numbers get a little skewed. BMR at the higher weights is a little out of whack, number-wise.


How much weight are you trying to lose?

Use this as your guide:

DrSplifflove

Thanks everyone for all the good advice/info!

cmriverside wrote: »

It's a little over 100 calories between some random online calculator that tells you your BMR is 2380 and the 2256 you think you should hit.

Myfitnesspal uses NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Level) NOT TDEE and NOT BMR to figure your calories. Other calculators use different algorithms.


You likely have quite a bit of weight to lose? That's when the numbers get a little skewed. BMR at the higher weights is a little out of whack, number-wise.


How much weight are you trying to lose?

Use this as your guide:

My "ideal" weight is 165ish. I currently weigh 265. So, I plan to lose 100 lbs. Years ago I was 70 lbs overweight. I went to the gym 6 days a week, ate healthily, and biked outdoors like a fiend and lost the weight, bringing myself down to 168. Unfortunately, about two years later I had a lot of stress in my life that I didn't deal with properly. I quick smoking but drank very heavily and gained the weight back, and then some. I'm 31 now and looking to put fat drunk me behind me for good.

DrSplifflove

cmriverside wrote: »

It's a little over 100 calories between some random online calculator that tells you your BMR is 2380 and the 2256 you think you should hit.

Myfitnesspal uses NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Level) NOT TDEE and NOT BMR to figure your calories. Other calculators use different algorithms.


You likely have quite a bit of weight to lose? That's when the numbers get a little skewed. BMR at the higher weights is a little out of whack, number-wise.


How much weight are you trying to lose?

Use this as your guide:

I understand you're saying MFP doesn't use TDEE or BMR to come up with its figures, but in the pic you included it mentions calorie deficits.

According to that I should have a 1000 calorie a day deficit. That's fine. But should it be 1000 less than my TDEE or BMR?

KrissFlavored

1000 less then your tdee

kimny72

DrSplifflove wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

It's a little over 100 calories between some random online calculator that tells you your BMR is 2380 and the 2256 you think you should hit.

Myfitnesspal uses NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Level) NOT TDEE and NOT BMR to figure your calories. Other calculators use different algorithms.


You likely have quite a bit of weight to lose? That's when the numbers get a little skewed. BMR at the higher weights is a little out of whack, number-wise.


How much weight are you trying to lose?

Use this as your guide:

I understand you're saying MFP doesn't use TDEE or BMR to come up with its figures, but in the pic you included it mentions calorie deficits.

According to that I should have a 1000 calorie a day deficit. That's fine. But should it be 1000 less than my TDEE or BMR?

1000 less than your TDEE. Your TDEE is an approximation of the calories your body actually burned in a day, including what your body burned just to stay alive (BMR), the calories burned by your normal day moving around, and your purposeful exercise. You need a 1000 cal deficit from your TDEE.

PAV8888

DrSplifflove wrote: »

Here's mine for example. MFP has my goal set at 1930 calories a day. According to a few different online calculators my BMR is 2380. First of all, this is not a deficit large enough to lose a lb a week, yet I set my goal to be to lose 1.5 lbs a week.

Secondly, I see a lot of people online saying to not eat less than your BMR. That your calories, to lose weight, should be more than your BMR and less than your TDEE. Okay, fair enough.

Problem there is my TDEE is 2756. To lose a lb a week I'd need to create a deficit of 500 calories, so 2256, which again is less than my BMR.

Point is, by MFP's recommendation and other sources online, I cannot create a deficit sufficient enough to lose a lb a week without going below my BMR. My wife's numbers end up the same, below her BMR.

Some of the figures you are giving out are confusing me as stated.

If your BMR (not TDEE) is 2380, you're probably a combination of fairly tall and heavy

All the figures we're discussing are based on broad, population based, statistical estimates. Their apparent correctness also depends, heavily, on our logging abilities. For most they will be bang on; for some a bit off; for a very few very far off.

The process is simple. You start with the estimates. You do your best to track. You evaluate progress after 4-6 weeks for females subject to monthly hormonal water retention, 3-4 weeks for males. You adjust.

All numbers that you see bandied around are simple calculations based on your estimated BMR and estimated activity factor. You multiple BMR Calories by Activity factor and you get an estimate of Calories you've spent.

There is only one situation where your calories for weight loss would fall below MY recommended maximum deficit recommendation of 25% deficit of your TDEE. Mathematically this would be if you're sedentary (AF of 1.25) and you apply a 25% deficit. The result would 0.9375 of BMR.

Every Activity Factor above sedentary is higher than 1.33333, so a 25% reduction off of that falls at or above 1.0x BMR.

Even if BMR were super important (which for a person with sufficient energy reserves to lose it is much less so than for someone who is closer to being underweight), the less than 0.1 dip below BMR we're discussing would be irrelevant and easily remedied by not continuing to be sedentary. Assuming, of course, that there doesn't exist a physical disability, a state which involves less than 3000 steps or 45 minutes of **any** activity a day is probably not great for health.

Now. Back to our regular programming

If your BMR is 2380, your TDEE estimate for sedentary is closer to 3000 than anything. So one of your numbers, as stated, is wrong.

In any case. To me it sounds as if you're very close to a TDEE of 3000. So 750 would be a 25% deficit off that. It would make everyone here who doesn't go by the 25% guidance happy to see you lose at more understandable 1.5lbs a week because given your starting weight a 1.5lb a week deficit probably sounds quite reasonable. It would make me happy to see you not exceed 25% because I personally think this percentage of deficit is more sustainable and less likely to cause issues... and it would make YOU happy to be eating an accurately counted 2250 Cal while moving around such that you spend over 3000 and losing weight at a nice 1.5lb a week clip!

BMR be *kittened*... go for it!

<usually and at a higher weight, activities that don't impact on joints are usually recommended. there is nothing wrong with a moderate walk (usually assumed to be above 100--normal, not extra long, steps a minute)... just saying!>

<also note that with a lot of weight to lose SUSTAINABILITY and doing things you see yourself doing LONG TERM, if not indefinitely, are what makes sense. I believe you're better off losing at a pace that doesn't make you ready to throw in the towel, and that does not rely on continuous application of will-power to sustain>

DrSplifflove

PAV8888 wrote: »

DrSplifflove wrote: »

Here's mine for example. MFP has my goal set at 1930 calories a day. According to a few different online calculators my BMR is 2380. First of all, this is not a deficit large enough to lose a lb a week, yet I set my goal to be to lose 1.5 lbs a week.

Secondly, I see a lot of people online saying to not eat less than your BMR. That your calories, to lose weight, should be more than your BMR and less than your TDEE. Okay, fair enough.

Problem there is my TDEE is 2756. To lose a lb a week I'd need to create a deficit of 500 calories, so 2256, which again is less than my BMR.

Point is, by MFP's recommendation and other sources online, I cannot create a deficit sufficient enough to lose a lb a week without going below my BMR. My wife's numbers end up the same, below her BMR.

Some of the figures you are giving out are confusing me as stated.

If your BMR (not TDEE) is 2380, you're probably a combination of fairly tall and heavy

All the figures we're discussing are based on broad, population based, statistical estimates. Their apparent correctness also depends, heavily, on our logging abilities. For most they will be bang on; for some a bit off; for a very few very far off.

The process is simple. You start with the estimates. You do your best to track. You evaluate progress after 4-6 weeks for females subject to monthly hormonal water retention, 3-4 weeks for males. You adjust.

All numbers that you see bandied around are simple calculations based on your estimated BMR and estimated activity factor. You multiple BMR Calories by Activity factor and you get an estimate of Calories you've spent.

There is only one situation where your calories for weight loss would fall below MY recommended maximum deficit recommendation of 25% deficit of your TDEE. Mathematically this would be if you're sedentary (AF of 1.25) and you apply a 25% deficit. The result would 0.9375 of BMR.

Every Activity Factor above sedentary is higher than 1.33333, so a 25% reduction off of that falls at or above 1.0x BMR.

Even if BMR were super important (which for a person with sufficient energy reserves to lose it is much less so than for someone who is closer to being underweight), the less than 0.1 dip below BMR we're discussing would be irrelevant and easily remedied by not continuing to be sedentary. Assuming, of course, that there doesn't exist a physical disability, a state which involves less than 3000 steps or 45 minutes of **any** activity a day is probably not great for health.

Now. Back to our regular programming

If your BMR is 2380, your TDEE estimate for sedentary is closer to 3000 than anything. So one of your numbers, as stated, is wrong.

In any case. To me it sounds as if you're very close to a TDEE of 3000. So 750 would be a 25% deficit off that. It would make everyone here who doesn't go by the 25% guidance happy to see you lose at more understandable 1.5lbs a week because given your starting weight a 1.5lb a week deficit probably sounds quite reasonable. It would make me happy to see you not exceed 25% because I personally think this percentage of deficit is more sustainable and less likely to cause issues... and it would make YOU happy to be eating an accurately counted 2250 Cal while moving around such that you spend over 3000 and losing weight at a nice 1.5lb a week clip!

BMR be *kittened*... go for it!

<usually and at a higher weight, activities that don't impact on joints are usually recommended. there is nothing wrong with a moderate walk (usually assumed to be above 100--normal, not extra long, steps a minute)... just saying!>

<also note that with a lot of weight to lose SUSTAINABILITY and doing things you see yourself doing LONG TERM, if not indefinitely, are what makes sense. I believe you're better off losing at a pace that doesn't make you ready to throw in the towel, and that does not rely on continuous application of will-power to sustain>

Thank you for your very insightful and encouraging response.

I've been going over this for a few hours and it appears my numbers are off somewhat. I've calculated my TDEE various ways various times. I took the numbers that kept coming up frequently and averaged them. The TDEE I came up with based on that is 2954. Closer to 3000 as you say.

So, given this information, you're recommending a 25% reduction from the TDEE. So, approximately 2216 calories a day, as opposed to 1930 recommended by MFP?

AnnPT77

Keep in mind, too, that if you set up your profile as recommended in the instructions (activity level doesn't include intentional exercise), you're intended to log exercise on MFP, and eat those calories on top of your base calorie allowance. (This isn't how most other calorie estimators work.)

MFP estimates NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis), which is the number of calories it thinks you'd burn before intentional exercise (again, if you did the set-up as per instructions). It will give men no goal lower than 1500 calories per day (for minimum nutrition), no matter their estimated NEAT and requested loss rate. However, you got a goal above 1500, specifically 1930. You requested a loss rate of 1.5 pounds a week. The implication is that MFP believes your NEAT, based on what you put in your profile, is 2,650.

You don't need to eat 500 below your BMR to lose weight, you need to eat below your TDEE to lose weight. So, for a pound of weight loss, if you believe your TDEE (a number MFP isn't even trying to estimate) is 2756, then eating 2256 (without logging exercise) should give a loss rate of around a pound a week.

As another alternative, you can eat 500 calories below your NEAT, log exercise, and eat the exercise calories (accurate estimate of them, of course). That should also give you a pound a week loss. Make it 750, for a pound and a half, estimated.

If you don't want to eat below your BMR, set your loss rate at half a pound a week (which might be appropriate if you have relatively little weight to lose, say 20 pounds or less). MFP will give you a goal of 2400.

Or, if you prefer, do some exercise, log it, and get more calories to eat. If MFP assigns you 1930, and you want to eat your BMR but lose 1.5 pounds, then do 450 calories of exercise daily, and eat those calories on top of your NEAT, to lose about a pound and a half a week, estimated.

Fundamentally, I think you're mixing two systems of calorie estimating, without realizing it. Either one, used "pure", can work; and the results should end up about the same. Pick one:

1. Use a TDEE calculator to estimate your TDEE, including intentional exercise. Subtract 500 from that number for each pound per week you want to lose. If you don't want to eat below your BMR, then don't try to lose that fast, or make up your mind to be more active.
2. Let MFP estimate your NEAT, not including intentional exercise. Tell it the number of pounds per week you want to lose, and it will give you a calorie goal that's NEAT minus the calorie deficit for your requested weight loss, as long as that number is at least 1500 (for a male). Then, log intentional exercise and eat a rational estimate of those calories, too. If you don't want to eat below your BMR, then either don't ask for a weight loss rate so fast it puts you there, or do enough exercise to eat above it.

Personally, I'm with Igfrie. In some scenarios, it's OK to eat below your BMR. But it can also be a hint that you're trying to lose faster than is really sustainable/sensible at your current weight. Or, if you just plain don't want to, either lose slower, or be more active.

Regardless, all of this stuff is just statistical estimates. In practice, you should eat to some rational goal based on estimates to start, track carefully for 4-6 weeks, and adjust based on personal experience, The estimates are close for most people, but off for a few (high or low) and quite far off for a very, very few: That's just the nature of statistical estimates. Your actual personal experience will tell you whether you're statistically average, like most people, or not.

Right now, you're worrying over a hundred calories or so this way or that, in two different calorie estimating systems. It's minor. Pick an approach, decide how fast you want to lose (above BMR or below, your choice), and test drive it. You'll find out what's accurate for you, and what's sustainable.

Best wishes!

cmriverside

Here's the Official (from "Help") explanation of NEAT, and how Myfitnesspal calculates and why they're a little different from almost all the other online calculators, which use TDEE.

https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-

I would suggest just using MFP's numbers. Set it for "Lose 1 pound per week," as it suggests, or even 1.5 pound.


Then track your purposeful exercise, too. Eat a little more on those days - not 1500 more, but more like 400-500 per hour for you, 300-400 for your wife.

Track food and exercise using MFP's numbers for 4-6 weeks, and you'll get a really good idea of where you should be calorie-wise. A couple hundred one way or the other is really not a big deal when you have so much weight to lose and by the time you get closer to goal you'll have a lot of good data and you'll be an expert.


Right now don't sweat the small stuff, like 200 calories. You're going to make 200 calories per day in errors. At your weight, close enough is good enough, truly. Not till you get closer to 165 will it be necessary to dial it in perfectly. Just start. 1900, 2300, really not that big a deal for the first month or so.


Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good...or whatever that saying is.

PAV8888

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Regardless, all of this stuff is just statistical estimates. In practice, you should eat to some rational goal based on estimates to start, track carefully for 4-6 weeks, and adjust based on personal experience, The estimates are close for most people, but off for a few (high or low) and quite far off for a very, very few: That's just the nature of statistical estimates. Your actual personal experience will tell you whether you're statistically average, like most people, or not.

Right now, you're worrying over a hundred calories or so this way or that, in two different calorie estimating systems. It's minor. Pick an approach, decide how fast you want to lose (above BMR or below, your choice), and test drive it. You'll find out what's accurate for you, and what's sustainable.

DrSplifflove wrote: »

So, given this information, you're recommending a 25% reduction from the TDEE. So, approximately 2216 calories a day, as opposed to 1930 recommended by MFP?

I've quoted @AnnPT77 too, to highlight what she addressed.

I also bringing to your attention the words "recommended by MFP".

YOU are the one who chooses what they want to do and MFP spits back a number based on your inputs and on statistical estimates. You're 100% in the driver's seat in terms of the deficit GOAL you're selecting.

The easy answer, based on context, is that you told MFP you wanted to lose 2lbs a week and that the 1930 represents a 1000 Cal deficit off a predicted sedentary NEAT estimate of 2930 (estimated as 1.25* MFP BMR)

Your initial logging errors and errors in activity settings are likely to prove to be larger numbers even than the 1-200 Cal we're discussing! There will exist days where you will eat more and days where you will eat less than your goals.

What really matters is to select a REASONABLE general goal, which I think you're close to doing. And generally aim to get close to it most of the time while not making yourself miserable!

Your only unchangeable goal should be to continue to incrementally move the process forward--whether in large or in small steps.

So. Have you logged any of your days BEFORE establishing any deficit goals? Why don't you just start by doing just that? Knowing how much you're eating "normally" is always useful!

Then you can just review your log and see if you can ADD something that you think might fill you up for less calories while allowing this addition to displace something else that wasn't that great of a bargain for the calories it cost!

At this initial stage I think that whether you select -1000, or -750 (or -500 if you're not in the obese range) matters less than just starting the process and moving on to accurate food logging--a chapter on its own!

Again: your target calories are a desired target. You can go over. You can go under. Of course going over or under has implications about the speed of loss and general health if over-done.

As long as you're under your TDEE your weight will trend down.
Your TDEE, not your target that already includes a deficit!