So eat under your Tdee not bmr

Rawfoodsho

So if your Tdee is 1900 but your bmr is like 1500 you what? You have eat under 1900 but not under 1500? AND if you eat under your bmr for a few weeks and dont lose people blame it on that? So you have to eat in between those calories EXACTLY or you cant lose? How is it logical that eating under your bmr will not make you lose? We know the starvation mode myth's so please, spare me.

But lets say a 400 pound person ate 2000 calories a day, wouldn't that leave them with a huge deficit? Suggesting they eat their bmr of like 3500 when they are trying to lose, is pretty ridiculous, that bmr is way to high to lose on.

Hildy_J

So if your Tdee is 1900 but your bmr is like 1500 you what? You have eat under 1900 but not under 1500?

Yeah. It's not good for your health to eat under BMR (basic metabolic rate) as that's what you use just to breathe and keep warm.

lsmsrbls

Suggesting they eat their bmr of like 3500 when they are trying to lose, is pretty ridiculous, that bmr is way to high to lose on.

If you think that someone with a BMR of 3500 won't lose weight while eating 3500 calories per day, then you don't understand what BMR means.

Mokey41

BMR when done by an online calculator is an estimate based on generalizations just like BMI is. Katch-McCardle is slightly more accurate because it uses your BF% but then you have to accurately know what that is. Some who is 400 lbs is going to get a skewed BMR number from a calculator because it's assuming a ratio of lean body mass to fat which most likely doesn't hold true when you get into the morbidly obese areas. Therefore someone of 400 lbs can safely eat much less than their estimated BMR because they don't need to feed that fat and they also have large fat stores to draw on for energy.

When you get down into the "normal" weight ranges the calculators become much more accurate and you have more likelihood of losing lean body mass by under eating because your body doesn't have the fat stores to draw on anymore.

S3r3knitty

But lets say a 400 pound person ate 2000 calories a day, wouldn't that leave them with a huge deficit? Suggesting they eat their bmr of like 3500 when they are trying to lose, is pretty ridiculous, that bmr is way to high to lose on.

The BMR is the number of calories your body burns to stay alive and warm i.e. before you do any active movement. The heavier you are the more energy it costs your body to stay alive. So a 400 Pound person burns automatically 3500 a day without even doing anything actively.
Assuming that you actually walk and do things during the day the calories you burn will be far higher than your bmr. Your bmr + what you additionaly burn due to any activity during a normal day is your tdee. If the 400lb person would eat at his or her TDEE he or she would maintain, eating below it will make you loose weight. The actual number of the BMR does not matter. It is always below your TDEE so you will loose weight.

ETA: For example if you have a TDEE of 4000 and a BMR of 3300 you would already loose weight if you only eat 3500 calories a day. This would be a deficit of 500 calories (4000-3500). You would probably still loose at 3800 simply because you eat less than what your body burns during the day.

nomeejerome

OP:
Do you really want to know?
or are you trying to start another thread where you can argue against science?

If you really want to learn, read the following link and all the links in it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/833026-important-posts-to-read

Rawfoodsho

BMR when done by an online calculator is an estimate based on generalizations just like BMI is. Katch-McCardle is slightly more accurate because it uses your BF% but then you have to accurately know what that is. Some who is 400 lbs is going to get a skewed BMR number from a calculator because it's assuming a ratio of lean body mass to fat which most likely doesn't hold true when you get into the morbidly obese areas. Therefore someone of 400 lbs can safely eat much less than their estimated BMR because they don't need to feed that fat and they also have large fat stores to draw on for energy.

When you get down into the "normal" weight ranges the calculators become much more accurate and you have more likelihood of losing lean body mass by under eating because your body doesn't have the fat stores to draw on anymore.

Good post

Rawfoodsho

OP:
Do you really want to know?
or are you trying to start another thread where you can argue against science?

If you really want to learn, read the following link and all the links in it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/833026-important-posts-to-read

I wanted to know, those stats of 1900 tdee are mine. The other one I was just curious as to if they could eat 3500 calories because it seemed like a lot.

LassoOfTruth

So if your Tdee is 1900 but your bmr is like 1500 you what? You have eat under 1900 but not under 1500? AND if you eat under your bmr for a few weeks and dont lose people blame it on that? So you have to eat in between those calories EXACTLY or you cant lose? How is it logical that eating under your bmr will not make you lose? We know the starvation mode myth's so please, spare me.

But lets say a 400 pound person ate 2000 calories a day, wouldn't that leave them with a huge deficit? Suggesting they eat their bmr of like 3500 when they are trying to lose, is pretty ridiculous, that bmr is way to high to lose on.

Not so much about the "starvation mode" myth, but more so your organs don't shut down due to lack of nutrition. Your body needs the BMR (the minimum calories for your body to function in a healthy manner) to survive. For me, it has nothing to do with starvation this, starvation that... just pure health reasons. What's the point of losing weight, if I'm going to give myself renal failure because I eat under BMR?

bcattoes

So if your Tdee is 1900 but your bmr is like 1500 you what? You have eat under 1900 but not under 1500? AND if you eat under your bmr for a few weeks and dont lose people blame it on that? So you have to eat in between those calories EXACTLY or you cant lose? How is it logical that eating under your bmr will not make you lose? We know the starvation mode myth's so please, spare me.

But lets say a 400 pound person ate 2000 calories a day, wouldn't that leave them with a huge deficit? Suggesting they eat their bmr of like 3500 when they are trying to lose, is pretty ridiculous, that bmr is way to high to lose on.

You must eat under your TDEE to lose weight. If you eat under your BMR, you will also lose weight. The problem with that is that eventually your body may lower your BMR, which will also lower your TDEE, meaning you have to eat even less or burn even more to lose.

Very overweight people safely can eat under their BMR longer than thinner people because they have bigger fat stores to draw on for energy.

ScouseNerd

So if your Tdee is 1900 but your bmr is like 1500 you what? You have eat under 1900 but not under 1500?

Yeah. It's not good for your health to eat under BMR (basic metabolic rate) as that's what you use just to breathe and keep warm.

It's simple but this is the perfect way to put it. Don't think I ever got the difference 'til now.

Wildflower0106

My bmr is approx 1400 calories and my tdee is around 3000. To maintain I eat around 3000 calories to lose I eat somewhere between bmr and tdee, ( I choose to eat at a smaller deficit to lose so I never go down close to bmr). To gain I eat over Tdee. All these numbers are estimations but I am able to adjust my intake just fine I just use the numbers as a guide.

ladynocturne

The other problem with eating below your BMR on a regular basis is that your brain is unable to convert your fat stores into energy so it can function, and it uses more calories than you would think. So it converts your lean muscle mass into energy.

If you do this long enough, you will end up losing a good deal of your lean muscle mass, even if you're eating a lot of protein and weight training.

It's important to understand that just because the scale is saying you lost weight, doesn't automatically mean it's fat.

FerretBuellerr

So if your Tdee is 1900 but your bmr is like 1500 you what? You have eat under 1900 but not under 1500?

From my understanding, yes. It's what I've been doing, and check my ticker. If you ate the 1900 you would just maintain the current weight you have. I guess you could still lose weight eating less than your BMR of 1500, because the defecit is there that you need, but you wouldn't need it to be so severe to lose weight (any why would you want it to be? I know I want to eat and not be hangry all the time).

As for the other questions...I don't know.

ninerbuff

Some aren't understanding what BMR really is. The calories noted are the calories needed to not lose/gain weight for stats put in.
My BMR is 1767. So if I didn't want to gain or lose weight, that's what I eat if I just wanted to stay on the couch all day. If I wanted to lose a pound a week, I'd have to eat less than that.
It's rare that people will burn less than 300 calories a day over their BMR even if they're pretty sedentary. Just walking around the house to use the kitchen and bathroom in a day should amount to that.
But math still applies. A 500 calorie deficit will account for about a pound a week.

Now before anyone goes ape ****, if one is really close to a goal weight and has little to lose, the deficit should be smaller because having higher deficits than the body can handle results in a much slower metabolic rate.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

wiscck

I just checked my BRM, which is around 1700, and MFP had me eating 1650 calories per day. No wonder I'm always hungry! I manually upped it to 1750.

I am at the bottom end of the obese range of the BMI scale, but that still seems low, since I'm not morbidly obese or anywhere close to it. Of course, they have my TDEE as significantly lower than pretty much every other website I've checked, so the way they calculate it my TDEE - 20% is lower than my BMR.

Holly_Roman_Empire

Some aren't understanding what BMR really is. The calories noted are the calories needed to not lose/gain weight for stats put in.
My BMR is 1767. So if I didn't want to gain or lose weight, that's what I eat if I just wanted to stay on the couch all day. If I wanted to lose a pound a week, I'd have to eat less than that.
It's rare that people will burn less than 300 calories a day over their BMR even if they're pretty sedentary. Just walking around the house to use the kitchen and bathroom in a day should amount to that.
But math still applies. A 500 calorie deficit will account for about a pound a week.

Now before anyone goes ape ****, if one is really close to a goal weight and has little to lose, the deficit should be smaller because having higher deficits than the body can handle results in a much slower metabolic rate.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Question for you:
A person once told me on a different thread a couple of months back that eating below BMR is NOT unhealthy as long as it is just temporary and for weight loss only, because your body will depend on fat stores to make up the difference. Is it true, or is it dangerous to eat below BMR all the time? Is a slower metabolic rate the only risk?

Mr_Knight

A person once told me on a different thread a couple of months back that eating below BMR is NOT unhealthy...

It depends on the person, and how far under BMR they are eating. Someone who is lean will run into trouble going even a small amount below BMR, someone with large fat stores can go significantly under BMR without worry.

ladynocturne

Some aren't understanding what BMR really is. The calories noted are the calories needed to not lose/gain weight for stats put in.
My BMR is 1767. So if I didn't want to gain or lose weight, that's what I eat if I just wanted to stay on the couch all day. If I wanted to lose a pound a week, I'd have to eat less than that.
It's rare that people will burn less than 300 calories a day over their BMR even if they're pretty sedentary. Just walking around the house to use the kitchen and bathroom in a day should amount to that.
But math still applies. A 500 calorie deficit will account for about a pound a week.

Now before anyone goes ape ****, if one is really close to a goal weight and has little to lose, the deficit should be smaller because having higher deficits than the body can handle results in a much slower metabolic rate.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Even if I was sedentary, would I would lose weight eating my BMR which is 1460 calories a day.

I maintain at 1800 doing nothing, so I'm not really understanding how you could believe BMR is maintenance.

I normally agree with most everything you say, so this is pretty confusing. It's my understanding that BMR is closer to energy expended if you were comatose.

Mr_Knight

I maintain at 1800 doing nothing, so I'm not really understanding how you could believe BMR is maintenance.

Doing nothing means literally doing nothing. just laying there and breathing, all day, every day.

ladynocturne

I maintain at 1800 doing nothing, so I'm not really understanding how you could believe BMR is maintenance.

Doing nothing means literally doing nothing. just laying there and breathing, all day, every day.

That isn't sedentary, that would be comatose.

Most websites definition of sedentary can include up to 3000 steps per day.

Even sitting all day would burn more over your BMR than laying down.