BMR: what does it mean?

BenjaminMFP88

Inputting my height and weight and age appropriately- and including my desk job, sedentary activity level
My TDEE score is: 2047
My BMR is : 1706

If you did it right, then you're fine for now. Your fat stores will convert to energy accounting for the caloric deficit. As you get closer to your target, you'll have to adjust all these numbers though.

Cedura

Alrighty Thanks everyone for the help in starting to understand all this.

heybales

Using the Catch-McCardle BMR Calculator from the IIFYM website and the BMI-calculator.net (which gives me 37.7 as my BMI)

Inputting my height and weight and age appropriately- and including my desk job, sedentary activity level
My TDEE score is: 2047
My BMR is : 1706

And if I subtract from my TDEE the recommended 20% (409) then I am at 1638 (MFP had given me 1650) And that is STILL below my BMR.

Have I done something wrong? My math makes sense. But I am, indeed, below my BMR. Is that ok?

So you selected sedentary - you plan on doing no exercise at all?

And truly sedentary, again, 45 hr desk job and commute sitting, sit most of the weekend, no yard care, walking dogs, playing with kids, long walking shopping, ect?

And if you didn't input bodyfat %, you still didn't use best estimate BMR to start the math with.

Try this spreadsheet at bottom of post to get best estimates of everything, and be honest with your activity and planned exercise.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/813720-spreadsheet-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

Read whatever of that topic you don't understand. Stay on the Simple Setup tab, and Progress tab.

heybales

They try to make it into rocket science here. The vast majority of people will lose weight on 1500 calories a day.

Or even simpler-- are you maintaining? Eat less, move more. Are you gaining? Eat a lot less, move more.

*sigh*

Sigh all you want, it's true. Let me guess... you think 1500 is unsafe because it's below BMR for some? Show me any book or authoritative article that says it is unsafe to eat below one's BMR (not 'VLCD') and I will never post that here again.

I think it was the standard advice she was sighing about.

If you'd been on MFP reading the forums for longer than a month - you'd find your advice to eat less and move more rarely works when someone is already stalled in a diet that they already are eating much less and possibly moving a whole lot more than in their previous life, of course that was not mentioned in the OP's comments in this case.

But your advice is usually given to someone NOT doing a diet yet, and it's very true in that case. But it's ill informed unless you are privy to a whole lot more private info from the OP not mentioned in this topic.

So where is a convenient line to draw in the sand that below this might be stressful to you enough that you will be fighting tooth and nail for fat loss (maybe not weight as muscle mass is lost though)?

Your reference to VLCD sounds like you appreciate there is a line somewhere - how does someone on MFP without the lab tests and direct scientist supervision in a study and confirmation of no other issues, and continued testing that none are coming up - determine that line?

Do you think it's better to start on the low side of any estimates and see what happens, or start on the high side and come down?

Because there are some very good studies results of what happens starting on the low side, results that can affect your whole weight loss attempt and negatively on in to maintenance.

Sure, anyone could lose weight of some sort on 1200 calories too, but is that always healthy? If you consider losing muscle mass, gaining the fat and more of it back when trying to maintain, and repeating the cycle through life with a bad relationship with food healthy.
And ya, read the forums a bit more, you will see exactly those realizations from ones.

Cedura

Thanks for the link and help Heybales.

WalkingAlong

If you'd been on MFP reading the forums for longer than a month...

I'm sure you know that one's registration date here doesn't necessarily have any correlation to their knowledge on the subject. And that you're aware that there's a whole bookstore section on weight loss, other web sites, a field of academic study, scholarly journals, etc. It's sad to think that so many people who register here really have so little foreknowledge that one can just assume that they're all clueless.

There's nearly as much misinformation here as good info, in my opinion. And I've read here before. And I commend some set of you here for lowering the BS level from knee-deep last time I read here to only ankle deep now.

But it IS as simple as eat less, move more, and the OP said she was tired of the acronyms and estimates, which is why I mentioned it. No one NEEDS to calc anything to avoid hurting their long term health. I think the fear of hurting oneself makes it more complex here than it needs to be. Most people don't undereat for long term, in my opinion. I'm sure we differ on that belief. I'd like to see studies that show overweight Americans typically damage their metabolism or LBM by undereating. I know there are studies that show that sustained, deep calorie deficits in the lab show reduced LBM, but this is a whole other thing. Even the people who are sure they're eating 1200 underestimate by 20%, studies show.

michellekicks

If you'd been on MFP reading the forums for longer than a month...

I'm sure you know that one's registration date here doesn't necessarily have any correlation to their knowledge on the subject. And that you're aware that there's a whole bookstore section on weight loss, other web sites, a field of academic study, scholarly journals, etc. It's sad to think that so many people who register here really have so little foreknowledge that one can just assume that they're all clueless.

There's nearly as much misinformation here as good info, in my opinion. And I've read here before. And I commend some set of you here for lowering the BS level from knee-deep last time I read here to only ankle deep now.

But it IS as simple as eat less, move more, and the OP said she was tired of the acronyms and estimates, which is why I mentioned it. No one NEEDS to calc anything to avoid hurting their long term health. I think the fear of hurting oneself makes it more complex here than it needs to be. Most people don't undereat for long term, in my opinion. I'm sure we differ on that belief. I'd like to see studies that show overweight Americans typically damage their metabolism or LBM by undereating. I know there are studies that show that sustained, deep calorie deficits in the lab show reduced LBM, but this is a whole other thing. Even the people who are sure they're eating 1200 underestimate by 20%, studies show.

I disagree with you. If what you say were true there would be no such thing as adaptive thermogenesis. This is also not a place filled with typical Americans. There are many people here who have been learning and applying what they're learning in the areas of nutrition, exercise science, sports nutrition etc. for a very long time. Heybales is one of the smartest and most knowledgeable people here on MFP imho; he has helped countless people get the right mix to achieve their goals.

Mr_Knight

Most people don't undereat for long term, in my opinion.

That is indisputable, as the fatness/obesity numbers demonstrate.

Mr_Knight

If what you say were true there would be no such thing as adaptive thermogenesis.

AT is a small number. Eating at a meaningful caloric deficit guarantees weight loss - the human body cannot slow down enough to compensate for that.

Sarauk2sf

Using the Catch-McCardle BMR Calculator from the IIFYM website and the BMI-calculator.net (which gives me 37.7 as my BMI)

BMI is not the same as body fat %. What you did will inflate your BMR number.

Also, with 80+ pounds to lose, you can safely go a bit below BMR anyway. But I don't think you'll need to, once you see what your BMR (more or less) actually is.

^^agreed.

WalkingAlong

"Your reference to VLCD sounds like you appreciate there is a line somewhere - how does someone on MFP without the lab tests and direct scientist supervision in a study and confirmation of no other issues, and continued testing that none are coming up - determine that line? "

http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diets

VLCD is typically considered to be 800 calories and below. Like that article says, 800-1500 is a more 'traditional diet'. The VLCD line doesn't require direct scientist supervision and lab tests or even BMR/TDEE and body fat calculators. It's overly complicated for many people.

I suggested 1500, btw. It's hardly starvation level.

heybales

"Your reference to VLCD sounds like you appreciate there is a line somewhere - how does someone on MFP without the lab tests and direct scientist supervision in a study and confirmation of no other issues, and continued testing that none are coming up - determine that line? "

http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diets

VLCD is typically considered to be 800 calories and below. Like that article says, 800-1500 is a more 'traditional diet'. The VLCD line doesn't require direct scientist supervision and lab tests or even BMR/TDEE and body fat calculators. It's overly complicated for many people.

I suggested 1500, btw. It's hardly starvation level.

Sorry, I didn't mean where is the line for defining something as a VLCD compared to LCD compared to reasonable diet.
Just as that article pointed out, there are of course official definitions usually used.

I meant there is a line that separates a short and long term successful diet, that doesn't cause short and long negative consequences, and helps the person maintain the diet and move in to maintenance and not regain the weight.
While some may say much of that is totally the persons lack of self-control and character, more and more studies are showing you can cause effects to your body to make it a whole lot worse down the road.

And true, you don't need all those lab tests and supervision.
It's called drawing the line in the sand to basically start at a higher level, and then down adjust from there. Because as the studies of AT have shown, you start low and get impacted, you moving up to have a good result may very well be a moot point by then. "Damage" or whatever you want to call it is done by then. True, it's not damage, because the body has done just what it needed to do. Sadly it sucks for continuing weight loss and moving in to maintenance later.

A best estimate of BMR is a simple line in the sand. If results of using that as basis for TDEE math and having reasonable deficit don't show reasonable results after a 4 weeks for women, and totally honest logging, then adjust down.

And 1500 gross eaten, or NET. Because have you seen some of the exercise routines folks get inspired by? 1500 gross would be undereating from a reasonable deficit.

Shoot, the stats of success on that WebMD "traditional diet of 800-1500" for months and years later should always be brought up. Even their reference to 800 or less diets to really help major health issues with carrying extra weight should be looked at - because what good did it too to long term health to lose it fast and for large %, over half I saw last time, gain it all or most back?

The simple advice of eat less and move more already happened, that's why the vast majority are here - they are doing that already. That is akin to walking in to an AA meeting and telling everyone they really need to stop drinking. They got that memo already and have moved on to actually dealing with doing just that.

yarwell

This is why I am confused about the 2 numbers. Because it would not seem healthy to eat less than what my body needs simply to survive.

If you are trying to lose weigh the objective is precisely to eat less than your body needs, in order to make it use up its fat reserves.

yarwell

because what good did it too to long term health to lose it fast and for large %, over half I saw last time, gain it all or most back

The same scenario seems to apply to all dieters, doesn't it ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443094 says "Collectively, findings indicate both short- and long-term advantages to fast initial weight loss. Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers." and "The FAST and MODERATE groups were 5.1 and 2.7 times more likely to achieve 10% weight losses at 18 months than the SLOW group".

p4ulmiller

I have a desk job where I sit in a chair for 8 hours a day. When I am not at work, I am in school (or doing homework) where I also sit. My life is constant sitting unless I take a walk on my lunch break- and then I strap a pedometer on and log that activity. I do housework, and log that activity as accurately as possible. Obviously I have been doing a little of something right, because I have lost 14 lbs and an inch or so from my waist line.

Damn right. You have been doing something that works.

Don't get hung up on "TDEEs" and "BMRs". Work out what average cals you've been eating for the period you have lost the stone and inches, stick to that, and drop a little bit more as you lose more weight.

Do what exercise you can, adding in a bit of resistance work with free weights.

Some people can really make this simple concept quite complex.

WalkingAlong

I meant there is a line that separates a short and long term successful diet, that doesn't cause short and long negative consequences, ...
It's called drawing the line in the sand to basically start at a higher level, and then down adjust from there. ...
A best estimate of BMR is a simple line in the sand....

And 1500 gross eaten, or NET. ...
The simple advice of eat less and move more already happened, that's why the vast majority are here - they are doing that already. That is akin to walking in to an AA meeting and telling everyone they really need to stop drinking. They got that memo already and have moved on to actually dealing with doing just that.

I don't think there is a line where LBM/AT occurs on one side and doesn't on the other. It's a continuum. The line the weight loss and medical industry typically uses is 1200 calories (total, there's no such thing as 'net calories'), or even 800 sometimes.

My advice to her wasn't to eat less, move more. That was my response to her comment about the acronyms and estimates being so overly confusing she wanted to just quit. It IS overly confusing for many, and for people who don't want to pretend they can micromanage their bodies with spreadsheets, they CAN just choose a simpler method because the fact of the matter is it truly is that simple as 'eat less, move more'. People here seem to miss that. They sound like they truly believe they need to hit some tiny calorie target every single day or else they will do some irreversible damage to their body. It really doesn't have to be that difficult.

ninerbuff

Using the Catch-McCardle BMR Calculator from the IIFYM website and the BMI-calculator.net (which gives me 37.7 as my BMI)

Inputting my height and weight and age appropriately- and including my desk job, sedentary activity level
My TDEE score is: 2047
My BMR is : 1706

And if I subtract from my TDEE the recommended 20% (409) then I am at 1638 (MFP had given me 1650) And that is STILL below my BMR.

Have I done something wrong? My math makes sense. But I am, indeed, below my BMR. Is that ok?

You're fine as I mentioned in my post above.

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

heybales

I have a desk job where I sit in a chair for 8 hours a day. When I am not at work, I am in school (or doing homework) where I also sit. My life is constant sitting unless I take a walk on my lunch break- and then I strap a pedometer on and log that activity. I do housework, and log that activity as accurately as possible. Obviously I have been doing a little of something right, because I have lost 14 lbs and an inch or so from my waist line.

That is sedentary than.

But I wouldn't log the housework, that's already included in sedentary activity level, unless you are doing 4 hr marathon sessions each week.

Great on the inches and weight. Measure more spots though, since fat takes up so much volume, you should really see inches go if it's really only fat going.
As several have brought out, diets without enough protein and/or resistance training also burn off muscle mass - so weight loss by itself doesn't mean you are doing it in a manner that will yield easier long term good results.
It's a struggle to get muscle mass back later.

And as you have observed, you can use MFP the way it was intended, just select 1/2 lb weight loss goal weekly. Log only your walks as exercise and eat 80% of those cal's back.