BMR: what does it mean?

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.