So is the general consensus not to eat under BMR?

trhendersonNC

Is that net, or food only? I'm getting right around 1800 calories a day, which is my BMR. It isn't in purpose, per se, but usually where it ends up. (Some days I eat more, some days I eat less.) I workout often (6 days a week and sometimes twice a day) and intensly, so when I use the TDEE-20% I get around 2240.

I bought a FitBit, and it seems I am not the sedentary-outside-of-workouts I thought I was. I want to eat enough, but not too much. I have about 60 pounds I want to lose (I've already lost 80-90.) In the past 6 weeks I have only lost 8 pounds, but 12 inches.

So, having said that - is it okay for me not to get the 1250 net calories that MFP says? This only happens some days (yesterday I had negative net calories!) I just need to know how often this can happen without causing a problem.

****Edited to add what I posted below:

So it is or is not ok to go under the 1250 net calories that MFP set for me? I almost always hit the 1800 calorie mark (BMR), but 10 of the last 30 days I have not hit 1250 net.

wheird

That would be Net.

I think it is fine to go below BMR if you have a lot to lose.

trhendersonNC

So it is or is not ok to go under the 1250 net calories that MFP set for me? I almost always hit the 1800 calorie mark (BMR), but 10 of the last 30 days I have not hit 1250 net.

SideSteel

Yes it's general consensus but I don't agree with it, for what it's worth.

I've never seen anything convincing to suggest that BMR is some threshold at which eating under it causes bad things.

Take someone with very low activity levels -- For this person the difference between BMR and total daily energy expenditure is not going to be large. Whereas a very active person would have a big gap between those two values.

Additionally, we are dealing with estimations. So while an online calculator may tell you that your BMR is X, and you may think you're eating Y calories, those two numbers are going to vary quite a bit. Many people eat more than they think, even though they might log a certain number of calories and believe that this is under BMR.

Finally, despite all of the above, I think "most" people who set their deficit reasonably, aren't going to be eating under their BMR, but that doesn't make BMR some magical number that you can't dip below.

wheird

I would at the very least try to hit your MFP calorie goal.

If you are having trouble reaching it, try to add in some calorie dense foods or treats. Oils help a lot, as so some treats like ice cream, gelato, etc.

wheird

Yes it's general consensus but I don't agree with it, for what it's worth.

I've never seen anything convincing to suggest that BMR is some threshold at which eating under it causes bad things.

Take someone with very low activity levels -- For this person the difference between BMR and total daily energy expenditure is not going to be large. Whereas a very active person would have a big gap between those two values.

Additionally, we are dealing with estimations. So while an online calculator may tell you that your BMR is X, and you may think you're eating Y calories, those two numbers are going to vary quite a bit. Many people eat more than they think, even though they might log a certain number of calories and believe that this is under BMR.

Finally, despite all of the above, I think "most" people who set their deficit reasonably, aren't going to be eating under their BMR, but that doesn't make BMR some magical number that you can't dip below.

Agree with the above. You have to remember that your body is metabolizing it's own energy stores to make up for the deficit in your eating.

rbiss

I have alot of weight to loose and my BMR is high. The MFP target for me is under my BMR.

albertabeefy

Additionally, we are dealing with estimations. So while an online calculator may tell you that your BMR is X, and you may think you're eating Y calories, those two numbers are going to vary quite a bit. Many people eat more than they think, even though they might log a certain number of calories and believe that this is under BMR.

^^ This is an important point. All the calculators are estimates only. I can continually eat well-above what any calculator says my TDEE is, and still lose weight, because my metabolic rate, for whatever reason, is much-higher than average.

Finally, despite all of the above, I think "most" people who set their deficit reasonably, aren't going to be eating under their BMR, but that doesn't make BMR some magical number that you can't dip below.

I agree here as well.

The biggest reason I see not to eat continually below one's BMR is to ensure adequate nutrition.

When eating very-low calorie it's hard to get proper amounts of necessary vitamins, nutrients, minimum protein/fat requirements, etc.

Of course, if we're talking about the occasional 1700 calorie day with an 1800 calorie BMR, that's not an issue. If we're talking about 750 calorie days continually - that's a whole different situation, and I always recommend VLCD be monitored regularly by a physician and nutritionist.

YesIAm17

That would be Net.

I think it is fine to go below BMR if you have a lot to lose.

^ I second that!

BMR is not a magical number never to be violated. As long as you are getting the nutrition you need and have plenty to lose then going below BMR should be fine.

"Plenty to lose" of course is relative.

My BMR is 1691 according to the IIFYM Calculator at iifym.com. My Net Cal goal is 1600. I estimate a burn of 347 Cals on exercise 5 days a week and usually eat a good chunk if not all of that back. I have less than 15lbs to lose. My goal is around 1lb loss per week. I pay attention to and aim for my Macros, coming not too far off at all, especially Protein (I get more than 1 gram per lb of body weight per day).

Some would say I am being too aggressive, some would say it's fine.

I listen to both sides of the argument... I look at the facts... I listen to my body... and I reconsider and recalculate everything every few lbs I lose. In 2.4 lbs from now I will likely be upping my Net Cal goal to 1700, then 1800 2.5lbs after that.

I also look at BF% and not just scale weight.

Just giving you my stats to show you my thought process and what's working for me.

trhendersonNC

I would at the very least try to hit your MFP calorie goal.

If you are having trouble reaching it, try to add in some calorie dense foods or treats. Oils help a lot, as so some treats like ice cream, gelato, etc.

I am allergic to dairy, and don't eat wheat (makes me sick to my stomach.) I pretty much only eat fruits, veggies, meats, and seeds/nuts. Occasionally I will eat oats and rice. This makes it harder to eat a lot (which is good and bad obviously.)

cadaver0usb0nes

Your BMR is your base metabolic rate... which is the calories needed to full your body if you were in a coma and didn't move at all. You need to figure out your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) and then subtract 10-20 percent of that.... and that is the amount you should eat. Or just use the goals MFP sets for you but sometimes those can be lower than what you really need.

wheird

I would at the very least try to hit your MFP calorie goal.

If you are having trouble reaching it, try to add in some calorie dense foods or treats. Oils help a lot, as so some treats like ice cream, gelato, etc.

I am allergic to dairy, and don't eat wheat (makes me sick to my stomach.) I pretty much only eat fruits, veggies, meats, and seeds/nuts. Occasionally I will eat oats and rice. This makes it harder to eat a lot (which is good and bad obviously.)

Try adding in a bit of olive oil to increase your caloric intake then.

MelodyandBarbells

Yes it's general consensus but I don't agree with it, for what it's worth.

I've never seen anything convincing to suggest that BMR is some threshold at which eating under it causes bad things.

Take someone with very low activity levels -- For this person the difference between BMR and total daily energy expenditure is not going to be large. Whereas a very active person would have a big gap between those two values.

Additionally, we are dealing with estimations. So while an online calculator may tell you that your BMR is X, and you may think you're eating Y calories, those two numbers are going to vary quite a bit. Many people eat more than they think, even though they might log a certain number of calories and believe that this is under BMR.

Finally, despite all of the above, I think "most" people who set their deficit reasonably, aren't going to be eating under their BMR, but that doesn't make BMR some magical number that you can't dip below.

What's the lowest you think people should eat?

msbunnie68

I am a little confused with what you are saying...so....are you saying that you eat roughly around 1800 calories a day (your BMR) but you are not able to eat 1250 more than your 1800 BMR to have a Net difference of 1250 (eg 1800 + 1250 = 3050 calories a day...?)

Because you either eating at 1800 or at 1250 but not at both in the same day...

If your BMR is 1800 and you general hit the 1800 well, you are eating under but it is definitely not as bad as If your BMR is 1800 and you can't even eat at 1250 - then that would be an issue...

forkofpower

I eat the recommended minimum of 1200 calories a day -- a little below my BMR. My weight loss is reasonably moderate (only about 0.5 pounds a week). I maintain at less than 1500 calories a day when I don't exercise (the joys of being a ridiculously short woman), and my calculated BMR is about 1250. If I didn't eat below BMR, I wouldn't have much of a deficit left.

Of course, I have no idea if any of these numbers are necessarily accurate.

SideSteel

Yes it's general consensus but I don't agree with it, for what it's worth.

I've never seen anything convincing to suggest that BMR is some threshold at which eating under it causes bad things.

Take someone with very low activity levels -- For this person the difference between BMR and total daily energy expenditure is not going to be large. Whereas a very active person would have a big gap between those two values.

Additionally, we are dealing with estimations. So while an online calculator may tell you that your BMR is X, and you may think you're eating Y calories, those two numbers are going to vary quite a bit. Many people eat more than they think, even though they might log a certain number of calories and believe that this is under BMR.

Finally, despite all of the above, I think "most" people who set their deficit reasonably, aren't going to be eating under their BMR, but that doesn't make BMR some magical number that you can't dip below.

What's the lowest you think people should eat?

I don't think I can answer that in a manner that covers all contexts.

MelodyandBarbells

Fair enough :frown:

wheird

Fair enough :frown:

I wouldn't think of it as "how low can I go" as much as I would "What is a reasonable deficit for me?"

trhendersonNC

I am a little confused with what you are saying...so....are you saying that you eat roughly around 1800 calories a day (your BMR) but you are not able to eat 1250 more than your 1800 BMR to have a Net difference of 1250 (eg 1800 + 1250 = 3050 calories a day...?)

Because you either eating at 1800 or at 1250 but not at both in the same day...

If your BMR is 1800 and you general hit the 1800 well, you are eating under but it is definitely not as bad as If your BMR is 1800 and you can't even eat at 1250 - then that would be an issue...

I eat at my BMR - 1800 calories
MFP says I should net 1250
I often don't net 1250

I know it is a function of how much I work out. Today, for example, I have eaten just under 2000, but my net is 789. My FitBit adjustment is 550, which is because I have MFP set to "Sedentary" but I think I must fall in the "Moderately Active" category. I am going to adjust that, but it will increase my net calorie number, so it is 6 of one, half dozen of another.

Edited to add:

Changing my profile from "Sedentary" to "Lightly Active" cut the adjustment in half, and set me to 1520 net.

msbunnie68

ahhh ok....the calorie number MFP gives you is the calories you need to eat to lose whatever weight you nominated in your goals (1/2lb 1lb 2lbs whatever). It is a calorie number with a built in deficit depending on the activity level you set. You are supposed to eat those calories in a day ...eg..1520 plus whatever proportion of your exercise calories you see fit to eat.


...not eat 1520 calories over and above the 1800 BMR that you have plucked off another site.

You are trying to mesh together two figures that are in no way connected to each other.

edit: so going off your new MFP figure you would eat 1520 calories today PLUS up to an extra 550 calories that your fitbit says you burnt. So the maximum calories you should eat altogether today is 1520 + 550 = 2070 calories.

trhendersonNC

ahhh ok....the calorie number MFP gives you is the calories you need to eat to lose whatever weight you nominated in your goals (1/2lb 1lb 2lbs whatever). It is a calorie number with a built in deficit depending on the activity level you set. You are supposed to eat those calories in a day ...eg..1520 plus whatever proportion of your exercise calories you see fit to eat.


...not eat 1520 calories over and above the 1800 BMR that you have plucked off another site.

You are trying to mesh together two figures that are in no way connected to each other.

edit: so going off your new MFP figure you would eat 1520 calories today PLUS up to an extra 550 calories that your fitbit says you burnt. So the maximum calories you should eat altogether today is 1520 + 550 = 2070 calories.

No, that isn't what I was saying - I was wondering if it was okay to go under 1250 net as long as ate at *least* my BMR. The Fitbit adjustment was in addition to the swimming and running I did yesterday. Basically, to get to the net calories MFP thought I needed (1520 once I reset my profile) I needed to eat roughly 2400 total.

Bottom line, I need to eat more. I'll search the forums here for ideas.

ChrisM8971

Yes it's general consensus but I don't agree with it, for what it's worth.

I've never seen anything convincing to suggest that BMR is some threshold at which eating under it causes bad things.

Take someone with very low activity levels -- For this person the difference between BMR and total daily energy expenditure is not going to be large. Whereas a very active person would have a big gap between those two values.

Additionally, we are dealing with estimations. So while an online calculator may tell you that your BMR is X, and you may think you're eating Y calories, those two numbers are going to vary quite a bit. Many people eat more than they think, even though they might log a certain number of calories and believe that this is under BMR.

Finally, despite all of the above, I think "most" people who set their deficit reasonably, aren't going to be eating under their BMR, but that doesn't make BMR some magical number that you can't dip below.

This

I ate below my BMR to start with, the calories recommended by MFP for a 1.5 lb per week loss. I had 70 lbs to lose and a totally sedentary lifestyle (driving 8-10 hours then sitting in front of the tv or playing on-line games)

At that point my BMR and TDEE were very close to each other when I calculated them on various sites so to lose at any decent rate I needed to be below BMR

As I have become more active, adding in exercise and reduced my required rate of loss due to approaching my goal my calorie goal has increased and I no longer eat below BMR because it now suits my goals not to

msbunnie68

The calories that MFP says you need it total in the day to fuel your lifestyle before food. You then eat back any calories you burn from exercise. It is NOT the calories over and above your BMR! It is the total calories you are allowed before exercise - no BMR involved!!!

If MFP gives you 1520 then that is it for the day unless you exercise - that BMR number of 1800 is not a starting point to take away from you total calories to magically net 1520!

TO repeat: when you set your weight loss goals on MFP and your activity level, height, weight and age, it calculates the total number of calories you need to eat at to lose weight. Period. It is NOT a number to net over BMR!!!! You only get to eat extra calories OVER that amount IF you exercise...and only up to the amount of calories that exercise burns.

IF your BMR calculates well over that amount then that should be your starting point at the very least PLUS eat back exercise calories.

AwesomeGuy37

If someone is sedentary and morbidly obese, they might be under their BMR to lose 2 pounds per week. My BMR is 2,128/day. I eat under that. MFP recommends 1624 cal/day.

Vailara

There is an idea on MFP that your body can only use calories from food for basic functioning, so if you eat below your BMR your organs will fail. It doesn't really make sense to me. However, I think BMR is useful as a guideline to work out how much you're burning, and what's a reasonable minimum intake.

MFP will tend to set calories below your BMR, depending on what goal you set and whether you exercise. That's because it only uses your BMR to work out what you burn without exercise, and then it subtracts 500 calories from that for every pound you want to lose per week. If you set it to lose 2lb a week, MFP will subtract 1000 calories, regardless of your BMR (unless that takes you under 1200 calories, in which case it will set your net at 1200).

So MFP believes it's OK to eat below your BMR and to net below your BMR. There is a view that it's dangerous to do this. Do read up on it and decide for yourself, as I'm not qualified to give advice! However, I've found that it works for me to have smaller rather than a larger deficit, so I don't see any need to eat below my BMR (if you eat at your BMR, you would automatically be at a deficit and losing weight). I would say that netting around 1200 calories is on the low side, even though MFP recommends it, but if you want, you can change that be either dropping your goal to slower weight loss, or entering your own goal (by working out your TDEE and subtracting a %). If you don't want to change it, you should still be aiming to hit the 1250 net. I wish MFP would give people a range to aim for, because I think most people aim to be under their goal, rather than around it!

dopeysmelly

Yes it's general consensus but I don't agree with it, for what it's worth.

I've never seen anything convincing to suggest that BMR is some threshold at which eating under it causes bad things.

Take someone with very low activity levels -- For this person the difference between BMR and total daily energy expenditure is not going to be large. Whereas a very active person would have a big gap between those two values.

Additionally, we are dealing with estimations. So while an online calculator may tell you that your BMR is X, and you may think you're eating Y calories, those two numbers are going to vary quite a bit. Many people eat more than they think, even though they might log a certain number of calories and believe that this is under BMR.

Finally, despite all of the above, I think "most" people who set their deficit reasonably, aren't going to be eating under their BMR, but that doesn't make BMR some magical number that you can't dip below.

This

I ate below my BMR to start with, the calories recommended by MFP for a 1.5 lb per week loss. I had 70 lbs to lose and a totally sedentary lifestyle (driving 8-10 hours then sitting in front of the tv or playing on-line games)

At that point my BMR and TDEE were very close to each other when I calculated them on various sites so to lose at any decent rate I needed to be below BMR

As I have become more active, adding in exercise and reduced my required rate of loss due to approaching my goal my calorie goal has increased and I no longer eat below BMR because it now suits my goals not to

This has worked for me also.