So is the general consensus not to eat under BMR?

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.