My BMR is 1700...

daisy968

Should I be consuming these calories every day if I want to lose weight? I've always read that the ideal amount is 1200, but I don't want to risk anything.
Also, by eating 1700 net cals a day, will the weight loss be faster than if I ate 1200?

(I'm 19, f, 5'9, 185 lb)

LKArgh

Try the MFP suggestion (for a moderate weight loss, like 2-3 lbs per month or less, NOT 2 lbs per week with your weight an age) and then eat at least half your burned calories from exercise back. I expect the total per day to be way over 1200 for you.
Or try a TDEE calculator, like this one: http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/, inlcude activity level in the calculator, eat TDEE - 10% to 15%, and do not eat exercise calories back.

yarwell

Should I be consuming these calories every day if I want to lose weight? I've always read that the ideal amount is 1200, but I don't want to risk anything.
Also, by eating 1700 net cals a day, will the weight loss be faster than if I ate 1200?

(I'm 19, f, 5'9, 185 lb)

Your BMR may be around 1700, but that's only part of what you use daily. You might use 2000 in total so eating less than 2000 will give some weight loss.

A cut of 500 - 750 initially should work ie 1250 to 1500 pick a number and try it for 3 weeks then adjust. As you lose weight the cut will need to decline somewhat.

steve0820

Your BMR is what you need to sustain life. If you laid in bed for 24 hours doing nothing, that's what you would burn. Your TDEE is your BMR + activities, whatever that might be. Depending on the calculator, you find your TDEE and subtract 10-15% off based on your goals.

KarenJanine

You are young and tall. 1200 is likely to be too low for you. As others have said, calculate your TDEE, taking your exercise into consideration, and take a maximum 20% cut to lose weight.

Using this method you should not eat exercise calories back because they are already included in your TDEE calculation.

neandermagnon

whoever said the ideal amount for everyone/generally is 1200 is wrong

the ideal number of calories for fat loss is different for everyone. For a few people, usually small sedentary women, 1200 calories a day is ideal. For most people, it's too few.

There's a thread on here "your guide on your path to sexypants" (or similar wording to that) which explains how you can calculate the optimum number of calories for you to lose fat.

stephe1987

BMR is a good place to start. If you lose weight, great. If your weight loss slows down for more than a week or two, you can take it a bit lower. 1200 should be the lower limit but it isn't ideal for everyone, especially for people who are just getting started or people who have a lot of weight to lose (BMR is much higher than 1200). Also, because you're tall 1200 might be too low because your BMR will be well over 1200 even after you reach your goal weight.

steve0820

BMR is a good place to start. If you lose weight, great. If your weight loss slows down for more than a week or two, you can take it a bit lower. 1200 should be the lower limit but it isn't ideal for everyone, especially for people who are just getting started or people who have a lot of weight to lose (BMR is much higher than 1200). Also, because you're tall 1200 might be too low because your BMR will be well over 1200 even after you reach your goal weight.

Your BMR is to sustain life, not a starting point. You should not be going below BMR.

KarenJanine

There's a thread on here "your guide on your path to sexypants" (or similar wording to that) which explains how you can calculate the optimum number of calories for you to lose fat.

Here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

Quasita

The 1200 marker is a number given as the lowest minimum calorie intake for a full grown adult. Meaning, no program (exception being MAYBE a bariatric program) will say you should eat at or under 1200 calories per day. It is not the "ideal" for almost anyone... As other posters have said, you'd have to be a petite woman for that to be a normal caloric intake level of any sort... but a lot of people on MFP confuse that minimum recommendation with an optimal goal. MFP cuts off at this because it is widely accepted in the medical field that intake lower than this is unhealthy.

BMR is, as steve0820 said, the amount of calories needed to support daily functions of your body. You need to eat at least 1700 calories in order to sustain proper function of your body... The BMR doesn't account for anything other than life support, so by getting up and going to work, running errands, even simply moving around the house, you will burn more than the BMR amount.

MFP's program is set up to do an estimation of your daily life support function plus standard living activities like going to work and managing the household. It is designed to estimate the average burn for your lifestyle based on your body type, then calculate a cut from that based on your goals.

The TDEE approach is used if you want to average your intake per day, and considers your workout routines as well as the stuff that MFP estimates. Some people, mostly those who have steady workout routines, opt for it over eating back work out calories per instance.

Anyway you want to look at it though, you should never shoot for a goal under your BMR.

All calculators are based on averages, but can be a good jumping off point. To calculate your estimated daily activity burn level, you can use the following:

Harris Benedict Formula
To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:

If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2
If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375
If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55
If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725
If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9

This will determine an estimation of your calorie intake need to MAINTAIN. To calculate the amount you need to eat in order to lose, you would take the result and subtract the calorie cut needed for your weekly goal... So, here's an example:

So you are lightly active generally. The calculation goes as follows:
1700 x 1.375 = 2337.5
You would need to eat approximately 2340 calories every day to maintain the current weight.
Say you want to lose 1 pound a week.
1 pound is approximated at 3500 calories.
3500 / 7 = 500 <-- amount to subtract from each day to lose 1.5 pounds a week through calorie intake reduction

So...

2340 - 500 = 1840

By this example, you would lose an average of 1lb per week by eating 1840 a day. A loss goal of over 1lb per week would not be recommended, as any higher than 1lb per week would drop your goal below BMR.

People do it in different ways, and each body is different. The best calorie intake is the intake that will provide you the safest and most effective weightloss without causing you health issues or dropping below BMR. The logic that larger cuts will make you lose more is in essence true, BUT dropping intake below BMR causes physiological changes that will ultimately impede your success, and make regaining much easier than if you insisted to yourself that you remain patient and lose weight in a healthy way.

psuLemon

BMR is a good place to start. If you lose weight, great. If your weight loss slows down for more than a week or two, you can take it a bit lower. 1200 should be the lower limit but it isn't ideal for everyone, especially for people who are just getting started or people who have a lot of weight to lose (BMR is much higher than 1200). Also, because you're tall 1200 might be too low because your BMR will be well over 1200 even after you reach your goal weight.

Your BMR is to sustain life, not a starting point. You should not be going below BMR.

You know its funny, a lot of people quote this and I have even made at thread asking why, but no one could even provide any science to suggest that eating below your metabolic rate is even bad. I am not advocating it's a good idea, but I am also not saying this is a good path. Also keep in mind, the OP is estimating her BMR.


OP, there are many other factors. We would need to know your workout routine, how active you are outside of exercise, and if you have medical conditions. I can tell you the average women I have helped eat between 1700-2100. For someone your stats, its closer to the right of the number. So if you want to provide the rest of the basics, then we can answer your question.

yarwell

Your BMR is to sustain life, not a starting point. You should not be going below BMR.

a tired old MFPism

you can take calories from the millions around your middle if you're obese, you don't have to eat to match your BMR.

Nobody outside here thinks "eat your BMR" is even a thing.

yarwell

The 1200 marker is a number given as the lowest minimum calorie intake for a full grown adult.

only in America.

Quasita

The 1200 marker is a number given as the lowest minimum calorie intake for a full grown adult.

only in America.

Well, you can think what you will, but I'm not talking out of my booty on that one. The 1200 calorie marker is what has been published by the FDA and CDC, as well as world-renowned medical institutes like the Mayo Clinic, as being the lowest, safest caloric intake for a full-grown adult who is not being medically supervised.

It is also the minimum level calorie intake suggested for the rehabilitation of a starving adult. That is, if an adult is in rehab, to move from intake in starvation levels to a normalized diet, they start that individual at 1200 calories and then up the calories until they have achieved a healthy weight for their height, and a healthy standard intake level for their healthy height/weight.

It's not only in America. A quick search showed that resources in the UK also publish this same number, which would suggest that from an international perspective, it is a widely accepted standard.

As for eating under BMR, there have been plenty of studies done, and the impact that occurs from consistent eating under BMR is adaptive thermogenesis. That is, the body's natural mechanism of preservation begins a series of changes that alters the metabolic rate, so that it can sustain vital functions on lower calorie intake. While this is a naturally occurring process during weight loss (as your weight drops, the metabolic rate adjusts), inciting this process through dietary deprivation can skew the balance of energy conversion to the size of your body, and with time, make it increasingly harder to lose weight effectively.

A lot of people on MFP like to throw various things around and call bunk on things they don't want to agree with, but I always refer back to respectable medical journals and institutes as well as peer-reviewed articles and research studies. It's really not that hard to find the information that has been tested and documented, most results having been replicated several times.

neandermagnon

The 1200 marker is a number given as the lowest minimum calorie intake for a full grown adult.

only in America.

Well, you can think what you will, but I'm not talking out of my booty on that one. The 1200 calorie marker is what has been published by the FDA and CDC, as well as world-renowned medical institutes like the Mayo Clinic, as being the lowest, safest caloric intake for a full-grown adult who is not being medically supervised.

One number cannot be the lowest number of calories needed to sustain any adult without a need for medical supervision. This might be a legal thing in the UK (i.e. to prevent people from being sued) and I don't care how many organisations claim that there is a single number below which it's not safe for any adult to eat and above which it is safe.... it's not correct from a biological point of view. Different size people need different amounts of calories. If you have a petite, sedentary woman whose TDEE is around 1600 cals/day and a large, active man whose TDEE is more like 2800 cals/day, you can't possibly expect a 1200 cal/day diet to have the same effect on both of them. For the small sedentary woman, it's a 25% deficit, i.e. a bit extreme if she only has a few lbs to lose, but it's not going to cause any major health issues (compliance is another matter and there may be a risk of loss of LBM if she's not that fat to begin with)... but for the large active man it's nearly a 60% deficit........ a 60% deficit is going to put someone at a much greater health risk than a 25% deficit. 60% deficit is starvation and frankly it's dangerous.

Just because various organisations quote this number does not make it a biological fact. A lot of things in biology are not "one size fits all" and this is one of them. There may be a few medical purposes where it's used - you mentioned rehabilitating victims of starvation - well in that case it's just a starting point because a starving person can't just eat a full day's calories to begin with (but they may not be able to take in 1200 to begin with anyway, so they just start with what they can take in) and as you said they adjust the number upwards until the person starts to gain weight (and the number of calories to rehabilitate someone from starvation is actually a lot higher than their TDEE before they starved, because they have so much tissue to regrow, so 1200 would be nothing more than a starting point).... but in most medical purposes they don't use 1200 calories a day one size fits all number. If someone is in a coma, they use formulas to calculate the person's basal metabolic rate and they feed them that number of calories through a drip feed, because in a coma, your TDEE = you BMR and BMR varies depending on a person's size and body composition.

Quasita

The 1200 marker is a number given as the lowest minimum calorie intake for a full grown adult.

only in America.

Well, you can think what you will, but I'm not talking out of my booty on that one. The 1200 calorie marker is what has been published by the FDA and CDC, as well as world-renowned medical institutes like the Mayo Clinic, as being the lowest, safest caloric intake for a full-grown adult who is not being medically supervised.

One number cannot be the lowest number of calories needed to sustain any adult without a need for medical supervision. This might be a legal thing in the UK (i.e. to prevent people from being sued) and I don't care how many organisations claim that there is a single number below which it's not safe for any adult to eat and above which it is safe.... it's not correct from a biological point of view. Different size people need different amounts of calories. If you have a petite, sedentary woman whose TDEE is around 1600 cals/day and a large, active man whose TDEE is more like 2800 cals/day, you can't possibly expect a 1200 cal/day diet to have the same effect on both of them. For the small sedentary woman, it's a 25% deficit, i.e. a bit extreme if she only has a few lbs to lose, but it's not going to cause any major health issues (compliance is another matter and there may be a risk of loss of LBM if she's not that fat to begin with)... but for the large active man it's nearly a 60% deficit........ a 60% deficit is going to put someone at a much greater health risk than a 25% deficit. 60% deficit is starvation and frankly it's dangerous.

Just because various organisations quote this number does not make it a biological fact. A lot of things in biology are not "one size fits all" and this is one of them. There may be a few medical purposes where it's used - you mentioned rehabilitating victims of starvation - well in that case it's just a starting point because a starving person can't just eat a full day's calories to begin with (but they may not be able to take in 1200 to begin with anyway, so they just start with what they can take in) and as you said they adjust the number upwards until the person starts to gain weight (and the number of calories to rehabilitate someone from starvation is actually a lot higher than their TDEE before they starved, because they have so much tissue to regrow, so 1200 would be nothing more than a starting point).... but in most medical purposes they don't use 1200 calories a day one size fits all number. If someone is in a coma, they use formulas to calculate the person's basal metabolic rate and they feed them that number of calories through a drip feed, because in a coma, your TDEE = you BMR and BMR varies depending on a person's size and body composition.

That is not what I said. I did not say that it was something touted as universally acceptable for all bodies. Every single resource states that it's the bare minimum for the AVERAGE body, and should be adjusted for weight.

I didn't say it was the lowest number to sustain any adult. Perhaps I omitted the "average" word in there, but most people would hopefully understand that any statement like that would be a statement to the average.

The point is that the number is considered the lowest reasonable intake for an average person to get adequate nutrient intake. Obviously, I don't expect you to have read my other contributions on the subject, but I'm the last person that you need to explain calorie intake adjustment to. I have been fighting that battle in the forums the whole time, being faced with people insisting that me, at 6'1", over 400lbs, can eat 1200 calories a day simply because "you can have a bigger deficit when you have more to lose."

My "medically supervised" diet level would be anything under 2000 calories, and I'm not supposed to drop under 2400 calories. My statements regarding 1200 calories are a summation of multiple resources, as well as in response to the OP in particular. Even my above posts in this thread consistently say that for this particular person, 1200 calories is too low... So I'm not sure why quoting my statement and writing a lesson felt necessary? Anyway, whatever works.

steve0820

Your BMR is to sustain life, not a starting point. You should not be going below BMR.

a tired old MFPism

you can take calories from the millions around your middle if you're obese, you don't have to eat to match your BMR.

Nobody outside here thinks "eat your BMR" is even a thing.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. When did I say "eat your BMR"?

My point was you should be eating above your BMR, and everyone's BMR is different.

I also don't mention anything about 1200 cals, that just happens to be included in the post I quoted, not something I was addressing, since this is now being debated below haha

I don't see why it's really being debated, we need a certain amount of food to fuel the body, keep our organs functioning, breathing, you know , all that good stuff.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

WalkingAlong

Your BMR is to sustain life, not a starting point. You should not be going below BMR.

a tired old MFPism

you can take calories from the millions around your middle if you're obese, you don't have to eat to match your BMR.

Nobody outside here thinks "eat your BMR" is even a thing.

Exactly. (And that includes 'eat only above your BMR'.)

neandermagnon

The 1200 marker is a number given as the lowest minimum calorie intake for a full grown adult.

only in America.

Well, you can think what you will, but I'm not talking out of my booty on that one. The 1200 calorie marker is what has been published by the FDA and CDC, as well as world-renowned medical institutes like the Mayo Clinic, as being the lowest, safest caloric intake for a full-grown adult who is not being medically supervised.

One number cannot be the lowest number of calories needed to sustain any adult without a need for medical supervision. This might be a legal thing in the UK (i.e. to prevent people from being sued) and I don't care how many organisations claim that there is a single number below which it's not safe for any adult to eat and above which it is safe.... it's not correct from a biological point of view. Different size people need different amounts of calories. If you have a petite, sedentary woman whose TDEE is around 1600 cals/day and a large, active man whose TDEE is more like 2800 cals/day, you can't possibly expect a 1200 cal/day diet to have the same effect on both of them. For the small sedentary woman, it's a 25% deficit, i.e. a bit extreme if she only has a few lbs to lose, but it's not going to cause any major health issues (compliance is another matter and there may be a risk of loss of LBM if she's not that fat to begin with)... but for the large active man it's nearly a 60% deficit........ a 60% deficit is going to put someone at a much greater health risk than a 25% deficit. 60% deficit is starvation and frankly it's dangerous.

Just because various organisations quote this number does not make it a biological fact. A lot of things in biology are not "one size fits all" and this is one of them. There may be a few medical purposes where it's used - you mentioned rehabilitating victims of starvation - well in that case it's just a starting point because a starving person can't just eat a full day's calories to begin with (but they may not be able to take in 1200 to begin with anyway, so they just start with what they can take in) and as you said they adjust the number upwards until the person starts to gain weight (and the number of calories to rehabilitate someone from starvation is actually a lot higher than their TDEE before they starved, because they have so much tissue to regrow, so 1200 would be nothing more than a starting point).... but in most medical purposes they don't use 1200 calories a day one size fits all number. If someone is in a coma, they use formulas to calculate the person's basal metabolic rate and they feed them that number of calories through a drip feed, because in a coma, your TDEE = you BMR and BMR varies depending on a person's size and body composition.

That is not what I said. I did not say that it was something touted as universally acceptable for all bodies. Every single resource states that it's the bare minimum for the AVERAGE body, and should be adjusted for weight.

I didn't say it was the lowest number to sustain any adult. Perhaps I omitted the "average" word in there, but most people would hopefully understand that any statement like that would be a statement to the average.

The point is that the number is considered the lowest reasonable intake for an average person to get adequate nutrient intake. Obviously, I don't expect you to have read my other contributions on the subject, but I'm the last person that you need to explain calorie intake adjustment to. I have been fighting that battle in the forums the whole time, being faced with people insisting that me, at 6'1", over 400lbs, can eat 1200 calories a day simply because "you can have a bigger deficit when you have more to lose."

My "medically supervised" diet level would be anything under 2000 calories, and I'm not supposed to drop under 2400 calories. My statements regarding 1200 calories are a summation of multiple resources, as well as in response to the OP in particular. Even my above posts in this thread consistently say that for this particular person, 1200 calories is too low... So I'm not sure why quoting my statement and writing a lesson felt necessary? Anyway, whatever works.

it wasn't directed at you personally, it was a contribution to a discussion. You didn't say anything about it being adjusted for body size, you just said that various organisations quoted that number as a bare minimum. I was responding to that statement.

Quasita

I think you're missing his big point which is eating above your BMR is neither necessary nor optimal for weight loss. Outside of MFP there is a quite a reduced fear of eating too low calories and in fact the majority of all scientific literature shows that VLEDs produce the most short-term and long-term (5 years) weight loss.

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/micronutrient-malnutrition-obesity-and-chronic-disease-countries-undergoing-nutrition-tr

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.long

I'm sorry, but your statement is inaccurate here. The majority of scientific literature does not actually support the statement that very low eating/calorie intake results in the most weight loss.

What it states is that it shows the quickest short term loss, and that from a long term perspective, the loss from low intake diets is often relatively equal to those losses experienced with virtually any other diet. This including people who cut carbs, people who do Atkins, etc etc.

However, what the literature also states is that it is not a long term viable option, just as Atkins is not a long term viable option, because the eating pattern is not sustainable for systemic health. When patients are treated with VLCD/VLED diets in short term studies, they do lose more, but the loss longevity is directly relative to successful behavior modification and the carefully monitored return to a normalized diet afterwards. Most patients treated with them experience at least some regain due to a variety of factors, but it's not something doctors recommend you sustain for extended periods of time... Not even for a year.

The typical Anorexia Nervosa patient eats 600-800 calories a day. While psychologically ill, the physical issues that occur with this illness are caused by the dietary restriction being carried over a long period of time. In as little as 6 weeks (some even less) an individual can do serious systemic damage to their body through this level of deprivation.

As for your references... Do you even know what you linked?

The first one's abstract:
"In children, micronutrient malnutrition is a cause of stunting and may be accompanied by metabolic adaptations that increase the risk of later obesity and related disease. In adults, deficiencies in key micronutrients may promote oxidative stress, folate deficiency may increase risk for heart disease, and zinc deficiency may be exacerbated in the presence of diabetes while also affecting glucose transport. Low fruit and vegetable consumption may additionally increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer through a variety of mechanisms. The importance of supporting programs and policies that address the spectrum of malnutrition, including micronutrient malnutrition and emerging obesity together, is stressed."

In other words, micronutrient malnutrition, which is strongly correlative to low intake, results in impacted physiological development and increases the risk of obesity in later life. Additionally, that a similar situation in an adult increases the risk of several life-threatening illnesses as well as increased obesity. How does this support your point at all?

As for the second source... Their study isn't even a clinical trial, but rather a nutritional analysis of data compiled across several studies that could have varying levels of conclusive results pertaining to varying details. One thing they do state, however, is that after 5 years of undetermined followup care, the majority of patients regained a chunk of their weight, and that the most successful patients on VLED diets were those that had lost 20+kg during the study they participated in, and the least successful were those that lost less than 10kg.

When clinical/medical resources talk about VLEDs, they are most often talking about a pre-made meal replacement that is formulated specifically to provide all essentially nutrients in a low number of calories. They are not talking about people eating real food (with the exception of a serving of vegetables) and the standard recommendation that I have found so far is that it is absolutely not recommended that people do a VLED without medical supervision and cognitive behavioral therapy.

The National Institute of Health, however, released several statements about it, and one I thought was particular pertinent to this discussion...
"However, in randomized controlled trials VLED-based programmes have not achieved significantly better long-term maintenance than conventional programmes. VLEDs are used when rapid weight loss is necessary because of an obesity-related disease. In other patients with obesity it is an alternative to other conservative approaches for treatment of obesity. In type 2 diabetes it may improve long-term glucose metabolism better than conventional weight reducing diets. Some studies suggest that after a VLED-based programme long-term maintenance is better among men than women. This possible gender difference is an important topic for further research."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12119638

So basically, like I said, it proves no better or worse on a long-term scale, and it's not universally applicable to people. But, per your own references, the risks involved with malnutrition, which is a major concern with VLED and the reason why they do monitored meal replacements for such diets, are pretty significant, and the practice is generally unnecessary... The only people they say seem to see real benefit from it over other options are people going into surgery and diabetics, with the possibility of extra benefit for people with other morbid obesity issues.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Annesoucy1957

I eat lower than 1200 calories a day, mind you my tdee is very low to start with. Even if eating this starvation level as some states I am getting more nutrient than I did before by choosing healthier whole food. I know calorie in calorie out but I cannot get my mind around eating junk at a deficit, yes you lose weight but to the detriment of your general health.

by replacing a slice of pizza at 400 calories and if only one slice was enough, do you know how much vegetables and lean protein I can get, a whole lot more food than the pizza enough to sustain me until the next meal and that without slowing me down because I have to digest all the carbs that make me sluggish. A healthy diet gives you energy something that your body can use in a more efficient manner. Again I know a calorie is a calorie, it is the nutrient that is in that said calorie that makes the difference.

I dont want to be a skinny unhealthy person with diabetis and cholesterol problems.

So eat at the level that is acceptable for you gender, height, weight and age but do it for the whole picture.

Quasita

The typical Anorexia Nervosa patient eats 600-800 calories a day.

You do understand an anorexic person doesn't have fat to spare while an obese person does right?

[/quote]

I'm only choosing to respond to this part because the rest, in my opinion, is a matter of reading interpretation, as well as the whole "you can always find a study that will support what you believe is right" reality of scientific research.

The reason I quote this is because I was diagnosed as anorexic when I weighed over 300 pounds. Anorexia Nervosa does not have a required body composition for diagnosis. When it was originally defined, they did have the specification that the patient had to be underweight to be diagnosed, but that has long since been dismissed. Misconceptions like this when it comes to eating disorders and those of us who suffer from them are a big part of why there is limited acceptance in the community.

You don't have to be skinny to be anorexic or bulimic, or suffer from any other variation of an eating disorder. Eating less than 900 calories a day for over 4 years effectively stilted my thyroid function, despite my body weight. I simply will not support people eating so little without doctor supervision, because I refuse to see someone else go through the hell I went through.

Unknown

This content has been removed.