Need to settle this once and for all!

RHachicho

Guys it IS actually true that the very heavy can provide much of their calories from their fat and thus can sustain larger deficits. Even eating below their bmr from diet. It's not advisable to go too far below your bmr though if you are active because the body can only mobilize so many fat calories at once. So it can make you prone to lean tissue loss. But in those who just cut calories and do a bit of walking on occasion eating under bmr is cool as long as the fat metabolism can cover it.

Of course knowing your body fat metabolism means knowing exactly how many lbs of fat you are so unless you can accurately measure your body fat % it is inherently inadvisable. Only someone who understand the numbers involved should attempt it. So in general it is advisable for most people to eat above their bmr. Especially if they intend to work out. BUT eating below your bmr is not inherently daft. It depends on your situation.

trogalicious

Losing a lot of weight doesn't require understanding every method there is of losing it.

like an appropriate calorie deficit?

please, tell me the other ways to lose weight that aren't the above...?

As opposed to an inappropriate calorie deficit?

It can be as easy or as complicated as people want to make it. Hell, most people can't define the word "weight" without using a form of the word itself (e.g. "What something weighs.") It's not important.

Eat less and/or move more. That's all anyone needs to learn.

there are inappropriate calorie deficits.
stop eating anything at all.
that's not appropriate, is it?

WalkingAlong

Losing a lot of weight doesn't require understanding every method there is of losing it.

like an appropriate calorie deficit?

please, tell me the other ways to lose weight that aren't the above...?

What we define as appropriate differs. I'll be happy to read anything you have that says eating under BMR is inappropriate. No one else has ever produced anything, short of forum posts on weight loss sites.

If 1200 is an inappropriate floor, why does MFP use it? Why do you use MFP if you feel the plan is inappropriate?

trogalicious

Losing a lot of weight doesn't require understanding every method there is of losing it.

like an appropriate calorie deficit?

please, tell me the other ways to lose weight that aren't the above...?

What we define as appropriate differs. I'll be happy to read anything you have that says eating under BMR is inappropriate. No one else has ever produced anything, short of forum posts on weight loss sites.

If 1200 is an inappropriate floor, why does MFP use it? Why do you use MFP if you feel the plan is inappropriate?

I don't use the MFP plan.

I've spent a few hundred days here, tracking what I need to manage the amount of weight that I lose. I use MFP because it's a lot easier than keeping up with a spreadsheet.

Numbers for intake differ, I'll give you that. For some folks, 1200 calories is appropriate. There's no arguing that. The problem with MFP is that it allows people to put in the wrong information... and get inappropriate numbers.

MFP is a calculator. It's a rough estimate. It's a set of algorithms. It isn't a "do this and succeed" even though the majority of folks use it as such.

It's a tool. Can you drive a nail with a scalpel? Absolutely. Would you be using that tool correctly? Not a chance.

I've even rallied and posted time and time again for MFP to change how they allow people to sign up for accounts, just a simple change that takes their goal loss into effect instead of allowing everyone (including the folks with 11lbs to lose) to choose the 2lbs per loss per week.

....know why? Because that gives them an inappropriate deficit.

WalkingAlong

It would take almost no programming for MFP to change it so it doesn't allow 2lbs/week loss goals or eating below BMR. They don't do it because it's a myth that either is dangerous.

Kalikel

Losing a lot of weight doesn't require understanding every method there is of losing it.

like an appropriate calorie deficit?

please, tell me the other ways to lose weight that aren't the above...?

As opposed to an inappropriate calorie deficit?

It can be as easy or as complicated as people want to make it. Hell, most people can't define the word "weight" without using a form of the word itself (e.g. "What something weighs.") It's not important.

Eat less and/or move more. That's all anyone needs to learn.

there are inappropriate calorie deficits.
stop eating anything at all.
that's not appropriate, is it?

There is no appropriate or inappropriate. It may be large or small, but "appropriate" doesn't figure into the math/science. Any calorie deficit would result in weight loss, but people who want to lose weight don't have to understand how it all works to do it.

You may or may not approve of other people's weight loss journeys...and they may or may not care about your approval, but that is a whole other ball of wax.

trogalicious

It would take almost no programming for MFP to change it so it doesn't allow 2lbs/week loss goals or eating below BMR. They don't do it because it's a myth that either is dangerous.

so you're perfectly okay with a 5'7" 125 pound active 18 year old girl coming here, lying about how active she is to the application when she signs up, setting her account to lose 2lbs per week, and getting a goal of 1200 calories?

WalkingAlong

The young girls are either going to (1) eat the 1200, lose their 5 lbs. and stop dieting or (2) eat 1200 for a week or so and decide it is too hard and stop dieting. End result: It doesn't last long, either way.

1200 isn't going to kill anyone. Most evidence suggests a safe intake can be as low as 800 calories, which is why medically supervised programs use that. MFP is conservative at 1200. Fitbit will just do the math, period. It'll tell you to eat 600, if that's the math.

Ninkyou

if you are using a HRM, you would be safe to eat them all, if you're using MFP's estimate or a machine, eat about half of them.....

No, you would not be, HRMs over-guesstimate calories for most people doing most exercise.

I guess this would be more YMMV then. I used a HRM when I was using MFP's method, and it never hindered my rate of loss. Maybe I was just lucky with my estimates.

Kalikel

Nothing MFP does or doesn't do will stop teenage girls from crash dieting. The existence of MFP has no effect. They were doing it long before MFP and they'll continue to do it when MFP no longer exists.

Adult women, too.

It's what we do, as a gender. Not all of us, but a lot of us. We have boobs. We have periods. We ask for your advice and then do the opposite. We spend thousands of dollars a year on our hair. We like knick-knacks in the house. And we diet.

Mr_Knight

I've even rallied and posted time and time again for MFP to change how they allow people to sign up for accounts, just a simple change that takes their goal loss into effect instead of allowing everyone (including the folks with 11lbs to lose) to choose the 2lbs per loss per week.

Nobody is interested in using WeightLossNanny.com

It won't work.

MelodyandBarbells

Nothing MFP does or doesn't do will stop teenage girls from crash dieting. The existence of MFP has no effect. They were doing it long before MFP and they'll continue to do it when MFP no longer exists.

Adult women, too.

It's what we do, as a gender. Not all of us, but a lot of us. We have boobs. We have periods. We ask for your advice and then do the opposite. We spend thousands of dollars a year on our hair. We like knick-knacks in the house. And we diet.

I'm either not fully awoken from my nap, or this is a fairly interesting "most women are idiots due to biology" post

Even a small warning posted by MFP to address the "campaign" described above may help people use the tool appropriately. And appropriate usage of the tool could help drive higher levels of success.

SunofaBeach14

Losing a lot of weight doesn't require understanding every method there is of losing it.

like an appropriate calorie deficit?

please, tell me the other ways to lose weight that aren't the above...?

As opposed to an inappropriate calorie deficit?

It can be as easy or as complicated as people want to make it. Hell, most people can't define the word "weight" without using a form of the word itself (e.g. "What something weighs.") It's not important.

Eat less and/or move more. That's all anyone needs to learn.

there are inappropriate calorie deficits.
stop eating anything at all.
that's not appropriate, is it?

There is no appropriate or inappropriate. It may be large or small, but "appropriate" doesn't figure into the math/science. Any calorie deficit would result in weight loss, but people who want to lose weight don't have to understand how it all works to do it.

You may or may not approve of other people's weight loss journeys...and they may or may not care about your approval, but that is a whole other ball of wax.

There are appropriate and inappropriate calorie goals in relation to people's goals. If you don't want to believe it, then please knock yourself out. No one really cares, although I am entertained.

Edit: typo

MelodyandBarbells

I've even rallied and posted time and time again for MFP to change how they allow people to sign up for accounts, just a simple change that takes their goal loss into effect instead of allowing everyone (including the folks with 11lbs to lose) to choose the 2lbs per loss per week.

Nobody is interested in using WeightLossNanny.com

It won't work.

I guess we just want to feel smart when people create posts asking why they're unsuccessful and 90% of responders can clearly see they've set too aggressive goals. Why not present that information up front, rather than after the fact, after failure has occurred?

SunofaBeach14

I've even rallied and posted time and time again for MFP to change how they allow people to sign up for accounts, just a simple change that takes their goal loss into effect instead of allowing everyone (including the folks with 11lbs to lose) to choose the 2lbs per loss per week.

Nobody is interested in using WeightLossNanny.com

It won't work.

I guess we just want to feel smart when people create posts asking why they're unsuccessful and 90% of responders can clearly see they've set too aggressive goals. Why not present that information up front, rather than after the fact, after failure has occurred?

Because intelligent and inquisitive people will look it up and find the information, and no number of warnings will dissuade the other ones

Mr_Knight

I've even rallied and posted time and time again for MFP to change how they allow people to sign up for accounts, just a simple change that takes their goal loss into effect instead of allowing everyone (including the folks with 11lbs to lose) to choose the 2lbs per loss per week.

Nobody is interested in using WeightLossNanny.com

It won't work.

I guess we just want to feel smart when people create posts asking why they're unsuccessful and 90% of responders can clearly see they've set too aggressive goals. Why not present that information up front, rather than after the fact, after failure has occurred?

Present what information, exactly?

Here's a scientific reality - if you do it right, and you aren't too active, you can meet all the body's macro and micro requirements while maximizing the rate of weight loss with as few as 800 calories/day. If you are morbidly obese, you can do it on a fraction of that, and maintain that for a long time.

Here's another scientific reality - most people who do MFP "as its intended" will gain the weight back soon afterwards anyway.

Those are as solid a pair of weight loss facts as exist - is that what should be given "up front"? If your answer is no, then you're not looking to present information, you're looking to push a specific ideology.

And that's a much different thing.

DeguelloTex

A common response when a position can't be defended.

My BMR is supposedly 2400ish. Given 31 calories per day per pound of fat, my bodyfat can provide 2600ish calories. I could not eat a thing and my body would still have the energy to sustain my BMR. Why, in such circumstances, would my eating below BMR be an issue, in and of itself?

As far as the OP, she appears to be about 5'4" and 125 pounds. I don't know how that translates into body fat percentage or amount of fat, but if she has bodyfat that can provide the difference in energy between what her body needs and what she eats, why is that an inherent problem?

I know exactly what I'm talking about and the link provided to you above explains the basis for what I said regarding the use of fat stores and the deficits that can be supported thereby.

But, pray tell, where did I show ignorance in the post you quoted?

There's not one iota of scientific evidence that's been provided showing eating below BMR is inherently problematic. There's a reason that evidence hasn't been provided. GIFs and avoiding direct responses aren't persuasive and it shows a gargantuan lack of self-awareness to call someone out for not knowing what he's talking about when you're so solidly wrong.

MelodyandBarbells

I've even rallied and posted time and time again for MFP to change how they allow people to sign up for accounts, just a simple change that takes their goal loss into effect instead of allowing everyone (including the folks with 11lbs to lose) to choose the 2lbs per loss per week.

Nobody is interested in using WeightLossNanny.com

It won't work.

I guess we just want to feel smart when people create posts asking why they're unsuccessful and 90% of responders can clearly see they've set too aggressive goals. Why not present that information up front, rather than after the fact, after failure has occurred?

Present what information, exactly?

Here's a scientific reality - if you do it right, and you aren't too active, you can meet all the body's macro and micro requirements while maximizing the rate of weight loss with as few as 800 calories/day. If you are morbidly obese, you can do it on a fraction of that, and maintain that for a long time.

Here's another scientific reality - most people who do MFP "as its intended" will gain the weight back soon afterwards anyway.

Those are as solid a pair of weight loss facts as exist - is that what should be given "up front"? If your answer is no, then you're not looking to present information, you're looking to push a specific ideology.

And that's a much different thing.

An ideology seemingly shared by the majority of the people on this site. And I'm betting they'll also think it would be useful or at least wouldn't hurt to know it up front. Seeing as you're the only one that I've seen said the 800 calorie thing, and it's pretty much the exact opposite of what we're discussing, I don't see it as a legitimate comparison in the context of this discussion

SonOfABeach, unless you're also making a Darwinist argument, I'd say you might be under estimating the sheer number of people who try MFP with unrealistic settings, then throw their hands up in the air say aww damn this tool doesn't work and walk away

MelodyandBarbells

And MFP does have Nanny Sitter capabilities with the new feedback features programmed into the app. Of course, a lot of people hate it, so there's that. This could be one feature to leverage as far as proving quick feedback on aggressive deficits in cases where the user has very little weight to lose

cwolfman13

They vary your calorie amount depending on how much exercise you say you do, but then when you enter exercise, it gives you more calories. It seems odd!

Actually, they don't vary your calorie amount as per how much exercise you say you do. Your exercise goals are just for you and have no bearing on your calorie intake with MFP...this is why you get calories to eat back when you log exercise.

This really isn't at all confusing...it's just that people don't read the stickies when they sign up...basically they don't read the instructions on how to use the tool they are using...if people would just do that there wouldn't be a gazillion should I eat exercise calories threads. It's all very simple really.