Need to settle this once and for all!

WalkingAlong

I think I mentioned 800 first.

I also think most people here know there's nothing inherently wrong with eating under your BMR. I think the ones who still don't just tend to appear in the threads where it's being discussed because they strongly believe that they're correct and are saving young clueless waifs from starvation, because it does sound sort of correct on the surface and it did used to be believed here by most people.

Cc215

why are u eating at BMR? Arent you ravenously hungry?

I eat at my BMR - actually just under - but that is net not total.

And no I'm not hungry. But then my BMR is high, cos I'm a heifer! It just means I can't eat all of the treats I would like to.

randomtai

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.

Lol wut? :huh:

monhumbert

Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.

DeguelloTex

Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.

You'll lose more if you eat fewer calories.

Commander_Keen

Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.

Don't eat back your calories you burned off.
Here's why.
1: the bigger the deficit the bigger the loss.
2. Anything type of energy that your body needs, and you if you refuse to eat, then your body will process your muscles and fat.

Cryptonomnomicon

Hey, everyone. OP here!
I use a heart rate monitor to calculate my calories burnt. I'm actually eating 1500 cal a day and eating back about half of my burnt calories. I was just wondering if I'd lose more if I went down to my BMR. Again, it 1319. Thanks for all you're very passionate responses. Haha.

You'll lose more if you eat fewer calories.

and lose more LBM and possibly interfere with hormone regulation.

Look it is all context relevant as explained before, if you are morbidly obese yes you can have a higher deficit as opposed to someone with a small amount to lose but you have to consider the benefits and negative aspects of creating a high or low deficit.

For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.

Here is a link that describes to a certain degree what happens when you eat at too high of a deficit...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

I am out as this thread is just going around in circles, OP I hope you got some sort of closure out of this sideshow of a thread.

Best way to describe it in my humble opinion...

_Terrapin_

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.

Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.

_Terrapin_

I am 21, female and weigh 57 kg. My BMR is roughly 1319 and I go to the gym 6 days a week. I burn roughly 350 calories each time I'm there.
My question is; if I'm eating my BMR (minimum calories) do I need to eat back my 'burnt' calories?
Thanks.

OP the hypo 'if I'm eating my BMR' is what was asked so yes eat back your exercise calories.

jenilla1

I just came here to say don't mess with Texas.

Bwahahaha! :laugh:

jenilla1

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.

Speak for yourself. :indifferent:

Lilly_the_Hillbilly

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.

Generalizations of what women do or are capable of is insulting to all women. I would say that a good number of women here are smarter than this and more successful with their fitness than you realize.

Mr_Knight

An ideology seemingly shared by the majority of the people on this site.

That's like taking dating advice from Kim Kardashian.

Mr_Knight

For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.

Every dieting method - including "don't eat below 1200 or BMR" and "don't lose too fast" - ends up in the same place for most people.

MFP or Grapefruit Diet or Absorb Calories From the Atmosphere by Osmosis - it just doesn't matter - same rates of failure and recidivism.

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.

Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.

Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.

_Terrapin_

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.

Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.

Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.

I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.

MelodyandBarbells

For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.

Every dieting method - including "don't eat below 1200 or BMR" and "don't lose too fast" - ends up in the same place for most people.

MFP or Grapefruit Diet or Absorb Calories From the Atmosphere by Osmosis - it just doesn't matter - same rates of failure and recidivism.

Ah. That's actually helpful to know that you don't believe any one approach to be more effective than, say, the maple syrup diet

RHachicho

For example if you have let yourself become morbidly obese chances are you would be used to a higher calorie intake and restricting too heavily will most probably set you up for binge eating and eventually failure.

Every dieting method - including "don't eat below 1200 or BMR" and "don't lose too fast" - ends up in the same place for most people.

MFP or Grapefruit Diet or Absorb Calories From the Atmosphere by Osmosis - it just doesn't matter - same rates of failure and recidivism.

Ah. That's actually helpful to know that you don't believe any one approach to be more effective than, say, the maple syrup diet

Say what you want but I know I'm going to be the 5% that doesn't put the weight back on. It's got nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with the will to do what needs to be done.

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.

Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.

Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.

I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.

I googled 'what is net calories' to see. Most of the first page referred to MFP. The only other uses of the term, which I think are both valid uses are (1) total burn minus total intake, aka your calorie deficit or surplus and (2) net vs. gross calories burned through exercise, as in a run burns 100 calories gross per mile or 80 calories net of BMR.

No one else considers this a thing: Calories you eat minus your workout calories. That is pure MFP. It only is used here because of how MFP does its math, excluding your workout from your deficit.

brower47

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.

Great; she eats BMR 1319 and exercises and burns 350 for 6 days divided by 7 so her net is 1019. So 1019 is safe? Seriously, I think you may want to read more about people with ED's and decide if you want to be an enabler or not.

Heh, you may want to read more about how nutrition and calories work. There is no such thing as 'net calories'. It's a term unique to MFP. You can't un-do nutrition with a workout. And your body doesn't know or care if your deficit is from a workout or NEAT or BMR.

I am sure you're right, about what. . . .well now there is the rub.

I googled 'what is net calories' to see. Most of the first page referred to MFP. The only other uses of the term, which I think are both valid uses are (1) total burn minus total intake, aka your calorie deficit or surplus and (2) net vs. gross calories burned through exercise, as in a run burns 100 calories gross per mile or 80 calories net of BMR.

No one else considers this a thing: Calories you eat minus your workout calories. That is pure MFP. It only is used here because of how MFP does its math, excluding your workout from your deficit.

What? I've known about net calories since my 7th grade science teacher explained calories in vs calories out. It was the basis for an entire section of one my college exercise physiology classes. Just because your quick Google search didn't yield you the result you weren't looking for, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.

Google =/= the end all be all in research

Sheesh.