MFP wants me to eat below my RMR?

jakichan

It's odd...the MFP goals have me eating below my RMR, which everyone seems to suggest is bad. (It worked for me in the past, but oh well.) Also, it gives me a RMR+activity number, but not what the actual RMR number is. I had that tested and the output also had an RMR+daily activity number. I just find it a bit confusing where MFP is getting it's numbers.

lemurcat12

I believe it's based on the mifflin-st jeor calculation. Sedentary is estimated BMR times the 1.2 multiplier.

Remember that MFP assumes that you are adding exercise calories, so it has no reason to assume that a particular result will mean that you are eating below estimated BMR.

In any event, I've never seen anything credible supporting the idea that it matters if you eat below BMR or not. (And it's clear MFP has no policy against it.). What seems to matter is how aggressive your deficit is plus body fat level, and someone sedentary could be under BMR with a not especially aggressive deficit, especially if they had a lot left to lose. MFP also does not police whether 2 lbs makes sense as a goal for a particular person, of course.

jakichan

Remember that MFP assumes that you are adding exercise calories, so it has no reason to assume that a particular result will mean that you are eating below estimated BMR.

Ah, ok. Although the target may be below BMR, the eating may not be. But I don't exercise every day, so some days it would be.

My test indicates my metabolism has slowed, unfortunately.

marissanik

I personally have never used MFP's settings. I always make mine custom. To each their own

heybales

It's odd...the MFP goals have me eating below my RMR, which everyone seems to suggest is bad. (It worked for me in the past, but oh well.) Also, it gives me a RMR+activity number, but not what the actual RMR number is. I had that tested and the output also had an RMR+daily activity number. I just find it a bit confusing where MFP is getting it's numbers.

Actually, your selection of weight loss goal caused the math to cause the eating level to be below BMR, or your tested RMR.

Those are different numbers, MFP starts with BMR from gender, age, weight, height, and if you have lost muscle mass through past yo-yo diets, it's likely inflated, if you have gained some good muscle mass from lifting it's likely deflated.

Don't force a slow metabolism lower by eating to it, encourage it to speed back up by taking reasonable deficit and meeting the eating goal.

The you picked a daily non-exercise activity level. Most seem to assume Sedentary true or or not.
If you have kids are on your feet around the house, even with desk job, likely you are Lightly Active actually.

The you caused the deficit from BMR and activity level by selection of weight loss goal, 1 lb weekly is 500 cal deficit.
That is reasonable for 50 lbs left to go. Might get another few pounds out of 1.5 weekly though.

That takes care of non-exercise days.
And indeed on exercise days, since your daily burn just went up by the amount you exercised, when you take off the 500 cal deficit - your eating goal just went up too.

Your tested RMR should be above BMR by 150-250 calories, within 5%, if you have average muscle mass and no metabolic slowdown.
The reason many say draw the line in the sand at BMR is because rarely does anyone have the great favorable conditions as research lab study participants have when they eat far below it, testing out the wazhoo, no prior dieting or weight loss, no health issues but overweight usually, unless testing diabetes sometimes, monitored weekly on diet and exercise, retested often to confirm body isn't going bad direction (unless that's part of investigation), ect.

Since rarely does anyone know all that and have that safety backup, and there is obviously a point at which you will get negative effects from eating too little, there is a line in the sand - why not start with an easily calculated one of BMR - true with reality or not - you can adjust later if needed.