Has anyone had success with eating your goal weight's BMR x

scagneti

So I'm 11 pounds away from my goal, and I've heard that when you're close to your goal, a good idea is to change your caloric intake to match what the BMR x activity level of your goal weight (plus eating exercise calories, natch) as the deficit is suitable to ensure fat burning and keeping your metabolism humming.

Has anyone heard of this or tried it? I think it makes sense, but I wanted to see if others have tried it. I ended up just changing my diary to 1500 + exercise since the BMR + activity level would be around 1680 + exercise calories would put me at around 2300-2400 a day (I walk to and from work and exercise six days a week) and that seems like a lot of food, even for me!

RMinVA

I have actually heard that as a good rule of thumb for weight loss period. Eat for the weight you wanna be...not the weight you are. And before anyone jumps all over me for that statement, I realize that some people have unrealistic expectations. But I think that most people have reasonable expectations.

I have also heard 10x weight for women and 12x weight for men to figure out your BMR. Comes out pretty close for me.

eillamarie

I have actually heard that as a good rule of thumb for weight loss period. Eat for the weight you wanna be...not the weight you are.

One problem with that tho: If you are aiming to lose a significant amount of weight-say 80lbs+-you will need to eat for your current weight @ first, otherwise you will be taking in too few calories. I'd say the rule of thumb you mentioned is good for 40lbs or less.

RaeannePemberton

I got my BMR tested and it said I could eat around 1600-1900 cals for maintenance... it is still something I find that I have to "tweak" according to exercise.. and I am not sure how accurate anything really is these days! I say try it for 2 weeks and go from there...

scagneti

I have actually heard that as a good rule of thumb for weight loss period. Eat for the weight you wanna be...not the weight you are.

I was eating below the weight I want to be to get enough of a deficit to lose (500 calories per week below my maintainance). So now I'd be eating at someone who weighs 130lbs maintainance level.

medic4a6

starting again... I will let you know!
<a href="http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"><img border="0" src="http://tickers.myfitnesspal.com/ticker/show/37/6470/376470.png&quot; /></a><p style="text-align:center;width:420px;"><small>Created by MyFitnessPal - <a href="http://www.myfitnesspal.com">Free Calorie Counter</a></small></p>

medic4a6

back on track I will let you know

RMinVA

I have actually heard that as a good rule of thumb for weight loss period. Eat for the weight you wanna be...not the weight you are.

One problem with that tho: If you are aiming to lose a significant amount of weight-say 80lbs+-you will need to eat for your current weight @ first, otherwise you will be taking in too few calories. I'd say the rule of thumb you mentioned is good for 40lbs or less.

I see where you are coming from, but it can still work for anyone regardless of how much weight they have to lose. Most people set "mini goals." So if they are setting their targets for those goals, and adjusting along the way, they would still be eating enough.

SHBoss1673

Considering that BMR is about 60 to 75% of your maintenance calories, and someone close to goal should usually never have a deficit more than 20%, I'd say that's not a great plan IMHO.

scagneti

Considering that BMR is about 60 to 75% of your maintenance calories, and someone close to goal should usually never have a deficit more than 20%, I'd say that's not a great plan IMHO.

How would it only be 75% of my maintenance? It would be "my" BMR (if I were 130) x my activity level (which since I'm in an office and I log my exercise separately is 1.2) plus all my exercise calories with no deficit.

When I figured it out, it's actually an increase of calories (was 1320 through MFP and is now 1500, although it should have been closer to 1600 if the 130 x 1.2 x 10 rule applies).

SHBoss1673

Considering that BMR is about 60 to 75% of your maintenance calories, and someone close to goal should usually never have a deficit more than 20%, I'd say that's not a great plan IMHO.

How would it only be 75% of my maintenance? It would be "my" BMR (if I were 130) x my activity level (which since I'm in an office and I log my exercise separately is 1.2) plus all my exercise calories with no deficit.

When I figured it out, it's actually an increase of calories (was 1320 through MFP and is now 1500, although it should have been closer to 1600 if the 130 x 1.2 x 10 rule applies).

oh, I misread, sorry. I thought you meant just BMR. My bad. I take it all back. :embarassed:

scagneti

Considering that BMR is about 60 to 75% of your maintenance calories, and someone close to goal should usually never have a deficit more than 20%, I'd say that's not a great plan IMHO.

How would it only be 75% of my maintenance? It would be "my" BMR (if I were 130) x my activity level (which since I'm in an office and I log my exercise separately is 1.2) plus all my exercise calories with no deficit.

When I figured it out, it's actually an increase of calories (was 1320 through MFP and is now 1500, although it should have been closer to 1600 if the 130 x 1.2 x 10 rule applies).

oh, I misread, sorry. I thought you meant just BMR. My bad. I take it all back. :embarassed:

I think the explanation got cut off in my too long title!

I really do value your opinion -- you always write such awesome posts so I'm curious what you think of it or should I keep on with the 500 calorie a day deficit and hope that it's fat that's being burnt. Does that plan make sense? It doesn't leave much of a deficit -- less than if I was trying to lose a 1/2 pound a week, but I really want to make sure that my last 11 pounds are fat and not muscle/organ meat.

gooteek

I've heard so many things, but have gone primarily by what a class I took teaches. They did a Bod Pod to determine exact % Body Fat, BMR, etc.. At 205 when I started it only suggested a BMR of a little over 1800. I found if I stayed at that I lost weight. Amazingly enough, if I dropped too much below that to say 14-1500, I would stop lossing weight.

I was told when you drop too far in BMR it tells your body it is starving, so it holds on to all fat stores as much as possible.

So it is not simple math like I thought:

This works;
3500 calories equals a pound, so if I deny myself 7000 calories a week I lose two pounds.

This does not (for me);
3500 calories equals a pound, so if I deny myself 1000 calories a day I lose 7 pounds a week.

Trust me, I have been doing 2-3 workouts a day, but it is the right BMR that seems to ensure I lose weight, not the amount of exercise. I work in an office, but work out easily 3 hours a day with 70% of that being cardio. Balance is the key, finding the balance is the mystery at times, making sure you do not go insane figuring it out....priceless.

RMinVA

I've heard so many things, but have gone primarily by what a class I took teaches. They did a Bod Pod to determine exact % Body Fat, BMR, etc.. At 205 when I started it only suggested a BMR of a little over 1800. I found if I stayed at that I lost weight. Amazingly enough, if I dropped too much below that to say 14-1500, I would stop lossing weight.

I was told when you drop too far in BMR it tells your body it is starving, so it holds on to all fat stores as much as possible.

So it is not simple math like I thought:

This works;
3500 calories equals a pound, so if I deny myself 7000 calories a week I lose two pounds.

This does not (for me);
3500 calories equals a pound, so if I deny myself 1000 calories a day I lose 7 pounds a week.

Trust me, I have been doing 2-3 workouts a day, but it is the right BMR that seems to ensure I lose weight, not the amount of exercise. I work in an office, but work out easily 3 hours a day with 70% of that being cardio. Balance is the key, finding the balance is the mystery at times, making sure you do not go insane figuring it out....priceless.

There are several studies that suggest that you minimally eat your BMR calories...and you clearly support that with your experience.

SHBoss1673

Considering that BMR is about 60 to 75% of your maintenance calories, and someone close to goal should usually never have a deficit more than 20%, I'd say that's not a great plan IMHO.

How would it only be 75% of my maintenance? It would be "my" BMR (if I were 130) x my activity level (which since I'm in an office and I log my exercise separately is 1.2) plus all my exercise calories with no deficit.

When I figured it out, it's actually an increase of calories (was 1320 through MFP and is now 1500, although it should have been closer to 1600 if the 130 x 1.2 x 10 rule applies).

oh, I misread, sorry. I thought you meant just BMR. My bad. I take it all back. :embarassed:

I think the explanation got cut off in my too long title!

I really do value your opinion -- you always write such awesome posts so I'm curious what you think of it or should I keep on with the 500 calorie a day deficit and hope that it's fat that's being burnt. Does that plan make sense? It doesn't leave much of a deficit -- less than if I was trying to lose a 1/2 pound a week, but I really want to make sure that my last 11 pounds are fat and not muscle/organ meat.

thanks for the compliments! The question I will ask is this: Do you care about the weight, or do you care about losing fat? By that I mean this, you could probably drop the 11 lbs quicker by keeping a deficit somewhere between 350 and 500 calories NET, but you're probably going to lose at least 15 or 20% of it from muscle if you do that. What you really want to do to maintain lean tissue is keep the deficit really small (like 250 cals or do what you were talking about with the end weight BMR X activity), work like a devil with weight training, HIIT training, and plyometrics and forget the straight cardio (I have no idea if you do straight cardio, I'm talking in general) and get your muscles to 100% efficiency or as close as possible. you WON'T gain any muscle mass (you can't really gain muscle mass in a calorie deficit) but you'll be activating all that dormant muscle which will make you stronger, make that muscle look bigger, and will really increase Resting metabolism. And this will force your body to not canabalize any of that muscle (that's a good thing).
course it'll take quite a bit longer doing it this way, but isn't that always the way?

WrenLynn

Thanks for that great explanation SHBoss! I ddn't realize if I stayed at a bigger deficit toward the end of my weight loss that it may make me lose muscle and not fat. Wow-I still have alot to learn.

scagneti

If I was 141 and toned, I'd be perfectly happy. I wanna lose fat! (and I'd like to pick where I lose it from, but that ain't happening!)

I walk to and from work quickly enough to get my heart rate elevated (3 miles an hour, which I wear a HRM for to ensure that) which is around 100 minutes total per day (but I don't do that every day because of weather so I log it seperately). 6 days a week I do 30 Day Shred or Wii Active 2 (so short bursts of activity followed by a few seconds of rest -- which is pretty close to HIIT but something I'm more comfortable with). I also do Zumba several times a week for the caloric burn and to try to increase my endurance, which is the same as someone twice my weight (and age) for reasons I can't explain.

I know I need to do weights. I do planks and push ups and things of those nature. I'm not too worried about building muscle mass (I already have quite a bit from before, which is why 130 is pretty much the lowest I think I could reasonably go without losing a lot of muscle) but I just haven't done a lot of strength training. We have a gym that we have access to nearby but it's just a hassle to find somewhere to change in there (too cold to walk in our workout clothes) so we tend to use it from May to October). That's just an excuse though, so that could change.

I'm not in any hurry to lose it, but I didn't want to undo what I've done, which is why I asked about increasing the calories to match the BMR + activity of someone at my goal weight and have that as my only deficit. Obviously it's nice to see the scale or tape measure move so I don't want to go TOO slowly or I will get discouraged, but if I knew it was working and was going to take an extra few months, I'd be cool with that.

Wileyjoe

Considering that BMR is about 60 to 75% of your maintenance calories, and someone close to goal should usually never have a deficit more than 20%, I'd say that's not a great plan IMHO.

How would it only be 75% of my maintenance? It would be "my" BMR (if I were 130) x my activity level (which since I'm in an office and I log my exercise separately is 1.2) plus all my exercise calories with no deficit.

When I figured it out, it's actually an increase of calories (was 1320 through MFP and is now 1500, although it should have been closer to 1600 if the 130 x 1.2 x 10 rule applies).

oh, I misread, sorry. I thought you meant just BMR. My bad. I take it all back. :embarassed:

I think the explanation got cut off in my too long title!

I really do value your opinion -- you always write such awesome posts so I'm curious what you think of it or should I keep on with the 500 calorie a day deficit and hope that it's fat that's being burnt. Does that plan make sense? It doesn't leave much of a deficit -- less than if I was trying to lose a 1/2 pound a week, but I really want to make sure that my last 11 pounds are fat and not muscle/organ meat.

thanks for the compliments! The question I will ask is this: Do you care about the weight, or do you care about losing fat? By that I mean this, you could probably drop the 11 lbs quicker by keeping a deficit somewhere between 350 and 500 calories NET, but you're probably going to lose at least 15 or 20% of it from muscle if you do that. What you really want to do to maintain lean tissue is keep the deficit really small (like 250 cals or do what you were talking about with the end weight BMR X activity), work like a devil with weight training, HIIT training, and plyometrics and forget the straight cardio (I have no idea if you do straight cardio, I'm talking in general) and get your muscles to 100% efficiency or as close as possible. you WON'T gain any muscle mass (you can't really gain muscle mass in a calorie deficit) but you'll be activating all that dormant muscle which will make you stronger, make that muscle look bigger, and will really increase Resting metabolism. And this will force your body to not canabalize any of that muscle (that's a good thing).
course it'll take quite a bit longer doing it this way, but isn't that always the way?

I am in a similar situation - close to my goal wanting to lose mainly fat- not weight. Is this the same deficit everyone should be looking at or is it more dependant on your weight? I am a guy and weigh 194 at the moment. I thought I had read a post from another trainer that the bigger the person, the more of a deficit you can use to lose fat without burning up muscle.

Hoping for some clarification on this. Thanks!

stormieweather

To the above poster - it's not simply how "big" you are, it's how much excess fat you have. A big, muscular guy will need to eat more than a big, obese guy (if he wants to keep his muscles, anyway).

Wileyjoe

To the above poster - it's not simply how "big" you are, it's how much excess fat you have. A big, muscular guy will need to eat more than a big, obese guy (if he wants to keep his muscles, anyway).

Yes, poor choice of words on my part - thanks. I meant a lean bigger person. i am currently at 15% BF trying to work toward 10%. I believe the other post I am refering to is in the link in my sig about getting leaner - I just haven't been able to find it yet.

SHBoss1673

I am in a similar situation - close to my goal wanting to lose mainly fat- not weight. Is this the same deficit everyone should be looking at or is it more dependant on your weight? I am a guy and weigh 194 at the moment. I thought I had read a post from another trainer that the bigger the person, the more of a deficit you can use to lose fat without burning up muscle.

Hoping for some clarification on this. Thanks!

there's always going to be some tweaking involved, as stormie said, it's as much about body fat % and lean tissue mass as it is about weight or how big you are. Put it this way, your BMI could be 22 or 21 but a woman could still be 26 or 28 % body fat, not horrible, but not great either, to get down into those high teens or low 20's of Body Fat % that most women are looking for, you need to mix it up, do more than just straight cardio, and be pretty strict on not only your calorie amounts but also your calorie quality. I.E. nix the simple sugars and refined carbohydrates, lots of veggies, lots of lean meats, lots of good oils and making sure you are meeting your micronutrient goals (vitamins and minerals) so your body can work the way it's supposed to.

But specifically to answer your question, generally if you're what we consider a "normal" height (I.E. not freakishly tall or short) then generally, once you're within 15 or 20 lbs of an "ideal" weight then you really need to keep your deficit small and try to activate those dormant muscles. For a woman, that means doing more than just 5 or 10 lb dumbbells, more than just cardio classes, and more than just calories in vs calories out. You can be perfectly healthy at 26 or 27% body fat, and look pretty good in clothes, but for a woman to have that "bikini body" that many of you desire, you gotta get a little more dirty with your workouts. Things like HIIT training 3 times a week, Plyometrics is a GREAT way to lean up, weight training high intensity circuits, boot camps, advanced classes like body pump (and actually using weight that's heavy for you in body pump, not doing it with the bar and 5 lbs on each end like I see many women doing). Essentially you gotta work like an athlete, and that means when you're done with your workout, your EXHAUSTED, not just tired, I mean can't do another minute type tired.