BMR v. 1200 calories

maidentl

I have read, ad nauseum, the concerns over 1200 calories. And I have seen people say that we should not eat under our BMR. So here's where I get confused and hopefully someone can help me.

According to the BMR calculator at this website - http://www.bmi-calculator.net/, my BMR is about 1500 calories. And thus, according to the Harris Benedict equation, my maintenance calories are about 2300.

So, if I want to create a deficit of 1000 calories per day, do I eat 1500 and burn off an additional 200 with exercise?

And if yes, then how is this different than setting my goal at 1200 and earning an additional 300 with exercise?

I am not trying to be a smart *kitten*, I am trying to understand, so hopefully no one will take this the wrong way and give me snarky answers.

Your help is appreciated!

rbryntes

I don't get BMR. Mine is supposedly 1909. But in reality, if I eat more than 1500 calories a day I gain weight.

maidentl

Yeah, if I don't eat the exercise calories with the BMR, it comes out about the same. But if I am supposed to eat them back on top of the 1500 I just don't see how that's going to work.

servilia

So, if I want to create a deficit of 1000 calories per day, do I eat 1500 and burn off an additional 200 with exercise?

And if yes, then how is this different than setting my goal at 1200 and earning an additional 300 with exercise?

These two don't end up with the same net calories depending on whether you eat back those exercise cals in option two.

Option one leaves you with 1300 net (1500-200). So that gives you a 1000 cal deficit from 2300.
Option two leaves you with 1200 net if you eat back your 300 exercise cals and 900 net if you don't.

rsparks38

I have gained before by eating back exercise calories, but it always comes back off plus some. I think I just retain a little more water the day after exercise. Just be sure to eat at least 1200 so you don't totally wreck your metabolism!

jasonweinberg

i don't know who/where someone was saying not to eat below your bmr.

ruststar

No formula is exact and it's all guidelines. I take the most conservative # of all the formulas using my goal weight and go with that times 1.2 (for sedentary calories), and when I exercise I eat more - the body needs additional fuel when it does more work. It's all still a deficit from what I used to eat no matter what.

I wish I had started this just tracking what I ate so I could get a realistic picture of the calories I was eating and therefore a baseline for reducing. If I had done that I could have just started to reduce my calories by a reasonable amount instead of accepting the one-size fits all 1200. Really? People of vastly different heights, weights, age, and muscle mass all need the exact same amount? Why is that the magic number?

maidentl

Does it set everyone up at 1200? I'm pretty short so I understand why I get that number but I wondered if that's what other people are recommended or if that's what they CHOOSE to do because it's the minimum?

servilia

Does it set everyone up at 1200? I'm pretty short so I understand why I get that number but I wondered if that's what other people are recommended or if that's what they CHOOSE to do because it's the minimum?

It's the minimum that MFP lets your goal cals go even if you'd need to eat less by the math (so even if your goal cal should be 1100 by the math, MFP won't show you that).. I don't know where MFP got that minimum limit though..

WeighAhead

check out the podcast, fat 2 fit radio, they explain the concept of BMR well. That being said, it is really tough for a lot of people, myself included to eat according to their BMR because we end up feeling like we are eating too many calories! If I understand correctly eating below your BMR will mean you will be more likely to lose muscle as well as fat and that will mess with your metabolism.

servilia

i don't know who/where someone was saying not to eat below your bmr.

There was a thread earlier today with someone asking why anyone would ever eat less than their BMR. I had responded to it and when I checked again later the thread was gone. So weird.. it wasn't that controversial when I was reading it.

ladyhawk00

Well, it depends. In general, unless you're obese/morbidly obese, eating under BMR is not a good idea. Usually, if you're not obese and it's giving you a cal goal that is significantly under BMR, you've chosen the wrong loss per week goal. Based on your ticker, it looks like that's where you're having a problem. It looks like you have maybe 40-50 lbs to lose? If so, then 2 lbs per week (1000 cal) is too high of a loss goal for how much fat you have.

Your loss per week goal needs to take into account your body fat percentage and how much you have to lose. Just choosing the 2 lb per week because you can (which many people do) is what gets a lot of people in trouble.

You want your deficit to come from TDEE (total daily energy expenditure). MFP assumes you are NOT going to do any purposeful exercise, until you log it. So when you exercise on top of your daily goal (which already includes a deficit), you make the deficit larger. And that's usually not a good idea.

These may help:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/186814-some-mfp-basics

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/173853-an-objective-look-at-eating-exercise-calories

RedMuse

I tried eating just 1200 and honestly, i was sick from it. I got headaches, bad mood just over didn't feel good. Once I upped my calorie intake to my BMR which is 1461, I felt better. I didn't get the headaches or mood swings. I figured by BMR x 1.2 , which is around 1700. So as long as I eat less then 1700 I will lose . Maybe not a lot but I would rather lose it slow and be healthy then lose it fast and fee bad.

Good Luck!!

ladyhawk00

Does it set everyone up at 1200? I'm pretty short so I understand why I get that number but I wondered if that's what other people are recommended or if that's what they CHOOSE to do because it's the minimum?

It's the minimum that MFP lets your goal cals go even if you'd need to eat less by the math (so even if your goal cal should be 1100 by the math, MFP won't show you that).. I don't know where MFP got that minimum limit though..

It's the general recommendation from most health experts. It came from WHO, as the recommended amount for the average woman to receive adequate nutrition. The recommended minimum for men is 1500 (or 1600, it varies a little). But MFP can only have one "floor", so they use 1200.

Some very petite women can do ok with slightly less, but the vast majority of people (women or men) need at least 1200, and most actually would do better with more.

maidentl

Well, it depends. In general, unless you're obese/morbidly obese, eating under BMR is not a good idea. Usually, if you're not obese and it's giving you a cal goal that is significantly under BMR, you've chosen the wrong loss per week goal. Based on your ticker, it looks like that's where you're having a problem. It looks like you have maybe 40-50 lbs to lose? If so, then 2 lbs per week (1000 cal) is too high of a loss goal for how much fat you have.

I am obese, according to my BMI. I cannot lose 2 pounds per week by MFP guidelines, they give me 1200 and say that should produce a 1.2 pound per week loss, which I don't think is crazy fast. I do eat back all of my exercise calories every day. (Or darn close.) I AM short, so I am thinking the 1200 is OK for me. And I don't feel bad on it at all.

Jennyisbusy

So, if I want to create a deficit of 1000 calories per day, do I eat 1500 and burn off an additional 200 with exercise?

And if yes, then how is this different than setting my goal at 1200 and earning an additional 300 with exercise?

These two don't end up with the same net calories depending on whether you eat back those exercise cals in option two.

Option one leaves you with 1300 net (1500-200). So that gives you a 1000 cal deficit from 2300.
Option two leaves you with 1200 net if you eat back your 300 exercise cals and 900 net if you don't.

^this, and some days I exercise like a horse and eat a lot, somedays I lay around and eat light - so I just aim to be near my daily goal which I say is 1200 to 1500 calories eaten a day hopefully with exercise bringing the net back to somewhere near 1200.

ladyhawk00

Well, it depends. In general, unless you're obese/morbidly obese, eating under BMR is not a good idea. Usually, if you're not obese and it's giving you a cal goal that is significantly under BMR, you've chosen the wrong loss per week goal. Based on your ticker, it looks like that's where you're having a problem. It looks like you have maybe 40-50 lbs to lose? If so, then 2 lbs per week (1000 cal) is too high of a loss goal for how much fat you have.

I am obese, according to my BMI. I cannot lose 2 pounds per week by MFP guidelines, they give me 1200 and say that should produce a 1.2 pound per week loss, which I don't think is crazy fast. I do eat back all of my exercise calories every day. (Or darn close.) I AM short, so I am thinking the 1200 is OK for me. And I don't feel bad on it at all.

If it's at 1.2 lbs per week, that may be ok for a little bit. Smaller women can have a little trouble with finding a good balance, because they (you) simply don't have a lot of leeway with a deficit. As long as you're replacing your exercise cals, you're probably ok. Just be aware of it and if you start feeling hungrier or tired or see different results in your workouts, might try upping it a little.

rbryntes

I still don't understand this.

I am not short.
I am morbidly obese.
My BMR is 1909 (or higher depending on which calculation one uses).
MFP set me at 1350.

If I eat 1500 or more, I gain weight.

Doesn't it seem like I should ignore the whole BMR thing?