Is my BMR incorrect?

mrsbeck

According to MFP, my BMR is around 1500. So to lose weight, I've been struggling to stick to 1200-1400 cals depending on how much exercise I do on a given day. I am not losing weight. With so many of the threads recently touching on the topic of starvation mode, I started to wonder. I'm fat, but there is significant muscle under that fatty layer. I also work out 4-6 times a week, but since I have a desk job, I've been using the sedentary setting for figuring BMR. I did some web research, and used the formula .161+10(weight)+6.25(height) - 5(age), and came up with the enormous number of 2166. That can't be right. The thought occurs to me, however, that I used pounds and inches for the height and weight. Is it supposed to be figured in metric? Anyone know how to do this? I really don't have time to lay around for an hour with my HRM on in order to figure it manually.

mrsbeck

According to MFP, my BMR is around 1500. So to lose weight, I've been struggling to stick to 1200-1400 cals depending on how much exercise I do on a given day. I am not losing weight. With so many of the threads recently touching on the topic of starvation mode, I started to wonder. I'm fat, but there is significant muscle under that fatty layer. I also work out 4-6 times a week, but since I have a desk job, I've been using the sedentary setting for figuring BMR. I did some web research, and used the formula .161+10(weight)+6.25(height) - 5(age), and came up with the enormous number of 2166. That can't be right. The thought occurs to me, however, that I used pounds and inches for the height and weight. Is it supposed to be figured in metric? Anyone know how to do this? I really don't have time to lay around for an hour with my HRM on in order to figure it manually.

msarro

Best way I've found so far to calculate it is using a heart rate monitor - most can do it in just a few minutes. However, the estimates are most likely not *that* far off unless you're already in pretty good shape.

Also, are you going by the daily calories it reccomends? Or are you using the BMR tool? That seems awfully low, considering the human body burns about 100 calories an hour just being alive (give or take a little bit).

FitnessGeek

Okay here is the BMR formula

Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 X wt in kg) + (5 X ht in cm) - (6.8 X age in years)

Women: BMR = 655 + (9.6 X wt in kg) + (1.8 X ht in cm) - (4.7 X age in years)

The BMR calculator on this site should be very close to what this formula tells you. I will do mine to check...

Height: 6ft or 183cm
Weight: 147lbs or 66.7 kilos
Age: 22 years

BMR= 655 + 640.32 + 329.4 - 103.4 = 1521.32

MFP says my BMR is 1,543.
The formula says my BMR is 1,521.

So, I say trust what MFP is telling you. It will be very close to what the formula will tell you. You may just have some math wrong.

mrsbeck

According to the MFP BMR calculator on the "Tools" tab, my BMR is 1532, which seems really, really low to me. In the settings, when I filled out my diet/fitness profile with a goal of losing 1 pound a week, it gives me a calorie goal of 1420 net per day. I set the activity level at "sedentary" because I have a desk job, but I'm wondering if that doesn't matter, given how often, and how hard, I work out. I have nearly killed myself trying to work out on that amount of food...I'm constantly hungry, and often don't have the energy to workout...I still do, but every second sucks.

I really think that my musculature is throwing things off. I was recently told by the trainer at my gym to re-evaluate my goal weight...in his opinion, my weight at zero percent body fat would be higher than my goal weight because of the level of muscle I've built.

ETA: What I'm trying to say here doesn't seem to be coming across well. I'm honestly not looking for an excuse to eat more! What I'm saying, is if you had two people, same weight, one with five percent body fat, and one with forty percent, wouldn't Five have a higher BMR? I SERIOUSLY have a lot more muscle than the average female..I've been told that by trainers at several gyms as well as by doctors. I don't have insurance right now or I would go to the doc and have this tested. I weigh about 196 right now, and my current trainer is estimating my (mythical) zero percent body fat weight at 145-150.

ivykivy

Do you know your body fat%? If so there is a formula you can use to calculate your required calories based on lean body mass.

BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)

FitnessGeek

Remember that your BMR is how many calories you burn a day doing absolutely nothing but lying in a bed and breathing. So 1532 is probably correct...without knowing your age/weight/height, I can't say for sure.

If you want to maintain your current weight, you eat your BMR net calories and no more/no less.
If you want to gain weight, you eat more than your BMR net calories.
If you want to lose weight, you eat less than your BMR net calories, but never less than 1,200 net calories a day.

You may decide to reevaluate you end goal, but that won't effect your current BMR. As long as you are eating your exercise calories, you shouldn't be so hungry at 1420 calories a day.
The key may lie in what types of food you are eating. Clean eating gets you a heck of a lot of food for 1420 calories compared to what 1420 calories gets you eating out.
Or maybe it's something simple like you need more fiber in your daily diet to help you feel more full?

**edit**
To respond to your edit

I'm honestly not looking for an excuse to eat more! What I'm saying, is if you had two people, same weight, one with five percent body fat, and one with forty percent, wouldn't Five have a higher BMR?

I wish I knew! I figure I'm a pretty weakling girl and I fall into the average category. These formulas assume the average. So if you feel that you have less body fat % than other women of your height and weight, the answer may be different for you. I hear that nutritionists have some pretty accurate tests for body fat%, maybe you can get one of those to be sure. **

MTGirl

If your BMR is your calorie usage doing absolutely nothing - then you shouldn't really ever eat less than your bmr. You need to eat less than maintenance to lose weight. I really think maybe you should eat a couple of hundred calories per day more than you are now. Also - are you eating any of your exercise calories back?? If not, try to eat around 50% back, plus what MFP gives you as your base and see if that doesn't help. Good luck! :flowerforyou:

ivykivy

Yes your BMR would be higher if you had more muscle than one who is the same weight but had less. The calculator is just an estimate. You will probably need to up your cals until you feel better. I had to up mine by about 200 per day and it made a big difference.

ETA: What I'm trying to say here doesn't seem to be coming across well. I'm honestly not looking for an excuse to eat more! What I'm saying, is if you had two people, same weight, one with five percent body fat, and one with forty percent, wouldn't Five have a higher BMR? I SERIOUSLY have a lot more muscle than the average female..I've been told that by trainers at several gyms as well as by doctors. I don't have insurance right now or I would go to the doc and have this tested. I weigh about 196 right now, and my current trainer is estimating my (mythical) zero percent body fat weight at 145-150.

LosingIt4good

Im 6' and eat about 1450 cals on days I dont exercise. I work out 5 days a week and burn about 1000 calories per workout. My calorie intake is between 1900-2100 cals on the days I do workout. I have yet to hit any plateau's and the weight is sliding off. Trust your HRM if you own one. When I first bought mine I was very leary to use those calories it said I burned at the gym, but since I started doing it and eating MORE than I was.... I am less tired, less crabby and have WAY more energy and the weight is still sliding off. MFP puts my BMR at 1750 per day.