My BMR is 1428--- SERIOUSLY. Know yours?

KellyKAG

bump - So confused!

PercivalHackworth

BMR : 1700
TDEE : 3000

TourThePast

yes, but what should i be eating a day to still loose weight? that is my question...

Eat the amount that this site tells you to eat. If it stops working come back and ask for advice then.

Meanwhile, if you can't understand it, despite these explanations, don't worry about it.

lin7604

lol, thanks. i will eat my bmr of 1252 and go from there....

stablesong

Mine is only about 1225.

pinkita

I'm an RN and work with dietitians... a couple of months ago I asked one of them to look over my food logs when I was on my last plateau. She told me I wasn't eating enough, calculated my BMR (estimated), and told me never to eat below that because doing so would slow my metabolism. I took her advice and broke through that 5-week long plateau.

I'm going to have my BMR officially tested this Friday morning just so I know what it is "officially."

erickirb

Whoa - wait a minute -- I thought I understood but now as I read more maybe not. So if I am not supposed to eat less than my BMR (which is 1438) but when I x that number by 1.2 I get 1726 for a 1lb weight loss I would - 500 calories from that and that only gives me 1226 as a goal which is less than my BMR - so can I not lose 1 a week???

Wow -- this is really confusing???

What that tells you is that a 1lb/week loss is too aggressive for the amount of weight you have to lose, try setting your intake at 0.5lbs/week instead.

jchrisman717

Whoa - wait a minute -- I thought I understood but now as I read more maybe not. So if I am not supposed to eat less than my BMR (which is 1438) but when I x that number by 1.2 I get 1726 for a 1lb weight loss I would - 500 calories from that and that only gives me 1226 as a goal which is less than my BMR - so can I not lose 1 a week???

Wow -- this is really confusing???

What that tells you is that a 1lb/week loss is too aggressive for the amount of weight you have to lose, try setting your intake at 0.5lbs/week instead.

I tried that and it still only puts my calories at 1200 -- I find it hard to believe that I can't expect a 1 lb weight loss a week - I have about 35 lbs to lose. Though I am pretty healthy and its more important to be healthy and look fit than to just lose weight. Another question - what does Net mean - I have only been looking at my total calories consumed so should I look at my Net?

graysmom2005

Wait, I want to be sure I'm getting this correctly (see how ingrained it is in people that a drastic calorie reduction is what's needed to lose weight?): If my BMR is 1741 and the Harris Benedict Formula says my daily calorie need (I have a desk job) is 2089, then I need to keep my calories between 1741 and 2089 to lose weight?

Sorry if I'm being dense :ohwell:

No. :-) That's to maintain. If you want to lose a pound a week you subtract 500 calories from that. So between 1241 and 1589.

erickirb

Wait, I want to be sure I'm getting this correctly (see how ingrained it is in people that a drastic calorie reduction is what's needed to lose weight?): If my BMR is 1741 and the Harris Benedict Formula says my daily calorie need (I have a desk job) is 2089, then I need to keep my calories between 1741 and 2089 to lose weight?

Sorry if I'm being dense :ohwell:

No. :-) That's to maintain. If you want to lose a pound a week you subtract 500 calories from that. So between 1241 and 1589.

No, to lose 1lb it would be 1589, but you would lose weight eating anything under 2089

tubbstattsyrup

Okay, I am NO EXPERT, but I read these forums a lot, read lots of other fitness articles, and belong to a triathlon club with professional coaches who tell me stuff. Here's my take:

Outstanding issues:

--eat no less than your BMR ever? YES
--eat back your exercise calories? DEPENDS ON WHAT WORKS FOR YOU
--multiply by some factor to account for exercise and NOT add back your exercise calories? COULD ALSO WORK
--never go below 1200 calories? EAT YOUR BMR
--and just do what works? low calorie or not? IF YOU MUST TEMPORARILY, YOU WON'T DIE, BUT IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE AND COULD LOWER YOUR METABOLISM IF CONTINUED FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
--if it ain't killed me, it ain't gonna kill you? ILLOGICAL

lol..
Thank you all for this insightful discussion. I am thoroughly confused but I do feel like I have learned a lot in a short period of time. Now, to just figure out what will work for me will be the trick. Time to digest all this great input!

Okay, time for a true story. Hopefully this will help some with the WHY'S.
I belong to a triathlon club where they will measure our BMR using the funny breathe-into-this-machine-for-15-minutes (it's bizaare, but it's what they use in hospitals to figure out how much to give comatose patients, so I figure it's a pretty good estimate. I've had mine tested, by the way, and it's 1800/day. Rare to be an exact number. Anyways...) A client came in wanting to improve his triathlon times and had his BMR tested to see how to properly fuel his workouts. At around 5'8", 170lbs, this man had a BMR of 1100. "?!?" you ask? He raced jetskiis professionally for a number of years and, just like a jockey, severely restricted his calories because every lb of flesh = 1mph slower on the jetski. He had been eating about 1000 cals/day for YEARS. In contrast, my trainer is also around 5'8", 170lbs, races triathlons but has been EATING to fuel his workouts. His BMR is around 2200. Yes, two men, both athletes, who are pretty much the same height/weight have over 1000 calorie difference in what their body thinks it "needs" to function. THAT is the danger of eating below your BMR for an EXTENDED period of time. Your metabolism does slow. I'm not saying if you ever net below it you will immediately throw your body into a crazy funk, but there is a real consequence to consistently following this approach. I am no nutritionist/chemist/doctor of any kind, but my general understanding from reading is that it would take several weeks/months to affect this change.

GOOD NEWS: you can reverse it. BETTER NEWS: just try not to go there. Calcuate your BMR, and try to not eat less than that. So, for the OP, that means eat at least 1428/day. From what I understand from my trainers at the triathlon club (several of which DO have nutrition degrees), occasionally falling below in your NET calories is okay. So, if you eat 1428 and burn 300, making your net 1128, you're okay. Especially if this is not a daily thing, you won't affect your metabolism. In fact, the words straight from my coach's mouth were "To lose weight it's simple: eat your BMR and exercise."

Anyone more educated is free to disagree/clarify. I don't have any fancy letters after my name to make me rock-solid in my stance

Many thanks for taking the time to explain.

Based on this, I am not going by MFP's suggestion but an average from the BMI site and other things. I was so hungry last night it can't be right. Let's see what happens.

poulingail

I changed my goal weight to a long term goal which is an additional 50 lbs. My daily calorie goal did not change. I know that over the course of my up-to-now 20 lb loss, my MFP daily calorie goal has come down from 1580 to the current 1380 for 1 lb/week loss. Is the program reading my log and making changes because of my weight changes? I have been plateauing for about 2 months now. I read with interest, the comment from the triathlon person and the same individuals with dramatically different BMRs. Could my life long weight issue really be a low BMR?

erickirb

Whoa - wait a minute -- I thought I understood but now as I read more maybe not. So if I am not supposed to eat less than my BMR (which is 1438) but when I x that number by 1.2 I get 1726 for a 1lb weight loss I would - 500 calories from that and that only gives me 1226 as a goal which is less than my BMR - so can I not lose 1 a week???

Wow -- this is really confusing???

What that tells you is that a 1lb/week loss is too aggressive for the amount of weight you have to lose, try setting your intake at 0.5lbs/week instead.

I tried that and it still only puts my calories at 1200 -- I find it hard to believe that I can't expect a 1 lb weight loss a week - I have about 35 lbs to lose. Though I am pretty healthy and its more important to be healthy and look fit than to just lose weight. Another question - what does Net mean - I have only been looking at my total calories consumed so should I look at my Net?

If your maintenance is 1726 then 0.5lbs/week should have you at 1476 (1726-250)

whiplashpcw

Mine is 1958. I was shocked. That seems like A LOT of calories burned for doing absolutely nothing except living.

Yori1

Bump

GdeVries

Finally took advantage of the fitness/planning tools at my local gym, only to find out my BMR is 1428. Yes, I also found out a lot of other discouraging news like the fact that my Body Fat % is very 'Overfat', etc... but it is the BMR that is killing me.

If my Basal Metabolic Rate is 1428, how could I not be fat right now? If I understand BMR, it is the number of calories you need each day to maintain your current weight (sans exercise). My body HATES ME!!! and I THINK I now understand that since I did no exercise for virtually 2 years and surely I ate well above 1428 calories a day, I had no choice but to gain weight, even at 1600 calories a day...

SO, WHY DID I NOT KNOW THIS???
Yes, I saw the weight slowly adding onto my body.. but I was too scared to even get on the scale and now here I am with 40 pounds to lose and soooo disappointed in myself I had to make some life changes.. and here I am.. 11 pounds lost and working really, really hard to get back to where I belong.

Here's the rub...
I know my 1000 calorie a day goal is going to freak out MFP peeps but I have very little wiggle room here... If I want to lose, I need to eat less than my BMR and yes, I do eat back some of my exercise calories...

I'd love to hear your thoughts?

My BMR is a little over 1700. But as others have stated that's if you do nothing. I can eat up to 2500 calories a day and am still losing weight because I ride my bike for 3 hours or walk with the dogs or do a workout on the elliptical and weight training.

Don't try to eat 1000 calories a day, I don't think that can work for any length of time.

❤_veggies_rock_❤

Sorry, but it doesn't sound like a good plan to me... your body is going to fight you with the 1000 calories. It isn't enough. Do more research on the right way to lose weight. Eat more, weigh less. Let go of the the theory of starving yourself in order to lose weight.. long term, it just doesn't work and setting yourself up for failure.

I agree with this information totally! I learned this in reviewing my food diary: the more I ate the more weight I lost!

Mom2M_and_O

My BMR is 1370 according to MFP and 1470 according to other calculators that use a different equation. My normal sedentary daily acitivity comes to a total 1800 calories/day. So 6 months ago to be on the safe side, I custom-set my MFP calorie goal to 1500/day as opposed to the 1300 it wanted me to be on at the time. Was it scary? Why, yes, it was! I didn't want to waste time, but neither did I want to do my body a disservice. I wanted to do this in a healthy way, even if it meant I lost at a slower rate.

I figure if all I do is go to work (sedentary desk job, no exercise), then I have a 300 calorie deficit each day. Throw in 30 minutes of moderate exercise every day (approx 200 calories burned) and I've got my 500 calorie daily deficit to lose 1 lb/wk.

Do I lose 1 lb every week? No, I don't. But when I look over the course of a month, I have lost an AVERAGE of 1 lb/wk.

Don't sabotage yourself right out of the gate by eating too few calories every day. Fuel your body so it can operate efficiently and so that it won't be as prone to hang on to the extra stored fat you want it to get rid of.