BMR is 1353...but told to eat 1200

littleredfairy

:noway: :noway: :noway: I have set up my MFP and it says I should be eating 1200 calories a day to lose 1 pound a week. when I calculate my BR it says it is 1229 calories, and on other sites such as Shape Sense and Fat2Fit says it is 1353 or similar.

Thing is, I have read in several place sit's bad to eat less than your BMR, can lower your metabolism and actually stop weight loss as your body thinks it is starving. So should I ignore guidance give by MFP???? How much do I eat?

gaia3rd

I personally would never eat lower than my BMR, plus I definitely recommend you eat the majority of your exercise calories back. I've been doing this and losing a pound a week for the last 10 weeks. Not knowing your history or how much you're trying to lose, I can't advise you beyond that, but from reading all these forums, I have noticed that the majority of people who eat below their BMR for long periods of time quite often stall/plateau because of lowered metabolism.

BrianSharpe

Assuming your set your activity level to sedentary your maintenance caloric needs (not including exercise) would be around 1623 ( 1353 x 1.2), subtract 500 cal deficit (needed for 1lb loss per week) gives you 1123 cal - MFP doesn't go below 1200. So it would be reasonable to eat 1200 + your exercise calories.

Its usually extremely low caloric diets that will mess with your metabolism (below 1000 cal)

lin7604

ok but now the Op said that they are getting different readings of bmr, which do they go by? i just checked for me and mfp says 1247 and the sites they mentioned was 1356... so what do you go by?

BrianSharpe

ok but now the Op said that they are getting different readings of bmr, which do they go by? i just checked for me and mfp says 1247 and the sites they mentioned was 1356... so what do you go by?

I used the higher on that she quoted - in both cases (for her) BMR x 1.2 less 500 cal would be under 1200 cal. In this instance it doesn't really matter which one you use as you're not going to be going below a net of 1200

The problem with these BMR calculators is they're purely mathematical models, short of getting your your RMR tested they are nothing more than estimates.

iamfranniefierce

Assuming your set your activity level to sedentary your maintenance caloric needs (not including exercise) would be around 1623 ( 1353 x 1.2), subtract 500 cal deficit (needed for 1lb loss per week) gives you 1123 cal - MFP doesn't go below 1200. So it would be reasonable to eat 1200 + your exercise calories.

Its usually extremely low caloric diets that will mess with your metabolism (below 1000 cal)

Thanks for explaining this...

karisma81

If you are small or close to your idea weight, 0.5 pounds/week is probably a more reasonable weight loss rate.

RAFValentina

Assuming your set your activity level to sedentary your maintenance caloric needs (not including exercise) would be around 1623 ( 1353 x 1.2), subtract 500 cal deficit (needed for 1lb loss per week) gives you 1123 cal - MFP doesn't go below 1200. So it would be reasonable to eat 1200 + your exercise calories.

Its usually extremely low caloric diets that will mess with your metabolism (below 1000 cal)

You seem quite switched on... Does the below 1000 mean NET or GROSS calories? I mean, I can eat 1800calories on a day AND burn that through EXERCISE alone giving me a net of 0 yet eaten 1800...

Just wondering if it counts the same, especially as am eating throughout the day so the energy balance is at the END of the day and fluctuates throughout the day! If that makes sense!

rileysowner

Eat at least your BMR.

Sarauk2sf

If you don't mind me asking, how tall are you, how much do you weigh and how much do you have to lose?. Also, did you set your activity level correctly - sedentary is basically sitting all day - if you move around, even if sitting for most of the day, you should consider altering the settings.

RAFValentina

Seeing as there's a lot of different opinions floating about here, can you all back up your answers with some scientific evidence? I believe the 1200 is relating to a particular weight and height and gender therefore may actually be OK to go lower for some people. Why should one eat at least their BMR on a weight loss diet? Justification of these will save a lot of ambiguity and help everyone understand WHY and therefore hopefully stay safe.

rileysowner

ok but now the Op said that they are getting different readings of bmr, which do they go by? i just checked for me and mfp says 1247 and the sites they mentioned was 1356... so what do you go by?

I used the higher on that she quoted - in both cases (for her) BMR x 1.2 less 500 cal would be under 1200 cal. In this instance it doesn't really matter which one you use as you're not going to be going below a net of 1200

The problem with these BMR calculators is they're purely mathematical models, short of getting your your RMR tested they are nothing more than estimates.

This is a good reason to not eat below BMR. Odds are most people are not truly sedentary even if they are sedentary at work. True sedentary is someone who basically does very little/sits pretty much all day. Many people see themselves doing that 8-10 hours at work, but don't consider how active they may be outside of work. If the activity level is higher, then the OP would no longer be eating under their BMR. I still stand with eat your BMR at least. I wish I had done that long ago, but didn't

BrianSharpe

You seem quite switched on... Does the below 1000 mean NET or GROSS calories? I mean, I can eat 1800calories on a day AND burn that through EXERCISE alone giving me a net of 0 yet eaten 1800...

Just wondering if it counts the same, especially as am eating throughout the day so the energy balance is at the END of the day and fluctuates throughout the day! If that makes sense!

Net would be logical as you need a certain amount of energy just to keep your heart beating, your brain functioning etc. You could probably get away with the extreme example you used on an occasional basis but you would rapidly deplete your stored glycogen and probably feel very lethargic the following day (and more likely to overcompensate).

Not sure exactly what you're asking with the second question.......

BrianSharpe

This is a good reason to not eat below BMR. Odds are most people are not truly sedentary even if they are sedentary at work. True sedentary is someone who basically does very little/sits pretty much all day. Many people see themselves doing that 8-10 hours at work, but don't consider how active they may be outside of work. If the activity level is higher, then the OP would no longer be eating under their BMR. I still stand with eat your BMR at least. I wish I had done that long ago, but didn't

What you're highlighting is the need to accurately establish TDEE (which is what the Harris Benedict factors are attempting to approximate). Ideally, if your goal was to lose 1lb per week and you knew your TDEE it would be simple......eat TDEE less 500 cal

lin7604

ok so for me for example. i had was set at 1200 in the beginning not knowing my bmr. I was loosing steadly .5 lbs a week. 2-2.5 lbs a month. I am 5 ft 2 and was aimed to loose 10-15 lbs. So yes i get that the 500 deficate wasn't logical for me b/c i didn't have a lot too loose and it was under my bmr. I haven't lost weight in 2.5 months. I upped my cals from 1200- 1310 as i set my lose to .,5 from 1 lbs since i wasn't loosing 1 lb anyway... i gained weight on 1310? so i set my cals now to my bmr of 1252. but when i checked on those 2 sites that the OP mentioned my cals were higher then on mfp... difference of 110... that is quite a bit IMO. so how do i know which i should set mine at to make sure i am eating my bmr? I just don't know what else to do to get the weight loss happening again, i still have 8 lbs to go. and with a 2,5 month stall my goal date came and went.... i increased my exercise and still no change,i always eat back all of my exercise calories and still no loss.... i am wondering if i really will only loose the rest going back down to 1200?

rileysowner

If you had been eating under your BMR for a fair amount of time, you may have lost muscle and seen a slowdown in your metabolism. Even without that, a jump in calories can cause a short term weight gain, several weeks are needed to make sure that is not the case. BMR estimations are in a range. My guess MFP uses the low end, the other sites a higher number. Frankly 110 calories, as big as that seems is not a huge amount. The errors in measuring various foods and exercise calories are probably cumulatively larger than that. Figure any amount of calories between those two would be fine.

lin7604

ya that is what i am going to do, set it inbetween....

littleredfairy

I am 31, 115cm tall and 128lbs, my goal is at least 114lbs.

I am going to try for another week and then see about going up to 1300 calories.

neverstray

My TDEE is 2996. Yet, MFP tells me to eat 1870.

With a TDEE of 2996, less 15%, I should be eating 2546 per day to lose weight. I think also, this would mean not adding back exercise calories since its already figured in. So, it would be a stable 2546 everyday. That seems reasonable, however, I feel like I'll gain weight. Maybe I should try it for a month and see.

TDEE accounts for activity, MFP does not, yet that's a large difference. My BMR is 1757.

I don't know what to do. Very confused.

To the OP, my understanding is that you have to at least eat BMR. But you should be eating your TDEE! Less 15%, which you can calculate here: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

Sytera

I am very new to all this and enjoy reading threads such as these. This is a calculator I found a few days back and messed around with a bit: http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee If you want to find your current TDEE at different levels of activity, enter your current weight as your goal weight.

neverstray

I am very new to all this and enjoy reading threads such as these. This is a calculator I found a few days back and messed around with a bit: http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee If you want to find your current TDEE at different levels of activity, enter your current weight as your goal weight.

That's fantastic. Thanks. I think all the various sources I am readin are telling me that I need to eat more in order to lose weight. I'll try it. I'm still a little skeptical, but several sources are telling me I need more calories.

DivaDiane

The more I read, the more I learn. Thanks, guys. TDEE was not something I knew about.

ladyraven68

I am very new to all this and enjoy reading threads such as these. This is a calculator I found a few days back and messed around with a bit: http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee If you want to find your current TDEE at different levels of activity, enter your current weight as your goal weight.

Fat2Fit also works in that way - it tells you to eat at the TDEE of a person at your goal weight
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

If you want to work out your current TDEE you need to put your current weight as your goal weight.

This method, or deducting 15-20% from your TDEE seem a far more logical way of setting your numbers than just deducting 500 calories.

neverstray

I am very new to all this and enjoy reading threads such as these. This is a calculator I found a few days back and messed around with a bit: http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee If you want to find your current TDEE at different levels of activity, enter your current weight as your goal weight.

Fat2Fit also works in that way - it tells you to eat at the TDEE of a person at your goal weight
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

If you want to work out your current TDEE you need to put your current weight as your goal weight.

This method, or deducting 15-20% from your TDEE seem a far more logical way of setting your numbers than just deducting 500 calories.

Agreed 100%. Also, let's say you reach your goal weight, and the decide you would like to shave off an extra 5 or 10 lbs. Well, the percentage methodology is more logical to me than just lopping off 500 calories.

time2bhealthy

bump

Eats_With_A_Fist_Returns

Assuming your set your activity level to sedentary your maintenance caloric needs (not including exercise) would be around 1623 ( 1353 x 1.2), subtract 500 cal deficit (needed for 1lb loss per week) gives you 1123 cal - MFP doesn't go below 1200. So it would be reasonable to eat 1200 + your exercise calories.

Its usually extremely low caloric diets that will mess with your metabolism (below 1000 cal)

You seem quite switched on... Does the below 1000 mean NET or GROSS calories? I mean, I can eat 1800calories on a day AND burn that through EXERCISE alone giving me a net of 0 yet eaten 1800...

Just wondering if it counts the same, especially as am eating throughout the day so the energy balance is at the END of the day and fluctuates throughout the day! If that makes sense!

I know you asked them, but if I may offer an answer. The 1200 + your exercise calories would be your Net. If the minimum is 1200 and you eat 1200, but then burn 200, your Net would be 1000. This is lower than it should be. The 1200 calorie limit is set at the level you need to eat if you want to lose. You could only eat that level without exercise and lose (theoretically). So when you exercise, you're creating a bigger deficit and you need to refuel your body after doing so by eating back as many of those calories as you can. That's the way I've always understood and approached it.

lin7604

I am very new to all this and enjoy reading threads such as these. This is a calculator I found a few days back and messed around with a bit: http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee If you want to find your current TDEE at different levels of activity, enter your current weight as your goal weight.

Thanks for that site, i like it alot better then others i was using..... it figured mt tdee to be 1535 so i will take 15% off that and it gives me 1304... so i will set my goals to that now..

ElizabethRoad

The site told you to eat 1200 because you said you wanted to lose one pound per week. It's a calculator. It isn't saying it's healthy for you to eat that amount.