Eating Below your BMR... Why is it bad?

kenny_johnson

???
actually, just a quick search on ncbi returned some "non-existent" studies. for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775

pay attention to "total energy expenditure -- in particular, energy expenditure at low levels of physical activity -- is lower than predicted by actual changes in body weight and composition."

and if you go through reference list of this paper you'll find more.

I don't understand how people throw around statements like "there are no studies supporting..." without checking themselves if this was really true...

For some reason, I can't read the whole article, but the abstract seemed like it was more about how after weight loss, there is a slower metabolism that doesn't "bounce back" right away. I've seen other studies that do suggest that it does.

But I didn't see anything in the abstract about eating above/below your BMR.

Masterdo

???
actually, just a quick search on ncbi returned some "non-existent" studies. for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18842775

pay attention to "total energy expenditure -- in particular, energy expenditure at low levels of physical activity -- is lower than predicted by actual changes in body weight and composition."

and if you go through reference list of this paper you'll find more.

I don't understand how people throw around statements like "there are no studies supporting..." without checking themselves if this was really true...

For some reason, I can't read the whole article, but the abstract seemed like it was more about how after weight loss, there is a slower metabolism that doesn't "bounce back" right away. I've seen other studies that do suggest that it does.

But I didn't see anything in the abstract about eating above/below your BMR.

Direct link : http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.long#R30
Maybe you can read it from there. It's actually very nice, I had not come across that one so far. But I don't think it links to BMR though.

kenny_johnson

I will be away from the computer for awhile, so won't be checking this thread. Please don't feel ignore.

Squeezie88

after I read the initial post on this thread, it got me thinking about BMR & TDEE and the simplest way to understand it

found this great website that clearly says what they are and why it's important

http://www.build-muscle-and-burn-fat.com/how-many-calories-should-i-eat-tdee.html

be warned though, there are heaps of ads on that page!

iKristine

You lose muscle through inactivity. Simple.

Your body won't start to canabalis(sp?) itself (lean muscle) if your using those muscles semi regularly. I believe I read somewhere once a week is the lowest you can go.

However, you won't gain muscle in this environment. Regardless of how hard you work out. This idea you lose muscle is exclusive to the sedentary, and quite frankly if you are.... then likely you don't give a **** in the first place. For those of us who work for a body, rather than exclusively diet, do!

Having said this, the only other option left, when your eating below this arbitrary BMR, is to reduce the furnace. Which lowers your metabolism. Long term, severe enough causes serious health issues.

The best way to go about it, is to eat enough to float above this number and the energy you expend during a day which is the TDEE. Then take your deficit from that, responsibly.

Hence move more, eat less. But unless your really move more, and those who do, know they do..... move more eat more applies better.

mdj1501

bumpity bump

Masterdo

You lose muscle through inactivity. Simple.

While this is true, it's far from being that simple...
Bodybuilders, that train 6-7 days a week, you can hardly say that they don't "use" their muscles, report muscle loss overnight, in the simple 8-10 hours fast everyone does every day.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/the_top_10_post_workout_nutrition_myths

Check point 3, it cites a nice study on the subject. So this "once a week" sounds quite a lot like bro-science Muscle loss is inevitable in a process of weight loss, but some ways to lose weight are just worse than others.

iKristine

You lose muscle through inactivity. Simple.

While this is true, it's far from being that simple...
Bodybuilders, that train 6-7 days a week, you can hardly say that they don't "use" their muscles, report muscle loss overnight, in the simple 8-10 hours fast everyone does every day.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/the_top_10_post_workout_nutrition_myths

Check point 3, it cites a nice study on the subject. So this "once a week" sounds quite a lot like bro-science Muscle loss is inevitable in a process of weight loss, but some ways to lose weight are just worse than others.

Is there a possibility that their diet was simply not enough to maintain that muscle mass? This is before we talk about 6-7 days a week!

I think you should compare an orange to an orange, as I doubt there are BB here. Just saying.

heybales

Your Basal Metabolic Rate, the energy used for super basic functions of life, mainly dealing with fluid levels, is energy supplied to each and every cell.

Fat doesn't have much water in it, so not nearly as much there, but still some, muscle has much more, so most energy there.

Where the "energy" to deal with fluid levels and the few other things BMR does ultimately does come from carbs/fat at ratio of 30/70 at rest, you ultimately can't provide energy into a system that you are getting energy from totally.
We do not have little perpetual motion machines in our body, if we did, you could lose fat by just not eating for long while, and yet that is not what happens, because it's not what the body does.

The body slows down.

It is totally incorrect to say that muscle becomes some more used energy source than carbs/fat. The ratio of usage doesn't change just because the metabolism slowed down.

That is the main bad effect of eating below your BMR, your whole metabolism slows down. What could have burned 500 cals now burns only 300 cals. Your body at rest could have burned 1600 cals, now burns 1200 cals.

Is it bad that your weight loss takes longer? Your decision.

But - if you go too low, by having exercise take some of your eaten calories before the body can do BMR functions, it must slow down even more now.

You can get to the point where what you are eating is actually maintenance level. And you will have no weight loss.

The muscle breakdown problem comes into play because usually when you calorie restrict too much at very low levels (nothing to do with eating below BMR though), you don't get enough carbs to top of limited storage. When that limited storage is depleted, the only thing to convert into needed carbs is muscle.

But if your BMR is 2000, and you eat at 1500, and your BMR becomes 1500 (or below actually), you are likely eating enough carbs to prevent that from happening.

You are still slowing down your metabolism eventually though. If you exercise and burn 300 calories every day and don't eat it back, your BMR will have to lower eventually to the 1200 it is left with. How long of a lag time? 3 days to 3 weeks for diminishing weight loss?

InnerFatGirl

I like the way Vaclav Gregor (Greg) put it....All credit goes to Greg.


Metabolic slow down & “Starvation mode”
According to diet programs, you should experience metabolic slow down or starvation mode, when you are not eating regularly or eating below your BMR (explanations differ sometimes, which I found very entertaining btw). There is no study that would support that, quite the contrary. But instead of some research that you will not understand I’ll give you the most simple and logic explanation. Just look at the pictures of people who survived the holocaust or some tragedy and have been left for months or years without food. Did they trick the metabolism and starvation mode? I don’t think so. That means that eating less or fasting will not put you into “starvation mode” and your metabolism will not slow down.

It’s really nothing to be concerned about. These things exist only to confuse you and trick you into buying more food and supplements. It’s just business, sad but true. There are tons of researches and none of them will ever speak about things like starvation mode and metabolic slow down. In this researches when people lost a lot of weight there metabolism slowed down about 100 calories. That’s one large coffee. And I would say that it didn’t slow down, it just came to the normal level from being overweight. Why? Because BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is calculated by your height and your lean body mass. So when you lose weight, your lean body mass number decreases.

I. Love. This.

I always thought that. I mean, everyone screams about starvation mode, etc, but anorexics don't suddenly pile the weight on after eating normally.

I, however, eat above my BMR. I don't want to be hungry and feel deprived, and this is working for me so far.

heybales

Another key part that is left out of every low cal diet study I have read so far is the part where you are supposed to go back to your normal routine. Not because you give up, but because you actually did it, you are at your goal weight, congratulations, now what? What I have read on that subject is that less than 1% of people on diets keep the weight off in the long run. Which has lead me to rather change my activity level, and eat above my BMR to sustain it.

I certainly can't argue with that. I'm wondering myself what I will do as I approach my goal. Certainly returning to the diet and exercise routine that caused me to gain 20 pounds in a couple of years is not the way to go.

For me this is purely scientific curiosity. I never set my weight loss goal higher than 1 lb per week, so I never had a calorie goal below my BMR. But I understand the situation of the original poster. I'd say his goal of 2 lbs per week is perfectly reasonable for someone his size. But a 1000 calorie deficit is always going to be below BMR for a sedentary person . . . unless one has a BMR higher than 4000!

So true.

The only saving grace to that is the fact the BMR at very heavy weights is almost always over-inflated. Only if someone maintained the original fat/LBM of study participants the BMR formula is based on would the current BMR calc be correct.

The Katch BMR formula though using body composition would have much less deviation from truth, actually more underestimated, because the increased fat still requires some energy.

Masterdo

You lose muscle through inactivity. Simple.

While this is true, it's far from being that simple...
Bodybuilders, that train 6-7 days a week, you can hardly say that they don't "use" their muscles, report muscle loss overnight, in the simple 8-10 hours fast everyone does every day.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/the_top_10_post_workout_nutrition_myths

Check point 3, it cites a nice study on the subject. So this "once a week" sounds quite a lot like bro-science Muscle loss is inevitable in a process of weight loss, but some ways to lose weight are just worse than others.

Is there a possibility that their diet was simply not enough to maintain that muscle mass? This is before we talk about 6-7 days a week!

I think you should compare an orange to an orange, as I doubt there are BB here. Just saying.

Nah, we are talking about people eating 5-6k calories/day here, and ungodly amount of protein. The main point was just to say that maintaining muscle is not as easy as just using them somewhat frequently

Masterdo

I. Love. This.

I always thought that. I mean, everyone screams about starvation mode, etc, but anorexics don't suddenly pile the weight on after eating normally.

I, however, eat above my BMR. I don't want to be hungry and feel deprived, and this is working for me so far.

Well... They do... That's partly where the problem comes from. They put on weight so fast when they eat just a little more, thus fueling their idea that what they do is ok. Like was pointed out earlier though, taking anorexics as examples for metabolic damage might be pushing it, but the damage in that case is clear and very well documented.

For the bodybuilding example, the study that they cite was actually done on regular people, it's just that it's affecting BB even more. But the Phillips study it cites was done on regular population.

InnerFatGirl

Not that Wiki is a medical site, or anything, but I found this interesting; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

InnerFatGirl

I. Love. This.

I always thought that. I mean, everyone screams about starvation mode, etc, but anorexics don't suddenly pile the weight on after eating normally.

I, however, eat above my BMR. I don't want to be hungry and feel deprived, and this is working for me so far.

Well... They do... That's partly where the problem comes from. They put on weight so fast when they eat just a little more, thus fueling their idea that what they do is ok. Like was pointed out earlier though, taking anorexics as examples for metabolic damage might be pushing it, but the damage in that case is clear and very well documented.

For the bodybuilding example, the study that they cite was actually done on regular people, it's just that it's affecting BB even more. But the Phillips study it cites was done on regular population.

But do they? I'm def not speaking from experience or knowledge here, but most recoverered/recovering anorexics I see in like .. documentaries and stuff are at normal weight or still very slim.

As an anecdote, though, I can share my own experience. When I was 14, I ran away from home for 4 months and during this time, I lost a lot of weight. I was essentially starving, and got so thin that my collerbone, hipbones and ribs jutted out. When I came back home, I ate so much to compensate that the weight piled on. I've always wondered whether it was partly due to the temporary starvation or just simply my gluttony. Perhaps a combination?

For what it's worth, I think it had more to do with my diet. But I think my gluttony was partly due to the starvation. I always felt hungry, for such a long time. Even after consuming vast quantities of food.

heybales

As an anecdote, though, I can share my own experience. When I was 14, I ran away from home for 4 months and during this time, I lost a lot of weight. I was essentially starving, and got so thin that my collerbone, hipbones and ribs jutted out. When I came back home, I ate so much to compensate that the weight piled on. I've always wondered whether it was partly due to the temporary starvation or just simply my gluttony. Perhaps a combination?

For what it's worth, I think it had more to do with my diet. But I think my gluttony was partly due to the starvation. I always felt hungry, for such a long time. Even after consuming vast quantities of food.

Both diet and slowed down metabolism - but not starvation mode probably.

Your maintenance level at the time could have been 1000 or less calories, so eating even 1500 everyday for a week means 1 lb. Until the metabolism starts to go back up. And that could take awhile.
Probably first week, body stored everything extra as fat, just in case this continued.
Then it may have slowly starting raising it back up.

Several case studies I've seen took 6 weeks to get metabolism back up to expected levels. So during that time, eating above what would be expected maintenance level, would mean a diminishing surplus the whole time.

InnerFatGirl

As an anecdote, though, I can share my own experience. When I was 14, I ran away from home for 4 months and during this time, I lost a lot of weight. I was essentially starving, and got so thin that my collerbone, hipbones and ribs jutted out. When I came back home, I ate so much to compensate that the weight piled on. I've always wondered whether it was partly due to the temporary starvation or just simply my gluttony. Perhaps a combination?

For what it's worth, I think it had more to do with my diet. But I think my gluttony was partly due to the starvation. I always felt hungry, for such a long time. Even after consuming vast quantities of food.

Both diet and slowed down metabolism - but not starvation mode probably.

Your maintenance level at the time could have been 1000 or less calories, so eating even 1500 everyday for a week means 1 lb. Until the metabolism starts to go back up. And that could take awhile.
Probably first week, body stored everything extra as fat, just in case this continued.
Then it may have slowly starting raising it back up.

Several case studies I've seen took 6 weeks to get metabolism back up to expected levels. So during that time, eating above what would be expected maintenance level, would mean a diminishing surplus the whole time.

Very interesting, thank you!

kenny_johnson

Your Basal Metabolic Rate, the energy used for super basic functions of life, mainly dealing with fluid levels, is energy supplied to each and every cell.

Fat doesn't have much water in it, so not nearly as much there, but still some, muscle has much more, so most energy there.

Where the "energy" to deal with fluid levels and the few other things BMR does ultimately does come from carbs/fat at ratio of 30/70 at rest, you ultimately can't provide energy into a system that you are getting energy from totally.
We do not have little perpetual motion machines in our body, if we did, you could lose fat by just not eating for long while, and yet that is not what happens, because it's not what the body does.

The body slows down.

It is totally incorrect to say that muscle becomes some more used energy source than carbs/fat. The ratio of usage doesn't change just because the metabolism slowed down.

That is the main bad effect of eating below your BMR, your whole metabolism slows down. What could have burned 500 cals now burns only 300 cals. Your body at rest could have burned 1600 cals, now burns 1200 cals.

Is it bad that your weight loss takes longer? Your decision.

But - if you go too low, by having exercise take some of your eaten calories before the body can do BMR functions, it must slow down even more now.

You can get to the point where what you are eating is actually maintenance level. And you will have no weight loss.

The muscle breakdown problem comes into play because usually when you calorie restrict too much at very low levels (nothing to do with eating below BMR though), you don't get enough carbs to top of limited storage. When that limited storage is depleted, the only thing to convert into needed carbs is muscle.

But if your BMR is 2000, and you eat at 1500, and your BMR becomes 1500 (or below actually), you are likely eating enough carbs to prevent that from happening.

You are still slowing down your metabolism eventually though. If you exercise and burn 300 calories every day and don't eat it back, your BMR will have to lower eventually to the 1200 it is left with. How long of a lag time? 3 days to 3 weeks for diminishing weight loss?

you make a lot of assertions as if they are fact (such as rates of metabolism slow down etc) but provide no sourced.

plzlbsbegone

I have no scientific facts or anything, but after reading ALL these posts....

about 2 weeks ago, I decided to up my calorie intake to my BMR, and this is the number 1 reason why:
Eating at my BMR, will ultimately get me to my goal weight, and make it an easier transition to maintaining.

I am trying to change my habits into a healthy, sustainable lifestyle. To me, too far below BMR and I am tired and crabby. I eat my BMR, and I have the energy to be active.

This is just a personal choice though. I think that if you are extremely overweight, you probably could go below your BMR and feel fine. So, to sum up my two cents....LISTEN to YOUR body! We are all different, and to each their own!

heybales

Your Basal Metabolic Rate, the energy used for super basic functions of life, mainly dealing with fluid levels, is energy supplied to each and every cell.

Fat doesn't have much water in it, so not nearly as much there, but still some, muscle has much more, so most energy there.

Where the "energy" to deal with fluid levels and the few other things BMR does ultimately does come from carbs/fat at ratio of 30/70 at rest, you ultimately can't provide energy into a system that you are getting energy from totally.
We do not have little perpetual motion machines in our body, if we did, you could lose fat by just not eating for long while, and yet that is not what happens, because it's not what the body does.

The body slows down.

It is totally incorrect to say that muscle becomes some more used energy source than carbs/fat. The ratio of usage doesn't change just because the metabolism slowed down.

That is the main bad effect of eating below your BMR, your whole metabolism slows down. What could have burned 500 cals now burns only 300 cals. Your body at rest could have burned 1600 cals, now burns 1200 cals.

Is it bad that your weight loss takes longer? Your decision.

But - if you go too low, by having exercise take some of your eaten calories before the body can do BMR functions, it must slow down even more now.

You can get to the point where what you are eating is actually maintenance level. And you will have no weight loss.

The muscle breakdown problem comes into play because usually when you calorie restrict too much at very low levels (nothing to do with eating below BMR though), you don't get enough carbs to top of limited storage. When that limited storage is depleted, the only thing to convert into needed carbs is muscle.

But if your BMR is 2000, and you eat at 1500, and your BMR becomes 1500 (or below actually), you are likely eating enough carbs to prevent that from happening.

You are still slowing down your metabolism eventually though. If you exercise and burn 300 calories every day and don't eat it back, your BMR will have to lower eventually to the 1200 it is left with. How long of a lag time? 3 days to 3 weeks for diminishing weight loss?

you make a lot of assertions as if they are fact (such as rates of metabolism slow down etc) but provide no sourced.

Well, the muscle breakdown is just basic physiology, but that doesn't appear to be the points under your request.

Here are the studies showing just how well ones can slow down and stall weight loss, because of eating to low.

Also check out almost any site on diet and weight loss and they'll share the fact your metabolism will slow down. Usually it's stated as if it must happen. But it doesn't have to unless you think you are going to get big losses the whole time.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010

Oh, and 1 kilojoule is 238.8 calories as we would normally call it.