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

WalkingAlong

I ate about 500-1000 ( Bmr 1100 )

Your BMR is 1100 at age 24... that means you weigh 70 lbs. Are you a Hobbit? (Your actual BMR is probably at least 1400 so eating 500-1000 isn't just "below BMR", it's WAAAAY below BMR and into 'very low calorie/crash diet' territory.)

Gee_24

I ate about 500-1000 ( Bmr 1100 )

Your BMR is 1100 at age 24... that means you weigh 70 lbs. Are you a Hobbit? (Your actual BMR is probably at least 1400 so eating 500-1000 isn't just "below BMR ", it's WAAAAY below BMR and into 'very low calorie/crash diet' territory.)

Can I ask where you are getting your statistics?! I am utterly offended that every time I bring up my BMR I get told Im talking bull ****. I will be posting a head shot with me next to a measuring tape soon to stop ill informed comments.

I am 4ft 9. I am 146cm long. That is smaller than some 11 year old's. I weigh around 88 lbs. My BMR is 1100. I have had it checked on several different calculators and confirmed at my doctors via the NHS formula.

People need to stop with this " That's not your BMR! Its way higher! " " If you weighed that you'd be dead " bull. Its making this place hard to be around when I'm here to give support to others and I get flamed for my own posts. There ARE small adults out there, you know...

Gee_24

My own thread regarding BMR, at which point I then saw my GP about it and he has confirmed it.


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1125452-could-i-have-the-lowest-bmr-here

Edit to say: Since that thread I have had my height checked and I a 4ft 9. not 4ft 8.5 so my bmr is 1100, not 1090.

WalkingAlong

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

I put in 24 year old female and height of 4'6" and had to lower the weight to 70lbs. to get an 1100 BMR.

Even if your BMR is that low, you're talking about eating as low as half that amount. That's not what people are talking about when they say 'eating 1200 is below my BMR and that's dangerous'. For >99% of people, 1200 is not dangerous and IS below their BMR. For you, 1200 is not dangerous. And if you think 1000 is dangerous when your BMR is 1100 and you're overweight, you're wrong. 500 I'm sure is not good but that's not even half of even your tiny BMR.

zuzanaskotakova5

Well, I do not understand this at all... let's say my BMR is 5600 Kj plus I burn through other activities cca 2000 Kj. That is 7600 kj of expenditure in total. Now, I eat my BMR - that is my intake will be those 5600. 2000 Kj deficit. Sounds good. But doesn't it also mean that my body simply needs these 7600? For the activities and for the basic body functioning? It takes some energy for the aktivity, it still needs to have left something for the body functioning. Otherwise, if I eat only those 5600, and it spends 2000 kj on the aktivity }cannot stop me from walking, running, dancing), it suddenly lacks vital 2000 kJ to support the basic functions! WHich means that I simply have to eat what my body consumed for both the activity and its basic functions. The moment I eat less, I cut down on my BMR too in fact. Or do I miss anything??? How does one lose weight then if you cannot create a deficit without cutting on the BMR too in fact? I am really confused, I've been reading these posts and other webs for some time already and still do not get it... it's always about BMR and FDEE, and cutting from the FDEE, but my logic (maybe mistaken) tells me something else... uffff.... thanks for some clarification...

wild_wild_life

Well, I do not understand this at all... let's say my BMR is 5600 Kj plus I burn through other activities cca 2000 Kj. That is 7600 kj of expenditure in total. Now, I eat my BMR - that is my intake will be those 5600. 2000 Kj deficit. Sounds good. But doesn't it also mean that my body simply needs these 7600? For the activities and for the basic body functioning? It takes some energy for the aktivity, it still needs to have left something for the body functioning. Otherwise, if I eat only those 5600, and it spends 2000 kj on the aktivity }cannot stop me from walking, running, dancing), it suddenly lacks vital 2000 kJ to support the basic functions! WHich means that I simply have to eat what my body consumed for both the activity and its basic functions. The moment I eat less, I cut down on my BMR too in fact. Or do I miss anything??? How does one lose weight then if you cannot create a deficit without cutting on the BMR too in fact? I am really confused, I've been reading these posts and other webs for some time already and still do not get it... it's always about BMR and FDEE, and cutting from the FDEE, but my logic (maybe mistaken) tells me something else... uffff.... thanks for some clarification...

Yeah, it doesn't really make a lot of sense when you think about it that way.

Basically, to lose weight we have to consume less than we expend. If you eat less than you expend, the body uses the extra energy from stored glycogen, fat, and muscle to perform basic functions. Some people on this site use their BMR as a minimum calorie intake. This is not really based on any kind of physiological necessity but is simply used as a rule of thumb to keep from dropping their calories too low.

WalkingAlong

Well, I do not understand this at all... let's say my BMR is 5600 Kj plus I burn through other activities cca 2000 Kj. That is 7600 kj of expenditure in total. Now, I eat my BMR - that is my intake will be those 5600. 2000 Kj deficit. Sounds good. But doesn't it also mean that my body simply needs these 7600? For the activities and for the basic body functioning? It takes some energy for the aktivity, it still needs to have left something for the body functioning. Otherwise, if I eat only those 5600, and it spends 2000 kj on the aktivity }cannot stop me from walking, running, dancing), it suddenly lacks vital 2000 kJ to support the basic functions! WHich means that I simply have to eat what my body consumed for both the activity and its basic functions. The moment I eat less, I cut down on my BMR too in fact. Or do I miss anything??? How does one lose weight then if you cannot create a deficit without cutting on the BMR too in fact? I am really confused, I've been reading these posts and other webs for some time already and still do not get it... it's always about BMR and FDEE, and cutting from the FDEE, but my logic (maybe mistaken) tells me something else... uffff.... thanks for some clarification...

What you're missing is that your body doesn't need calories TODAY for its activity today. You can burn 2500 calories today and eat 1500 and burn up 1000 in stored fat calories. Your BMR is not affected, at least not while you have tens of thousands of stored calories in excess fat. BMR is thrown around here like it matters to your daily intake but that is wrong. Your BMR is irrelevant, except as a stepping stone to get to an estimate of how much you burn per day. That's why no other diet plan you read or join discusses BMR, for the most part. It's good to understand that BMR is what torches most of our calories, since some people seem to think if they skip the gym they don't burn anything, but otherwise you can kind of forget it.

ElsieAssap

I ate about 500-1000 ( Bmr 1100 )

Your BMR is 1100 at age 24... that means you weigh 70 lbs. Are you a Hobbit? (Your actual BMR is probably at least 1400 so eating 500-1000 isn't just "below BMR ", it's WAAAAY below BMR and into 'very low calorie/crash diet' territory.)

Can I ask where you are getting your statistics?! I am utterly offended that every time I bring up my BMR I get told Im talking bull ****. I will be posting a head shot with me next to a measuring tape soon to stop ill informed comments.

I am 4ft 9. I am 146cm long. That is smaller than some 11 year old's. I weigh around 88 lbs. My BMR is 1100. I have had it checked on several different calculators and confirmed at my doctors via the NHS formula.

People need to stop with this " That's not your BMR! Its way higher! " " If you weighed that you'd be dead " bull. Its making this place hard to be around when I'm here to give support to others and I get flamed for my own posts. There ARE small adults out there, you know...

I am only 4' 9" and my BMR is 1151... creating a decent weight loss deficit means finding nutrient dense low calorie foods and having a very low calorie diet .... this site is offering me a 1lb per month loss... who would be content with that?

by the way throwing around comments like 'are you a hobbit?' could be interpreted as ignorant and offensive... what if I accused you of being a hippo?

WalkingAlong

So you resurrected a 6 month old thread because you took offense at 'are you a hobbit'? My sincerest apologies. My BMR is hobbit-ish, too, I'm ok with it. And I know eating under it isn't dangerous.

If I was 4'9" with 12 lbs. to lose, I don't think I'd choose MFP's plan because of the calorie floor. I wouldn't be happy with 1 lb/month either but I would think I could meet my nutritional needs at a lower calorie level than most people, due to my smaller size. Fitbit's plan doesn't use a floor and anyone can use it.

Bukawww

Your fat is part of your body...it has a blood supply therefore part of your BMR includes the energy needed to keep the extra fat 'alive' as well...the only valid argument for eating at/above BMR is solely nutritional. It may be difficult to get all of your macros and vitamins/minerals etc under a certain calorie range but thats going to be highly individual.