MFP warning about eating under BMR
Replies
-
This was part of a response to an e-mail a friend sent to MFP asking about her 1200 calorie goal they gave her. She sent it to me and I just :noway: .
"Thanks for taking the time to contact us. If you are aiming to lose weight, then yes, you should eat under your BMR calculations. The BMR calculates just what you need if you did nothing at all. When you set up your profile, we ask you for your age, height, weight, gender, normal daily activity level and how much weight you would like to lose/gain per week. We then use all this information and calculate it against the scientific calculation to give you your daily recommended goals."
Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that explanation. It is accurate based on conventional thinking and just about every nutrition article that I've read.
She only has 7 lbs left to lose, though, which she stated in her e-mail to them. That's ok? Everything I've read says the opposite.
Well, it all depends on her parameters and how aggressive she set her goals. What is her BMR to begin with? If her BMR is 1700 and she chose to lose 1lb a week, then her suggested intake would be 1200 calories and that would get her to her goal. If she exercises, those calories are added into that number and have those calories available to eat back. At the end of the day, her remaining calories should be around 0. That would be a healthy way for her to reach her goal.0 -
Being the OP of this thread I'm just going to say Sparklyball, you have no idea what you just started :P Also the people below your post are kind of incorrect in several ways and I no longer have the effort to correct. I'm just going to say educate yourself, find it yourself from reputable sources, I'll help guide you somewhat.
With that, to find out how much you burn in the run of a day, google TDEE
To find out how much you burn if someone knocked you out and you were unconscious for a while, google BMR
To find out how much you burn resting, google RMR
Also, here's a thinggy I made for people just like you:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/CoderGal/view/losing-weight-tdee-bmr-rmr-etc-249228
To be oblivious to all this and get some application made by scientists based on a weight loss study, have I got the thing for you. There was a scientific paper published based on the quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. The authors of this study made this addorable little calculator that lets you play with all the numbers mentioned above. They take the changes in the human metabolism into account, looking at the fact that a 3500 calorie deficit equaling 1 lb of weight loss isn't that percise.
Study: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60812-X/fulltext
Calc: http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/0 -
I agree. I thought this site was correct as i've been eating 1200, where can I go to find out my real Cals??
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
MFP uses good calculations (Mifflin St Jeor, if I'm not mistaken), it just takes out the activity factor and gives you back "exercise calories"... which can be misunderstood, misused, abused, etc.
i like fitnessfrog.com as well because it has the tdee calculator. i use both site....fat2fitradio.com to get my body fat % and the other one i use for my bmr and tdee.0 -
Another thing to consider is that everyone's BMR on the calculators is just an estimate. Everyone has a different metabolism and factors that make up their BMR like hormones or muscle composition. If MFP were to tell you what your BMR is, it would only be a guestimate. I went and had my RMR medically tested at a sports lab (BMR testing requires an overnight stay) ...best 50 bucks I ever spent. I will be re-doing that test every few months on this journey just to make sure I am on the right path.0
-
bump for reading later.0
-
Another thing to consider is that everyone's BMR on the calculators is just an estimate. Everyone has a different metabolism and factors that make up their BMR like hormones or muscle composition. If MFP were to tell you what your BMR is, it would only be a guestimate. I went and had my RMR medically tested at a sports lab (BMR testing requires an overnight stay) ...best 50 bucks I ever spent. I will be re-doing that test every few months on this journey just to make sure I am on the right path.
For the sake of science, did you find it to be over or under estimated? There are several equations you can use. Out of 3 of the BMR equations they range within 50 calories of eachother (for me). RMR should be a bit higher then that. I'm thinking about going to get mine tested. How do you go about it?
ps might as well add that I ended up getting to goal eating above my BMR (~calculated TDEE). And for those of you thinking you need to eat below your BMR to loose weight you have been grossly misinformed.0 -
ps might as well add that I ended up getting to goal eating above my BMR (~calculated TDEE). And for those of you thinking you need to eat below your BMR to loose weight you have been grossly misinformed.
Then why did that calculator you posted recommend <300 calories/day for me?0 -
I was just responding to your concern as to what to do with inconsistent workouts.
Oh, yeah. That's fine. Please don't mistake my tone as being combative. I'm just trying to figure out all the parameters of the debate. I'm just trying to gain an understanding of this theory and the differences between it and my present plan (which is basically MFP).
Then isn't that pretty much the same as MFP has it now?
In therory, yes - however, many people find the activity levels with MFP to be very light. For example, MFP would have me eating at 350 calories a day less (using a lightly active setting) than my actual non-workout day burn is based on my BMF. I have a desk job and am pretty sedentary outside of workouts and outside of work - so lightly active seems like it should be a reasonable estimate (and most folks use sedentary setting which is even less)
Ok, so tell me if I'm right...
You went to a different site and determined your BMR based on a lightly active lifestyle with no exercise. That website then calculated a 20% decrease and recommended that as your suggested intake.
On MFP, you again selected lightly active lifestyle and a goal of whatever weight per week. MFP then recommended an intake that was 350 calories less than the other website. Is this correct?
If so, then there are two variables that I see in play. One is the formula used to calculate BMR. I know that there are differences among them, but I don't think they would be that far off. Of course that's just a guess.
The other variable is how fast you want to lose the weight. In the first situation, this is determined for you. you will lose weight at whatever level BMR-20% gives you. In the second situation (MFP), you are given the opportunity to determine the speed at which you will lose. This could very well lead to a suggested intake of less than BMR-20%. Makes sense to me. I guess the question is "How fast do you want to lose?".
I use my BMF to show me my actual average burn on a non-workout day. I take the 500 calories off that, just as MFP does, to give me my calorie goal. There is no -20% v 500 calories to create the difference. I am not calculating my BMR - I am calculating my TDEE, taking 500 calories off that and comparing it to MFP with a deficit of 500 calories.
ETA: both excluding exercise for this purpose.0 -
I absolutely agree...I found out the hard way...that is why I did my own research on BMR, TDEE and started a "Eat More to Weigh Less" group...it isn't healthy to eat below BMR....
And it is an awesome group with very supportive people!!!
I also found out the hard way, joined this group...upped my calories and started losing again. It also corrected a few other health issues I was having.0 -
Do you realize, you're like a mythical creature I've been searching for? Everyone usually comes back with oh but I'm 5'4 so I'm short and 1200 is more then plenty. It seems so hard to get someone to consider upping...Watch out people, now I have an exampleDon't worry about your age and height - I'm 44 and 4ft 11.5.
I also started on 1200, but it made me feel ill too, so increased to 1600 as my real TDEE (including exercise) is over 2000 and am losing 1-2lb per week.
I'm so proud of this moment...I knew you existed out there somewhere (short-e who eats on this site). It's even more awesome that that comment had so many 4's in it :P
I am a shorty as well and I eat! I am 5'2 and I eat 1900-2100 calories per day and I am losing more now than when I was eating 1200.0 -
try this site http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/
0 -
When I was 420lbs and I was sent to see a Dietician, Nutritionist, and Weight Management Specialist. Heck they put me on a 1200 cal intake. I thought I couldn't do it because it didn't seem like enough food. Within 6 months I had lost 42lbs. So if a team of specialist who are certified said it was okay, then it must have been safe. Before someone jump into reducing calories, they should seek professional help. Hey are any of these people behind MFP certified or doctors?0
-
I was just responding to your concern as to what to do with inconsistent workouts.
Oh, yeah. That's fine. Please don't mistake my tone as being combative. I'm just trying to figure out all the parameters of the debate. I'm just trying to gain an understanding of this theory and the differences between it and my present plan (which is basically MFP).
Then isn't that pretty much the same as MFP has it now?
In therory, yes - however, many people find the activity levels with MFP to be very light. For example, MFP would have me eating at 350 calories a day less (using a lightly active setting) than my actual non-workout day burn is based on my BMF. I have a desk job and am pretty sedentary outside of workouts and outside of work - so lightly active seems like it should be a reasonable estimate (and most folks use sedentary setting which is even less)
Ok, so tell me if I'm right...
You went to a different site and determined your BMR based on a lightly active lifestyle with no exercise. That website then calculated a 20% decrease and recommended that as your suggested intake.
On MFP, you again selected lightly active lifestyle and a goal of whatever weight per week. MFP then recommended an intake that was 350 calories less than the other website. Is this correct?
If so, then there are two variables that I see in play. One is the formula used to calculate BMR. I know that there are differences among them, but I don't think they would be that far off. Of course that's just a guess.
The other variable is how fast you want to lose the weight. In the first situation, this is determined for you. you will lose weight at whatever level BMR-20% gives you. In the second situation (MFP), you are given the opportunity to determine the speed at which you will lose. This could very well lead to a suggested intake of less than BMR-20%. Makes sense to me. I guess the question is "How fast do you want to lose?".
I use my BMF to show me my actual average burn on a non-workout day. I take the 500 calories off that, just as MFP does, to give me my calorie goal. There is no -20% v 500 calories to create the difference. I am not calculating my BMR - I am calculating my TDEE, taking 500 calories off that and comparing it to MFP with a deficit of 500 calories.
ETA: both excluding exercise for this purpose.
What is BMF? doesn't TDEE by definitiontake into account exercise?0 -
If I eat below 1500 calories consistently I gain weight. If I eat at 1500 calories and do not eat back my exercise calories I lose on average 3-4 lbs a week. According to MFP I should be eating 1200 calories a week so I can lose 2lbs. Yeah, ok... whatever!0
-
I can easily and happily eat 1200 kcal or less at 5' 9" and feel full and not get ill/ill effects when doing big burn workouts (1000kCal+) I have enough fat on me for it not to be a problem, and the only thing that wouldn't make it sustainable is lack of moral fibre/will... at the end of the day, your body will use up stores from various sources if eating under your BMR...It doesn't give you the same warning if your net is below 1200kCal. The biggest issue with a low gross intake is getting enough vitamins/minerals in the first place.0
-
What is BMF? doesn't TDEE by definitiontake into account exercise?
BMF - BodyMedia Fit
And re TDEE - only if you use the numbers including exercise. You can look at it pre exercise, as MFP does.0 -
What is BMF? doesn't TDEE by definitiontake into account exercise?
I think it's a Body Media Fit device, like a Body Bugg. It has an internal BMR calculator and an accelerometer (and some skin sensors) that it uses to estimate your calorie expenditure based on your inputs and your movement/activity level.
I had never seen TDEE before coming here two weeks ago. You would think it'd mean total being it's called total. I think it's the name given to the output from estimator calculators that will take your BMR and multiply it by a factor based on your stated activity level to estimate your total daily expenditure. Why people don't just input their actual activity level but instead input 'sedentary' and then manually add on their "exercise" calories, I don't know. It seems nuttily complex, and I'm a numbers lover. I guess because most of us are sedentary unless we happen to pop into the gym 3x/week, but we don't always make it so we don't 'count' it until we do?
Ok, I clicked around here and see that this site breaks out 'exercise' from total expenditure. I still don't know why. When I look for the credentials of who set up this site and its diet plan, all I find is a guy and his brother who wanted a better food tracking site so they set this one up. I do think it's an awesome tracker.0 -
what calculator what values are you giving it.
ps might as well add that I ended up getting to goal eating above my BMR (~calculated TDEE). And for those of you thinking you need to eat below your BMR to loose weight you have been grossly misinformed.
Then why did that calculator you posted recommend <300 calories/day for me?0 -
Glad to hear it!!
Do you realize, you're like a mythical creature I've been searching for? Everyone usually comes back with oh but I'm 5'4 so I'm short and 1200 is more then plenty. It seems so hard to get someone to consider upping...Watch out people, now I have an exampleDon't worry about your age and height - I'm 44 and 4ft 11.5.
I also started on 1200, but it made me feel ill too, so increased to 1600 as my real TDEE (including exercise) is over 2000 and am losing 1-2lb per week.
I'm so proud of this moment...I knew you existed out there somewhere (short-e who eats on this site). It's even more awesome that that comment had so many 4's in it :P
I am a shorty as well and I eat! I am 5'2 and I eat 1900-2100 calories per day and I am losing more now than when I was eating 1200.0 -
Being the OP of this thread I'm just going to say Sparklyball, you have no idea what you just started :P Also the people below your post are kind of incorrect in several ways and I no longer have the effort to correct. I'm just going to say educate yourself, find it yourself from reputable sources, I'll help guide you somewhat.
With that, to find out how much you burn in the run of a day, google TDEE
To find out how much you burn if someone knocked you out and you were unconscious for a while, google BMR
To find out how much you burn resting, google RMR
Also, here's a thinggy I made for people just like you:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/CoderGal/view/losing-weight-tdee-bmr-rmr-etc-249228
To be oblivious to all this and get some application made by scientists based on a weight loss study, have I got the thing for you. There was a scientific paper published based on the quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. The authors of this study made this addorable little calculator that lets you play with all the numbers mentioned above. They take the changes in the human metabolism into account, looking at the fact that a 3500 calorie deficit equaling 1 lb of weight loss isn't that percise.
Study: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60812-X/fulltext
Calc: http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/
THAT calculator. I put in my inputs and it told me aim for 268 calories a day or something. I think I said I wanted to lose 30 lbs. in 60 days or something but it definitely isn't advocating not eating below your BMR.0 -
bump0
-
I think the intention here is good but I don't think there is any point.
Most people who are inappropiately eating only 1200 cals/day are doing so because:
1. They have chosen an aggressive weight loss goal (ie.1200) when they only have a few pounds to lose
2. They haven't bothered to read about how MFP works so they don't eat more when they exercise.
If they bothered to take 2 minutes to work out how MFP is set up and if they didn't have unrealistic expectations, then they would be eating a more healthy amount.
The people who aren't going to do these things aren't going to get any more value from a BMR warning than the 1200 cal warning.0 -
What is BMF? doesn't TDEE by definitiontake into account exercise?
I think it's a Body Media Fit device, like a Body Bugg. It has an internal BMR calculator and an accelerometer (and some skin sensors) that it uses to estimate your calorie expenditure based on your inputs and your movement/activity level.
I had never seen TDEE before coming here two weeks ago. You would think it'd mean total being it's called total. I think it's the name given to the output from estimator calculators that will take your BMR and multiply it by a factor based on your stated activity level to estimate your total daily expenditure. Why people don't just input their actual activity level but instead input 'sedentary' and then manually add on their "exercise" calories, I don't know. It seems nuttily complex, and I'm a numbers lover. I guess because most of us are sedentary unless we happen to pop into the gym 3x/week, but we don't always make it so we don't 'count' it until we do?
Ok, I clicked around here and see that this site breaks out 'exercise' from total expenditure. I still don't know why. When I look for the credentials of who set up this site and its diet plan, all I find is a guy and his brother who wanted a better food tracking site so they set this one up. I do think it's an awesome tracker.
I was VERY specific on saying I did not include it so I could equate it to the way MFP worked as that was what the poster asked me to do. An obviously you do not know the way MFP works - the activity level on MFP does not include exercise, it includes non exercise activity (e.g your type of job) - which is WHY my explanation was pre exercise so it was apples to apples.
ETA: it probably breaks out exercise calories for a number of reasons including 1) to encourage people to exercise 2) so people do not have to change their goal every single day their workouts vary. Not sure why it is confusing.0 -
This is very interesting information. You learn something new every day--thanks, guys!0
-
I was VERY specific on saying I did not include it so I could equate it to the way MFP worked as that was what the poster asked me to do. An obviously you do not know the way MFP works - the activity level on MFP does not include exercise, it includes non exercise activity (e.g your type of job) - which is WHY my explanation was pre exercise so it was apples to apples.
ETA: it probably breaks out exercise calories for a number of reasons including 1) to encourage people to exercise 2) so people do not have to change their goal every single day their workouts vary. Not sure why it is confusing.
Sorry, I wasn't really following you guys' exchange. I was just responding to her(?) question about why doesn't TDEE include 'exercise' with my own ideas and confusion about it.
I don't study how this site does their plan because I don't follow their plan. I use their tracker with my Fitbit.
I would find it discourages me from exercising if I have to (1) estimate the calories for each activity and (2) add them to my usual daily food allotment and eat them back. I would think it'd be much easier to just skip the dang workout if you're just going to re-eat it anyway. Most of us (sadly) do the workout for the addl calorie burn to speed weight loss, I think. That's another topic, though.0 -
Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that explanation. It is accurate based on conventional thinking and just about every nutrition article that I've read.
She only has 7 lbs left to lose, though, which she stated in her e-mail to them. That's ok? Everything I've read says the opposite.
Well, it all depends on her parameters and how aggressive she set her goals. What is her BMR to begin with? If her BMR is 1700 and she chose to lose 1lb a week, then her suggested intake would be 1200 calories and that would get her to her goal. If she exercises, those calories are added into that number and have those calories available to eat back. At the end of the day, her remaining calories should be around 0. That would be a healthy way for her to reach her goal.
Between 1225-1310 depending on whose calculator she used (1225 from MFP's). She set it to lose .5 lb/wk and it still gave her 1200.0 -
bump0
-
You didn't answer the question. What information did you put in (I'm not even going to touch the fact that loosing a lb every 2 day is unreasonable). The point of making that app was for them, for their study purposes, not for boobs to abuse it.Being the OP of this thread I'm just going to say Sparklyball, you have no idea what you just started :P Also the people below your post are kind of incorrect in several ways and I no longer have the effort to correct. I'm just going to say educate yourself, find it yourself from reputable sources, I'll help guide you somewhat.
With that, to find out how much you burn in the run of a day, google TDEE
To find out how much you burn if someone knocked you out and you were unconscious for a while, google BMR
To find out how much you burn resting, google RMR
Also, here's a thinggy I made for people just like you:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/CoderGal/view/losing-weight-tdee-bmr-rmr-etc-249228
To be oblivious to all this and get some application made by scientists based on a weight loss study, have I got the thing for you. There was a scientific paper published based on the quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. The authors of this study made this addorable little calculator that lets you play with all the numbers mentioned above. They take the changes in the human metabolism into account, looking at the fact that a 3500 calorie deficit equaling 1 lb of weight loss isn't that percise.
Study: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60812-X/fulltext
Calc: http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov/
THAT calculator. I put in my inputs and it told me aim for 268 calories a day or something. I think I said I wanted to lose 30 lbs. in 60 days or something but it definitely isn't advocating not eating below your BMR.
And I figured I'd clarify that I'm not calling you a boob, I'm saying that anyone who finds that study and tries to do something completely unreasonable with it and follow it well...doesn't have much reasoning. They don't have all the problems blocked out. The only one I know if is they have a safe guard around BMI but the app still continues so you can examine very unreasonable situations0 -
:flowerforyou:0
-
bump0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions