MFP warning about eating under BMR

mcarter99

Why in the world would your BMR number be a line where your metabolism has slowed down when you eat below it but not above it? And why isn't the world outside of this forum aware of this magic line in the sand that a few here have stumbled upon? If metabolism damage and muscle loss is so markedly increased below it, you'd think actual diet plan professionals would have figured it out by now.

Why is it easier to begin maintenance from above it? Because you're so close to maintenance level calories already and you've been logging food for 2 years to lose 50 lbs. so you're just already resigned to doing it forever?

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

wackyfunster

Why in the world would your BMR number be a line where your metabolism has slowed down when you eat below it but not above it? And why isn't the world outside of this forum aware of this magic line in the sand that a few here have stumbled upon? If metabolism damage and muscle loss is so markedly increased below it, you'd think actual diet plan professionals would have figured it out by now.

Why is it easier to begin maintenance from above it? Because you're so close to maintenance level calories already and you've been logging food for 2 years to lose 50 lbs. so you're just already resigned to doing it forever?

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

SHUN THE NON-BELIEVER
SSSSHUUUUNNNNNNNNNN

xxsuzexx

Bump

LittleTrish

Im 4ft 11inc and 40yrs old and for my height and body frame, I should be consuming 1200cal per day and that has been ok'd by my doctor. If your any taller than that and eating 1200cals, your eating way too few calories

DawnEH612

I agree. I thought this site was correct as i've been eating 1200, where can I go to find out my real Cals??

There is a good forum called Eat More To Weigh Less. I would check it out if I were you. they will refer your to a link called Scoobysworkshop.com link attached. This guy has a tremedous website and it all seems very sound advice. He seems like the real deal. The website is totally free!

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

MandyMooney61

Exactly! It is so hard sometimes to not become confused and just end up frustrated and discouraged! I do use my HRM when I work out so I do have a really good idea of what I am burning.
Could you explain why you should not go under you BMR with calories? Is it just because you will not get adequate nutrition? I still don't have a great understanding of this.

It's an easy enough stat to obtain that draws a line in the sand that for many is the difference between slowly losing weight because your metabolism has slowed down, and losing just as slowly or faster with a full burning metabolism.
The former has much greater potential for burning through muscle while you lose, the latter has much greater potential for keeping it.
The former is terrible when it's time to enter maintenance level eating, the latter much easier.
The former causes many to binge or fail or get discouraged or have less energy, the latter has less/none of those.

One example above this post.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/598815-going-crazy-on-how-many-cals-i-should-eat?page=5#posts-9304181

Thanks so much! That gives me a better understanding

mfpcopine

And how are they suppose to know this isn't healthy if the site doesn't warn them?

This is a great site, but if you're relying on it to teach you everything about diet and exercise that's ridiculous. Do the homework.

mfpcopine

Im 4ft 11inc and 40yrs old and for my height and body frame, I should be consuming 1200cal per day and that has been ok'd by my doctor. If your any taller than that and eating 1200cals, your eating way too few calories

I don't think you can make a blanket statement. I would assume that a taller, younger, more active person PROBABLY should be eating more, but that's between him/her and the doctor. and depends on the goal and the time frame involved.

I'm taller, 5' 2", and the only way I'v e been able to lose weight is on 1150 calories.

ladyraven68

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

I disagree with this, eating at a moderate deficit is far more sustainable than eating at a large deficit
Many people eating at a large deficit feel too deprived and give up, or binge.

mfpcopine

Exactly! It is so hard sometimes to not become confused and just end up frustrated and discouraged! I do use my HRM when I work out so I do have a really good idea of what I am burning.
Could you explain why you should not go under you BMR with calories? Is it just because you will not get adequate nutrition? I still don't have a great understanding of this.

I think you should use your HRM as a guide to how hard your heart is working, and recovering, not as a guide to calories burned.

Some people have done very well on ultra-low calorie diets. They were supervised in order to ensure they got adequate nutrition.

CoderGal

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

I disagree with this, eating at a moderate deficit is far more sustainable than eating at a large deficit
Many people eating at a large deficit feel too deprived and give up, or binge.

I also disagree. I have seen people lose several lbs a week eating more. Everyone I know in person who has been on the 1200 calorie diet I have seen gain at least half the weight back in less then 2 years(friends family and people who were supervised by my doctor)

mfpcopine

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

I disagree with this, eating at a moderate deficit is far more sustainable than eating at a large deficit
Many people eating at a large deficit feel too deprived and give up, or binge.

The answer is you have to do what works for you. Some people are encouraged by seeing rapid change even thought they have to make more sacrifices. The key is what you do after you lose the weight.

CoderGal

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

I disagree with this, eating at a moderate deficit is far more sustainable than eating at a large deficit
Many people eating at a large deficit feel too deprived and give up, or binge.

The answer is you have to do what works for you. Some people are encouraged by seeing rapid change even thought they have to make more sacrifices. The key is what you do after you lose the weight.

Eating below tdee works for everyone.

Me on 1200 calorie diet: 1 lb a week
Me on 1650 cal diet: 1 lb a week

Its not like if I cut out 3500 cals a day I would lose 7 lbs of fat a week. The body doesnt work like that. And at first the big weight jumps are likely glycogen depletion if you are on a large deficit.

Ahanaz

I just saw this thread and it's a lot to read through. My TDEE is around 2500. My BMR is 1470, according to calculators online.

Right now I try to eat my BMR, but I don't eat back calories. Should I, or should I not eat back my calories?

amystahl

Agree- my personal trainer puts me at 1500 day versus 1400 MFP recommends.

hanneberries

I'm confused now, haha.

I'm currently eating at a 1200 calorie, wanting to lose 2lbs a week, preferably, though so far it hasn't happened. I went to fat2fit, and it's telling me that my BMR is 1797. But I rarely feel hungry, even when I'm only eating those 1200, though usually it ends up being around 1450 since I do exercise. However, some days I'm not even hungry enough to eat that.

I did try one week bumping my calorie intake up to 1400 as the base, and I felt way too full while eating at that. I don't know if I'll be able to go up to 1800 without gaining/feeling way too stuff to move.

How should I solve this/What should I do?

ladyraven68

I'm confused now, haha.

I'm currently eating at a 1200 calorie, wanting to lose 2lbs a week, preferably, though so far it hasn't happened. I went to fat2fit, and it's telling me that my BMR is 1797. But I rarely feel hungry, even when I'm only eating those 1200, though usually it ends up being around 1450 since I do exercise. However, some days I'm not even hungry enough to eat that.

I did try one week bumping my calorie intake up to 1400 as the base, and I felt way too full while eating at that. I don't know if I'll be able to go up to 1800 without gaining/feeling way too stuff to move.

How should I solve this/What should I do?

You can increases the calories without increasing the volume of the food.

Eat normal versions of food instead of low fat, add calorie dense foods like cheese, nuts, butter, cook using oil etc.

This will increase your calories without making you feel stuffed.

heybales

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

Go read all the quotes of those that started eating more and either started losing weight again, or kept losing at the same rate.

The deficit must not have been ''tiny" but better than what it was before.

So for most of those, the only great loss they got was between starting and when their metabolism slowed down finally, so depending on many factors, how many yo-yo diets they had been on, how great a deficit from former way of eating, how much new exercise, genetics, 5 wks to several months of diminishing weight loss.

And while that is great, how many sit at stalls for months on end, with no change to weight or measurements. In the end, they would have had more loss overall at that point by not undercutting so much.

Why is BMR the line, ya gotta make a line somewhere, and without a Dr or study helping you with a very low calorie diet and giving you goulosh to drink while being observed for weeks on end, it's much easier.

The "tiny" deficit is what many end up with when their initial big losses go down from underfeeding their level of activity.

moe0303

Meh, I still say it's all relative. If you take somebody who is 100 pounds overweight, and give them a large deficit, they will lose large amounts for a while for a while because of their excess fat. They can also build muscle at the same time even with this deficit. A lower deficit, for someone in this circumstance would mean slower weightloss.

By contrast, somebody with a lower starting weight will be more susceptable to things like "slowed metabolism" and therefore may find it easier to fuel greater effort for exercising. Somebody in this case would not really need to lose at the same rate as the more overweight person either.

jenb41

I am 6'2, and they are giving me a calorie goal of 1980 daily and my BMR is way higher than that. So is my TDEE. I am stuck at the same weight for a week now even though I am staying under that 1980 and biking my butt off. This can't be right?? Help???

slsavory

I went to http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/. Plugged in the number and that site said I should consume 2754 calories. For someone who is not educated enough on nutrition, diet, exercise all this information and calculations can be very confusing and frustrating.
-_-

Blaqheart

My BMR is 1510.6. So what does that mean??? Do I eat 1510 cals per day to stay at this weight?? Or do I eat that to loose. I'm lost. help!!

That's the thing, it's complicated. And everything's based on averaged calculations, which makes for a good hopeful educated guess (which by my books is fine). You can find TDEE calculators online. They usually tell you which calculation they're using, and give you an estimate on how many calories you burn a day. I ended up using sedentary (office job) and eat back my exercise calories.

Google TDEE. Personally, I eat at maintenance and loose weight.

Here's an example of a calculator:
http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

If you don't have any health problems or taking medications that make you magically gain weight, you should loose weight using this (I'm loosing about a pound a week)

thank you so much I will look into it for sure!!

Thank you for site this sounds more accurate and will help me with my goal of gaining weight. :laugh:

Yes2HealthyAriel

1200 is about right for me but then again I am only 5'1"

heybales

I went to http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/. Plugged in the number and that site said I should consume 2754 calories. For someone who is not educated enough on nutrition, diet, exercise all this information and calculations can be very confusing and frustrating.
-_-

Use this spreadsheet referenced here instead - much easier.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/620206-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-calcs-mfp-tweaks-hrm

heybales

I am 6'2, and they are giving me a calorie goal of 1980 daily and my BMR is way higher than that. So is my TDEE. I am stuck at the same weight for a week now even though I am staying under that 1980 and biking my butt off. This can't be right?? Help???

Well, a week is hardly enough to judge you stalled.
No weight or inches lost measuring many spots would be a stall.

But you are correct, by your selections of activity level and weight loss goal, you gave yourself a goal under your BMR.

Now, if carrying a lot of fat, that BMR value is inflated anyway, so the undercut is not actually occurring anyway.
Unless you use the Katch BMR formula based on knowing your bodyfat%. That is actually underestimated for obese.

Try this instead and see where the numbers lie.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/620206-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-calcs-mfp-tweaks-hrm

FloridaAimee

MFP could have that warning. But part of the problem is the Doctors- my Dr, when I talked to him about my weight 2 yr ago (I was on the verge of diabetes) told me 1200, too.

mcarter99

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

I disagree with this, eating at a moderate deficit is far more sustainable than eating at a large deficit
Many people eating at a large deficit feel too deprived and give up, or binge.

I guess it's how you define 'large' and 'moderate'. Those of us who don't feel deprived would probably consider our deficit moderate as well, despite that it's at or under BMR.

Research has shown that the people who succeed at this long term have (1) a sense of urgency and (2) a sense of self-efficacy. They want to get it taken care of and they know they can do it by sticking to their plan.

BrittanyErin502

I'm not sure if I understand this topic very well. I am 5'7" and my calories recommended are 1200 calories per day. Is this not right? I find myself going over, ALOT, but I just though that was b/c I have very bad and addictive eating habits (like eating ice cream 24/7, and eating chocolate at midnight)....anyway, hope you can fill me in on the specifics. But I'm sure that you do have a point and know exactly what your talking about, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up!
Sincerely,
Brittany Conn, Louisville KY

ladyraven68

I would say eating at a tiny deficit has the disadvantage that many people get impatient with the snail's pace of their losses and give up. Eating at an acceptable but more aggressive deficit causes successes that breed more successes.

I disagree with this, eating at a moderate deficit is far more sustainable than eating at a large deficit
Many people eating at a large deficit feel too deprived and give up, or binge.

I guess it's how you define 'large' and 'moderate'. Those of us who don't feel deprived would probably consider our deficit moderate as well, despite that it's at or under BMR.

Research has shown that the people who succeed at this long term have (1) a sense of urgency and (2) a sense of self-efficacy. They want to get it taken care of and they know they can do it by sticking to their plan.

We must be reading different reserach, as my research has shown that people who lose quickly put it back on just as quickly, and people who do it gradually and slowly keep it off for longer.

as for deficits


Small: 10-15% below maintenance
Moderate: 20-25% below maintenance
Large: anything bigger than 25% below maintenance

The larger the defict the greater lean mass is lost, so having too large a defict is detrimental to fat loss.
Some people here eat at a 50% defict and then wonder why they still have a higher body fat % when they get to their goal weight.

fiveminutes

Ok, I am so lost. I'm new to dieting healthy. I have done crash diets before, and surprisingly have kept off roughly 80lbs (I think it's because I stopped eating so much and eating fast food almost everyday). So, I'm trying to do this the healthy way, not only do I want to lose fat, I would also like to get toned and have some muscle definition. I have a fitbit and use MFP, but I'm thinking I might need to get a heart monitor to see what I really burn through the day and during exercise. I've noticed that MFP way over-estimates my circuit training (I manually change it, from a fitday calculator, it says I burn roughly 8.92 cals per minute, which seems "better" than what MFP wants to give me). I exercise M-F, roughly 35-45 minutes daily at the gym and walk my dog 4 miles a day 6-7 days a week. I'm only calculating for 5 days of moderate exercise, as the walks with my dog are more leisurely, burning between 218-230 calories per walk (it's split in two miles per walk, twice a day). these are my following stats:
28/f
6'1"
223.6 lbs
35.2% BFP (145 LBM 79lbs fat)
BMR 1794 (using the Katch-McArdle formula)
TDEE - 2841
I'm looking to lose 2lbs per week, as I'm trying to drop about 73lbs (though, I think depending on body proportions, I would be happy between 160-165), so I need to be at roughly 1,000 cal deficit per day
The last two days, I've eaten between 1710 and 1774 calories, and sometimes that seems tough. Should I be eating more, or is my intake "good"? According to fitbit, the last two days, I've had a deficit of 1,044 and 1,006 respectively. I'm trying to read everything I can, but sometimes things contradict themselves and I end up getting more confused as I read further. I'm a bit confused. I'd love it if someone who is more knowledgeable about nutrition and weight loss can chime in and maybe help me along the way.