MFP warning about eating under BMR

schneidersas

MFP does a "simple" calculation of the calories to use, it is an app, not a real coach ...
People should be grown up enough to use this tool ...
MFP already does something for their people by not allowing any goals higher than 2 pounds per week.

But I really like the idea of showing the percent you are under your goals ... this way your friends might stop you from doing too much

For the rest you have a really great community that propagates and helps not going under 1200 cals

greez, Sascha

WaxMama

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!!

It can be confusing. 1510 is what you burn if you didn't get out of bed for the day. Your body needs that many, at the very least, to keep your organs going and to perform basic functions, like keeping you alive! I eat at least my BMR. You'll probably even find that it's easier to lose weight once you bump it up! Good luck!

Firno

BMR calculators are not always right. For those with PCOS it is not easy to find out our BMR because some of us who have it do not burn calories the same way those without the syndrome do. MFP actually set my cal allowance to high and I had to set it back to 1200 and now I am losing again.

chrissistarr

people are making it too hard on themselves.... all you have to do is calculate the BMR for you DESIRED weight and eat that.... or am I worng?!

ladyraven68

people are making it too hard on themselves.... all you have to do is calculate the BMR for you DESIRED weight and eat that.... or am I worng?!

If you mean TDEE, then yes that is one method, but not BMR.

kimad

I agree.

Although I don't understand why people just don't use the tools here HONESTLY and accurately. If you actually input the correct info, it's unlikely to give you "bad" numbers. The low 1200 numbers are given to people who choose "Sedentary" and "Lose two pounds a week." Almost no one is Sedentary. And unless they have 50 or more pounds to lose, they shouldn't be set at two pounds. The site will prompt you to choose more reasonably, but people override the tool.

One of the big problems these days on the Boards is the ten thousand different ways to calculate what you should be eating.

I lost over 50 pounds by using this site only. I've kept it off. I didn't go to ten different sites to try to figure things out. I did it the way this site is set up. I used all the numbers given to me. I think people make it harder by trying to speed up the process, and reading too many forum threads.

Keep it simple.

I agree with you 100%. I wiggled my numbers a bit and I am comfortable sitting at about 1300 cals. I don't eat back my exercise calories but I take a 'day off' each week. It all seems to be working out for me. I have lost 83 lbs in 14 months and I have never felt hungry!!! I'm not going to reinvent a wheel that is already working for me. (MFP says 1230 at 2lbs per week and 1460 at 1.5 lbs per week..so I chose to sit right in the middle)

heybales

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.

So the FitBit will be underestimating the more intense exercise, but even jogging should be decent estimate of calorie burn. Circuit training won't be nearly as accurate though.

So you have the right idea if you are syncing FitBit to MFP. What you may do so you don't end up with these sync calories to eat as a surprise, is find a few days where the dog walking happened, but no formal exercise workout. Perhaps a weekend day unless you always workout then. See what your normal non-exercise TDEE is on those days.
So let's pretend that is 2500 cal burn (use your real stat for those 24 hr days). Your 2800 stat is including exercise, and MFP doesn't work that way, no exercise included in activity level. That's why you add it later.

Find your MFP BMR (tools - BMR Calc), it would be 1840 (Katch is 1790, pretty close). BTW, if you maintained your LBM until goal weight, you would be an 9% BF - not realistic, so you will lose some LBM.

So 2500 / 1840 is 1.35, that happens to be the multiplier for activity level Lightly Active.
So you set your activity level to lightly active, goal loss to 2 lbs.

Now, your 2500 stat may be high or lower.
2668 is 1.45, which is Active level.
2852 is 1.55, which is Very Active level. And with your dog walking included in normal daily routine, it really may be this high.

And I'd suggest rounding up if right in-between levels. In case your value is 1.40.

Now when you update FitBit site with real workouts, or MFP, your extra eat back will be useful.

And I'd suggest there on circuit training, take the middle of FitBit and MFP estimate. Both are wrong.

inagaddadavegan

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)

Edit: I vote for the link JennieAL posted above :P

Wowser. The link you provide gives me a TDEE of 2045. I'm eating a little more half that much (following the 1200 net a day) which is probably why I've seen a 5 lb weight loss in the last 10 days. Derp. Eh. I'll chalk it up to a "jump start" and change from here out :P

heybales

I agree with you 100%. I wiggled my numbers a bit and I am comfortable sitting at about 1300 cals. I don't eat back my exercise calories but I take a 'day off' each week. It all seems to be working out for me. I have lost 83 lbs in 14 months and I have never felt hungry!!! I'm not going to reinvent a wheel that is already working for me. (MFP says 1230 at 2lbs per week and 1460 at 1.5 lbs per week..so I chose to sit right in the middle)

So great results, great patience, great endurance.

So avg 1.5 lbs per week the whole time.

Now curious, at starting weight, what would have been the calorie allowance if you had just selected 1.5 lbs instead of inbetween, since that is what you ended up with anyway?

I think this is what many of us are speaking to. Eating the lesser amount didn't actually end up giving a better loss speed. You could have eaten higher and obtained the same result anyway.
Of course, MFP would have brought that value down the whole time.

inagaddadavegan

people are making it too hard on themselves.... all you have to do is calculate the BMR for you DESIRED weight and eat that.... or am I worng?!

If you mean TDEE, then yes that is one method, but not BMR.

Ah. Then according to this, I could be eating 500 calories a day more than I am and still lose. But not lose 3 lbs a week. Which we'd all love if we could do it in a healthy way but no I don't want to be sick.

AzhureSnow

Fat2Fit tells me I should "eat like a thin person" at 2500 calories a day! That's DOUBLE what I've been eating. It suggests that I should only remove 200-300 calories a day to "speed up" weight loss. I can't even FATHOM 2500 calories a day! On my hard exercise days, I eat around 1900 or so, but that's the highest I tend to go. Can this really be right!?

ladyraven68

people are making it too hard on themselves.... all you have to do is calculate the BMR for you DESIRED weight and eat that.... or am I worng?!

If you mean TDEE, then yes that is one method, but not BMR.

Ah. Then according to this, I could be eating 500 calories a day more than I am and still lose. But not lose 3 lbs a week. Which we'd all love if we could do it in a healthy way but no I don't want to be sick.

If you want to eat at the TDEE of your goal weight, have a look here - http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

Or put your current weight as your goal weight to get your current estimated TDEE and then deduct a 20% defict.

inagaddadavegan

If you want to eat at the TDEE of your goal weight, have a look here - http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

Or put your current weight as your goal weight to get your current estimated TDEE and then deduct a 20% defict.

Aha... thank you so much

EDIT -- Yep, it's 500 calories a day more than what I've been doing. Oh that's happy news for someone who loves food and a nice beer as much as I do :drinker:

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.

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.

The research is not mutually exclusive. More people make it to goal with appropriate goals of up to 2 lbs/week and eating at least 1200 than people with complex formulas that include smallish deficits (.5 lb/week and less). The few that make it with very low level deficits, do maintain well and have preserved more LBM.

Again, I'm not saying the slower way is wrong. I just want the advocates to quit claiming that anything below BMR (but above 1200) is dangerous and is absolutely to be avoided.

jennismagic

MFP overestimated my BMR cals, and I've been stressing all week because I kept falling short. It's nice to know that I was right where I was supposed to be, thanks to Fat 2 Fit.

TisMeEggin

Bump:flowerforyou:

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.

The research is not mutually exclusive. More people make it to goal with appropriate goals of up to 2 lbs/week and eating at least 1200 than people with complex formulas that include smallish deficits (.5 lb/week and less). The few that make it with very low level deficits, do maintain well and have preserved more LBM.

That may have been true on other sites you've been on, but is certainly not true here. This is my FITNESS pal, not my crash diet pal, and most people here are making a lifestyle change, not just trying to drop a few pounds,

As for trying to stop people saying eating below BMR is bad, you're not going to stop them, any more than they could stop you believe that aiming at 2lb a week is bad. You both believe in what you are saying, and as long as it is working for you then that is a good thing. There will be people who agree with you, and people who agree with them, and as long as everyone is happy with the changes they are making to their bodies, then that is good. Life would be boring if we all did everything the same way.

My person view is that 1200 is too low, and the safe loss per week is 1% of your body weight, not an absolute number like 1lb or 2lb.

And if I wasn't already a believer, this thread would have me convinced.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/531086-before-and-after-pics-no-starvation

fiveminutes

So the FitBit will be underestimating the more intense exercise, but even jogging should be decent estimate of calorie burn. Circuit training won't be nearly as accurate though.

So you have the right idea if you are syncing FitBit to MFP. What you may do so you don't end up with these sync calories to eat as a surprise, is find a few days where the dog walking happened, but no formal exercise workout. Perhaps a weekend day unless you always workout then. See what your normal non-exercise TDEE is on those days.
So let's pretend that is 2500 cal burn (use your real stat for those 24 hr days). Your 2800 stat is including exercise, and MFP doesn't work that way, no exercise included in activity level. That's why you add it later.

Find your MFP BMR (tools - BMR Calc), it would be 1840 (Katch is 1790, pretty close). BTW, if you maintained your LBM until goal weight, you would be an 9% BF - not realistic, so you will lose some LBM.

So 2500 / 1840 is 1.35, that happens to be the multiplier for activity level Lightly Active.
So you set your activity level to lightly active, goal loss to 2 lbs.

Now, your 2500 stat may be high or lower.
2668 is 1.45, which is Active level.
2852 is 1.55, which is Very Active level. And with your dog walking included in normal daily routine, it really may be this high.

And I'd suggest rounding up if right in-between levels. In case your value is 1.40.

Now when you update FitBit site with real workouts, or MFP, your extra eat back will be useful.

And I'd suggest there on circuit training, take the middle of FitBit and MFP estimate. Both are wrong.

Okay, so I am using today as a rest day, because I want to know how much I really burn, just sitting and doing "normal" things. I'm on target to eat about 1750 cals today. I'm trying to eat close to what my BMR is based on the Katch-McArdle formula - is the Harris-Benedict formula better? Looking back at my fitbit, the highest I have burned is 3248 and lowest is 2510. My non-exercise TDEE is 2199, and based on what I've burned so far, I've calculated that my total calorie burn for today should be 2112, which is really close. I don't plan on keeping my LBM at 145, I know I wouldn't be able to maintain such a low BFP, I'm just trying to build muscle as well as burn fat, I assumed I would lose some LBM in the process. I had MFP set to lightly active, and it was giving me 1540 for my cals, but if I burn say 2840 on a workout day, that would leave me at a deficit of roughly 1300. Wouldn't that be too high of a deficit? I realized that both MFP and fitbit were over-estimating my circuit training exercises. They had them around 600+ for MFP and about 550 for fitbit. Now when I log circuit training, I multiple the minutes by 8.92, and I roughly get 214 at the lowest and 428 at the highest, which I think is a bit more accurate than what MFP and fitbit were projecting, but I could be wrong. Should I eat back my exercise calories? Wouldn't that be making my TDEE for 5 days of workouts a moot point? Should I be looking at my net cals or what I actually eat?

mcarter99

The research is not based on self-reported forums. It's actual research on actual dieters.

Speaking of, there is no actual research from actual authorities that says eating below BMR is dangerous or aiming for 2 lbs/week is dangerous. If there was, we wouldn't be on page 14 here. You can believe it all you like but without factual support, you can't really claim it's fact.

ladyraven68

The research is not based on self-reported forums. It's actual research on actual dieters.

Speaking of, there is no actual research from actual authorities that says eating below BMR is dangerous or aiming for 2 lbs/week is dangerous. If there was, we wouldn't be on page 14 here. You can believe it all you like but without factual support, you can't really claim it's fact.

I think you've misunderstood me, I never claimed anything as fact, just said that my preference was not to eat at 1200. I am happy with my loss so far, and the fact that I've been able to maintain my lean mass.

Could I lose at 1200? yes probably, but why would I want to when I can lose just fine eating more,

This is another of my favourite threads - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/494091-i-just-don-t-care-anymore

As for "The research is not based on self-reported forums. It's actual research on actual dieters."
Well, I'm pretty sure all the MFP people in the thread I posted with their success pictures were real actual dieters too, and they all looked fantastic!

mcarter99

But no one has suggested you change your method. You said before you thought 1200 was dangerous. You and others are suggesting others change their method to your method.

I went through the research studies based on the National Weight Control Registry and found nothing to suggest that the speed of losses predicted the rate of re-gain. The only reduction in RMR was due to the expected reduction in lean body mass common to all dieters. The registry includes both fast and slow losers.

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/published research.htm

heybales

Okay, so I am using today as a rest day, because I want to know how much I really burn, just sitting and doing "normal" things. I'm on target to eat about 1750 cals today. I'm trying to eat close to what my BMR is based on the Katch-McArdle formula - is the Harris-Benedict formula better? Looking back at my fitbit, the highest I have burned is 3248 and lowest is 2510. My non-exercise TDEE is 2199, and based on what I've burned so far, I've calculated that my total calorie burn for today should be 2112, which is really close. I don't plan on keeping my LBM at 145, I know I wouldn't be able to maintain such a low BFP, I'm just trying to build muscle as well as burn fat, I assumed I would lose some LBM in the process. I had MFP set to lightly active, and it was giving me 1540 for my cals, but if I burn say 2840 on a workout day, that would leave me at a deficit of roughly 1300. Wouldn't that be too high of a deficit? I realized that both MFP and fitbit were over-estimating my circuit training exercises. They had them around 600+ for MFP and about 550 for fitbit. Now when I log circuit training, I multiple the minutes by 8.92, and I roughly get 214 at the lowest and 428 at the highest, which I think is a bit more accurate than what MFP and fitbit were projecting, but I could be wrong. Should I eat back my exercise calories? Wouldn't that be making my TDEE for 5 days of workouts a moot point? Should I be looking at my net cals or what I actually eat?

Harris BMR is considered about 5% less accurate. Both Harris and Mifflin based on age/weight/height are inflated outside healthy weight unless LBM/Fat ratio is maintained the same - yours almost is.
Katch BMR is deflated outside healthy weight because it doesn't take into account the energy that is actually spent on fat mass.

So for MFP to be set for the same maintenance calories (their term for non-exercise TDEE) of about 2200, you would set to Sedentary actually.
I find that really hard to believe with the dog walking.
Is that about 2200 include walking the dogs?

If it does, then that is it then.

You should select 1 lb weekly weight loss. Should make 1800 daily goal, which is in-between BMR values.

Now, on the exercise days, you log a workout and manually correct calories and your goal increases to keep the same deficit.
And I think for circuit training your FitBit would be underestimated and MFP is overestimated - so in-between value.
As long as the FitBit site has current correct stats, it is estimating your BMR also, and using that as basis for calorie burn too.

So you keep the same 500 deficit whether you exercise or not.

fiveminutes

Harris BMR is considered about 5% less accurate. Both Harris and Mifflin based on age/weight/height are inflated outside healthy weight unless LBM/Fat ratio is maintained the same - yours almost is.
Katch BMR is deflated outside healthy weight because it doesn't take into account the energy that is actually spent on fat mass.

So for MFP to be set for the same maintenance calories (their term for non-exercise TDEE) of about 2200, you would set to Sedentary actually.
I find that really hard to believe with the dog walking.
Is that about 2200 include walking the dogs?

If it does, then that is it then.

You should select 1 lb weekly weight loss. Should make 1800 daily goal, which is in-between BMR values.

Now, on the exercise days, you log a workout and manually correct calories and your goal increases to keep the same deficit.
And I think for circuit training your FitBit would be underestimated and MFP is overestimated - so in-between value.
As long as the FitBit site has current correct stats, it is estimating your BMR also, and using that as basis for calorie burn too.

So you keep the same 500 deficit whether you exercise or not.

My calorie burn yesterday was 2254, and that was without walking the dogs, literally being lazy. Only getting up to prepare/cook food for meals. I wanted to see what I really did burn on one of my "lazy days". The last three days, I was eating close to the 1794 mark and my official weigh-in was about a 1.4lb loss, which is better than my starving myself did for me (I actually gained). If I walk the dogs, I'm usually around 2500-2600 calories and M-F, I'll be around 2800-3100 depending on the intensity at the gym. The one thing that fitbit doesn't take into account is net calories. It just shows all calories consumed period. I don't always eat back all of my exercise calories, but I do eat most. I'm going to see how this next week goes with eating at the high cal level and eating back some exercise calories and adjust from there. Thanks for your help!

luvJOJO

bump just bc I want to save and read this later