MFP warning about eating under BMR

Sarauk2sf

This *kitten* is all way to confusing. I've been eating 1100 calories a day and I feel fine! Not sick, or slow, or tired, hardly even hungry.. I've been losing weight too.. I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing until I have problems, then I'll change it. I don't see how you can have a deficit at all if you eat what you burn..

Who says they eat what they burn? BMR =/= what you burn.

CoderGal

This *kitten* is all way to confusing. I've been eating 1100 calories a day and I feel fine! Not sick, or slow, or tired, hardly even hungry.. I've been losing weight too.. I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing until I have problems, then I'll change it. I don't see how you can have a deficit at all if you eat what you burn..

Where did you get that? I'm not eating what I burn? BMR is a lot less then what you burn. My BMR is 1300. I eat over 2000.

I love how nobody is reading this thread and it's full of pages and pages of people pulling the SAME but slightly different statements out of thin air to argue against something that isn't there between people asking the same question and getting the same answer for pages and pages. The BMR/RMR/TDEE question was answered over, and over, and over again. For those of you who don't know what it is, and don't want to know what it is, but feel like stating something it isn't, google first. Otherwise if you're having problems or are unsure about yours, read this thread, it's likely to have the same questions. If you have problems figuring out yours, send me a private message, I'll help you.

moe0303

So what I gather from all the comments is that this is an argument about a few things, namley terminology, formula and reasonable goal settng. Tell me if I'm wrong....

1. terminology: BMR - Myfitnesspal describes BMR about the same as CoderGal. here is an excerpt, "... an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.
Your BMR does not include the calories you burn from normal daily activities or exercise. "

Myfitnesspal then adds a multiplier to that number based on the activity levelk you choose when you set your goals. that multiplier is 1.25, 1.35, 1.45, or 1.55. These are obviously very general and not catered to the individual.

BMF - is number comes from a device that measures an individual's actual activity. I would guess that this would be more accurate than MFP's multiplier.

TDEE (without exercise) - A different formula essentially producing the same estimate as MFP's mutliplier. In other words, n=BMR*multiplier or n=TDEE(without exercise)

Formula: I apologize. I didn't have the time to look up the actual formulas, but there seems to be some difference. The important thing here is that we ensure that both formulas are measureing the same thing. My suggestion was we measure a given activity level without exercise.

Resonable goal setting: Here is where I believe that the ideological argument lies. One group seems to be saying that it is perfectly fine to be eating below your BMR to in order to achieve an agressive goal and that if people set realistic goals, they will not have any problems. The other group seems to be saying that eating below your BMR has an undesired effect on your body which makes it enter into a different mode of operation. The effects result in slower weight loss or no weight loss at all. Therefore, they contest that by eating more, an individual will lose faster.

Is this pretty much the conversation that we are having?

ashshields12

I eat 1200 calories a day and dont add back exercise calories, I am not starving I actually struggle to eat the 1200 each day. I eat a lot too. I guess everyone is different.

LexyDB

Is it possible for MFP to give warning to people eating under their BMR instead of capping out at 1200 calories? Or to state somewhere (like under Tools>BMR) that eating under that amount is not sustainable? There's a lot of people out there who are unaware of this so you get cases where 5'9 women are eating 1200 calories because this is what they think is right because this site tells them to do it despite the fact it's well under their BMR. And how are they suppose to know this isn't healthy if the site doesn't warn them? I even seen a case where a 19 year old man of average height was eating 1200 calories a day which just doesn't seem right to me.

If you know your calorie intake is too low then adjust it. Do you all have to be spoon fed? Can you not think for yourself?

You criticise the site for not warning you but you know yourself it is too low, take responsibility and do something about it. If you use a single forum as your sole source of information about diet and nutrition then you really shouldn't be allowed out in pubilic without adult supervision.

Too many people on here are far to eager to place the blame and point the finger. You've admitted it is too low, do something about it.

yarwell

so you guys are saying that we should eat what our BMR equals to??

There is a view held by the original poster and others on here that eating less than your BMR is in some way a) significant and b) undesirable.

So in their world your weight loss goals should be set without going below a food intake equal to your BMR estimate (which is within 10% of about 70% of the population).

You won't find this view in may other places, and certainly not in the medical and science community. Practically every clinical study of weight loss uses diets well below BMR and never ever mentions this aspect. Of course if someone has references that show otherwise I'm keen to see them.

So what you'll get is lot's of "speaking as a mother" type postings full of emotional phrases about comas or being unconscious and apocryphal tales or with slogans and sound bites. A characteristic of them will be that they ignore the 400,000 calories an obese person has access to in their fat reserves.

Overweight and obese people, especially those that don't exercise, can probably ignore the whole debate. It may have some relevance to slightly overweight people working hard at exercise.

k2charmed4u

The first time I used MFP I lost 56lbs bye just doing what they said on here alone didn't look anywhere else just stuck to my 1350 cals a day and exercise and it worked. The second time I used MFP (now after gaining 48lbs) I was at 1540 cals a day which worked the first 10 days then I levelled out. Found out about the "eat more to lose weight" and I started eating average of 1880 a day and i've lost 2lbs in the last 4days. This seems to be working well for me and i'm going to stick with it.
I overrode my goals, only my cals and workout mins and target cals burned and left the rest. My BMR is 2216 so 1880 is a good amount for me.

yarwell

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.

I ran a case on the simulator :-

Male, 50, 170lbs, 70", 1.2 factor for activity (sedentary), goal to weigh 144 lbs in 180 days (1 lb/week). It proposes an intake of 1381 calories which is an initial deficit of 588 calories/day. BMR is 1640.

Slower loss target of 144 in 360 days gives calorie intake of 1608, a deficit of 361 and again below BMR.

From this i conclude that the BW Simulator does not show eating less than BMR as detrimental to weight and fat loss, as one would expect given the science it embodies.

moe0303

Overweight and obese people, especially those that don't exercise, can probably ignore the whole debate. It may have some relevance to slightly overweight people working hard at exercise.

I think this is another anomoly that we keep forgetting. The study in this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396

was conducted in the 70s. The guy didn't eat for 382 days! His only sustenance was his own fat. I think that will work for most people who have the fat reserves in their body. While eating below BMR is not quite fasting in the sense used in the study, it can be used as an indicator that it is not as unhealthy as is often portrayed.

If an individual needs to lose those last 2 or 3 pounds or to tone up for the beach or something like that, then it might make more sense to fuel your body a little more to increase physical ability to put on muscle.

ironanimal

Eating above your BMR is advocated by the members here for a number of reasons; their scientific validity may be questionable, but as with any fairly new concept it has yet to be tested by many/any peer reviewed studies and is based on the experiences of the people following this particular track. Anyway, some of the reasons;

- Lean body mass preservation. A small deficit to your TDEE is recommended to minimise the impact weightloss has on your fat-free mass. Rapid weight loss can cause large amounts of muscle loss - with 'large' being highly subjective. I, myself, want to avoid losing any muscle, but Yarwell, I think is less concerned with this and sees lean mass loss as an inevitable side effect - correct me if I'm wrong.
- BMR upkeep. A large deficit will eventually cause some degree of metabolic rate reduction. Eating above your BMR in this case is a safety net figure to minimise the potential for metabolic slow down. A higher BMR at your goal weight will make for easier maintenance and adaptation to your new weight. If your metabolism does slow down, you have to eat increasingly less and less to compensate, making it gradually more difficult to meet your nutritional needs aside from calorie intake.
- Reduction in tiredness, for lack of a better word. A lot of people find themselves drained of energy on a low-calorie diet. Eating above BMR, is, again, a safety net to this. By meeting your bodies basic calorific needs and providing enough carbohydrates for brain function, and enough protein for tissue repair, and enough fat for cell synthesis, you are less likely to 'feel' drained, no?

At the end of the day, if you can eat at a reasonable deficit to your TDEE, by which, scientifically and mathematically you will lose weight, as opposed to suffering through a severely restricted and highly unsustainable diet, why wouldn't you? My main concern is lean mass preservation throughout this. For someone morbidly obese and under supervision of a doctor, who doesn't particularly care about anything more than the fact their weight is putting their life at risk a VLCD may well be appropriate, but for most people here it is unnecessary and unsustainable.

As to moe0303 - I haven't read the article but I remember mention of his vitamin and mineral needs being supplemented by the monitoring medical team. Not questioning the validity of that study, but just wanted to make sure nobody goes and starves themselves for over a year because they have fat.

lkcuts

well yes the site DOES tell you you ate too few calories, but too late.. also you could eat back your calories excersised and it won't say your eating too few calories, yet when you look at your actual caloric intake its still below BMR at least that is my experience.

In order to set your cals to your BMR you have to put the settings at very active or it will say you went over in RED in your diary..I see red and think oops I went over, yet still not meeting my BMR
. I try to keep things in the green in my diary I think everyone does.
I am thinking in order to eat your BMR and use this site, you would have to set your own goals and thats not recommended on this site. So what is a person to do?

ironanimal

well yes the site DOES tell you you ate too few calories, but too late.. also you could eat back your calories excersised and it won't say your eating too few calories, yet when you look at your actual caloric intake its still below BMR at least that is my experience.

In order to set your cals to your BMR you have to put the settings at very active or it will say you went over in RED in your diary..I see red and think oops I went over, yet still not meeting my BMR
. I try to keep things in the green in my diary I think everyone does.
I am thinking in order to eat your BMR and use this site, you would have to set your own goals and thats not recommended on this site. So what is a person to do?

I'm sure there are quite a few people that set their own goals - myself included

yarwell

BMR upkeep. A large deficit will eventually cause some degree of metabolic rate reduction.

Metabolic rate reductions are seen with calorie reduction at intakes above BMR. The "volunteers" in the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment were initially eating just above their baseline BMR and had substantial metabolic reductions.

So the sensible view on avoiding excessive deficits (especially through exercise) doesn't in itself support the eat your BMR mantra.

yarwell

By meeting your bodies basic calorific needs and providing enough carbohydrates for brain function, and enough protein for tissue repair, and enough fat for cell synthesis, you are less likely to 'feel' drained, no?

My view is probably slanted as I'm a low carber, but I can see how low calories on carb heavy low fat diet foods would be a nightmare (Minnesota again). My brain works without eating carbs thanks to ketones from fat and my fat reserves can feed that and cell synthesis.This to me is an argument that says people cheat on low calorie targets but adhere to higher ones as the former isn't sustainable. I guess we can all believe that, but won't believe that adding 500 calories a day increases weight loss.

ironanimal

BMR upkeep. A large deficit will eventually cause some degree of metabolic rate reduction.

Metabolic rate reductions are seen with calorie reduction at intakes above BMR. The "volunteers" in the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment were initially eating just above their baseline BMR and had substantial metabolic reductions.

So the sensible view on avoiding excessive deficits (especially through exercise) doesn't in itself support the eat your BMR mantra.

Indeed they are seen above BMR, and I don't dispute that but above BMR the effect will be lessened. BMR itself doesn't really hold much weight - I don't even particularly care for mine and work solely from my TDEE, but it's a valuable tool in that advocating dieting above it, prevents someone from dieting at too high a deficit unnecessarily.

By meeting your bodies basic calorific needs and providing enough carbohydrates for brain function, and enough protein for tissue repair, and enough fat for cell synthesis, you are less likely to 'feel' drained, no?

My view is probably slanted as I'm a low carber, but I can see how low calories on carb heavy low fat diet foods would be a nightmare (Minnesota again). My brain works without eating carbs thanks to ketones from fat and my fat reserves can feed that and cell synthesis.This to me is an argument that says people cheat on low calorie targets but adhere to higher ones as the former isn't sustainable. I guess we can all believe that, but won't believe that adding 500 calories a day increases weight loss.

And I am in the opposite camp and find my cognitive function highly impaired when I try to eat less carbs. I also found I stalled at a high deficit after a few weeks and as I was unwilling to drop my calories any lower, have moved up to a small deficit which is working much better for my goals - seeing increased definition in my muscles whilst seeing my waistline shrinking.

Also, you're a pain for splitting that into two posts :P

DelilahCat0212

My lack of results put me on the lowest end of the healthy BMI scale and feeling about 28 pounds lighter. Yes, calorie restriction is fine...I do calorie restriction eating on average 1600-2400 calories a day (at least several hundred above my BMR). Calorie restriction to a ridiculous level? There's no need of it in most cases. Sorry I don't have a large number for you, but I'd rather not be so underweight.

I think that it really needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. For people who are having major health problems from obesity, eating well below their BMR is likely to be recommended by their doctors. There are also a lot of health benefits to having a slower metabolism (longer lifespan, lower rates of cancer and diseases of aging, slower cellular aging, etc.), so vilifying having a slower metabolism because it means you need to eat slightly fewer calories to maintain weight seems superficial to me. IMO health is about more than appearances.

Okinawan men eat 1400 calories a day on average, and Okinawan women eat 1100, which is well below what BMR/TDEE calculations show are necessary. They are the longest-lived and one of the generally healthiest group of people on earth. This is not a genetic thing (persons of Okinawan descent who eat a western diet have similar life expectancy and suffer similar rates of age-related illnesses), but due to calorie restriction. This is obviously a different subject entirely from losing weight, but I think it shows that vilifying a particular caloric intake without doing adequate research is short-sighted and, perhaps, a bit superficial (there is more to life than 'not being fat'). To make a blanket statement that this is unhealthy, or not conducive to healthy weight maintenance is patently incorrect.

IMO, people should evaluate their goals, and determine the best path to achieve them. If there are serious health concerns involved, they should consult a medical professional who specializes in the relevant area of medicine.

Just my 2c.

Yeah I'm not a health professional, I'm not going to argue to much about that bold part. Not saying that things can't go wrong, but trading one necessary evil for another sometimes works and ends up being beneficial. But that's what it is: replacing one evil with another. I think people should be warned so they can decide for themselves. I'm more concerned with the unaware that are slightly obese who don't realize they can eat more and loose because this website tells them to significantly under eat. When I was smack in the middle of a healthy BMI MFP recommended I go on a 1200 calorie diet when I'm still loosing at over 1600. Okinawan people are awesome, live long, and the men are on average 4ft9 and weigh 94 pounds (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/) and also eat a very different diet and have a different life style then most of us...and at 4'9 1400 isn't a bad number.

You're my new hero. For real!

moe0303

Eating above your BMR is advocated by the members here for a number of reasons; their scientific validity may be questionable, but as with any fairly new concept it has yet to be tested by many/any peer reviewed studies and is based on the experiences of the people following this particular track. Anyway, some of the reasons;

- Lean body mass preservation. A small deficit to your TDEE is recommended to minimise the impact weightloss has on your fat-free mass. Rapid weight loss can cause large amounts of muscle loss - with 'large' being highly subjective. I, myself, want to avoid losing any muscle, but Yarwell, I think is less concerned with this and sees lean mass loss as an inevitable side effect - correct me if I'm wrong.
- BMR upkeep. A large deficit will eventually cause some degree of metabolic rate reduction. Eating above your BMR in this case is a safety net figure to minimise the potential for metabolic slow down. A higher BMR at your goal weight will make for easier maintenance and adaptation to your new weight. If your metabolism does slow down, you have to eat increasingly less and less to compensate, making it gradually more difficult to meet your nutritional needs aside from calorie intake.
- Reduction in tiredness, for lack of a better word. A lot of people find themselves drained of energy on a low-calorie diet. Eating above BMR, is, again, a safety net to this. By meeting your bodies basic calorific needs and providing enough carbohydrates for brain function, and enough protein for tissue repair, and enough fat for cell synthesis, you are less likely to 'feel' drained, no?

At the end of the day, if you can eat at a reasonable deficit to your TDEE, by which, scientifically and mathematically you will lose weight, as opposed to suffering through a severely restricted and highly unsustainable diet, why wouldn't you? My main concern is lean mass preservation throughout this. For someone morbidly obese and under supervision of a doctor, who doesn't particularly care about anything more than the fact their weight is putting their life at risk a VLCD may well be appropriate, but for most people here it is unnecessary and unsustainable.

As to moe0303 - I haven't read the article but I remember mention of his vitamin and mineral needs being supplemented by the monitoring medical team. Not questioning the validity of that study, but just wanted to make sure nobody goes and starves themselves for over a year because they have fat.

Yes, you are right, the subject was taking a vitamin supplement.

Couldn't any loss of lean muscle mass be offset by a higher protein intake?

yarwell

Also, you're a pain for splitting that into two posts

it was an error, I added the second bit to the first with an edit but ended up with two - so as there would be two anyway I left it as two halves. Sorry.

mcarter99

So what you'll get is lot's of "speaking as a mother" type postings full of emotional phrases about comas or being unconscious and apocryphal tales or with slogans and sound bites. A characteristic of them will be that they ignore the 400,000 calories an obese person has access to in their fat reserves.

And those posts are usually full of misuses of the word "loose" and admonitions about "damaging your metabolism" and "starvation mode". And if you disagree, they resort to calling you stupid.

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

I agree that MFP shouldn't set an uniform calorie goal for everyone. 1200 calories is very low even for someone like me who only stands 5'2" and weighs 120 lbs. My BMR is at 1315 calories so obviously I need more.