MFP warning about eating under BMR

Options
1…2021232526

Replies

  • sophierrw
    sophierrw Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Ok I am extremely confused. I am 5ft1 and 112 pounds. I do NOT want to lose a huge excess of weight as I am the right weight but I would like to tone up. My BMR is around 1300 cals and I'd say I am lightly active as I go to the gym 4 times a week, go to college and work at a bar 18+ hours a week. Can anyone please tell me how much i am supposed to be eating as I've been searching online for weeks and I still don't get it (sorry I'm a little slow!!). was thinking around 1400 cals? thanks x
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Ok I am extremely confused. I am 5ft1 and 112 pounds. I do NOT want to lose a huge excess of weight as I am the right weight but I would like to tone up. My BMR is around 1300 cals and I'd say I am lightly active as I go to the gym 4 times a week, go to college and work at a bar 18+ hours a week. Can anyone please tell me how much i am supposed to be eating as I've been searching online for weeks and I still don't get it (sorry I'm a little slow!!). was thinking around 1400 cals? thanks x

    So indeed healthy estimated BMR is 1225.
    Your work activity level with exercise would be closer to Moderately Active easily, so estimated TDEE about 1900. Shoot, Sedentary you would almost 1500, so 1400 is way to little unless you want weight loss, and that is too low.
    That should be the level of no weight gain or loss.

    You stick at that 1900 goal every day and lift heavy 3x week. Make another day cardio to use all your new muscles. There is your 4 days.

    You'll still find that fat will be coming off, as your muscle is getting stronger and weight perhaps staying the same.
  • konerusp
    konerusp Posts: 247 Member
    Options
    Heres my story,It will help you decide which way you want to go

    Ive grown up as a dancer,ie dancing 3 hours a day sweating my *kitten* out.I had no idea how much i ate when i was a kid,but i knew it was not enough,i wasnt fat,but i had a ton of flab.When i went for higher studies i gained like 40 pounds of weight in 6 months still eating the same,i wasnt working out though.After my studies i got back to dancing and i was eating way less than my BMR.I did lose about 45 pounds in 3 months eating 800 cals a day and burining 2000 calories.Which i would have lost eventually if i ate above my BMR.But i had tons of fat stored in my body,i was at a healthy BMI,yet 30% fat.And not to mention i had fatigue all the time,i was aneamic,i had hair loss and breaking nails.Well i was working out and eating Super clean,where did the problems come from?I wasnt eating enough for my body to sustain all the energy expenditure. i have started eating above my BMR for 5 weeks and i lost 3 pounds.I again upped my cals to tdee-15% now,I havent put on any weight but havent lost anything as yet.I assume since i have a lot of body fat to lose it will take more time..Im not sure about weight loss as yet,but now i have energy to get through my day,my nails stopped breaking,im not aneamic anymore,hair loss has substantially reduced.

    Low calorie diets did work for me but it came with unwanted side effects.At my lowest weight i was skinny, yet fatty.I now have better knowledge of concentrating on fat loss than fast weight loss.This isnt a biggest loser competition or something/nor do i have health problems to achieve super fast results.Im happier with eating higher calories and i can sustain this all my life if i wanted to,since i enjoy my share of treats,I LIVE now.
  • gsmithnp
    gsmithnp Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    So, I've read most of the posts on this thread (18 pages--YEEESH!) and come to the following conclusions:

    The mantra of eat fewer calories than you burn to lose weight DOES work; the trick is to determine HOW MANY that is!!

    IN GENERAL, one should not have net calories (food intake minus exercise) below BMR.
    IN GENERAL, one should have net calories at or below TDEE.
    THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS; if one has other medical conditions or is severely obese, these guidelines (and they are GUIDELINES not hard-and-fast rules) may not apply and they may need to do this under medical supervision. If someone is focusing on building muscle, they may need to follow a different strategy.

    As such, here is my new strategy. To this point, have been trying to net 1200 cal per day--felt hungry, tired, crabby, and not enthusiastic anymore. No underlying medical problems, 5'3" 136lb, goal weight 125, age 37.

    Fat2Fit calculations:
    BMR 1360
    Sedentary 1585
    Lightly active 1816
    Moderately active 2048
    (nothing above that's gonna happen, so not putting it here)

    FitnessFrog TDEE calculations:
    Sedentary 1625
    Lightly active 1862
    Moderately active 2098


    Pretty close numbers. I'm still not feeling warm and fuzzy about boosting net calories all the way to 1800 range, so I'm going midway and setting my goal as 1500 for now. That also goes along with the F2F statement of eating 200-300 fewer calories to boost weight loss when close to goal as well as the idea of decreasing TDEE by 15-20% (puts me at around 1500). I'm gonna give it a couple of weeks and see how it goes, and how I feel.

    Please don't hurt me! :ohwell:
  • Sleepisam
    Sleepisam Posts: 24
    Options
    I agree.
    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.


    So how do we know what is or isn't sedentary? I work in an office all day. I'm sat at my desk for 9 hours. I come home and I play computer games and watch tv. It isn't the healthiest lifestyle but it's mine. I play table tennis every day mon-fri for at least 30 minutes and can often fit in a 30-45 minutes walk to and from work. So... am I sedentary?
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    I agree.
    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.


    So how do we know what is or isn't sedentary? I work in an office all day. I'm sat at my desk for 9 hours. I come home and I play computer games and watch tv. It isn't the healthiest lifestyle but it's mine. I play table tennis every day mon-fri for at least 30 minutes and can often fit in a 30-45 minutes walk to and from work. So... am I sedentary?
    I wasn't marked as 'sedentary' and did not ask to 'lose two pounds a week'. I asked for 1 lb a week and had exercise and got marked down to 1200.

    And the person who stated sedentary gave definitions of what each one stands for. Look it up. You sound more like 'lightly active' to me.
  • MandyMooney61
    MandyMooney61 Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    I am new to boards but I have used MFP for a long time. Recently I have been back to logging everything and have not seen a change on the scale. Of course my calories were set at 1200 per day which after reading a lot of this thread I'm pretty sure is not enough! So I'm going to up my calorie intake a few hundred calories a day but I would like to know if I work out should I eat those calories that I burned back?
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    I am new to boards but I have used MFP for a long time. Recently I have been back to logging everything and have not seen a change on the scale. Of course my calories were set at 1200 per day which after reading a lot of this thread I'm pretty sure is not enough! So I'm going to up my calorie intake a few hundred calories a day but I would like to know if I work out should I eat those calories that I burned back?

    This is highly debated. If you are measuring cardio burns accurately with hrm...then yes. If you are using over estimated calculations like mfp, then eat some of them back. If you use your fuel, you need to refuel. Then there's the people who argue you shouldn't eat them back who do not seem to understand that they are already eating at a calorie deficit. You should make that deficit as large as possible. If you wanted to do that, why bother eating at all.
  • MandyMooney61
    MandyMooney61 Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    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.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    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
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    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
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    Options
    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
    xxsuzexx Posts: 34
    Options
    Bump
  • LittleTrish
    LittleTrish Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    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
    DawnEH612 Posts: 574 Member
    Options
    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
    MandyMooney61 Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    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
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options
    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
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options
    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
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Options

    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
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories