MFP warning about eating under BMR
Replies
-
I've started losing weight in September last year on a ( as I did it when I was way younger) 1ooo cal diet. That was not sustainable as I felt hungry most of the time.
I found MFP and thought: wow, that's great. I can eat more (1200 cals)....and I was as happy as can be. I quit smoking,too, and was desperate NOT TO GAIN weight. I ate between 1000 and 1200 calories a day, not eating back my exercise calories. I lost weight without a plateau....weight loss stalled for 3 weeks, but that's not a real plateau in my opinion.
So far so good and I could be an example for losing healthily on low calorie intake, because I am never ill, I have nice muscles from working out, am as fit as a fiddle and cook healthy foods, always low in sodium...no fast food....... BUT.........
6 pounds before I reached my goal I switched to maintenance because several people, hubby included, said, I looked great and shouldn't lose more...I was skinny enough for my age (almost 53).
I slowly upped my calories from 1000 net to 1200 net (now I eat back calories so that I net at least 1200 which is my BMR) and guess what ?
I am hungry, I am craving for carbs (never did a low carb diet) and I'm gaining weight.
If only I had known, if only.... now I'm sitting here and find maintenance terribly difficult. It's like still being on a low calorie diet because eating at a normal maintenance level makes me gain.
I ate at such a low level that my metabolism, which is slower when you're older any way, slowed down and maintaining my weight is as difficult as losing.
What I've taught my body is: you have to make do with a low calorie diet! And now I'm expecting it to work normal :noway:
My way of weight loss was NOT sustainable nor is my way of maintenance and now I have to find a way out because otherwise I will gain all the pounds back I've lost.:grumble:
Eating below BMR causes the yoyo effect- I'm sure.
What I want? I want to warn those eating below BMR every day
What I need? I need advice on how I can speed up my metabolism again.
I'm almost 53, 5'4'', 136 pounds, I eat very healthy foods (own produce, hardly any processed food), I exercise almost daily: I run 10-12 miles a week, resistance training 3x a week. So on 6 days a week I would burn approximately 300-700 calories/day.
A very interesting thread btw:flowerforyou:
Thank you! And sorry to hear you're having problems:( I'm not a health professional. The only advice I've heard is upping cals, temporarily gaining weight, and working yourself back down. I know several people who that's worked for, and I've seen lots of people on the forums state it. Hope you figure something out soon. Goodluck!0 -
There is actually a tool on here that calculates your BMR.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
You can set your calorie goal manually to be no less than this. Obviously you need to check it when you have lost more weight as it will decrease the smaller you are.
The other way to get more calories is to set it to 1lb or 0.5lb a week. Most of the time you will lose more that way anyway. People with less than 20lb to lose should be doing it like that anyway. You can't be setting it to 2lbs a week unless you have loads to lose, you will just starve!0 -
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.0
-
Oh! Wow! I'm surprised to read this thread! And I'm now confused! :noway:
Following MFP settings, if I want to lose 1lb a week (sedentary activity) my calorie goal is set to 1200. I've been following this, plus eating back the calories burned when I do exercise.
After reading this thread, I've checked my BMR in MFP and it's 1357. I'm confused and amazed: so, after all, I should be eating at least 1357!? Why doesn't MFP inform about it?0 -
Thanks for the link! My results:
Based on this formula, your current BMR is 1408 calories.
Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk) 2096
Another calculator on another site said 1800 is my maintenance calories. Too many calculators, so little time to try to figure it all out!
Right now reading The New Rules of Lifting for Women. I am going to be eating more calories just not sure yet how many. And confused if the higher calories are before NET or are the net. I'll keep reading the book to find out! In my mind it has to be before NET but will find out eventually!0 -
If you're referring to 2096...that's what you should aim for without logging exercises if you're consistent and accurate. Personally I prefer eating at the sedentary level and logging everything I do, and eating those back (for me, this works out to be about a pound a week).Thanks for the link! My results:
Based on this formula, your current BMR is 1408 calories.
Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk) 2096
Another calculator on another site said 1800 is my maintenance calories. Too many calculators, so little time to try to figure it all out!
Right now reading The New Rules of Lifting for Women. I am going to be eating more calories just not sure yet how many. And confused if the higher calories are before NET or are the net. I'll keep reading the book to find out! In my mind it has to be before NET but will find out eventually!0 -
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.0 -
Bump0
-
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.0 -
TDDE 1465. Exciting. I need to jump to "Heavy exercise" to be able to spend 2000kcal a day.
Eating anything below 1465 will give you weightloss. Which is good news
I'm still learning myself and have never been good with figuring out my diet. So in other words someone like me who's BMR is 2024 at mod active (which is another guess...I'm aiming for cardio about 6 days a week, 20+ mins a day) and TDDE is 2521 at moderate exercise. So I should eat at least 2024 and less than 2521 to loose weight? My goal is 2lbs a week since I have 75 to loose. MFP of course gives me a goal of 1260 then adds in more when I exercise but I haven't seen it go that high yet. So if MFP is wrong I have been under eating quite a bit...I'm so confused... :indifferent:0 -
Your BMR shouldn't change with activity level?I'm still learning myself and have never been good with figuring out my diet. So in other words someone like me who's BMR is 2024 at mod active (which is another guess...I'm aiming for cardio about 6 days a week, 20+ mins a day) and TDDE is 2521 at moderate exercise. So I should eat at least 2024 and less than 2521 to loose weight? My goal is 2lbs a week since I have 75 to loose. MFP of course gives me a goal of 1260 then adds in more when I exercise but I haven't seen it go that high yet. So if MFP is wrong I have been under eating quite a bit...I'm so confused... :indifferent:0 -
Read the rest of this thread. Today someone gave an example (they had gall blatter attacks eating below)http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?
That really is extremely far away from a study. A probably unrelated event with a sample size of 1.0 -
Read the rest of this thread. Today someone gave an example (they had gall blatter attacks eating below)http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ is a good one.
I just want you to know that I put my info in on this page, and it gave me BMRs of 1725 and 1764.
It says I should eat between 2092 for sedentary to 3312 for extremely active. I eat way more than that.
Regarding the original topic, I have not seen any legitimate journal entries that concludes eating below your BMR is dangerous. Anyone have any?
That really is extremely far away from a study. A probably unrelated event with a sample size of 1.
Sorry, you asked for a journal entry. I've meant to collect all of the articles I've been reading and all the comments from friends, mfp friends and forums on this matter just for you, :flowerforyou: but I forgot
You seem like a capable human being, I've managed to find them, start looking! 0 -
This whole topic is up for debate. It's exactly like politics. Is abortion wrong? well no, but yes. EVERYBODY IS DIFFERENT. Some people don't feel the need to eat 5-6 times a day...wanna know why? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T HUNGRY! Some people feel the need to eat 5-6 times a day...wanna know why? because they exercise and they burn, burn, burn calories. Just my opinion.0
-
arent they giving you specific guidelines by telling you 1200 cals?!Like many other good ideas, this one will probably not prosper due to Legal implications.
The moment that MFP starts giving specific guidelines/advice, they are exposed to lawsuits.
Sad, but true.0 -
Just because one person can eat near their (estimated) TDEE and lose weight doesn't mean everyone can do it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating below your (estimated) BMR. Nothing bad will happen to you. The metabolism boogie man will not come in the night and eat your liver. You will be just fine. That's why your body stores fat, so that it can use it for energy when it doesn't have enough fuel.
Did I mention that these BMR equations are just estimates? They can be off as much as 300 calories. (reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598419/).0 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html
The trick with the higher deficit... is that to do it well, you need lots of protein... predominantly protein, low carb, low fat. So... since the calories are so low... you have a very, very limited diet (food choices) at your disposal. And... it's hard to maintain this for a long time. 2-4 weeks is good for this, as you can drop fat quickly.
If you're going to argue until you're blue in the face about the VLCD and eating under BMR... gonna be stubborn about it... at least do it right... otherwise, you can look forward to hormonal imbalance as well as a lowered metabolism... which, in the end, sorta works against you.0 -
BUMP...Exactly what was on my mind today. GOOD STUFF!0
-
"If you're going to argue until you're blue in the face about the VLCD and eating under BMR..."
Well for one, I'm hardly blue in the face.
Second, there is a world of difference between VLCD and eating under BMR. VLCD is typically defined as eating HALF of BMR. I am not advocating eating half your BMR.
I find this just so interesting. Why is it so hard to accept that different things work for different people, and that some people have lost a lot of weight eating below their BMR without any negative effects to their health??0 -
I find this just so interesting. Why is it so hard to accept that different things work for different people, and that some people have lost a lot of weight eating below their BMR without any negative effects to their health??
Funny, I've heard my highschool bulimic friend say something along these lines of the last part, and another overweight friend who keeps taking weight loss pills and gaining it back (fourth times the charm) say the first part lol. They never ran into any health problems either. Guess you're right.
Really though, I'm not saying it's not going to work.0 -
Really? Really?? Geez.0
-
Why is it so hard to accept that different things work for different people, and that some people have lost a lot of weight eating below their BMR without any negative effects to their health??
Did you read the link I left from Lyle McDonald's site?
It's funny, it seemed to go right over your head... and here you are arguing til you're blue in the face again.0 -
Really? Really?? Geez.
Still love me MFP buddy? :P0 -
So how does this work out for someone who is really heavy?
I have a BMR of 3098 and a TDEE of 4260.
Even eating at my calculated BMR seems to be too much. I've been tracking my food for about a week and using the MFP calculated numbers that have me eating about 2650/day. I've felt fine and not really been hungry at all even with increasing the amount of exercise I'm doing.
I haven't really changed what I'm eating yet since we haven't made a trip to the grocery, just eating a little less and passing on things occasionally.
I guess my question got lost since it was at the bottom of the page...0 -
"It's funny, it seemed to go right over your head... and here you are arguing til you're blue in the face again."
Ahh.. yeah, ok. Now I see what I'm dealing with.0 -
Your BMR shouldn't change with activity level?I'm still learning myself and have never been good with figuring out my diet. So in other words someone like me who's BMR is 2024 at mod active (which is another guess...I'm aiming for cardio about 6 days a week, 20+ mins a day) and TDDE is 2521 at moderate exercise. So I should eat at least 2024 and less than 2521 to loose weight? My goal is 2lbs a week since I have 75 to loose. MFP of course gives me a goal of 1260 then adds in more when I exercise but I haven't seen it go that high yet. So if MFP is wrong I have been under eating quite a bit...I'm so confused... :indifferent:
That's what I'm trying to figure out. If I put it in as not active my numbers are 1567 BMR and 2521 TDDE. I have no clue what to go by lol0 -
Really? Really?? Geez.
Still love me MFP buddy? :P
Well I love you......:flowerforyou:0 -
Sorry to interrupt your discussion and verbal fights but THIS is exactly why I didn't post my questions on the boards for the last few months. Whenever I did two or more wannabe dieticians started fighting about who knows what and all those seeking info, advice etc are being left stunned about what there is to be fighting and arguing for...that's not a discussion for me and after reading a few pages it's become rather confusing.
Honestly MFPals who you are looking for an idea: aren't you more confused than anything?:frown:0 -
Would be nice!0
-
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.
wow MFP puts me at 1200 calories a day, which to be fair to MFP has not done me any harm so far but I just checked out that link you gave and according to it my BMR is 1293 and that if I was on a Sedentary lifestyle I should be eating 1511 minimum a day!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions