MFP warning about eating under BMR
Options
Replies
-
Its all basic physics and basic math.
A calorie is a unit of measure of energy to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C
All these calories are energy used to power your body throughout the day. If you move more, you use more calories.
Your BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate) is the amount of energy required by your body to simply stay alive if you were to remain perfectly still and just breathe and do nothing else.
If you eat more calories than your BMR and don't do anything to work them off, you will gain weight.
If you eat less calories than your BMR, you will lose weight, but not in a healthy way. Your body will consume any muscle tone you have just to stay alive.
Here's the important part:
If you eat an amount of calories ABOVE your BMR...but BELOW what your body consumes by adding your BMR to your exercise calories...you can safely lose weight.
This is an over simplification but close enough for me.
Actually this is incorrect. If you consume in calories your BMR you will lose weight unless you're in a coma which obviously if you're reading this you're not. You're not taking into account the calories you burn doing everything else during the day. The number of calories you burn in a day is the TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) which is "ESTIMATED" by taking your BMR and a multiplier of anywhere from 1.2 for sedentary up to 1.9 for very active (typically elite athletes).
That being said the rest of the nonsense about eating below your BMR is utter hooey. You can eat moderately below your BMR for quite some time before it shows any adverse affect. There are several ways to re-boot your metabolism if it starts to slow down as well.
I guess I should also address the fact that yes indeed there are a good number of individuals using MFP that eat entirely too little and that's why they have stalled in their efforts. However, in order for a complete stall to happen it has to be for quite a long time and at quite a severe caloric deficit not just a few hundred calories below their BMR.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?0 -
I am so confused as well.
If my BMR (on Fitness Frog ) is 1430 and TDEE is 2217 - how many calories a day do I get??0 -
Hi,
To gather adequate info, I would recommend to initially fill in your MFP questionnaire With the objective to MAINTAIN your weight.
You will get your TDEE and calories to eat ... And an indicative BMR ... ( TDEE/1.2 ... for sedentary people)
Then, as a second step, for Weigh loss,
with the objective to remain at BMR level, people can decide on :
1. Weigh loss by a calorie deficit
2. Weigh loss by exercise
3. Weigh loss by a combination thta suits their life style ...
And adjust their MFP goals accordingly ...0 -
No, because there aren't any. Starvation mode is a myth (although your metabolism WILL slow down after extended caloric restriction, it is only by ~25% of original BMR tops). Eating under BMR being unhealthy is a myth (in fact, there is a large body of evidence showing calorie restriction and fasting have a wide variety of health benefits). People just tell themselves what they want to believe so they can eat the way they want to eat and have their lack of results be 'not my fault'.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?
Sorry to be blunt, but this is the truth.0 -
No, because there aren't any. Starvation mode is a myth (although your metabolism WILL slow down after extended caloric restriction, it is only by ~25% of original BMR tops). Eating under BMR being unhealthy is a myth (in fact, there is a large body of evidence showing calorie restriction and fasting have a wide variety of health benefits). People just tell themselves what they want to believe so they can eat the way they want to eat and have their lack of results be 'not my fault'.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?
Sorry to be blunt, but this is the truth.
I have results on eating way above my BMR - I eat more because I would prefer to do that than restrict myself and risk my metabolism slowing down - I have no idea where you get the assumption that we want to lay any blame anywhere else. The people who are responding eat below their TDEE and as such get results.
Also, while it may not be technically correct, most people use the term starvation mode to mean exactly what you have said does happen - metabolic slowdown. And would really rather my metabolism slow down at all, let alone by 25% - that's a lot and means I would have to continue to restrict my calories indefinately.
So your impression of the truth...is not...0 -
No need to get defensive. You can't deny that every day here there are a dozen threads about eating 1200 calories and not losing weight. That is what I had in mind when posting. If anyone is REALLY eating 1200 calories per day and doing any amount of exercise, they will be losing weight. And even if, hypothetically speaking, someone were not, the answer is to eat MORE?
Great example: recently had a friend go from pre-diabetic and 180/120 blood pressure to GREAT blood sugar and 115/75 BP in a couple of months on a 600 calorie a day diet. For people who are morbidly obese, eating well under BMR can be very beneficial (obviously consult with your doctor).
Lots of bad advice here regarding this stuff. Just trying to help.0 -
No need to get defensive. You can't deny that every day here there are a dozen threads about eating 1200 calories and not losing weight. That is what I had in mind when posting. If anyone is REALLY eating 1200 calories per day and doing any amount of exercise, they will be losing weight. And even if, hypothetically speaking, someone were not, the answer is to eat MORE?
Great example: recently had a friend go from pre-diabetic and 180/120 blood pressure to GREAT blood sugar and 115/75 BP in a couple of months on a 600 calorie a day diet. For people who are morbidly obese, eating well under BMR can be very beneficial (obviously consult with your doctor).
Lots of bad advice here regarding this stuff. Just trying to help.
Errr....no need to get senstive...I was not getting defensive, I was responding to a comment/opinion that I believed false and basically an accusation that people on a lower deficit are looking to blame someone for thir failures (what failures I have to ask by the way).
I absolutely agree that eating below your BMR for a limited time is actually OK for morbidly obese folks.
The problem is, most folks on MFP are looking to lose weight and have not consulted a doctor and do not know how to do PSMF properly. Isn't it better to give advise that will actually work for the majority of people and not have possibly bad side effects? I am sure you will agree that a VLCD without proper medical supervision or any breaks/refeeds will negatively impact someone's metabolism which can take a while to fix.0 -
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: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.
No, because there aren't any. Starvation mode is a myth (although your metabolism WILL slow down after extended caloric restriction, it is only by ~25% of original BMR tops). Eating under BMR being unhealthy is a myth (in fact, there is a large body of evidence showing calorie restriction and fasting have a wide variety of health benefits). People just tell themselves what they want to believe so they can eat the way they want to eat and have their lack of results be 'not my fault'.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?
Sorry to be blunt, but this is the truth.0 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions