MFP warning about eating under BMR

1…5681011…17

Replies

  • Imawonder
    Imawonder Posts: 65
    bump
  • Cupcake596
    Cupcake596 Posts: 44
    Do you mean netting your BMR or eating your BMR? I always eat at BMR through eating back my exercise calories :)
  • SmexAppeal
    SmexAppeal Posts: 858 Member
    I didn't read all the comments so not sure if this has been said.
    But when you log your food and exercise at the end of the day, if you eat under 1200 cals it tells you on the screen where it says you should weigh this much in 5 weeks.
    It says something about you are eating too few calories and this could put you in starvation mode. So there is some type of warning. The more education, the better chance of success. I think more people just need to research how to get healthy and fit properly!
  • JennieAL
    JennieAL Posts: 1,726 Member
    I always eat at BMR through eating back my exercise calories :)

    If this thread were a test, and this your answer... you would be incorrect.

    ...do some more studying.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure - that is, the number of total calories your body burns on any given day. Unless you are hooked up to special machines and go through a rigorous scientific process, it is impossible to know your *exact* TDEE. All of the calculators on the internet are just estimates.

    Excuse me, I can't write 10 paragraphs explaining every word I say every time I reply :P If you read the rest of the thread it's stated that we can only estimate. I don't think anyone can know your "*exact* TDEE", not even you.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Oh heybales, thank you thank you thank you. I was just about to quote all your replies, that's some great, well put advice.
  • GasMasterFlash
    GasMasterFlash Posts: 2,206 Member
    Perhaps they could set it up to alert the local police and/or the user's mom too.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I've been eating between 250 to 500 calories below my BMR for the last 9 months, have lost 63 pounds of fat and gained lean muscle mass in the process. I'm in the best shape of my life. Oh and I spike once a week at about 4000 to 5000 calories.

    Are you going to tell me and about 90% of my circle of support which is a good number of bodybuilders they're doing it wrong?

    Sounds like some folks need to step back and realize that regardless of works for you and what you believe works for you that you may not have all the facts about what others are doing or how their bodies re-act. Most people can lose as much as 2 pounds of fat per week w/o compromising lean muscle mass. That requires approximately a 7000 calorie weekly deficit to achieve or 1000 calories a day. For most people that's about 500 below BMR. It's not dangerous and if you employ proper re-feed methods, spikes or dietary breaks you won't end up with a slowed metabolism either.

    And that is exactly why Spike days work when you start your diet with them.

    You are NOT, on avg, eating below your BMR. You are well over. Enough to gain muscle, you hope.

    So does that extra 4000 min say, avg over 6 other days, being 666 calories, put your avg daily over your BMR now?

    That whole Spike day theory works that way.

    I don't believe I saw anyone say dangerous - more difficult weight loss. Slower, more prone to muscle burning. So these are warnings for doing it smarter, faster, better. If you want slow, fine. if you want chances of burning off muscle eating too little, fine. if you want to make maintenance more difficult possibly, fine.

    Most people can lose 2lb weekly without effecting lean muscle? Love to see that study of most.

    Here a study using obese folks that had plenty of fat to use, and only eating under BMR by about 200-300.

    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#T2

    They all lost some, DietOnly, DietResistance, DietCardio.
  • CnocNaCu
    CnocNaCu Posts: 536 Member
    Oh man, I am so confused!

    Just eat right at your BMR and then you will please both camps :drinker:

    LOVE IT :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile:
    The best advice I got today :flowerforyou:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    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.

    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.

    is 8 weeks a long time for men?

    Showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing. ie suppressed BMR, slower metabolism, ect.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
  • dalmiechick45
    dalmiechick45 Posts: 164 Member
    Bump! thanks great topic... keep wondering why MFP gives me so few cals, I am 5'11...
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Bump! thanks great topic... keep wondering why MFP gives me so few cals, I am 5'11...

    Oh boy, I'm glad you found us...and we're all jealous of you for being a girl who can eat so many calories and be thin :P
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    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:

    Here is a case study fix to a low BMR.
    A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
    A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
    A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.
    An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
    After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

    Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
    32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
    Consume 5-6 small meals per day
    Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
    Choose high fiber starches
    Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
    Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
    Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
    Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

    After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
    The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

    Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.

    Your diet and exercise combo can push your BMR lower, to the point it's almost maintenance level.

    I'd dare say her weight gain was discouraged splurges that the body held on to.

    But you can also recover, and lose fat during the recovery!
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    heybales,

    Excellent links. I think you might find this interesting (if not a bit dry):

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.full

    The conclusion drawn by the study is that weight loss causes a drop in energy expenditure beyond what was predicted by the loss of mass (i.e. metabolism slows down more than expected), and that the lower EE continues even a year after calorie restriction ends (thus supporting your argument).

    BUT, and I find this very interesting, the majority of the drop comes not from resting EE but non-resting EE. That is, people who lost weight were burning less calories than expected during movement, suggesting that basal metabolic rate was not the main culprit.

    Unfortunately, this study did not address the significance of the size of the calorie restriction to the impact on EE, which is actually what this thread is about. It would be interesting to see if the "extra" drop in EE varies based on the size of restriction that lead to the initial weight loss....
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing. ie suppressed BMR, slower metabolism, ect.

    Drops of 150 - 250 kcal/day in energy expenditure above that expected from the weight loss seem common.

    Is there a paper that specifically identifies the effect of energy intake relative to BMR ? The "weight loss by energy restriction leads to reduced metabolic rate" is well proven but the clinical interventions are often 1000 kcal per day or a percentage and I'm unclear if this puts them above or below BMR (as many don't publish all the data).
  • incendia3
    incendia3 Posts: 57 Member
    Yikes, I'm supposed to be eating 2500 calories a day. That's pretty scary with no thyroid.
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    Uh oh, here is a rebuttal to the argument for adaptive thermogenesis.... see, even the scientists can't agree!!!!

    http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n10/full/0803641a.html
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Unfortunately, this study did not address the significance of the size of the calorie restriction to the impact on EE

    Indeed, the diet used was 800 kcal per day to induce the weight loss and measure the effect. That looked to be about half of the BMR (or REE which I guess is close to the BMR).
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    Unfortunately, this study did not address the significance of the size of the calorie restriction to the impact on EE

    Indeed, the diet used was 800 kcal per day to induce the weight loss and measure the effect. That looked to be about half of the BMR (or REE which I guess is close to the BMR).

    Well put. What we need is a study that measures the impact to REE by varying degrees of calorie restriction. I am not aware of any such study....
  • moseler
    moseler Posts: 224 Member
    The site DOES warn!! If you complete your food diary and have consumed too few calories, there's a warning!

    But that warning is a set standard and completely non-appropriate as most people need that very warning WAY before they net under 1200.

    *inappropriate* Sorry, I'm a teacher with a wicked red grading pen... :wink:
  • iAMaPhoenix
    iAMaPhoenix Posts: 1,038 Member
    MFP warning...lmao. This goal of this site is to make money by keeping people on here, not scare them away.
  • purpleface
    purpleface Posts: 21 Member
    I agree, I was eating 1200 & some days even lower than that thinking I was doing good, but I didn't lose any weight because my body was starving. I upped my calories & lost 3lbs pretty much instantly. I think it's good for weight loss to eat close to your BMR & it's also especially important for LIFE. You need a lot of calories just to SURVIVE & 1200 isn't near enough.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    What we need is a study that measures the impact to REE by varying degrees of calorie restriction. I am not aware of any such study....

    Exactly, I'm still looking.

    The prevailing (?) view on here comes over that if you eat less calories than your BMR estimate you won't lose weight. Every study I have ever read with calorie deficits produces weight loss in all compliant subjects. Maybe I'm hearing the message incorrectly.

    I can't conceptually see why the BMR should have a profound significance. If I don't eat for a day I don't drop dead - in fact it takes hunger strikers a couple of months to pull that off. My BMR and other energy expenditures can be fuelled from my ample fat reserves (100,000 calories at least) as well as from what I eat.

    So I'm still looking......
  • moseler
    moseler Posts: 224 Member
    For fun... I decided to change my pounds per week from 2 lbs. to 1 lb. per week... HOLY COW! I went from being able to eat 1,480 a day to over 1,900. THAT IS EXTREMELY DRASTIC... considering I started out less than that over a year ago when I began... I will stick to my 2 lbs. a week... I can't even imagine I will lose ANYTHING at 1,900 per day. YIKES! I guess, I will try changing it when I am closer to my goal... for now, 2 lbs. it is!
  • carrotstick2012
    carrotstick2012 Posts: 161
    Some days I find it hard to get to 1200 calories and am just under (like 1,125 or something like that). This isn't deliberate and, if I weren't counting calories, I wouldn't even notice it. I am naturally inclined to eat low calorie, high nutrient density foods. So I can eat a lot, feel satisfied and still be under the 1200 (though my goal is higher than that, I'm not aiming for 1200). I'm losing at a healthy and regular pace and feeling satisfied and well. I think it's more important to listen to my body than panic over what a log tells me. Yet sometimes I read on here how bad it is to eat low calories ... I don't know what to believe sometimes. Even if I do reach my calorie goal for the day if my stomach rumbles I listen to it and eat something small. It can be very confusing!
  • samra2012
    samra2012 Posts: 715
    well!! now I dont know what to do! eat or not 1200 cal per day???? anybody'????
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    well!! now I dont know what to do! eat or not 1200 cal per day???? anybody'????

    you've lost 12kg so far, how was that achieved and what's your current regime ?
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    For fun... I decided to change my pounds per week from 2 lbs. to 1 lb. per week... HOLY COW! I went from being able to eat 1,480 a day to over 1,900. THAT IS EXTREMELY DRASTIC... considering I started out less than that over a year ago when I began... I will stick to my 2 lbs. a week... I can't even imagine I will lose ANYTHING at 1,900 per day. YIKES! I guess, I will try changing it when I am closer to my goal... for now, 2 lbs. it is!
    You need a better imagination. You know that most nutritional values are based on a 2000 calorie diet, right? So you're still eating below those requirements. You're eating less then me, and I'm 122 and taller then most women I know. I see many 5'7 120-130 pounders on my list eating over 2000 and I'm pretty sure they'll all agree they're not getting fat. I also have a awesome new 4'9er who eats more then you and is loosing weight.
  • ChasingSweatandTears
    ChasingSweatandTears Posts: 504 Member
    Where did you find out your tdee? Or is that the chart including activity level on the fat2fit site? Thanks :)
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Where did you find out your tdee? Or is that the chart including activity level on the fat2fit site? Thanks :)

    The fat2fit site includes a deficit for weight loss.

    You can try: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/calorie-calculator.html

    I like it as you can get a bit more specific with your activities.

Categories