Bmr of ~1800 yet MFP says 1490 daily?

Ravenesque_

Okay.` I'm still epically confused.

I've been here about a week, and done a lot of reading around the forums, and associated sites. stuff like BMR BMI TDEE NET and stuff are all completely new to me. Now, I'm not the brightest crayon in in the box, but something here does not add up.

Everywhere, people say do not eat below you basal Metabolic rate. This is what I need as a minimum about of calories to keep my body functioning correctly, right?

Ive tried several different websites and several different formulas, and they all come out with different totals for my BMR. Mfp says 1797, fitnessfrog says 1838. All reasonably around the same area.

To get the upper limit I must times my BMR by 1.2 to get 2150. I do not take much exercise cept a half hour walk everyday and swimming and badminton a couple of times a week. In order to lose weight -safely- I have to eat between these numbers. Ive seen poeple recommend about 150 cals above bmr in order to keep metabolism up and running nicely.

yet mfp says I should be eating 1490 cals a day. This seems below the minimum I need to exist!

Does this have something to do with NET and eating exercise calories back? I'm only getting back about 150 kcals a day execise and even if i eat all these back I still don't net above my bmr, even according to mfp.

Someone check my maths, or tell me what I'm overlooking. Or should i go to someone professional?

Stats: 168cm (5'6'') 105kg (228lbs) body fat 56.3%
ETA: this is set to lose 1.5 lbs a week.

I have a goal of losing over 100lbs to lose. Maybe this is too much to do in one go and is screwing the numbers up? I am growing to like this site very much, but increasingly questioning its accuracy is leading me to doubt its doing me any good!

thanks for the assistance,
@rk

emmaleigh47

1. Rule #1 do not ever eat below your BMR
2. Rule #2 do not ever fail to follow rule #1

Any questions!

ka_bateman

I'm not certain b/c I'm a little confused....what are your goals set to? If it's set to lose 1lb, you'll be eating about 500 cals less than the total calories your body needs to maintain your weight every day. I think. if it's set to 2lbs a week, I believe it would be another 500 cals less. But I'm not sure, that's just how I understand it.

Your BMR is the calories your body needs to run your organs, it doesn't include the extra calories your burn working out during the day. So you should never eat less then your BMR to lose weight safely and longterm

chiverly

My stats are similar to yours... 5'7 tall and started at 242 lb, now about 229 lb.

MFP set my calorie intake at 1750 which seems about right for me - that was based on my setting of want to loose about 1 lb per week.

Some weeks I loose 1 lb, some I loose none and occassionally I loose 2 lb.

1490 sounds low to me, but could be based on what you set as your weekly weight loss goal - try adjusting it to 1lb per week and see what you get.

Ravenesque_

target of 1.5lbs a week. From what I've read, its sensible for someone morbidly obese (me)

Maybe if I aim for 1 per week and hope I get two? :P Wouldnt surprise me with my body tbh!

wurgin

i thin you need to try a level for a few weeks and see how it works for you and adjust. I think my organs are working just fine on 1200 cals (plus exercise cals up to about 1500) and I have lost 23 lbs in about 2 months. No one has the answer, there are indeed many answers.

sharonlouiset

What is BMR?

Ravenesque_

BMR is ajoke, don't worry about it.

Your goal is WEIGHT LOSS, produce those results and don't worry about anything else, a safe range to shoot for is 1-2lbs a week.

Here's the kicker, As you lose weight your BMR will go down... so who cares if you eat slightly below it. It will be your NEW BMR eventually.

define slightly please

Set with 2lbs loss a week, its 1200. a difference of 600 kcals (not including execise expenditure) does not seem slight to me.

C00lCountry

If you are Obese then you can eat below your BMR for a short while.

I would set your weight lose to 1 lb per week.
See where and how that works out for you.
Make sure you measure yourself as well as just not only weigh.
some times people have to adjust it a few times on there journey to get the results they need.

Ravenesque_

i thin you need to try a level for a few weeks and see how it works for you and adjust. I think my organs are working just fine on 1200 cals (plus exercise cals up to about 1500) and I have lost 23 lbs in about 2 months. No one has the answer, there are indeed many answers.

Thats a good point. One of my problems with a new project is going off at 100 miles an hour lol

I'm going to see what happens for a couple of months, and then readjust. Good idea.

grimm1974

I'll have to disagree with some of the posts based on my experiences so far. I initially started by eating below my BMR. I had some fast weight loss and it was going great. Recently I just hit a brick wall, so I really started doing some major research. I've always been familiar with the term BMR, but did not understand it properly. I always though BMR was what I wanted to be at to lo lose weight. Not at all the case. Recently, I discovered a new number called TDEE.

You need to now your BMR and TDEE. Look them up and you'll figure it out. You are going to want to manually set your MFP goals to a number between these two ranges. I would also recommend doing some research on carb-protein-fat ratios and decide for yourself what percentage to put into those categories. I personally found it better to lower the carbs below MFP settings and raise the proteins and fats. You will want to make your own judgement call on that one.

So, figure out that TDEE and BMR. Set a goal based on that range. Yes, you can lose weight eating below your BMR, but I've honestly found that to be making it harder on yourself with only an initial pay off. I recommend you go to Fat2Fitradio.com . There is some excellent information there that really made sense to me.

yarwell

Everywhere, people say do not eat below you basal Metabolic rate. This is what I need as a minimum about of calories to keep my body functioning correctly, right?

That is an estimate of the number of calories that will be used by your body's basic functions, yes. They can be withdrawn from fat reserves or from food, for example in the middle of the night your 60 calories/hr or whatever isn't coming from food.

By "Everywhere" I guess you mean "on here". I had never heard this "don't eat below your BMR" opinion before coming on here. I've read a lot of stuff too.

"Don't eat below your BMR" is not part of the site's goal setting calculations.

ladyraven68

Everywhere, people say do not eat below you basal Metabolic rate. This is what I need as a minimum about of calories to keep my body functioning correctly, right?

That is an estimate of the number of calories that will be used by your body's basic functions, yes. They can be withdrawn from fat reserves or from food, for example in the middle of the night your 60 calories/hr or whatever isn't coming from food.

By "Everywhere" I guess you mean "on here". I had never heard this "don't eat below your BMR" opinion before coming on here. I've read a lot of stuff too.

"Don't eat below your BMR" is not part of the site's goal setting calculations.

If you google "Don't eat below BMR" you'll find other sites that say the same thing,


Again, I don't know if it's just members heresay, or whether there's any actual science behind it, bit it's not just MFP members that advocate this.

ladyace2078

This might become my standard response because it makes so much sense to me... Here is how I think of weight loss, eating the right amount of calories and how that relates to BMR and TDEE.

I want to lose 12 lbs, which at 3500 calories/lb I have 42,000 calories in storage that I want my body to use up and get rid of.

I use 1600 calories a day just pumping blood, breathing, organ function (BMR) and another 1000 calories a day in exercise and moving around (walking to my car, cooking dinner, etc), so I burn a total of 2600 calories (TDEE).

If I want my body to use some of the calories from my storage of 42,000, I have to feed it less calories than I burn in a day. So when I eat about 2200 calories a day, then my body uses 400 calories a day from my storage to cover all of my activity of 2600 calories. That means my 'storage' or extra 12 lbs is being whittled away at 400 calories a day.

Ravenesque_

This might become my standard response because it makes so much sense to me... Here is how I think of weight loss, eating the right amount of calories and how that relates to BMR and TDEE.

I want to lose 12 lbs, which at 3500 calories/lb I have 42,000 calories in storage that I want my body to use up and get rid of.

I use 1600 calories a day just pumping blood, breathing, organ function (BMR) and another 1000 calories a day in exercise and moving around (walking to my car, cooking dinner, etc), so I burn a total of 2600 calories (TDEE).

If I want my body to use some of the calories from my storage of 42,000, I have to feed it less calories than I burn in a day. So when I eat about 2200 calories a day, then my body uses 400 calories a day from my storage to cover all of my activity of 2600 calories. That means my 'storage' or extra 12 lbs is being whittled away at 400 calories a day.

That.. made sense! Thank yoU!

But what if you do extra effort: how much of that dyou eat back to stop your body freaking out at your for trying to kill it? :P

Rabid_Hamster

This might become my standard response because it makes so much sense to me... Here is how I think of weight loss, eating the right amount of calories and how that relates to BMR and TDEE.

I want to lose 12 lbs, which at 3500 calories/lb I have 42,000 calories in storage that I want my body to use up and get rid of.

I use 1600 calories a day just pumping blood, breathing, organ function (BMR) and another 1000 calories a day in exercise and moving around (walking to my car, cooking dinner, etc), so I burn a total of 2600 calories (TDEE).

If I want my body to use some of the calories from my storage of 42,000, I have to feed it less calories than I burn in a day. So when I eat about 2200 calories a day, then my body uses 400 calories a day from my storage to cover all of my activity of 2600 calories. That means my 'storage' or extra 12 lbs is being whittled away at 400 calories a day.

That.. made sense! Thank yoU!

But what if you do extra effort: how much of that dyou eat back to stop your body freaking out at your for trying to kill it? :P

It depends on how aggressive you are about your goal. Your net calories should always be about the same. For example,
My BMR is 2240 (appx), My goal is -2 lbs a week.
To accomplish that, I need to consume 1240 cals/ daily (deficit of 500 cals per Lb per day)
If I exercise 300 calories, that would put me at 940 cals (1240 - 300)
It's advisable to eat back your exercise calories.. (940+300 more cals= 1240 net)

However you get to your net daily total is up to you, (exercise vs fewer calories vs combination of both)

I hope this helps

0EmmeNicole0

BMR is ajoke, don't worry about it.

Your goal is WEIGHT LOSS, produce those results and don't worry about anything else, a safe range to shoot for is 1-2lbs a week.

Here's the kicker, As you lose weight your BMR will go down... so who cares if you eat slightly below it. It will be your NEW BMR eventually.

He's right. You don't have to eat above your BMR. You will live and you will lose weight. HOWEVER...if you want to keep the weight off once you reach your goal, i highly suggest eating at your BMR at least. Eating at too low a calorie deficit for too long will condition your metabolism to that amount of calories. I say eat at your BMR if you want to live a healthy lifestyle. If you want to become a yo yo dieter then eat your calories as low as you want.

chevy88grl

BMR is ajoke, don't worry about it.

Your goal is WEIGHT LOSS, produce those results and don't worry about anything else, a safe range to shoot for is 1-2lbs a week.

Here's the kicker, As you lose weight your BMR will go down... so who cares if you eat slightly below it. It will be your NEW BMR eventually.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If more people paid a bit of attention to BMR and TDEE - perhaps there wouldn't be so many people eating 1200 calories (or less) a day and asking "Why can't I seem to lose any weight?". While it may not be an exact science or perfect every time, saying it is a "joke" is doing a lot of people a disservice. And honestly, even if it IS a guess -- is it really hurting people to have more information about their own bodies. Absolutely not.

And telling people that it won't matter if you eat under your current BMR because your BMR will go down, so eventually it'll be your new BMR is once again doing people a serious disservice. If your current BMR is 1800 - you need 1800 calories to live RIGHT NOW. Who the heck cares if you'll only need 1300 when you're thinner? You need to give your body what it needs NOW and stop worrying about what'll happen to it in a week or two or whatever.

pukekolive

I am 5 ft 3 and weight 117kg (over 260 pounds) and have found I need to eat close to my BMR (I eat 1600 cals per day) in order to lose weight as I have yo'yo dieted in the past and can be a couch potato at times.

I always eats back as many of my exercise calories as I can to protect my BMR

There is also a group here 'Eat for the Future You' whereby if you are quite active (I have tried this regime but need to up my exercise I think) whereby you eat based on the TDEE of your GOAL weight (but never below your current BMR) and in this way when you reach your goal weight you don't need to change your diet.

With this regime you have one goal calorie count per day and DON'T eat back any exercise calories.

My feeling is I will go back to this when I have lost a bit more weight and can be consistently burning 500 cals per workout at least 2-3 times a week as the beauty of it is that you have the exact same calorie goal every day regardless of exercise (mine was 1900 cals)

bugnsamsmom

i thin you need to try a level for a few weeks and see how it works for you and adjust. I think my organs are working just fine on 1200 cals (plus exercise cals up to about 1500) and I have lost 23 lbs in about 2 months. No one has the answer, there are indeed many answers.

I'm glad you said this. I went 6 weeks with a bmr of 1520 and I do 5 (60 min) classes a week and the treadmill with a speed of 3.0 and a varied incline up to a level 14 the other two days. I've been gaining and losing the same 3 pounds! I'm defined as "morbidly obese" so burning a min 450 x 5 per week and burning 250 x 2 per week...I think I'd have lost more than 3pounds.

So, we'll see how this goes...and more importantly...how I feel...

Ravenesque_

I am 5 ft 3 and weight 117kg (over 260 pounds) and have found I need to eat close to my BMR (I eat 1600 cals per day) in order to lose weight as I have yo'yo dieted in the past and can be a couch potato at times.

I always eats back as many of my exercise calories as I can to protect my BMR

There is also a group here 'Eat for the Future You' whereby if you are quite active (I have tried this regime but need to up my exercise I think) whereby you eat based on the TDEE of your GOAL weight (but never below your current BMR) and in this way when you reach your goal weight you don't need to change your diet.

With this regime you have one goal calorie count per day and DON'T eat back any exercise calories.

My feeling is I will go back to this when I have lost a bit more weight and can be consistently burning 500 cals per workout at least 2-3 times a week as the beauty of it is that you have the exact same calorie goal every day regardless of exercise (mine was 1900 cals)

Thats what confusing me! there are two (a million?!) ways of counting them, and it seems a matter of personal opinion which is best. I guess the only way i'll find out is to see which one works for me, and that can only answered by time.

Atm im still experimenting with everything - still havent found out how to exercise with no money >.< - so I will just keep reading

Thank you very much that was very helpful. And thank you everyone, all you're input is much appreciated.

I do feel better with execise, and I can eat anywhere between 1200 and 2000 per day with no trouble - guess my body is well trained huh? - but I think im going to go to a professional and get something for me sorted out

ldominguez1986

I am also having problems figuring this out. I am so freaking confused about all this that it drives me insane. MFP has my calorie goal at 2010 with -2lbs a week set. However Fat2Fit has my BMR at 2700. Why would MFP tell me to eat so low? I posted what f2fr gave me for calories. I am 308 lbs and 5' 10". I feel like if I were to eat that much it would be too much. What should I do?


Activity Level Daily Calories
Sedentary (little or no exercise, desk job) 3028
Lightly Active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk) 3469
Moderately Active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk) 3911
Very Active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk) 4352
Extremely Active (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.) 4794

ldominguez1986

BMR is ajoke, don't worry about it.

Your goal is WEIGHT LOSS, produce those results and don't worry about anything else, a safe range to shoot for is 1-2lbs a week.

Here's the kicker, As you lose weight your BMR will go down... so who cares if you eat slightly below it. It will be your NEW BMR eventually.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. If more people paid a bit of attention to BMR and TDEE - perhaps there wouldn't be so many people eating 1200 calories (or less) a day and asking "Why can't I seem to lose any weight?". While it may not be an exact science or perfect every time, saying it is a "joke" is doing a lot of people a disservice. And honestly, even if it IS a guess -- is it really hurting people to have more information about their own bodies. Absolutely not.

And telling people that it won't matter if you eat under your current BMR because your BMR will go down, so eventually it'll be your new BMR is once again doing people a serious disservice. If your current BMR is 1800 - you need 1800 calories to live RIGHT NOW. Who the heck cares if you'll only need 1300 when you're thinner? You need to give your body what it needs NOW and stop worrying about what'll happen to it in a week or two or whatever.

Most BMR calculators work based on weight, we don't need to feed the fat mass. I originally said shot for a safe weight loss 1lbs-2lbs a week. What if you can't achieve that eating slightly below your BMR? are you doomed? looks like it. There was a time i weighed over 400lbs. When i started MFP i was about 343. I couldn't even walk 10mins. I was eating about... 2,500 calories Just went to fat2fitradio.com calculated my BMR at that time, it was 2907 calories. I was eating 400 calories below my BMR. If you maintain a safe weight loss as i said 1-2lbs a week, you'd be fine. No need to worry about BMR.

I think I am just gonna stick to what you said. I have asked my friends on here how they lost weight and they said to just use what MFP tells you. I think that I keep getting confused by all the people on here saying this/that. It seems that your theory seems sound.

ashleyrlopez

You are misunderstanding BMR.

BMR is the amount of calories you burn EXISTING (not the amount you need to exist) each day- which means, if you were to lie in bed all day, you would burn the 1700-1800 calories each day that you were mentioning.

However, like the rest of us here, you want to lose weight. So what the site is doing is.... They are taking your BMR, and reducing it by 500 calories, to ASSURE that you will lose the weight, even if you just sit around all day.

If you have excess fat to burn, that is what your body would use for calories. If you don't have enough excess fat, then you need to eat AT LEAST the amount of calories you would burn laying in bed all day (BMR) and preferably more, because your body cant make up for the lack of calories, and will start to dissolve its protein and amino acid stores in your muscles.

Ravenesque_

You are misunderstanding BMR.

BMR is the amount of calories you burn EXISTING (not the amount you need to exist) each day- which means, if you were to lie in bed all day, you would burn the 1700-1800 calories each day that you were mentioning.

However, like the rest of us here, you want to lose weight. So what the site is doing is.... They are taking your BMR, and reducing it by 500 calories, to ASSURE that you will lose the weight, even if you just sit around all day.

If you have excess fat to burn, that is what your body would use for calories. If you don't have enough excess fat, then you need to eat AT LEAST the amount of calories you would burn laying in bed all day (BMR) and preferably more, because your body cant make up for the lack of calories, and will start to dissolve its protein and amino acid stores in your muscles.

That makes a great deal of sense. Thank you very helpful. I can see where I was going wrong now.

yarwell

You are misunderstanding BMR.

BMR is the amount of calories you burn EXISTING (not the amount you need to exist) each day- which means, if you were to lie in bed all day, you would burn the 1700-1800 calories each day that you were mentioning.

Actually that would be your RMR, but let's not argue over that.

However, like the rest of us here, you want to lose weight. So what the site is doing is.... They are taking your BMR, and reducing it by 500 calories, to ASSURE that you will lose the weight, even if you just sit around all day.

Err, no. The site asks if you are sedentary, moderately active etc in order to make an estimate of your routine Total Daily Energy Expenditure (usually without "formal" exercise). It then subtracts a deficit based on your target weight loss, which is 500 calories per day per lb per week you tell it you wish to lose.

So you might have BMR * 1.2 - 500 for example given as your calorie target, with a minimum value allowed of 1200.

If you have excess fat to burn, that is what your body would use for calories. If you don't have enough excess fat, then you need to eat AT LEAST the amount of calories you would burn laying in bed all day (BMR) and preferably more, because your body cant make up for the lack of calories, and will start to dissolve its protein and amino acid stores in your muscles.

Again, if you had zero fat reserves to use up you would need to eat your TDEE in calories not your BMR.

yarwell

That makes a great deal of sense. Thank you very helpful. I can see where I was going wrong now.

It may make sense, but is wrong in the detail. See my correction.

Di3012

I have three rules.

1. Do not get too technical - this includes all the mathematical calculations that are flying about
2. Calories in -v- calories out
3. Eat enough protein, watch the carbs.

These are my own three personal rules and they have worked well so far.

Do not get bogged down in statistics, calculations, TDEE, BMR, BMI and PMT - it fuddles ones brain

yarwell

If you google "Don't eat below BMR" you'll find other sites that say the same thing,

Not many, and certainly nothing too credible. The first page of hits was mainly MFP, then a few broscience sites, and a handful of rebuttal postings.

Again, I don't know if it's just members heresay, or whether there's any actual science behind it, bit it's not just MFP members that advocate this.

It is member's hearsay, without a doubt, and concentrated herein. There is no science that I can find, nor this guy - http://www.musclepyramid.com/if-you-don’t-learn-about-these-myths-you’ll-hate-yourself-later

Many of the scientific studies put people on diets well below their BMR and often in the 400 - 800 calorie range (these are medically supervised trials, not the twinkie diet) and they don't discuss the margin below BMR *at all*. They use the lower calories to get a bigger result faster, before the trial budget expires or the volunteer subjects quit.

Ravenesque_

That makes a great deal of sense. Thank you very helpful. I can see where I was going wrong now.

It may make sense, but is wrong in the detail. See my correction.

hmm okay. ty =]

Ravenesque_

If you google "Don't eat below BMR" you'll find other sites that say the same thing,

Not many, and certainly nothing too credible. The first page of hits was mainly MFP, then a few broscience sites, and a handful of rebuttal postings.

Again, I don't know if it's just members heresay, or whether there's any actual science behind it, bit it's not just MFP members that advocate this.

It is member's hearsay, without a doubt, and concentrated herein. There is no science that I can find, nor this guy - http://www.musclepyramid.com/if-you-don’t-learn-about-these-myths-you’ll-hate-yourself-later

Many of the scientific studies put people on diets well below their BMR and often in the 400 - 800 calorie range (these are medically supervised trials, not the twinkie diet) and they don't discuss the margin below BMR *at all*. They use the lower calories to get a bigger result faster, before the trial budget expires or the volunteer subjects quit.

That site also mentions " tons of research" without any real evidence.

This is just getting more and more complicated.