Bmr of ~1800 yet MFP says 1490 daily?

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.

yarwell

For simplicity in weight loss establishing a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day is probably something everyone can agree with. (LOL)

Calculate your total energy expenditure (TDEE), knock off 500, eat that. If you don't lose 1 lb/week over 6 weeks or so then the estimate was wrong so add or subtract 100 cals a day in the appropriate direction.

No bunnies will die if you do that.

Would that work ?

Your TDEE here will be your BMR multiplied by some factor greater than 1 for lifestyle plus your exercise calories.

Chagama

Listen to your body, more than the numbers. If you are exercising regularly, and improving the quality of your workouts (longer, faster, more, heavier, etc.) than you aren't starving yourself. If you are losing weight but can't get through your workouts, you may not be eating enough.

There is a lot of guesswork and trial and error involved here. My suggestion is to follow what MFP say, and see how that works. Then adjust as needed after a few weeks. There are no set rules that work for everyone. We are all in different situations and our bodies are different and we need to see what works for us. If there were truly universal rules that worked for everyone, all the other systems would cease to exist.

That is what I did, and I've been successful with it. I just input my weight, lifestyle, and set my weekly loss goal and have been trying to follow that. I've ignored the entire BMR thing because I can't make any logical sense of it. Overall I'm doing better on my workouts on a consistent basis, so I can't believe I'm starving myself.

Ravenesque_

For simplicity in weight loss establishing a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day is probably something everyone can agree with. (LOL)

Calculate your total energy expenditure (TDEE), knock off 500, eat that. If you don't lose 1 lb/week over 6 weeks or so then the estimate was wrong so add or subtract 100 cals a day in the appropriate direction.

No bunnies will die if you do that.

Would that work ?

Your TDEE here will be your BMR multiplied by some factor greater than 1 for lifestyle plus your exercise calories.

Yes :P

BMR = 1352 (kate thingy eq) or 1850 (the other one) MFP says 1800 ish

Im not very active, and looking to change that gradually, so i tried 1.2 and get TDEE of 1622. Or 2220. or 2160.

I want to kick this weight in the *kitten*. 500 seems low to me, but I'll go with it. That means I get 922. Or 1720. Or 1660.

I get bout 200 kcals average back a day from exercise and I generally eat say half of them back.

I want to take 1000 off (for 2lbs a week) because 1) pcos makes it harder to lose it in the first place and 2) I'm sick of being morbidly obese. But somehow eating 622 cals a day doesn't seem healthy for even me. 1120 I can do, but again that seems too low.

I'm going to a professional next week, I think

yarwell

big deficits are more difficult for ladies, starting with lower BMRs etc.

Given those numbers I would find an eating regime you're happy with in the 1000 - 1500 area and run with it for a decent length of time.

Personally I would find the lower level sustainable with 70g of protein and plenty of fat with low carbs, but someone will be along to tell us that bunnies will die if you eat less than your BMR and that I'll die from eating fat soon.......

Ravenesque_

big deficits are more difficult for ladies, starting with lower BMRs etc.

Given those numbers I would find an eating regime you're happy with in the 1000 - 1500 area and run with it for a decent length of time.

Personally I would find the lower level sustainable with 70g of protein and plenty of fat with low carbs, but someone will be along to tell us that bunnies will die if you eat less than your BMR and that I'll die from eating fat soon.......

Yup going to have to up my protein to do this, but Ive tried lower carbs before, and I cannot cope on them. Too much fat makes me feel odd. I'm not going to die from eating below my BMR so I'm going to see what happens. Moderation is more sensible then Zealotry i think.

Thank you for all your thoughts everyone, its given me a lot of insight into the culture of this community

ladyraven68

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.

Oh, I wasn't saying any of them are credible, just that members of other weight loss sites also advocate the *don't eat under BMR" philosophy, as a few people said they had only ever heard that mentioned on here.

This is the only study I have seen with regards to changes in BMR/RMR, but it is only based on Non-Obese people, which is a bit odd.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305

HappilyLifts

interesting discussion, adding it to My Topics.

Ravenesque_

interesting discussion, adding it to My Topics.

Yeh it turned into a good discussion