BMR IS not for obese and morbidly obese people

susannamarie

Have the right to write it without being criticized? No, you don't.

Well that is just sad. Disagreeing is one thing. There is no need to criticize someone else's thoughts though.

Um ... if someone posts their thoughts as advice for others, they're open for criticism. There's a difference between criticizing their advice and criticizing them as a person.

Criticism doesn't just mean calling names. It includes pointing out flaws in arguments, etc.

MoreBean13

I get the feeling that OP doesn't know what BMR means...

Also, I would not take the opinion of someone who has been obese or morbidly obese their whole life on how to calculate the appropriate amount of calories to lose weight. If you can't make your theory work for yourself, why are you spewing it to other people?

Jezebel_Barbie

Also, I would not take the opinion of someone who has been obese or morbidly obese their whole life on how to calculate the appropriate amount of calories to lose weight. If you can't make your theory work for yourself, why are you spewing it to other people?

QFT.

dovesgate

i don't say starve your self , you can eat 1500 cal/day with all healthy food( fruits veg protein ) and feel full whole day and still lose
weight

Actually, yes you do. BMR is your basal metabolic rate which is the amount of calories your body needs to function while lying in bed doing nothing at all.

To eat below this number means you aren't providing your body with the fuel it needs to have basic brain and organ function. That means you're starving.

I am obese, maybe even morbidly obese. My BMR is 1450. I now eat between 1700 (sedentary level) and 2000 calories ( lightly active level) every day based on the fat2fit calculators. I should actually be eating more than this considering I am active more than 3 days a week. However, I am losing. I do not lose when eating 1200 or 1300 or even 1400 calories per day. My weight actually goes up when I eat that low.

heybales

Actually, yes you do. BMR is your basal metabolic rate which is the amount of calories your body needs to function while lying in bed doing nothing at all.

To eat below this number means you aren't providing your body with the fuel it needs to have basic brain and organ function. That means you're starving.

I am obese, maybe even morbidly obese. My BMR is 1450. I now eat between 1700 (sedentary level) and 2000 calories ( lightly active level) every day based on the fat2fit calculators. I should actually be eating more than this considering I am active more than 3 days a week. However, I am losing. I do not lose when eating 1200 or 1300 or even 1400 calories per day. My weight actually goes up when I eat that low.

Excellent example.

And I'm guessing that BMR estimate was the bodyfat% one?
What is MFP's estimate using the age/weight/height one?

neanderthin

i don't say starve your self , you can eat 1500 cal/day with all healthy food( fruits veg protein ) and feel full whole day and still lose
weight

To eat below this number means you aren't providing your body with the fuel it needs to have basic brain and organ function. That means you're starving.

Body fat has calories and if the body is burning body fat for fuel, why would this not count?

bcattoes

i don't say starve your self , you can eat 1500 cal/day with all healthy food( fruits veg protein ) and feel full whole day and still lose
weight

Actually, yes you do. BMR is your basal metabolic rate which is the amount of calories your body needs to function while lying in bed doing nothing at all.

To eat below this number means you aren't providing your body with the fuel it needs to have basic brain and organ function. That means you're starving.

Why would a body with plenty of fat (fuel) starve just because you ate under your BMR for a while? Wouldn't that mean our bodies are incapable of using fat as fuel?

Also, nobody gains fat by eating under their BMR. If you gained weight it was most likely water from hormones or exercise.

heybales

Why would a body with plenty of fat (fuel) starve just because you ate under your BMR for a while? Wouldn't that mean our bodies are incapable of using fat as fuel?

Because what BMR actually is. It is not the optional stuff like growing skin/hair, it is more basic stuff.

It is energy supplied to every cell of the body, less to fat, more to muscle and other cells. Mainly to deal with fluid levels.

Since it is energy supplied to the cells, it cannot come from the cells ultimately.

It would be like a rechargeable battery recharging itself - perpetual motion - which we don't have in our body.

So the BMR will lower. If it wants 1600 calories of energy to do it's thing, and it ends up with 1200 because exercise and other things took the rest, it will eventually slow down a certain amount.

And then interestingly, your body slows down other processes so more is left for the BMR - because some functions just must be done no matter what. Net effect, your BMR lowered, and your maintenance lowered, and your calorie burn on everything lowered.

It has no bearing on how much fat you got as supplies.

And bad effect on that slowdown to other energy expenditure - it seems to remain slower than expected for the weight that is eventually reached. So weight loss is still possible, but slower, and bad end effects making weight loss even more difficult to keep off.

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

neanderthin

Why would a body with plenty of fat (fuel) starve just because you ate under your BMR for a while? Wouldn't that mean our bodies are incapable of using fat as fuel?

Also, nobody gains fat by eating under their BMR. If you gained weight it was most likely water from hormones or exercise.

Because what BMR actually is. It is not the optional stuff like growing skin/hair, it is more basic stuff.

It is energy supplied to every cell of the body, less to fat, more to muscle and other cells. Mainly to deal with fluid levels.

Since it is energy supplied to the cells, it cannot come from the cells ultimately.

It would be like a rechargeable battery recharging itself - perpetual motion - which we don't have in our body.

So the BMR will lower. If it wants 1600 calories of energy to do it's thing, and it ends up with 1200 because exercise and other things took the rest, it will eventually slow down a certain amount.

And then interestingly, your body slows down other processes so more is left for the BMR - because some functions just must be done no matter what. Net effect, your BMR lowered, and your maintenance lowered, and your calorie burn on everything lowered.

It has no bearing on how much fat you got as supplies.

And bad effect on that slowdown to other energy expenditure - it seems to remain slower than expected for the weight that is eventually reached. So weight loss is still possible, but slower, and bad end effects making weight loss even more difficult to keep off.

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

Free fatty acids are used by all tissue in the body, except the brain. Adaptive thermogenesis deals with lowering BMR, mostly from lowered body weight and inactivity, not the same thing.

meerkat70

Obesity is related to many of diseases and if u want to lose 1-2/week , it will not works , u have big chance to give up in first 2-3 months and return to your old habits

so lose as possible as u can and then u can control your plan .


when u are obese , life saving surgery become very dangerous !!!!!

Really? Having been obese, and having lost a lot of weight in rather more than 2-3months, I have to say I think your post is bull****.
Fat people aren't stupid. I think we understand that it will take quite a long time to lose a large amount of weight.

heybales

Free fatty acids are used by all tissue in the body, except the brain. Adaptive thermogenesis deals with lowering BMR, mostly from lowered body weight and inactivity, not the same thing.

Actually, read almost any study about adaptive thermogenesis - it is exactly about lowering the BMR and metabolism more than just weight loss would indicate is required.
It is lowered more than needed because of underfeeding the BMR.

That info was given directly in response to comment that "Why would the BMR lower when there is plenty of fat to use?"

Because it has nothing to do with that. It does indeed happen, as study already given shows.

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

neanderthin

Free fatty acids are used by all tissue in the body, except the brain. Adaptive thermogenesis deals with lowering BMR, mostly from lowered body weight and inactivity, not the same thing.

Actually, read almost any study about adaptive thermogenesis - it is exactly about lowering the BMR and metabolism more than just weight loss would indicate is required.
It is lowered more than needed because of underfeeding the BMR.

That info was given directly in response to comment that "Why would the BMR lower when there is plenty of fat to use?"

Because it has nothing to do with that. It does indeed happen, as study already given shows.

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

Again that has to do with hormal responses to fasting, which is not the same thing as using adapose tissue for energy. it sounds like your saying that our body fat doesn't contribute to energy.

stubbysticks

om98, I get what you're trying to do, but you have to understand where everyone is coming from. Of course you are entitled to share your thoughts, but your original post is saying that no matter how obese you are, you should only eat 1500 calories a day or you won't lose weight. This simply isn't true. The higher your starting weight is, the more you can eat & still lose. Sure, at a high weight you'll probably lose at 1500 calories a day for a while, but if you add in any amount of exercise that just won't be enough to maintain without being hungry.

There are countless people on this site who started out at very high starting weights (I am one of them) & ate more than 1500 calories a day (me again) & managed to lose weight.

You can't join a website & write a post like this after being a member for less than 2 months with no evidence to back it up & expect people to take you seriously. Sorry hon.

heybales

Free fatty acids are used by all tissue in the body, except the brain. Adaptive thermogenesis deals with lowering BMR, mostly from lowered body weight and inactivity, not the same thing.

Actually, read almost any study about adaptive thermogenesis - it is exactly about lowering the BMR and metabolism more than just weight loss would indicate is required.
It is lowered more than needed because of underfeeding the BMR.

That info was given directly in response to comment that "Why would the BMR lower when there is plenty of fat to use?"

Because it has nothing to do with that. It does indeed happen, as study already given shows.

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

Again that has to do with hormal responses to fasting, which is not the same thing as using adapose tissue for energy. it sounds like your saying that our body fat doesn't contribute to energy.

You obviously read not a one of those, because none of them are about fasting, they are about diets of varying levels.
So extended periods of time on those diets, well beyond normal fasting periods that do NOT lead to problems.

Extra body fat, any body fat, doesn't make up for the fact the energy used for the BMR must ultimately be taken in.
Do not feed it long enough, it will slow down. Fasting, underfeeding, underfeeding and exercise unfed, all reasons the BMR doesn't have the energy it desires, and over a period of time will slow down.
That period of time 8 weeks for the guys that stalled out, couple weeks for folks on here that have yo-yo dieted many times in the past and their body knows how to respond.

You might want to go back to post I was answering, as I think some confusion going on here.

Of course fat is used for energy needs. 70% when at rest, about 50% at the bottom of the so-called "fat-burning HR zone", and getting less from their until anaerobic and no fat used.

neanderthin

Free fatty acids are used by all tissue in the body, except the brain. Adaptive thermogenesis deals with lowering BMR, mostly from lowered body weight and inactivity, not the same thing.

Actually, read almost any study about adaptive thermogenesis - it is exactly about lowering the BMR and metabolism more than just weight loss would indicate is required.
It is lowered more than needed because of underfeeding the BMR.

That info was given directly in response to comment that "Why would the BMR lower when there is plenty of fat to use?"

Because it has nothing to do with that. It does indeed happen, as study already given shows.

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

Also adaptive thermogenesis can be averted depending on how it's done. Here's a study of mostly middle aged women that went on an 800 calorie liquid diet for 12 weeks with no reduction in lean mass or resting metabolic rate, actually their RMR went up but i'm sure their body fat supplied the much need energy to get through this. And there's many studies that show this, which the take away message should be the importance of resistance training in a defict. My point is that energy supplied buy adipose tissue is a different topic than Adaptive Thermogenesis.

http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full

dovesgate

And I'm guessing that BMR estimate was the bodyfat% one?
What is MFP's estimate using the age/weight/height one?

Yes, that was the one using my body fat %. MFP says 1640.

heybales

And I'm guessing that BMR estimate was the bodyfat% one?
What is MFP's estimate using the age/weight/height one?

Yes, that was the one using my body fat %. MFP says 1640.

So perfect example, the age/weight/height BMR says 1640.

The more accurate LBM BMR says 1460.

If you can keep your LBM, and with your excellent routine you most likely will for as long as needed, then your MFP BMR will lower as you weight drops, and it will eventually meet the other BMR figure, then they will match.

And then with your excellent workouts, the MFP BMR will keep dropping as weight does, but your body comp BMR will actually rise as you gain muscle!

yeah!

Lozze

i don't say starve your self , you can eat 1500 cal/day with all healthy food( fruits veg protein ) and feel full whole day and still lose

I've lost 77lb. I started at 1800 and lost reasonably quickly. Dropped to 1600 and kept it up. Dropped to 1490 and it slowed right down. Add to that I was a miserable cow! Went back to 1600 (now at 1673) and started losing weight and was nicer.

You want to eat at 1500 fine. Don't tell others to do it based on one persons experiences and nothing to back it up!

heybales

Also adaptive thermogenesis can be averted depending on how it's done. Here's a study of mostly middle aged women that went on an 800 calorie liquid diet for 12 weeks with no reduction in lean mass or resting metabolic rate, actually their RMR went up but i'm sure their body fat supplied the much need energy to get through this. And there's many studies that show this, which the take away message should be the importance of resistance training in a defict. My point is that energy supplied buy adipose tissue is a different topic than Adaptive Thermogenesis.

http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full

Very interesting. Especially that low cal.
Even they admit in the study conclusion it goes counter to several other studies they are aware of. They chalk it up to resistance exercise being just right.
And at least 1 of those studies they reference is different in that they recorded the pre-study maintenance level of calories before deficit taken.
This study they did record all this pre-study stuff, but no comment if the people been dieting already, hence the opportunity to join a weight loss study and lose weight was jumped on.

Hard to compare pre and post values when you don't know where the pre started. Only once do they refer to normal RMR calc by calories burned, they use the O2 reference, and with VO2max going up because of exercise - of course resting O2 levels would go up.

Because here is another interesting study, not even one they reference as having different results, that has 3 groups the same - diet only, diet cardio, diet resistance.
And in agreement, the diet resistance is the only group not to lose muscle or LBM. Those don't get into RMR measurements though.

But what is interesting, they selected people at about the same maintenance level pre-diet, put them at that maintenance to confirm no weight loss/gain, cut their calories the same, and interestingly all the groups lost the same amount of weight. Some was LBM and fat, some was more fat, ect.
But for all eating at the same level, all having about the same BMR, all taking the same deficit, they all lost about the same weight - despite 2 groups burning more energy, creating a bigger deficit, through their exercise.

So that should have mathematically caused those 2 groups to lose more, bigger deficit after all.
But as they noted, the systems slowed down to really burn less. That's the only way you could end up with those results. And actually, considering muscle only has 600 calories of energy to provide, and the body tore some down, it really should have been more weight loss for the groups that lost more muscle.

But the body reached a balance with what it was being given, and what it was being asked to do.

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

obeserat

MFP gives me 1880 (BMR - 1000 cals) calories per day I have a bmi of about 42 , I have lost 24lbs in a fairly
short period of time .

HonkyTonks

Personally I think if you are 300-500lbs then you should be trying to lose weight as fast as possible, every moment you are that obese you are putting your life at risk. With that amount of excess fat, your body will use those stores will before any protein from muscle.

heybales

MFP gives me 1880 (BMR - 1000 cals) calories per day I have a bmi of about 42 , I have lost 24lbs in a fairly
short period of time .

That's not BMR - 1000.

That is BMR x activity factor = non-exercise daily maintenance - 1000 = daily net goal.

Your BMR is on Tools - BMR Calc, along with description of what it is.

bcattoes

Why would a body with plenty of fat (fuel) starve just because you ate under your BMR for a while? Wouldn't that mean our bodies are incapable of using fat as fuel?

Because what BMR actually is. It is not the optional stuff like growing skin/hair, it is more basic stuff.

It is energy supplied to every cell of the body, less to fat, more to muscle and other cells. Mainly to deal with fluid levels.

Since it is energy supplied to the cells, it cannot come from the cells ultimately.

It would be like a rechargeable battery recharging itself - perpetual motion - which we don't have in our body.

So the BMR will lower. If it wants 1600 calories of energy to do it's thing, and it ends up with 1200 because exercise and other things took the rest, it will eventually slow down a certain amount.

And then interestingly, your body slows down other processes so more is left for the BMR - because some functions just must be done no matter what. Net effect, your BMR lowered, and your maintenance lowered, and your calorie burn on everything lowered.

It has no bearing on how much fat you got as supplies.

And bad effect on that slowdown to other energy expenditure - it seems to remain slower than expected for the weight that is eventually reached. So weight loss is still possible, but slower, and bad end effects making weight loss even more difficult to keep off.

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

But all of that is just a description of a slowed metabolism, not of starvation. The post to which I replied said you would starve if you ate below BMR. A slowed metabolism and starvation are very, very different things.

heybales

But all of that is just a description of a slowed metabolism, not of starvation. The post to which I replied said you would starve if you ate below BMR. A slowed metabolism and starvation are very, very different things.

Ahhh, very true, I missed your intent.

And some even think you do it for one day, as if the body knows when midnight occurs, you will go into starvation mode.

No, small women with already small BMR's undercutting may cause their bodies to be starving for certain nutrients or macros if combined with big exercise routines and bad diet, but not starving in general, and of course no starvation mode hardly.

yarwell

To eat below this number means you aren't providing your body with the fuel it needs to have basic brain and organ function. That means you're starving.

Wrong. Your body gets the fuel it needs from its fat reserves - that's why they are there. Tens of thousands of calories worth.

If you don't eat for 8 hours your "basic brain and organ function" doesn't stop, does it ? Even after a week without food those functions will be running along at a high percentage of their usual rate.

yarwell

Since it is energy supplied to the cells, it cannot come from the cells ultimately.

There are multiple systems at work - why can stored energy from the adipose cells not be router through to provide energy for the heart, brain etc ? or to displace other macros which can then be used for those things.

The people in clinical studies on 500 calories a day still have basal metabolic rates well over 1000 calories a day, don't they ?

em9371

if u want to lose 1-2/week , it will not works , u have big chance to give up in first 2-3 months and return to your old habits

so lose as possible as u can and then u can control your plan .

^^^ this is totally wrong.
I started on here with a BMI of 40.4 which is 'morbidly obese', my BMR was not over 3000 cals like you said in original post, it was around 1800.
I have stuck to the guidlines provided by MFP and the BMR / TDEE calcs and have lost 42lbs in 6 months without resorting to starving myself and screwing up my metabolism. I didnt give up in the first 2-3 months, if anything a person is more likely to give up when following a super restricted diet as you are suggesting they do so.

If someone is medically advised to eat so little under the supervision of their dr, then thats just fine, but for the average overweight person its not necessary, and a healthy diet and exercise plan with sensible loss goals will work much better long term.

mcrowe1016

To eat below this number means you aren't providing your body with the fuel it needs to have basic brain and organ function. That means you're starving.

Wrong. Your body gets the fuel it needs from its fat reserves - that's why they are there. Tens of thousands of calories worth.

If you don't eat for 8 hours your "basic brain and organ function" doesn't stop, does it ? Even after a week without food those functions will be running along at a high percentage of their usual rate.

So if I want to lose 20lbs, all I have to do is stop eating for 35 days? Awesome! I love that logic!

medaglia_06

As obese when u lose reasonable amount of pounds then u will think about bmr but until that u should not eat more than 1500 cal .

I disagree.

chachita7

I have 110 more pounds to lose which makes me morbidly obese. My BMR is around 1700 cal/day according to MFP. I eat 1600 + exercise cals and have been losing at a healthy and reasonable rate.

Trading in fat unhealthiness for starving unhealthiness is NOT the way to go.

If your body is using 2800 calories to keep everything running smoothly, so be it. You don't gain weight by eating your BMR and exercise calories, those people gained so much because they were eating WAY MORE than that. So if you're going to eat 2800 calories down from 5000+, you're gonna lose.

PLEASE no one take this person's advice!

Where is the like button when you need it............ *LIKE*