BMR IS not for obese and morbidly obese people

grex1949

i'm obese and your post isnt true for me. i'm eating above my BMR and i'm going at a pace to lose all 80 pounds i have within 12 months. i dont eat my exercise calories back.

i also think it's going to depend on what type of activities you are doing as well. i lift heavy weights and do lots of interval training with cardio. there's no way i would be able to get through those workouts and only eat the 1200 calories MFP suggested i eat. I tried it for a few weeks and not only did it take me longer to recover from a lift session but i also didnt see any more weight loss than when i increased by calories to 1800 calories

MFP never suggests that you eat 1200 calories if you are working out like you have been. The suggestion is that you NET 1200 calories, which means you HAVE to eat the exercise calories back.
That is all.

skinnybearlyndsay

Honestly, I appreciate the effort, OP, but I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing, which is using MFP as a guideline and listening to my body. Because I spend most of my day at a desk, I have my lifestyle set as sedentary. When I started MFP (after losing 20lbs), my BMR was 1,964 cal/day. After getting down 70-ish lbs total, my BMR is 1,731 cal/day. Up until a few months ago, my loss per week was set at 2lbs and I was miserable (1200 cal/day is no way to live for me). I am now at 1.5 lbs/week and feel so much better. In your opinion, my current calories per day (1410) is too little, but I think it's the right amount for me, considering I am losing weight (and my doctor approves of the plan, too).

Thank you for posting your opinion, OP, but you have to understand everyone else's side as well. You are doing what works for you, but that won't work for everyone else.

dlwyatt82

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.

On principle, that's a good view, but it can be dangerous to try to lose the weight too fast. It's also much easier to sustain the weight loss if it's gradual.

heybales

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 ?

BMR functions aren't actually the brain/heart operation as majority of energy used. providing energy dealing with simple fluid levels is the main usage. There are other "metabolism" level things on top of that which we would agree are pretty necessary and are going to be accomplished to some degree. But as it's been shown, many folks eat too little, the brittle nails, falling hair, dry skin, cold, ect shows some of those functions stopped being accomplished good enough at some point.

And while the energy ultimately does come from the cells of course, because where else it could it come from?
But it is energy that must come into the system, or the body will find a way to leave enough for those functions, by slowing other things down.

Those folks on 500 cal /day diets don't actually have BMR's above 1000. There are case studies, not research really, just folks being dealt with where their BMR has fallen below 1000 even eating at 900-1000 and exercising. And their measured RMR is below what they eat. And their other daily functions use less energy. And the body finds that balance.
And that obviously takes some time. Guys in the one study that plateaued on a diet took eight weeks. Some with obese woman are shorter than that.

That one study I think I referenced in above post that came from thread I thought you shared it actually. The BMR lowered by a certain amount only, because it must accomplish certain things, so it only lowered so much. The body slowed everything else down to leave enough calories/energy for the BMR to do it's functions.
The interesting point of the study was those other activities burning less remained burning less even after eating/maintaining weight. Resulting in the person not getting a TDEE they may have otherwise had.

Nothing wrong with suppressed metabolism, many people do it purposely. Just seems like a sad way to lose weight if that is the current desire.

According to your energy routing thing, why can't you just stop eating, and the bodies with plenty of fat should just use that up first. Why does LBM drop too on not only extended VLCD without resistance, but fasting after a point?
With plenty of energy stores that can supply the brain and heart, why take anything in?

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

BOLO4Hagtha

If you can't spell "you", I really don't think you are qualified to give any type of advice!

^^THIS!

yarwell

And while the energy ultimately does come from the cells of course, because where else it could it come from?
But it is energy that must come into the system, or the body will find a way to leave enough for those functions, by slowing other things down.

While this may work in a very lean person, you don't seem to take account of the energy in fat reserves. Let's say a 50 kg woman at 20% body fat - that's 10 kg of fat or 90,000 calories - why can't some of that be used to fuel body processes ? It's like saying I have to have my laptop and phone plugged in for them to work and ignoring the batteries.

"Where else could it come from ?" - fat reserves. The food you ate last week, month and year that you didn't need which was consequently stored. The energy enters the system at one point in time, and is used in another. Like a rechargeable battery.

Those folks on 500 cal /day diets don't actually have BMR's above 1000.

Really ? http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.long put obese women on PSMF at 300 cals/day and their RMR fell 20% but was still over 1200 calories. What's happening here then. Eating a quarter of their BMR, losing weight - 23 kg of fat and 5kg of fat free mass.

I've read many of these, and they all have similar sized BMR reductions and BMRs over 1,000. Show me one that doesn't.

heybales

While this may work in a very lean person, you don't seem to take account of the energy in fat reserves. Let's say a 50 kg woman at 20% body fat - that's 10 kg of fat or 90,000 calories - why can't some of that be used to fuel body processes ? It's like saying I have to have my laptop and phone plugged in for them to work and ignoring the batteries.

"Where else could it come from ?" - fat reserves. The food you ate last week, month and year that you didn't need which was consequently stored. The energy enters the system at one point in time, and is used in another. Like a rechargeable battery.

Really ? http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.long put obese women on PSMF at 300 cals/day and their RMR fell 20% but was still over 1200 calories. What's happening here then. Eating a quarter of their BMR, losing weight - 23 kg of fat and 5kg of fat free mass.

I've read many of these, and they all have similar sized BMR reductions and BMRs over 1,000. Show me one that doesn't.

Wow, a depressed RMR by 22% during the diet, and remained depressed at some level for at least 2 months after eating back at new maintenance level - that's a bummer.

If you are saying this indeed vast reserve of energy stores in fat could be used for anything, why is study after study you present showing that metabolism, RMR, or TDEE post study always lower than expected and predicted for their new lower weight?

Every one of these studies presents the findings that some aspect of the metabolism is lower than predicted for the weight or fat-free mass they are now at. One of the studies and this one shows it lowering faster than the loss - so it is slowing down before needing to slow down you might say.
And as this study shows, remains suppressed even beyond the point the diet is over, for at least 2 months, when they stopped checking in.
At that point, they still had plenty of fat, shouldn't the RMR have raised back up to normal level expected for the amount of fat-free mass they now had? Actually, they didn't even match the RMR / lb fat-free mass they had before the diet began.

There is no denying the body can use the fat stores. That's the whole point of creating a safe deficit. You are allowing the body to do it's normal thing of mainly burning fat all day long (except during exercise where larger % carbs), and you just aren't refilling the fat stores to where they were before.

But at some point, you drop too low on creating that deficit, and as all these studies show, the body slows down to adjust, besides also burning muscle. Why does the body do that if still plenty of fat to use?

You seem to be proving the point that despite plenty of fat, the body has to slow down for some reason, and is willing to burn muscle for some reason. Why if there is plenty of fat does it resort to any muscle catabolism at all. Unless you exercise it more than daily activity by having resistance exercises.

I had a couple favorite case studies, but on rereading, they were not obese at all, 40-60 lbs overweight was all, not as in these studies, it may very well be the reason why their RMR's did drop to below 1000. It was also for folks exercising a lot, which these studies had either no exercise like this one, or very realistic schedules of exercise for 3 times a wk or 30 min a day.

So I'll concede that for these obese folks over 45% fat, and perhaps decent weight too, the RMR/BMR is not dropping as low as their diet would indicate, though from the studies it is indeed dropping lower than their fat-free mass would indicate.
Obviously at some point they would have problems when that magical line of enough fat or not enough fat would be crossed, and cause the effects other studies have shown can occur, which are indeed not as obese.

Always wish they had control group eating more sensibly too, to see what the loss could be there.
This group had 17 to 40 kg avg loss over the course of 10 to 23 weeks. That's 1.7 kg per week on avg. 3.7 lbs. While drinking 300 cal a day. Seems super extreme for not that great an increase of weight loss. There are some on MFP eating a whole lot more and losing that much in the Eating more to lose more group
I see why they needed to check back in 4 and 8 weeks after the study. Considering still some RMR suppression, would be interesting to see where they are 1yr later.

Lozze

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.

Yes but if they go on a VLCD (1500 for a 300-500lb person is a VLCD) what are the chances of them keeping to it? If they fuel their body and have less hunger they're more likely to stick with it long term. Which means not only will they lose the weight but hey'll keep it off.

I have a friend on here who is that big. When he logs he ALWAYS eats at 1800-2000 level. His limit is 3000. He does it for a few days and stops. Because he's starving. Rinse and repeat. Wouldn't it be better for him to eat the 3000 and stick with it?

huntindawg1962

Always wish they had control group eating more sensibly too, to see what the loss could be there.
This group had 17 to 40 kg avg loss over the course of 10 to 23 weeks. That's 1.7 kg per week on avg. 3.7 lbs. While drinking 300 cal a day. Seems super extreme for not that great an increase of weight loss. There are some on MFP eating a whole lot more and losing that much in the Eating more to lose more group
I see why they needed to check back in 4 and 8 weeks after the study. Considering still some RMR suppression, would be interesting to see where they are 1yr later.

There is one study that had a control group - sorry I did not keep the URL but the VLCD group (800 calories/day) was 10% depressed but also rebounded with weeks of the end of the VLCD portion of the study.

But I would not live and die by these studies either. As I posted in another thread, I actually had mine tested and turns out it was 10-20% higher than what the fat2fit radio calculators stated it should be. So with that, even following the MFP theories on "never eat below your BMR" I would have been eating as much as 600 calories per day below my real number. But people on here would have been "high-fiving" me.

So look at my ticker - that is all lost since mid January. Yes, it has been anything but linear. But, over the longer times when I compare my real expended rate (tested by a BodyMedia Fit) and add back real consumption of calories over that same time, the difference (divided by 3500) works out to within 2 lbs. So at least for me it still all comes down to calories burned minus calories consumed.

My RMR is 1.9 per minute so if that is depressed after 4 months of eating below the magical BMR, it sure is holding to what the calculations said it should four months back.

neanderthin

There is no denying the body can use the fat stores. That's the whole point of creating a safe deficit. You are allowing the body to do it's normal thing of mainly burning fat all day long (except during exercise where larger % carbs), and you just aren't refilling the fat stores to where they were before.

But at some point, you drop too low on creating that deficit, and as all these studies show, the body slows down to adjust, besides also burning muscle. Why does the body do that if still plenty of fat to use?

You seem to be proving the point that despite plenty of fat, the body has to slow down for some reason, and is willing to burn muscle for some reason. Why if there is plenty of fat does it resort to any muscle catabolism at all. Unless you exercise it more than daily activity by having resistance exercises.

The survival mechanism within everyone has a duty to perform, and that is to prolong life based on input like calories, macro nutrients, lifestyle (movement) then determine the best course of action. If we consume 800 calories a day (just an example) and do nothing, so to speak and consume a diet that isn't optimal for those 800 calories I would suggest that impending death is immanent and adaptive thermogenesis would be upregulated (quicker) to slow the amount of calories the body requires, to live longer. But like in that previous study where 800 calories was consumed and resistance training occurred with no reduction in BMR. Simply put, in my opinion, the survival mechanism was/is determining what is to be prioritized. Either preserve muscle immediately because we're asking the body to do that with the resistance training and live longer because that load we're bearing won't become too heavy and fall on our skull and crush it lol, or consume that muscle and not be as efficient and increase the probability of death with each passing day. Obviously our survival mechanism picked preserving muscle, which means to survive longer, hense no loss of lean mass or RMR. Of course consuming 800 calories will eventually kill us, but the person with more body fat will survive longer. In this scenario the body builder with single digit body fat is going to die sooner than the obese guy, why because body fat reserves (free fatty acids) feeds the deficit more efficiently and for a longer period and why I've said adaptive thermogenesis and energy from body fat are not the same thing, both can be happening simultaneously. Later.

susannamarie

I have a friend on here who is that big. When he logs he ALWAYS eats at 1800-2000 level. His limit is 3000. He does it for a few days and stops. Because he's starving. Rinse and repeat. Wouldn't it be better for him to eat the 3000 and stick with it?

Exactly.

itsjustdawn

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!

Love this. Keep doing this the healthy way!

openskybeach

PLEASE no one take this person's advice!

you mean you understood that ?

hehe, fo re-al.

rinnismom

If you can't spell "you", I really don't think you are qualified to give any type of advice!

well said, sir!

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 .

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.

Yeah my bmr is 2260

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.

Yeah my bmr is 2260

I was showing that your goal was NOT reached by taking your BMR minus 1000, but rather what I showed.

And your Activity factor was Sedentary at 1.25 multiplier.

And your BMR has already lowered since goal was set. Soon, MFP should be suggesting a lower daily goal.

obeserat

I do recalculate every time I enter a new weight . I recalculated now and MFP took 30 calories off me

Nerdybreisawesome

I am 288 and my BMR is only 1850. I used the most current calculator and not the outdated one and even when I used those, I got around 2050 for my BMR. No where near 2800 or 4000.

Nerdybreisawesome

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!

I know my intake WAS way more than my BMR, probably about 3500 a day before MFP.