The dreaded BMR

siriusalien

OK, I have gotten myself massive confused! I am 46, 5'6", 204 (down from 220) I have a desk job, work out with a trainer 1 hour 2x a week and TRY to get 2 30 min cardio sessions in myself.

I have calculated my BMR as 1636. I have subscribed to several online diet/fit apps that suggest a calorie intake of anywhere between 1380(MFP) to 1535.

Since my weight loss has stalled I fear I've messed up math or just not understanding what to do with it.

Thanks in advance for advice

yarwell

Have you used a BMR calculation with %fat in it, like the one at fat2fitradio. Your BMR may be 1500, or less. We don't know.

Let's say it's 1500, so you'll use 1800 sitting about. So eating 1400 would give you a deficit of 400. Exercising increases the deficit a bit.

How much are you eating now ?

siriusalien

Well, I had been eating 1535 following the calculations provided by another weight loss sight. But, I'm stalled at 204. I started looking afresh when my trainer recomended I was WAY over eating and should be at 1250...

yarwell

Well, I had been eating 1535 following the calculations provided by another weight loss sight. But, I'm stalled at 204. I started looking afresh when my trainer recomended I was WAY over eating and should be at 1250...

Ultimately if you don't lose weight for 4 weeks you must have hit an equilibrium and eating maintenance.

siriusalien

OK went to the calculator you suggested: 1636 is BMR with a suggested Calorie 1760
What do I make of that.
Total body fat is 41.5 with a BMI 32.3

dare2love81

I think your trainer is on crack if they think you should only be eating 1200 per day. That's way too low if you're active. I'd say go with the calories that Fat2FitRadio suggests. My guess is you aren't eating enough. OR, you're not eating the right kind of foods. I stalled out about a month ago, then started eating what Fat2FitRadio suggested and focusing on eating more cleanly and the weight has been coming off again.

giroux0518

You may need to change your exercise routine. Your body can become accustomed to a routine and make it less effective. Try doing something you haven't done before like interval training, boxing, circuits, etc... You're trainer may even have a preferred "shock" routine.

secretlobster

In general you don't really want a calorie goal that's lower than your BMR.
Based on your activity level, in general, your TDEE is about 2200 calories. To lose weight at your current activity level at reasonable rate, you want to consume on average between 1800-1900 calories.

But really, anything above your BMR and less than your TDEE will eventually get you to your goal.

theartichoke

What are you netting each day? Netting your BMR *should* result in weight loss if the calculations are correct. A few ideas...

Possibly underestimating calories eaten.
Over estimating calories burned.
Eating too low for too long and needing to do a reset.
Metabolic condition making your BMR lower than the average given.
Some people (like me) are more affected by what we eat than how much.

Just some thoughts.

siriusalien

Thanks for all the input. I try to overestimate the calories I eat and use my HRM to calculate what I burn. MFP has me at 1400 so that is what I eat. I do eat back my burned work out calories because I'm usually starving after that

chrisb75

Thanks for all the input. I try to overestimate the calories I eat and use my HRM to calculate what I burn. MFP has me at 1400 so that is what I eat. I do eat back my burned work out calories because I'm usually starving after that

Just for reference. I am 5'10", 203, BF 21.4% and I am LOSING eating 2500 calories a day. I lift heavy 3 days a week and do minimal cardio,

Chrissy_Michelle

So many people eat too little calories on MFP and I was one of those for so long and felt ravishingly hungry and would derail all my efforts because of it. I was cranky and just wanted to EAT. I checked out fit2radio myself about a week ago and according to it, I was eating way to low. I increased my cals and lost over 2lbs in a week and I am not starving. I have a hard time eating all my cals especially on my heavy workout days but I do try and I don't eat back all of my exercise cals, only some. It seems to be working for me. Good luck!!

siriusalien

Thank you for sharing. major differences between you and I is 1) While I'm told I'm strong for a chick, I don't think I'm lifting heavy 2) While it may not be scientificaly supported I do believe men and women have different metabolisms. Men plainly have more lean muscle mass

yarwell

OK went to the calculator you suggested: 1636 is BMR with a suggested Calorie 1760
What do I make of that.
Total body fat is 41.5 with a BMI 32.3

The fat2fit approach, different to that here, is to eat at the maintenance calories for the weight you want to be. This will be a deficit to your current energy expenditure, hence you lose. That's the theory. They also say you can subtract 100-300 calories to speed things up a bit.

So following their philosophy you would eat 1760, or down to 1460 to speed it up. Which is unfortunately about where you are already !

Did you make a note of the Katch-McArdle BMR on http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ - it maight be 100 less than the ones that don't account for body fat.

siriusalien

Yarwell, Yes i did. And you are correct, I'm there right now- so need another plan

yarwell

Yarwell, Yes i did. And you are correct, I'm there right now- so need another plan

Personally, if I was not losing at 1400 for a prolonged period then I would drop to 1000 calories a day. In fact I did this myself. I would lay off any vigorous exercise too, so you know where you are.

This will of course trigger the MFP immune system and the compulsive eaters will appear with their mythology of "killing your metabolism" "eating below your BMR" "calories you would be fed in a coma" "1200 is the minimum" and a 25 ft pile of bovine scatology.

If 1400 is your equilibrium, which is what the prolonged stall suggests, then you have to try something and logic would favour eating less as if you were to eat more your metabolism would have to increase by considerably more than the extra food you ate, and I've seen nothing to suggest that will happen.

becoming_a_new_me

OK, I have gotten myself massive confused! I am 46, 5'6", 204 (down from 220) I have a desk job, work out with a trainer 1 hour 2x a week and TRY to get 2 30 min cardio sessions in myself.

I have calculated my BMR as 1636. I have subscribed to several online diet/fit apps that suggest a calorie intake of anywhere between 1380(MFP) to 1535.

Since my weight loss has stalled I fear I've messed up math or just not understanding what to do with it.

Thanks in advance for advice

I would calcluate you at lightly active, so your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) is 2250.05 calories per day. In order to lose 1 lb per week, you would cut 3500 calories which would be 500 per day. If you want to lose 1.5 per week, cut 750 per day. That puts you anywhere from 1500-1750 per day without eating back your excercise calories (since your activity is already accounted for).

Another way to do this is to go on the low end and say sedentary, which puts your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) including your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) is 1963.68 calories per day. That means days that you do not work out, you eat between 1213-1463 calories, and days you work out, eat more (I tend to not eat them all, just about half).

Anyway, I hope this helps you understand a little better!

siriusalien

Personally, if I was not losing at 1400 for a prolonged period then I would drop to 1000 calories a day. In fact I did this myself. I would lay off any vigorous exercise too, so you know where you are.

Yes, this was my gut (excuse the pun) instinct. It is however problematic laying off the vigorous exercise as I am paying for a trainer, so there or not, the $$ goes out.
How long do you THINK I'ld have to drop this low and not exert?

siriusalien

Another way to do this is to go on the low end and say sedentary

Yes, It is the sedentary thing that will be an issue. Having paid for a trainer at the gym- you pay per contract weather your there or not. He maybe understanding if there was a set time for the experiment.
AND lets keep in mind this is the guy who wanted me eating 1250 AND working out

Sarauk2sf

Personally, if I was not losing at 1400 for a prolonged period then I would drop to 1000 calories a day. In fact I did this myself. I would lay off any vigorous exercise too, so you know where you are.

Yes, this was my gut (excuse the pun) instinct. It is however problematic laying off the vigorous exercise as I am paying for a trainer, so there or not, the $$ goes out.
How long do you THINK I'ld have to drop this low and not exert?

The other alternative which is far healthier and more sustaniable than dropping your calories each time you stall so you end up malnourished, is to have a diet break to reset your metabolism. Eat at what your maintenance should be for 4 weeks and then restart with a goal of a 500 calorie deficit. There is no way you should need to go so low as to run the risk of not eating enough to get your nutrients.

ETA: you may gain a few pounds at first as your body gets 'readjusted' but this will be temporary when you get back to a deficit.

Sarauk2sf

Another way to do this is to go on the low end and say sedentary

Yes, It is the sedentary thing that will be an issue. Having paid for a trainer at the gym- you pay per contract weather your there or not. He maybe understanding if there was a set time for the experiment.
AND lets keep in mind this is the guy who wanted me eating 1250 AND working out

Trainers have pretty much no training in nutrition and some are absolutely terrible at giving out nutrition advice (not all, but some).

ETA: how long has your weight loss stalled for (sorry - forgot to ask before)

embersfallen

@ sirius

There are a TON of different approaches...I CAN tell you though, I have personally tried cals anywhere from 1200-1800, once in AWHILE a little over 2000...but I was also BURNING a total of 3500-over 4000 during most of that time...and no matter WHAT I did... WHAT I tried...( I even tried intermediate fasting etc) I was stuck in a the same 5 pounds up and down for over 6 months.
The hardest I ever worked, and the worst results...

I am just now onto week 3 of my reset eatting my TDEE ( Total Daily Energy Expenditure) /Maintainance . I used a combination of the online calculators and my daily tally from my Bodybugg to come up with it. So far I HAVE seen a slight gain, which most people doing the reset seem to get. I have read that a lot of times that is water weight etc, and should easily come back off and have your metabolism then be in more normal working order. Most people seem to do a month to 8 weeks of the reset. I have been eating below my BMR, and FAR below my NET BMR for way too long...so it makes sense that I have been stuck. There is a group on here, eat more to weight less that gives detailed info and experiences.

Whichever way you try, I hope things start working again for you!

becoming_a_new_me

Another way to do this is to go on the low end and say sedentary

Yes, It is the sedentary thing that will be an issue. Having paid for a trainer at the gym- you pay per contract weather your there or not. He maybe understanding if there was a set time for the experiment.
AND lets keep in mind this is the guy who wanted me eating 1250 AND working out

I'm not sure if you fully read what I wrote?

becoming_a_new_me

Yarwell, Yes i did. And you are correct, I'm there right now- so need another plan

Personally, if I was not losing at 1400 for a prolonged period then I would drop to 1000 calories a day. In fact I did this myself. I would lay off any vigorous exercise too, so you know where you are.

This will of course trigger the MFP immune system and the compulsive eaters will appear with their mythology of "killing your metabolism" "eating below your BMR" "calories you would be fed in a coma" "1200 is the minimum" and a 25 ft pile of bovine scatology.

If 1400 is your equilibrium, which is what the prolonged stall suggests, then you have to try something and logic would favour eating less as if you were to eat more your metabolism would have to increase by considerably more than the extra food you ate, and I've seen nothing to suggest that will happen.

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but you are grossly mistaken.

siriusalien

Another way to do this is to go on the low end and say sedentary

Yes, It is the sedentary thing that will be an issue. Having paid for a trainer at the gym- you pay per contract weather your there or not. He maybe understanding if there was a set time for the experiment.
AND lets keep in mind this is the guy who wanted me eating 1250 AND working out

Trainers have pretty much no training in nutrition and some are absolutely terrible at giving out nutrition advice (not all, but some).

ETA: how long has your weight loss stalled for (sorry - forgot to ask before)

I dropped from 220 to 204 january/februrary and have gone up and down 5 lbs since. Thought I had it beat, when early this week I was 199. Overnight back to 204 and took 2 days to get to 202

Captain_Tightpants

Nothing to be confused about OP,

If your BMR is 1636 and you have a desk job, then a good guess for your TDEE is

TDEE=BMR x 1.2

so 1963 for you.

Wanna lose about a lb a week - knock 500 cals a day off that number = 1463 cals.

It's important to remember two things:

1) this is all guesstimate - it's always personal. The only way is to try it, weigh in after a few weeks and see if your weight has gone down. If it has, continue. If it hasn't then drop it by a couple hundred cals and try again for a few more weeks, then test again. Eventually you'll find your personal numbers.

2) weighing and measuring is vital. There's a great vid on youtube that shows how most people go *just* over the rim when scooping out a cup of something, and how that incorrect measure adds up to completely stalled weight loss (because a true cup is just *under* the rim usually.

yarwell

How long do you THINK I'ld have to drop this low and not exert?

Our body weight fluctuates +/- 2lb so I would say you need to have a likely loss of 4 lbs to be certain of seeing it, and not thinking you just went from a +2 high variation to a -2 low variation. So a 500 cal/day deficit = 1 lb/week would need a month to be sure ?

You'll have a feel for how stable your weight is which might guide you. A moving average tracker like Libra (phone app) will put a trend through daily weighing and express it as calories per day deficit.

3laine75

Well, I had been eating 1535 following the calculations provided by another weight loss sight. But, I'm stalled at 204. I started looking afresh when my trainer recomended I was WAY over eating and should be at 1250...

get a new trainer.

Sarauk2sf

Another way to do this is to go on the low end and say sedentary

Yes, It is the sedentary thing that will be an issue. Having paid for a trainer at the gym- you pay per contract weather your there or not. He maybe understanding if there was a set time for the experiment.
AND lets keep in mind this is the guy who wanted me eating 1250 AND working out

Trainers have pretty much no training in nutrition and some are absolutely terrible at giving out nutrition advice (not all, but some).

ETA: how long has your weight loss stalled for (sorry - forgot to ask before)

I dropped from 220 to 204 january/februrary and have gone up and down 5 lbs since. Thought I had it beat, when early this week I was 199. Overnight back to 204 and took 2 days to get to 202

I would definately recommend a 'diet break' - see my comments above, and when you get back to a deficit you could try either of the methods noted by @iddreams to create that deficit.

yarwell

lets keep in mind this is the guy who wanted me eating 1250 AND working out

I could live with 250 calories of work out as a compromise ;-)

yarwell

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but you are grossly mistaken.

In what way ? You believe that eating x more will result in an increase in calorie expenditure that increases by more than x ? Or some other aspect.