Beating a dead horse..

pfunkmort

I feel talking about these things like they're concrete relations is a mistake. BMR, TDEE and total caloric intake are great topics to consider, but as some people have pointed out, they don't exist in a vacuum. The type of calories you eat and when you eat them are critically important. I've been on a crash south beach diet where I shed 10 lbs in 2 weeks (no carbs, limited fat). I wouldn't say I was limiting my caloric intake all that much.

Also, a lot of people eat at night, when they're already weary from the day, and then sit on the couch and zone out. Huge caloric intakes right before being sedentary (let alone right before going to bed) are terrible. I try to eat my largest meal of the day right before I'm going to be the most active (or right after, as long as I'm not going to just sit around).

Your % bodyfat also is important to factor in (as someone else pointed out) as someone who's only 10% bodyfat is likely going to be starving off a larger percent of their muscle mass on a really calorie-conserving crash diet.

From my experience, keeping weight off is an issue of getting into a set of habits that are comfortable. If your diet and daily activities are like holding an uncomfortable pose for a picture, you're going to break it eventually. If it's just smiling for an impromptu snapshot, you're more likely to be able to incorporate it into your life and stick with it. When I want to lose weight, I try to exercise more (I currently run 3 days a week and weight train 3 days a week, but my best diet was just walking for an hour every day to reduce stress along with minor dietary changes), cut out the carbs and processed foods, make sure none of my meals are too large and my largest is right before I exercise, reduce stress and change my environment and bed/living room to be less cluttered (it helps)...and don't push too hard.

This site is phenomenal because if you put in your daily diet BEFORE YOU EAT, you can get a picture of some of the real problem areas you have where you eat too much, or maybe too much of the wrong thing, where you have to starve yourself to keep under your caloric goals. It also lets you track it all so you can try to find a healthy rhythm. But starving yourself for a crash diet usually is hard to keep up, because if NOTHING else, eventually you're going to want that one easy meal when you've been fighting with willpower. Weight loss isn't about willpower. It's just about being aware of your diet and exercise and trying to find more of the good and replace the bad with it.

mcarter99

I just use logic.

There is some minimal requirement to function in a healthy manner. I just assume that is BMR. It is your minimum. I often wonder if some people calculate it totally wrong, which is why they can eat below it.

I realize that humans are incrdible. And, the body can take an incredible amount of abuse. Incredible. So much so, that it might seem like it's OK to eat below your BMR. Similar to how it seems OK to not drink enough water. But, really, it's very damaging in all kinds of ways. You just don't know it.

If you at least eat BMR, you are part way there. Then, if you move at all, you need to eat a little more. Then, if you are trying to lose weight, you need to eat at a deficit from that "little more" amount, but above BMR. Some people just eat at their goal weight TDEE. Eventually, you'll get there if you stick with it. In orther words, just eat at your goal weight maintenance.

I feel that eating below BMR is damaging. But, of course, i don't have proof. It just logically seems really bad for you.

Doesn't it seem logical then too that using stored fat calories to fuel your non-BMR energy needs would also be bad for you? It's not like we get to pick which calories get used for what.

"I'm allocating this oatmeal to my lung function today. This treadmill run must come out of my fat cells. I got that all sorted out. I wouldn't want my lung function to have to come out of fat cells or anything!"

Does that seem logical?

cateyjo

bump

Narisong

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/538381-in-place-of-a-road-map

neverstray

I just use logic.

There is some minimal requirement to function in a healthy manner. I just assume that is BMR. It is your minimum. I often wonder if some people calculate it totally wrong, which is why they can eat below it.

I realize that humans are incrdible. And, the body can take an incredible amount of abuse. Incredible. So much so, that it might seem like it's OK to eat below your BMR. Similar to how it seems OK to not drink enough water. But, really, it's very damaging in all kinds of ways. You just don't know it.

If you at least eat BMR, you are part way there. Then, if you move at all, you need to eat a little more. Then, if you are trying to lose weight, you need to eat at a deficit from that "little more" amount, but above BMR. Some people just eat at their goal weight TDEE. Eventually, you'll get there if you stick with it. In orther words, just eat at your goal weight maintenance.

I feel that eating below BMR is damaging. But, of course, i don't have proof. It just logically seems really bad for you.

Doesn't it seem logical then too that using stored fat calories to fuel your non-BMR energy needs would also be bad for you? It's not like we get to pick which calories get used for what.

"I'm allocating this oatmeal to my lung function today. This treadmill run must come out of my fat cells. I got that all sorted out. I wouldn't want my lung function to have to come out of fat cells or anything!"

Does that seem logical?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

MaraDiaz

Two words for anyone wanting to regularly go under 1200ish calories a day: Doctor's supervision.

twoboys2012

In all seriousness, there is no right or wrong. Do what you need to do to achieve your goals. Here's the never. If you want to lose fat never eat above TDEE. The rest is up to you.

If you'd like to go lower cal then do it. Just be aware of what you'll be facing should you ever move to maintenance calories. Pay attention to your micros and enjoy your weight loss.

If you'd like to eat at a cut of your TDEE then do it. Educate yourself and know what that process entails. Enjoy your fat loss.

20 methods, 20 different ways to get this done. Tweaks are part of the process but pick the method you can stick to and to hell with the rest. If what you pick doesn't give you the results you want, go to plan B. It's like a science experiment.

Whatever gives you what you want out of this is 100% the right thing to do.

Nicely said!!!

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

You don't need to eat above your BMR. That's the biggest bit of misinfo thrown around like fact here. You're fine with your TDEE minus 500.

Did this person just say you DON'T need to eat ABOVE BMR??? WRONG WRONG WRONG

What people are trying to say is, it you eat at your TDEE you will maintain your weight. If you eat below your TDEE (but not below BMR) then you will lose weight. The amount you eat below TDEE will have a factor on how quickly you lose weight.

If you consistently eat BELOW your BMR your body (most likely) will not be getting all the energy it needs to function to the best of its ability.

So what would I do with days I don't excersize? Eat my bmr? I'm sorry to sound like a dumb *kitten* but i'm hearing different things from people. I'm just trying to set my cals each day accordingly without feeling like its too much or too little...

If your TDEE minus exercise is at 1958 & your BMR is at 1600ish, then on the days you don't workout, you can eat at 1600ish cals if you want to lose weight. BMR is the minimum amount of calories we need for our body to function properly so you can eat at the same aount as your BMR. Or you can subtract 250 from your TDEE to come up with 1708 calories, still a bit above your BMR.

mcarter99

I just use logic.

There is some minimal requirement to function in a healthy manner. I just assume that is BMR. It is your minimum. I often wonder if some people calculate it totally wrong, which is why they can eat below it.

I realize that humans are incrdible. And, the body can take an incredible amount of abuse. Incredible. So much so, that it might seem like it's OK to eat below your BMR. Similar to how it seems OK to not drink enough water. But, really, it's very damaging in all kinds of ways. You just don't know it.

If you at least eat BMR, you are part way there. Then, if you move at all, you need to eat a little more. Then, if you are trying to lose weight, you need to eat at a deficit from that "little more" amount, but above BMR. Some people just eat at their goal weight TDEE. Eventually, you'll get there if you stick with it. In orther words, just eat at your goal weight maintenance.

I feel that eating below BMR is damaging. But, of course, i don't have proof. It just logically seems really bad for you.

Doesn't it seem logical then too that using stored fat calories to fuel your non-BMR energy needs would also be bad for you? It's not like we get to pick which calories get used for what.

"I'm allocating this oatmeal to my lung function today. This treadmill run must come out of my fat cells. I got that all sorted out. I wouldn't want my lung function to have to come out of fat cells or anything!"

Does that seem logical?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

When we lose weight we're letting a portion of our energy be fueled by our fat stores. That fuel is the same as the molecules from the food we ate today. Digested food molecules from today are identical to last month's. There's not really any logical or science-based reason to take in today what you burn in BMR anymore than we'd need to take in today what we burn in any other portion of our TDEE. If you had NO fat stores, you better take in at least your BMR. But we're not in that boat.

Let me try it this way. I think 99% of the world's population couldn't tell you an estimate of their BMR (or know what you mean, usually). Yet they somehow don't starve or wreck their metabolism, even while dieting or losing weight. The Harris Benedict BMR equation is the original and is about 90 years old, so before that no one probably knew anything of BMR. Yet they managed to eat in a fashion that didn't cause starvation or wrecked metabolism.

Why would we suddenly need to eat according to this machine-generated value?

anaussie

Do what works for you. It's been my experience that 9 people out of 10 on MFP don't know their backside from their elbow but talk like they have a PhD in nutrition.

:flowerforyou: