Eating Below Your BMR..

DanaDark

The American College of Sports Medicine recommends most people eat .8 gram protein for each 1kg of body weight, or 10-15% of your diet as protein. For a 150 lb. person that would be around 55g protein per day, which is around 220 calories. That's pretty easy to do eating at 1200.

Nutrition requires more than protein. Significantly more.

Additionally, very few sources are 100% protein with no fats and/or carbs as well.

And the FDA and Department of Health actually recommends more protein per day than that. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf

I am not saying one CAN'T do it. I am saying it takes micro managing, fine tuning, CONSTANT watching, and would require vitamin supplements.

All that combined with the fact it does not alter the behavior that led to the weight in the first place means it is likely to not be a lasting change for a person makes me not apt to recommend it.

I will only recommend a healthy diet, rich in nutrition, that is not difficult to achieve, requires little micro-managing, and offers life long sustainability.

But yes, if you KNOW what you are doing, you can do it. But I can pretty much say a HUGE majority simply do NOT know how to do it safely or reasonably.

mcarter99

I was only responding to your comment about protein. That pamphlet actually agrees. It recommends 10-35% protein for adults. The higher percentages are typically recommended for endurance and strength athletes, which few here are. It also says "Inadequate protein intake in the United States is rare." Most American and Canadian authorities recommend 45-56g, which is pretty effortless, even for non-meat-eaters.

I don't think one needs to micromanage their intake at 1200 EXCEPT for satiety purposes. But most people who take it seriously quickly learn what sorts of foods are their 'calorie bargains' and will keep them full to the next meal.

yarwell

Eating below your BMR with inadequate nutrition is typically unhealthy and can lead to significant health problems.

Inadequate nutrition is a bad idea.

"Eating below your BMR" is something I challenge anyone to find anything scientific about. Google Scholar returns no hits to that or similar phrases. Google Web finds a load of bullcrap in these forums, but little elsewhere.

We're all in favour of adequate nutrition. That needs to be considered separately to calories. I can add fries or bread or pasta to two meals a day if you like, it'll add a pile of calories and some micronutrients (but not others). No thanks.

Eating a few tens or hundreds of calories below or above a number that I don't even know ? who cares.

Do clinical studies put subjects on diets below their BMR and indeed below 1200 calories ? yes indeed. All the time. They lose fat, too.

DanaDark

I was only responding to your comment about protein. That pamphlet actually agrees. It recommends 10-35% protein for adults. The higher percentages are typically recommended for endurance and strength athletes, which few here are. It also says "Inadequate protein intake in the United States is rare." Most American and Canadian authorities recommend 45-56g, which is pretty effortless, even for non-meat-eaters.

I don't think one needs to micromanage their intake at 1200 EXCEPT for satiety purposes. But most people who take it seriously quickly learn what sorts of foods are their 'calorie bargains' and will keep them full to the next meal.

And what about: Iron, Vitamin A, B6, B12, C, D, K, Selenium, Potassium, Calcium, Sodium, Fiber.... the list goes on.

Health is not simply about adequate protein to lose weight in calorie deficits. There is much more nutrition in the world than simply protein. And as I said, Vitamins are 100% unregulated in the USA. They are not required by law to contain anything they say they have on the label, and are also not required by law to NOT contain anything they don't have on the label.

I do agree with you it can be done. I'd push for more protein than you suggest personally (As the 10% range the FDA and Health Department suggest that level is for sedimentary people with no exercise). But that is of minor significance at best.

Overall, who is going to show the best long term results? Person A that eats a balanced diet rich in nutrition while maintaining a calorie deficit for steady weight loss, or a person that can only have 2 chicken breasts or 2 fish filet a day?

I try to keep my diet as healthy as I can. And at nearly 1400 calories a day, it takes a good portion of effort to ensure my proper nutrition. I have difficulty believing most Americans can adequately do what I do at 1400 but with 1200 (And I have formal and informal education in this area).

bpotts44

My current TDEE is 3187... I consume between 1600-1800 calories per day, some days a little less some days a little more....I go to the gym 3-4 times a week (weights and cardio) and I play Slo Pitch 1 or 2 times a week... I have lost about 6 pounds in 5 weeks.. Obviously the TDEE calculations are not rock solid for everyone... According to the TDEE model I should be losing much more weight than I have.. My goal is 2 per week but it has not worked out that way so far.... It is very frustrating.....

How was your TDEE calculated?

Smuterella

Hmmm, I'm starting to think I might have a much lower BMR than the sites give me. how would I go about actually getting this tested?

mcarter99

Hmmm, I'm starting to think I might have a much lower BMR than the sites give me. how would I go about actually getting this tested?

You could google "RMR testing" for your city. But even though that gives you a better estimate of your RMR/BMR you still don't know your TDEE, which is what matters to weight loss.

The easy way to find out your TDEE (though no one ever seems to consider it so perhaps it's not so easy) is to simply track everything you eat and your weight for months. If you lose weight at around a pound a week on average (look at many weeks at a time, not one) and eat say 1500/day, you burn around 2000/day.

Smuterella

Hmmm, I'm starting to think I might have a much lower BMR than the sites give me. how would I go about actually getting this tested?

You could google "RMR testing" for your city. But even though that gives you a better estimate of your RMR/BMR you still don't know your TDEE, which is what matters to weight loss.

The easy way to find out your TDEE (though no one ever seems to consider it so perhaps it's not so easy) is to simply track everything you eat and your weight for months. If you lose weight at around a pound a week on average (look at many weeks at a time, not one) and eat say 1500/day, you burn around 2000/day.

Oh, I've done that. I've eaten at 1500 for 6 weeks, 1800 for 6 weeks, 2000 for 6 weeks, and now 1650 for about the same time. I gain at 2000 but maintain at all others. Sigh.

NWCountryGal

I believe in the study. For me it is common sense after studying how our bodies work and use food, burn calories etc.

What I also have realized is that there are many people that either refuse to look at the facts, or, they don't care because they've probably never been athletic and/or have no interest in muscle. I think a person has to be interested in more than just the scale and many just aren't. That's their business, I don't support their business or condone it. I can't congratulate people on weight-loss when I look at their diary and see they consistently eat 500 calories a day but hey, they burned 700 on the eliptical trainer. Oh, and they've lost .6 of a pound today.

I'm sure there are going to be more and more people that don't like me here but I would rather be honest about my thoughts and feelings on weight-loss then be popular. If they ever realize the truth about what they do to their bodies maybe they will at least remember I was honest about what I'd learned.

My heart goes out to those that know better and try to show folks the facts over and over on this forum and it falls on deaf ears:(

But here's to that one person that hears it and not only loses the fat but gains a healthy lifestyle(muscle included):drinker: :drinker:

For some odd reason, there is an overwhelming amount of post that say, do NOT eat below your BMR.. they are the amount of calories to survive.

So to clarify, below is an abstract from a study. Now, let me state, I know this was done on obese people and normal weight people and obese people may or may NOT be treated the same. I am also a huge advocate for eating 20% below your TDEE and training like an athlete. But more importantly, I am a huge advocate for using studies to provide good information, not just one person assumptions.


"At the end of the twelve-week study, both groups lost weight but the difference in muscle vs. fat loss was striking. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds over the course of the study. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds. A focus on weight loss would lead us to the conclusion that aerobic exercise is best. However, when looking at the type of weight lost it was shown that the aerobic group lost almost 10 pounds of muscle on average while the resistance training group lost fat exclusively and maintained their muscle mass. Most important, when the resting metabolic rate of the participants was calculated, the aerobic group was shown to be burning 210 fewer calories at rest per day!! In contrast, the resistance-training group actually increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day."

I understand the concept and believe it will help maintain LBM, but in reality, RT can offset said loss. Now,this is only a 12 week study, so long term affects of a LCD can end up being detrimental to your maintenance of LBM, but I haven't found a study that backs it up. But I will note, that for the 200+ people I have designed programs for, I use 20% less then TDEE to cut fat.


http://www.metaboliceffect.com/topic/38-nutrition-lifestyle.aspx"

NWCountryGal

You are wrong, "we" are not all in favor of adequate nutrition. There are tons of diaries on here that are still visible where people are eating way too little for their activity, or, for at the very least, their daily caloric needs. Many folks I wrote to and asked if they knew the need for adequate nutrition along with burning calories, have hidden their diaries so no one knows for sure what they are eating. That's ok, it's their life. And no matter what you want to call it, starvation mode, or other, eating too little to fuel our bodies is not healthy.

Eating below your BMR with inadequate nutrition is typically unhealthy and can lead to significant health problems.

Inadequate nutrition is a bad idea.

"Eating below your BMR" is something I challenge anyone to find anything scientific about. Google Scholar returns no hits to that or similar phrases. Google Web finds a load of bullcrap in these forums, but little elsewhere.

We're all in favour of adequate nutrition. That needs to be considered separately to calories. I can add fries or bread or pasta to two meals a day if you like, it'll add a pile of calories and some micronutrients (but not others). No thanks.

Eating a few tens or hundreds of calories below or above a number that I don't even know ? who cares.

Do clinical studies put subjects on diets below their BMR and indeed below 1200 calories ? yes indeed. All the time. They lose fat, too.

mcarter99

And no matter what you want to call it, starvation mode, or other, eating too little to fuel our bodies is not healthy.

Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight. It's perfectly healthy. Most authorities agree that losing up to 2 lbs/week is healthy as long as you eat over 1200 (not "net"). It's just a set of people here who think they know more than the authorities. Which is fine for them to use their methods on themselves. But to label those using respected methods as irresponsible is wrong.

mcarter99

Hmmm, I'm starting to think I might have a much lower BMR than the sites give me. how would I go about actually getting this tested?

You could google "RMR testing" for your city. But even though that gives you a better estimate of your RMR/BMR you still don't know your TDEE, which is what matters to weight loss.

The easy way to find out your TDEE (though no one ever seems to consider it so perhaps it's not so easy) is to simply track everything you eat and your weight for months. If you lose weight at around a pound a week on average (look at many weeks at a time, not one) and eat say 1500/day, you burn around 2000/day.

Oh, I've done that. I've eaten at 1500 for 6 weeks, 1800 for 6 weeks, 2000 for 6 weeks, and now 1650 for about the same time. I gain at 2000 but maintain at all others. Sigh.

I would be super careful measuring and also trusting MFP databases. I only glanced at your diary but I see 3 pints of bitter at 400-some. I googled and it looks most sources say it's 180-200 calories/pint. Not a huge difference but if everything's off a bit, the totals can be off too much to matter.

The_New_Christina

I have a desk job, but am now up to almost an hour Zumba everyday which (HRM) gives me a 500+ calorie burn. I was at 1200 calories not losing anything, but now upped it to over 1400 and started losing again. Before starting MFP I was eating between 1700-2000 a day and gaining (no exercise). I'm hypothyroid so my metabolism may not work as good as others and therefore calculating my BMR/TDEE may not be accurate. Is that right?

Smuterella

Hmmm, I'm starting to think I might have a much lower BMR than the sites give me. how would I go about actually getting this tested?

You could google "RMR testing" for your city. But even though that gives you a better estimate of your RMR/BMR you still don't know your TDEE, which is what matters to weight loss.

The easy way to find out your TDEE (though no one ever seems to consider it so perhaps it's not so easy) is to simply track everything you eat and your weight for months. If you lose weight at around a pound a week on average (look at many weeks at a time, not one) and eat say 1500/day, you burn around 2000/day.

Oh, I've done that. I've eaten at 1500 for 6 weeks, 1800 for 6 weeks, 2000 for 6 weeks, and now 1650 for about the same time. I gain at 2000 but maintain at all others. Sigh.

I would be super careful measuring and also trusting MFP databases. I only glanced at your diary but I see 3 pints of bitter at 400-some. I googled and it looks most sources say it's 180-200 calories/pint. Not a huge difference but if everything's off a bit, the totals can be off too much to matter.

Fair point - but I can't go round googling every single thing I eat can I? do most people double check everything they put in? Maybe this is where i'm going wrong.

I do use a food scale when cooking.

Still, with the range of different calorie ranges I've tried you think one of them would work.

NWCountryGal

Eating 1200 per day may be fine for some, true, but I believe it depends on your size(all around size as well as age possibly). The folks you mentioned that think they know better than authorities, well, I question authorities today. For example, a doctor, PHD, didn't feel it necessary to bring me in for an examination of the reasons why my foot is burning(nerve damage possibly) True story. So who are the authorities? Those that have tried these things and they work? I think the best gauge is to remain open-minded and try these things if your way isn't working. If your way works for you, why sweat someone else's opinion?

And no matter what you want to call it, starvation mode, or other, eating too little to fuel our bodies is not healthy.

Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight. It's perfectly healthy. Most authorities agree that losing up to 2 lbs/week is healthy as long as you eat over 1200 (not "net"). It's just a set of people here who think they know more than the authorities. Which is fine for them to use their methods on themselves. But to label those using respected methods as irresponsible is wrong.

NWCountryGal

I have the greatest respect for anyone that is more focused on health then that dam scale. I am trying my darndest to stay away from it. You people that are losing weight?? Do you know what kind of weight you are losing? Do you care? Those are some questions I ask myself each day when it comes to maybe eating more then I "feel" like. The more I focus on activity in my life, the less interest I have in food as something to do rather than "use" as fuel.

And what I don't get it why anyone "obviously" thinks people on here are lying to them as if others want you to stay fat. Did it even occur to you that these people are trying to help you?

I highly recommend hooking up with the people on emtwl or just anyone that fuels their bodies properly.

denise:drinker: :drinker:

mcarter99

LisaSmuts- I agree you can't google every food you log. But watch out for MFP database entries that are user-created, especially when they don't have many confirmations. And when you look up an item, maybe check a couple of them to see which looks most reasonable. I checked the MFP db for that bitter and one of the entries had a lot more calories than the one you used, which is why I gogled it. That item caught my eye because the calories in your log looked a little too good to be true. But I don't know what 'bitter' is, so I could be totally wrong. If a serving of red wine is coming up as 43 calories, it better be a small fraction of a normal serving, for example. I'm not picking, I'm trying to help.

If your way works for you, why sweat someone else's opinion?

I just wish opinion's were presented as opinions, not facts. In your next post you imply anyone not eating at EM2WL is doing it 'improperly'.

Authorities to me are the medical and weight loss industries.

mmapags

I believe in the study. For me it is common sense after studying how our bodies work and use food, burn calories etc.

What I also have realized is that there are many people that either refuse to look at the facts, or, they don't care because they've probably never been athletic and/or have no interest in muscle. I think a person has to be interested in more than just the scale and many just aren't. That's their business, I don't support their business or condone it. I can't congratulate people on weight-loss when I look at their diary and see they consistently eat 500 calories a day but hey, they burned 700 on the eliptical trainer. Oh, and they've lost .6 of a pound today.

I'm sure there are going to be more and more people that don't like me here but I would rather be honest about my thoughts and feelings on weight-loss then be popular. If they ever realize the truth about what they do to their bodies maybe they will at least remember I was honest about what I'd learned.

My heart goes out to those that know better and try to show folks the facts over and over on this forum and it falls on deaf ears:(

But here's to that one person that hears it and not only loses the fat but gains a healthy lifestyle(muscle included):drinker: :drinker:

Not like you? Honey, I love you! You make sense. That is sometimes a rare commodity around these parts!! ((((NWCountryGal)))

mmapags

You are wrong, "we" are not all in favor of adequate nutrition. There are tons of diaries on here that are still visible where people are eating way too little for their activity, or, for at the very least, their daily caloric needs. Many folks I wrote to and asked if they knew the need for adequate nutrition along with burning calories, have hidden their diaries so no one knows for sure what they are eating. That's ok, it's their life. And no matter what you want to call it, starvation mode, or other, eating too little to fuel our bodies is not healthy.

And again! Awesome post.

mmapags

And no matter what you want to call it, starvation mode, or other, eating too little to fuel our bodies is not healthy.

Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight. It's perfectly healthy. Most authorities agree that losing up to 2 lbs/week is healthy as long as you eat over 1200 (not "net"). It's just a set of people here who think they know more than the authorities. Which is fine for them to use their methods on themselves. But to label those using respected methods as irresponsible is wrong.

LOL! Oh really?