Eating Below Your BMR..

psuLemon

"Eating below BMR" is not equivalent to a VLCD.

I think I couldn't have said it better myself. When I asked this question, I never meant a VLCD. For example, my BMR is around 2080 calories, If I eat 1800 or 1700 calories for a short term basis, will I be affected? The whole reason I started this thread was because I kept getting annoyed by people who say, don't eat below your BMR because there was NO proof that suggested this to be a problem. Now I will note, I am a huge advocate for eating 20% below your tdee.

wild_wild_life

"Eating below BMR" is not equivalent to a VLCD.

I think I couldn't have said it better myself. When I asked this question, I never meant a VLCD. For example, my BMR is around 2080 calories, If I eat 1800 or 1700 calories for a short term basis, will I be affected? The whole reason I started this thread was because I kept getting annoyed by people who say, don't eat below your BMR because there was NO proof that suggested this to be a problem. Now I will note, I am a huge advocate for eating 20% below your tdee.

Agreed. Note the crickets when you asked if there was any supportive evidence. I think a percentage off TDEE is a much more sensible recommendation than using BMR as some sort of benchmark. Will this stop people from saying it? No. It seems to have been repeated often enough to be pretty ingrained in a subset of the population here.

I know people mean well and are trying to say "eat enough" which I do think often needs to be said. Just wish BMR could be left out of it for the sake of dissemination of accurate information.

melnaegeli

You must have a calorie deficit to lose weight -- simple equation more out than in.

That being said -- you always don't want to cut your calories by too much -- no more than 1000 and for the average person it should only be 500-700 under your BMR. Yes, you will lose quickly but then your body will hit a plateau and won't let you lose anymore weight. With a 500 cal deficit daily you will lose 1 lb per week -- (3500 cals = 1lb). So, by doing the math you can see that there is a safe way to lose weight reasonably but it's done by eating under your BMR. That should just be the basis for where to begin figuring out your macros.

wild_wild_life

You must have a calorie deficit to lose weight -- simple equation more out than in.

That being said -- you always don't want to cut your calories by too much -- no more than 1000 and for the average person it should only be 500-700 under your BMR. Yes, you will lose quickly but then your body will hit a plateau and won't let you lose anymore weight. With a 500 cal deficit daily you will lose 1 lb per week -- (3500 cals = 1lb). So, by doing the math you can see that there is a safe way to lose weight reasonably but it's done by eating under your BMR. That should just be the basis for where to begin figuring out your macros.

You're right, except I think you mean TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) instead of BMR. Your BMR (basal metabolic rate) doesnt have any practical value in and of itself.

Maybe the mods should start bleeping it out -- don't eat below your ***!

microwoman999

Bump for later

CoderGal

You must have a calorie deficit to lose weight -- simple equation more out than in.

That being said -- you always don't want to cut your calories by too much -- no more than 1000 and for the average person it should only be 500-700 under your BMR. Yes, you will lose quickly but then your body will hit a plateau and won't let you lose anymore weight. With a 500 cal deficit daily you will lose 1 lb per week -- (3500 cals = 1lb). So, by doing the math you can see that there is a safe way to lose weight reasonably but it's done by eating under your BMR. That should just be the basis for where to begin figuring out your macros.

....
???
700 under my BMR would have me on 600 calories a day...

Reneefit135

just wondering if you know your true BMR - the 'books' tend to say my BMR IS 1800+, I had it tested 2 ways and is actually 1540-1600, which makes a difference of nearly 400 calories a day, or shy of 1 lb per week. eye opener for me but valuable to know

how can you have that tested

CoderGal

just wondering if you know your true BMR - the 'books' tend to say my BMR IS 1800+, I had it tested 2 ways and is actually 1540-1600, which makes a difference of nearly 400 calories a day, or shy of 1 lb per week. eye opener for me but valuable to know

how can you have that tested

You can get your RMR tested, usually done by a doctor. From what I've seen most people have had a higher RMR then their calculated BMR. And you might get a better estimate if you use one of the equations that include body fat.

MoreBean13

just wondering if you know your true BMR - the 'books' tend to say my BMR IS 1800+, I had it tested 2 ways and is actually 1540-1600, which makes a difference of nearly 400 calories a day, or shy of 1 lb per week. eye opener for me but valuable to know

how can you have that tested

You can get your RMR tested, usually done by a doctor. From what I've seen most people have had a higher RMR then their calculated BMR. And you might get a better estimate if you use one of the equations that include body fat.

Some universities do it too- my local university has a sports science lab that does it using a metabolic cart. Check out that option if you're interested, too. You can do one stop shopping for VO2max, RMR, DEXA, Bod Pos, Lactic threshold, etc.

SonicaBE

Bump