calories too low on mfp
Replies
-
Okay, so you said to multiply my desired weight by 11.36? So 150x11.36 is 1704, correct? And with eating that I could lose weight to get to 150? UGH... feeling extremely ignorant. What is a Healthy loss? is two lbs too much a week?
Yes you are correct with the calculations. However, one more thing to consider is your 'goal weight' as compared to your 'current weight'. If the difference is too drastic, you may not be able to maintain it. So having smaller interrim goals may be better.
For example: actual weight = 250# x 11.36 = 2840kcals daily; goal weight = 150# x 11.36 = 1704kcals daily. A difference of 1136 calories. With that much of a drop, there is a risk of constant hunger, which can lead to bing eating.
Instead, start with a goal weight of 200# x 11.36 = 2272, a difference of 568 calories. This range may be more 'livable'. Once the goal of 200# is reached, then go for the desired goal - 150#. The difference in calorie needs between 200# and 150# is 568 calories.
Healthy weight loss is not fast but is more likely to remain permanent because you are making gradual changes over time. Plus losing the weight at a slower rate (3-8#/month) is more apt to lead to fat loss, not muscle loss.0 -
My whole point is "why does no one besides MFP forumites, not even the MFP plan itself, use BMR as the floor if it's some magic number that it's a bad idea to eat below?" It's because it's not. 1200 is considered the value people should eat above.
That myplate site isn't recommending 2000 for me, but you're right, it's giving a high weight loss recommendation. It's suggesting 1800 for me. I would lose about a pound a month at that. I really don't think most Americans are going to bother tracking every bite for a pound a month. I think it's giving your maintenance calorie level estimate at a healthy BMI. They do say there most women should eat around 2000 for maintenance.
Almost all formulas for calorie recommendations are based on the BMR. It's just that it is part of the formula used so it is not specifically stated. When you use a website to calculate your calorie needs, you typically enter a height, weight, and age. These are the things that determine your BMR. Then you also are asked how 'active' you are. This is the activity factor which is multiplied by the BMR. But when you click 'enter' all you see is a number - the calories it recommends. You do not see the details of the calculations.
BMR is simply your basic metabolic rate for normal body functions. That is how many calories your body requires to maintain a specific weight and nutritional level each day. The more active you are, the more calories your body burns (activity factor). But to lose weight, you have to consume less calories (from food) than your body burns (exercise). So maintaining a daily dietary intake at or around the recommended BMR can help you lose weight if you are more active rather than sedentary.
I understand what BMR is. I know it's used in calcs to arrive at a calorie goal. You are missing my point. My BMR is well above 1200. For many women it is. The recommendation for adequate nutrition is to eat at least 1200 (not BMR). Even you said so-
"A female body requires a minimum of 1200 calories daily to prevent serious deficiencies;"
There is not a single authority that uses BMR as a floor for intake. No one has yet pointed one out. Of course they use it as a basis to calc your deficit. But no one uses it as a floor for intake.0 -
Your reply to what you want to reply to. You asked a dietician her opinion, and she does inform you about the importance of BMR in weight loss, and you keep on going. Drop it. Honestly. Worry about your weight loss and not others. People who tell others about BMR are trying to help people do it in a healthy and sustainable way. I am not saying that you are pushing 1000 calories a day. but geez. You are so avidly against it. Be done.
I will never drop it. You guys are so convinced of this one misconception that you won't even listen to me. I'm not worried about anyone's weight loss. I'm worried about the spread of misinformation. I'm not against people eating at whatever level they choose. That's the difference. The "you can't eat below your BMR" people are the ones that insist their way is the only safe way. Many of us can eat well below our BMR but over 1200. It's not dangerous, it's not starvation, it's not crash dieting.
The importance of BMR in weight loss is in estimating your BURN. Your intake is a whole separate thing. That's why no authority ties those two concepts together.
Please find the ignore function if you're tired of hearing me.0 -
Your reply to what you want to reply to. You asked a dietician her opinion, and she does inform you about the importance of BMR in weight loss, and you keep on going. Drop it. Honestly. Worry about your weight loss and not others. People who tell others about BMR are trying to help people do it in a healthy and sustainable way. I am not saying that you are pushing 1000 calories a day. but geez. You are so avidly against it. Be done.
I will never drop it. You guys are so convinced of this one misconception that you won't even listen to me. I'm not worried about anyone's weight loss. I'm worried about the spread of misinformation. I'm not against people eating at whatever level they choose. That's the difference. The "you can't eat below your BMR" people are the ones that insist their way is the only safe way. Many of us can eat well below our BMR but over 1200. It's not dangerous, it's not starvation, it's not crash dieting.
The importance of BMR in weight loss is in estimating your BURN. Your intake is a whole separate thing. That's why no authority ties those two concepts together.
Please find the ignore function if you're tired of hearing me.
No I don't let others bother me that much or get me that worked up. I choose not to ignore anyone on here. And I also choose not to post 100 times about the same thing! But good luck on your weight loss journey!!0 -
This thread is ABOUT this topic. It's a discussion. If you have something to add besides being forum police, please do post it all you like!0
-
Okay, so you said to multiply my desired weight by 11.36? So 150x11.36 is 1704, correct? And with eating that I could lose weight to get to 150? UGH... feeling extremely ignorant. What is a Healthy loss? is two lbs too much a week?
Yes you are correct with the calculations. However, one more thing to consider is your 'goal weight' as compared to your 'current weight'. If the difference is too drastic, you may not be able to maintain it. So having smaller interrim goals may be better.
For example: actual weight = 250# x 11.36 = 2840kcals daily; goal weight = 150# x 11.36 = 1704kcals daily. A difference of 1136 calories. With that much of a drop, there is a risk of constant hunger, which can lead to bing eating.
Instead, start with a goal weight of 200# x 11.36 = 2272, a difference of 568 calories. This range may be more 'livable'. Once the goal of 200# is reached, then go for the desired goal - 150#. The difference in calorie needs between 200# and 150# is 568 calories.
Healthy weight loss is not fast but is more likely to remain permanent because you are making gradual changes over time. Plus losing the weight at a slower rate (3-8#/month) is more apt to lead to fat loss, not muscle loss.
So, just to clarify -
smaller deficts are more sustainable, because
you're less likely to give up,
you're less likely to binge
losing at a slower rate is healthier, as you're more likely to lose fat and not muscle, and it's an easier transition to maintenence.
and you are a dietician, not a random keyboard warrior.
Cool :flowerforyou:0 -
As for the original post, I think you have to eat what you feel comfortable with. Some people enjoy 1200 calories, others enjoy 2000. Some gain at 1200. Some lose a lot of weight. Work with your body, not against it. And you will figure out what's best for you!! And good luck!0
-
Blimey according to that I need to be eating 1500 a day to acheive maximum fat loss at a 25% calorie reduction. At that rate it says I would lose 54lbs a year.
I am currently doing no more than 1200 (normally less) and am losing at a rate of 2lbs per week? Is that right or should I be eating more, considering my goal 1s 140lbs (from 161 - current 157) by September.0 -
All I'm asking is for people to quit telling people, "You CAN'T eat below your BMR". They're confused enough with MFP's plan. It has a floor of 1200. They CAN CHOOSE to lose more conservatively. They do not HAVE TO CHOOSE TO.
I've seen it posted here over and over that if you eat below your BMR you are going into starvation mode, your body is eating its organs, your body is eating its lean mass, as soon as you get to goal you will regain immediately.
I just want that part to stop. It's not about what plan is best for you. This isn't a contest. Just stop with the blatant myths and lies, if you're one of the culprits.
Signed- Random Keyboard Warrior :flowerforyou:
:laugh: 0 -
bump for future reading0
-
All I'm asking is for people to quit telling people, "You CAN'T eat below your BMR". They're confused enough with MFP's plan. It has a floor of 1200. They CAN CHOOSE to lose more conservatively. They do not HAVE TO CHOOSE TO.
I've seen it posted here over and over that if you eat below your BMR you are going into starvation mode, your body is eating its organs, your body is eating its lean mass, as soon as you get to goal you will regain immediately.
I just want that part to stop. It's not about what plan is best for you. This isn't a contest. Just stop with the blatant myths and lies, if you're one of the culprits.
Signed- Random Keyboard Warrior :flowerforyou: :laugh:
But, does it really matter? Even if you think it is scientifically wrong, it's not dangerous, it's not unhealthy, and it's a very good way of losing fat.
If you were to ask me which way I thought was more unhealthy,
a) their moderate deficit for fat loss, or
b)your 1000 calories defict for all,
I'd have to say yours, due to the large defict, and lean muscle loss.
I think the 1000 calories and 2lb is actually right for larger people, but being a numbers gal I prefer the % to the absolute numbers, but that's just my preference.
I know you claim up there that people aren't lstening to you, but that isn't true. People have read what you have to say, and then read what other people have to say. and then made you're own mind's up.
Just because they don't agree with you on the 1000 calorie defict doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means they have different goals.
Yours is to drop the weight as quickly as possible, theirs is to drop at a more gentle rate and maintain as much lean mass as possible.
2 different ways of thinking and eating, but hopefully both ways of getting to an ultimate goal of an ideal weight/composition.
As for MFP's plan, yes, it is confusing, if I followed it I would be eating 1200 on non exercise days, but a lot higher on exercise days. I can't cope with the inconsistency so prefer the TDEE minus defict method.
But Even though I don't follow it's methods, I do think it's tracking system is fab.
The Forums aren't bad either. :drinker:0 -
I eat 980 a day. To loose a pound a week I cut 500 calories of my BMR a day. I also take my calculated BMR and only use 80% of it as my BMR. If you have to loose weight then you need to cut %20 out of your estimated BMR. I saw that in a documentary not to long ago. So far it has been working for me. As soon as I reach my weight goal, I will add 500 back to my daily BMR (but still only %80 of my calculated BMR for myself)....I had to manually update my settings for the 980 calories a day on MFP.0
-
All I'm asking is for people to quit telling people, "You CAN'T eat below your BMR". They're confused enough with MFP's plan. It has a floor of 1200. They CAN CHOOSE to lose more conservatively. They do not HAVE TO CHOOSE TO.
I've seen it posted here over and over that if you eat below your BMR you are going into starvation mode, your body is eating its organs, your body is eating its lean mass, as soon as you get to goal you will regain immediately.
I just want that part to stop. It's not about what plan is best for you. This isn't a contest. Just stop with the blatant myths and lies, if you're one of the culprits.
Signed- Random Keyboard Warrior :flowerforyou: :laugh:
But, does it really matter? Even if you think it is scientifically wrong, it's not dangerous, it's not unhealthy, and it's a very good way of losing fat.
If you were to ask me which way I thought was more unhealthy,
a) their moderate deficit for fat loss, or
b)your 1000 calories defict for all,
I'd have to say yours, due to the large defict, and lean muscle loss.
I think the 1000 calories and 2lb is actually right for larger people, but being a numbers gal I prefer the % to the absolute numbers, but that's just my preference.
I know you claim up there that people aren't lstening to you, but that isn't true. People have read what you have to say, and then read what other people have to say. and then made you're own mind's up.
Just because they don't agree with you on the 1000 calorie defict doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means they have different goals.
Yours is to drop the weight as quickly as possible, theirs is to drop at a more gentle rate and maintain as much lean mass as possible.
2 different ways of thinking and eating, but hopefully both ways of getting to an ultimate goal of an ideal weight/composition.
As for MFP's plan, yes, it is confusing, if I followed it I would be eating 1200 on non exercise days, but a lot higher on exercise days. I can't cope with the inconsistency so prefer the TDEE minus defict method.
But Even though I don't follow it's methods, I do think it's tracking system is fab.
The Forums aren't bad either. :drinker:
I agree with this. I calculate my calorie goals elsewhere and it's higher than what MFP has it set at and I'm losing more weight than I should according to MFP calculations (the "if every day were like today, you would weigh XXX in 5 weeks"). So the other calculating method (from scoobysworkshop.com), I have found to be more accurate and I'm 1000x happier on. Why would you WANT to cut your calories extremely low if you don't HAVE to? I know I get crabby when I'm hungry!
0 -
I eat 980 a day. To loose a pound a week I cut 500 calories of my BMR a day. I also take my calculated BMR and only use 80% of it as my BMR. If you have to loose weight then you need to cut %20 out of your estimated BMR. I saw that in a documentary not to long ago. So far it has been working for me. As soon as I reach my weight goal, I will add 500 back to my daily BMR (but still only %80 of my calculated BMR for myself)....I had to manually update my settings for the 980 calories a day on MFP.
That's typically 20% from your TDEE or your MAINTENANCE calories that they recommend- not your BMR (which is the number of calories your body needs to function). As long as you are eating less than what it would take to maintain your weight, you will lose weight. That's very little calories!0 -
what different sites "suggest" is not fact, they are simply estimates or staring points...every person is diffferent in so many ways from how much muscle they carry, to their level of activity, to their metabolic rates...you must find your own that works for you..typically if you are losing more than 2 lbs per week, you are losing very fast and sacrificing a lot of muscle...all depends on what your goals are, I say focus on being healthy overall0
-
how does age factor into all of this?
Oh good grief! That calculator says I should be eating almost 1700 cal a day to lose weight! That just seems so wrong...
** it also says you have to recalculate your numbers as you go down in weight.
How many calories did you used to eat before you paid attention?
Does 1700 sound high compared to that figure?0 -
It does really matter because people are confused. Adding the misinformation that "you can't eat below your BMR" just confuses them more. MFP tells them 1200 is a safe lower boundary, which it is. That part is pretty accepted (everywhere but here).
I think it's terrific that everyone wants to help. But we ought to phrase opinions as opinions, not as facts. And especially not as facts couched in doomsday scenarios like "you will gain it all back".
I'm not advocating anything except that the myths about dangers surrounding BMR stop. I'm not "all for" deep deficits or anything.
Thanks for listening and trying to understand, those that did.
And remember, on the internet we're all random keyboarders. You might be surprised at the made-up tickers, photos, claims, credentials, etc.0 -
I think you are assuming that people who talk about not eating below your BMR as saying that you won't lose weight if you do. That isn't what they are saying (and if it is, they are misunderstanding the principle). The idea is that when you eat below your BMR consistently, you slow your metabolism. That doesn't effect weight loss directly in the beginning because, as you said it's basically making sure that your calories in are fewer than your calories out. The idea is that by eating more and losing more slowly, you are less likely to fall into Yo-yo dieting and give up because you are seeing results but not feeling hugely deprived.
Once the weight is lost and the person naturally increases their caloric intake, their weight should remain fairly stable for two reasons: 1)They've been eating somewhere between 1600-2000 calories all along so they don't have a "yay I can eat again!" reaction and 2) by staying above their BMR they never slowed their metabolism, so they can always eat at or just above their BMR rather than having to stick near the amount they at on their diet.
That's the theory any way. Does it work? Sure, because the basic negative trend is maintained. It might work more slowly, but because the change isn't so drastic a person might be more likely to stick to it. Both ways will work in the short and intermediate term. The idea is how eating habits effect the long term.
As for the website sources: it will take awhile for them to change their standards because it often takes physicians a bit to change their standards and because they have to make general statements that apply to many people. The USDA myplate website (it replaced the food pyramid last year) has a calculator and gives recommendations that are much more in line with the "eating more and losing more slowly" theory. It gave me a recommendation of 2000 calories per day, which is right in line with what I have MFP set to based on numbers given to me by fat2fit radio.
I hope that helps everybody.
I do understand. They're saying it's dangerous to eat under BMR. I'm saying it's not dangerous unless your BMR is under 1200.
I think that USDA myplate site is recommending 2000 calories per day for all women for maintenance, isn't it? Just as a general rule?
The USDA uses averages for estimating calorie needs.
" Based on Estimated Energy Requirements (EER) equations, using reference heights (average) and reference weights (healthy) for each age-gender group. For children and adolescents, reference height and weight vary. For adults, the reference man is 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighs 154 pounds. The reference woman is 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighs 126 pounds."
This statement was taken from the USDA '2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans' on a chart of recommended calorie ranges based on age, sex, and exercise intensity.
Chapter 2 of the guidelines is very helpful for explaining nutritional needs and how and why they are determined.0 -
Okay, so you said to multiply my desired weight by 11.36? So 150x11.36 is 1704, correct? And with eating that I could lose weight to get to 150? UGH... feeling extremely ignorant. What is a Healthy loss? is two lbs too much a week?
Yes you are correct with the calculations. However, one more thing to consider is your 'goal weight' as compared to your 'current weight'. If the difference is too drastic, you may not be able to maintain it. So having smaller interrim goals may be better.
For example: actual weight = 250# x 11.36 = 2840kcals daily; goal weight = 150# x 11.36 = 1704kcals daily. A difference of 1136 calories. With that much of a drop, there is a risk of constant hunger, which can lead to bing eating.
Instead, start with a goal weight of 200# x 11.36 = 2272, a difference of 568 calories. This range may be more 'livable'. Once the goal of 200# is reached, then go for the desired goal - 150#. The difference in calorie needs between 200# and 150# is 568 calories.
Healthy weight loss is not fast but is more likely to remain permanent because you are making gradual changes over time. Plus losing the weight at a slower rate (3-8#/month) is more apt to lead to fat loss, not muscle loss.
So, just to clarify -
smaller deficts are more sustainable, because
you're less likely to give up,
you're less likely to binge
losing at a slower rate is healthier, as you're more likely to lose fat and not muscle, and it's an easier transition to maintenence.
and you are a dietician, not a random keyboard warrior.
Cool :flowerforyou:
yes to all of the above with one exception. We actually prefer the spelling 'dietitian' rather than 'dietician'. Minor technicality, I know but important to us. This is actually a very useful tool in determining a 'dietitian' vs. 'a random keyboard warrior'!
thanks0 -
I eat 980 a day. To loose a pound a week I cut 500 calories of my BMR a day. I also take my calculated BMR and only use 80% of it as my BMR. If you have to loose weight then you need to cut %20 out of your estimated BMR. I saw that in a documentary not to long ago. So far it has been working for me. As soon as I reach my weight goal, I will add 500 back to my daily BMR (but still only %80 of my calculated BMR for myself)....I had to manually update my settings for the 980 calories a day on MFP.
I think you've combined some stuff in a rather odd way.
Cutting 20% off your TDEE (not your BMR!) is one way to determine a cut.
Cutting 500/day off to lose weight is another way.
You aren't supposed to do both at once -- that's why you're ending up with such a tremendously low calorie number.
Will it work? Probably, if you just want to get the weight off fast -- LCD tend to do that.0 -
Im 45, 5' 1.5" and at 163 right now. I use the bmr/tdee calculator and my calories are set at 1646. I manually enter my desired calories in my goals because MFP is not accurate for me, either. Doing this has been working well for me. The link is
http://calorieline.com/tools/tdeee
Awesome job!!
I checked out the website. It is pretty cool.0 -
Okay, so you said to multiply my desired weight by 11.36? So 150x11.36 is 1704, correct? And with eating that I could lose weight to get to 150? UGH... feeling extremely ignorant. What is a Healthy loss? is two lbs too much a week?
Yes you are correct with the calculations. However, one more thing to consider is your 'goal weight' as compared to your 'current weight'. If the difference is too drastic, you may not be able to maintain it. So having smaller interrim goals may be better.
For example: actual weight = 250# x 11.36 = 2840kcals daily; goal weight = 150# x 11.36 = 1704kcals daily. A difference of 1136 calories. With that much of a drop, there is a risk of constant hunger, which can lead to bing eating.
Instead, start with a goal weight of 200# x 11.36 = 2272, a difference of 568 calories. This range may be more 'livable'. Once the goal of 200# is reached, then go for the desired goal - 150#. The difference in calorie needs between 200# and 150# is 568 calories.
Healthy weight loss is not fast but is more likely to remain permanent because you are making gradual changes over time. Plus losing the weight at a slower rate (3-8#/month) is more apt to lead to fat loss, not muscle loss.
So, just to clarify -
smaller deficts are more sustainable, because
you're less likely to give up,
you're less likely to binge
losing at a slower rate is healthier, as you're more likely to lose fat and not muscle, and it's an easier transition to maintenence.
and you are a dietician, not a random keyboard warrior.
Cool :flowerforyou:
yes to all of the above with one exception. We actually prefer the spelling 'dietitian' rather than 'dietician'. Minor technicality, I know but important to us. This is actually a very useful tool in determining a 'dietitian' vs. 'a random keyboard warrior'!
thanks
Ah, I'm a Brit, we spell things weirdly
0 -
It may be useful for determining if English or US English is your native language, to be honest, though both spellings are used in both cases.We actually prefer the spelling 'dietitian' rather than 'dietician'. Minor technicality, I know but important to us. This is actually a very useful tool in determining a 'dietitian' vs. 'a random keyboard warrior'!
The UK Immigration Service for example says....
"REGISTRATION WITH A PROFESSIONAL BODY
The job title of Dietician is protected by law. Anyone, wishing to practice as a
Dietician in this country must be registered with the HPC. Only EEA workers will be
offered a period of adaptation training. Non EEA workers must submit their
qualifications to HPC to apply for registration."0 -
It does really matter because people are confused. Adding the misinformation that "you can't eat below your BMR" just confuses them more. MFP tells them 1200 is a safe lower boundary, which it is. That part is pretty accepted (everywhere but here).
It's important to me because the spread of misinformation contributes to the confusion about health, and the confusion about health contributes to people not bothering, giving up, or going to extremes to lose weight because no one can get it all figured out. America has a disordered relationship with food (generalized statement, I know). You can't fix a disordered relationship through misinformation.0 -
The AHA is correct about the 500 calories a day. But you have to know how many calories you are eating in the first place before you can subtract the 500 a day. That is why using a tool like MFP is so helpful. However, you have to be totally honest with yourself with the amount of food you are actually consuming for anything to work.
There is no such thing as 'eating back your exercise' unless you are deliberately consuming extra calories on exercise days. Recommended daily calorie ranges are based on a stable daily intake, not highs and lows based on exercise days and non-exercise days.
We're pretty much in agreement. MFP (with its 1200 floor) is not always "too low", which was the title of the thread.
I totally agree about exercise and eating back.
Since you're a dietician will you please tell people that the statement "eating below your BMR is dangerous" is a myth? I'm not advocating anyone specifically do it, I'm just saying there is no reason to use BMR as some line in the sand value. People act like your basic body functions will stop (or your body will eat its organs) if you eat 1200 when your BMR is 1450.
Weight Watchers plans have had a floor of 1000ish for a long time, just as another example of an authority that does not consider BMR to be some special danger zone indicator value.
The only reason I have been able to come up with why MFP so often gives women a calorie range of 1200 is to suggest that they should not go below that. Eating less calories is not always synonomous with weight loss. You can go too low below your recommendations and possibly gain weight. This is because your body is not being fed sufficiently enough to prevent deficiencies (vitamin, protein, etc) therefore, your metabolic rate slows down to prevent weight loss if possible. We all know that you can 'starve' your body into weight loss (anorexia nervosa) but most of us do not go to that extreme.
It is not a good idea to go too low below the recommended BMR. A female body requires a minimum of 1200 calories daily to prevent serious deficiencies; a male 1600-1800 calories. So it is not always about the amount or rate of weight loss. It is about being healthy and fit at a healthy weight.
When someone tells me they only consume about 800-900 calories a day because they gain weight on1200 calories, I tell them to increase their calories to a number that better fits their needs. Most people do not want to do it, but find that they start losing weight on the higher calorie intake. You have to feed your body if you want your body to work for you.
Well said!
*clapping*
Bookmarking this today.0 -
The AHA is correct about the 500 calories a day. But you have to know how many calories you are eating in the first place before you can subtract the 500 a day. That is why using a tool like MFP is so helpful. However, you have to be totally honest with yourself with the amount of food you are actually consuming for anything to work.
There is no such thing as 'eating back your exercise' unless you are deliberately consuming extra calories on exercise days. Recommended daily calorie ranges are based on a stable daily intake, not highs and lows based on exercise days and non-exercise days.
We're pretty much in agreement. MFP (with its 1200 floor) is not always "too low", which was the title of the thread.
I totally agree about exercise and eating back.
Since you're a dietician will you please tell people that the statement "eating below your BMR is dangerous" is a myth? I'm not advocating anyone specifically do it, I'm just saying there is no reason to use BMR as some line in the sand value. People act like your basic body functions will stop (or your body will eat its organs) if you eat 1200 when your BMR is 1450.
Weight Watchers plans have had a floor of 1000ish for a long time, just as another example of an authority that does not consider BMR to be some special danger zone indicator value.
The only reason I have been able to come up with why MFP so often gives women a calorie range of 1200 is to suggest that they should not go below that. Eating less calories is not always synonomous with weight loss. You can go too low below your recommendations and possibly gain weight. This is because your body is not being fed sufficiently enough to prevent deficiencies (vitamin, protein, etc) therefore, your metabolic rate slows down to prevent weight loss if possible. We all know that you can 'starve' your body into weight loss (anorexia nervosa) but most of us do not go to that extreme.
It is not a good idea to go too low below the recommended BMR. A female body requires a minimum of 1200 calories daily to prevent serious deficiencies; a male 1600-1800 calories. So it is not always about the amount or rate of weight loss. It is about being healthy and fit at a healthy weight.
When someone tells me they only consume about 800-900 calories a day because they gain weight on1200 calories, I tell them to increase their calories to a number that better fits their needs. Most people do not want to do it, but find that they start losing weight on the higher calorie intake. You have to feed your body if you want your body to work for you.
Well said!
*clapping*
Bookmarking this today.
Also bookmarking. Yarwell are you really telling a dietitian how they can spell thier professional title?? Dude, get a life! Really! lol
A refreshing amount of common sense regarding effective strategies for weight loss and health here! Thank you ArmyRD!0 -
Thanks for you're posts ArmyRD. Just a question on the maintenance cals of BWx11.36. That one seems quite low from all the data I've seen. Does this factor in the overestimation of exercise and underestimation of intake that you mentioned earlier?
Remember people, there is no magic number. (and if the number you choose is too low to begin with what do you do do when weight loss stalls?)0 -
:glasses:0
-
Thanks for you're posts ArmyRD. Just a question on the maintenance cals of BWx11.36. That one seems quite low from all the data I've seen. Does this factor in the overestimation of exercise and underestimation of intake that you mentioned earlier?
Remember people, there is no magic number. (and if the number you choose is too low to begin with what do you do do when weight loss stalls?)
Ditto's.
If you come in too low, you could cause the metabolism to meet what you are giving it - meaning slower weight loss after some time, or none as so many have commented.
Or you can come in too high, metabolism stays high, but slower weight loss the whole time.
Hmmmmm.
And then the end game, reaching goal weight.
If you came in too low, there may be little movement to add on calories, because almost at maintenance. If exercising, your body probably never got the means to really improve as much as it could have, because it didn't have the energy to do so.
If you came in too high, and you were losing say 1/2 lb the final 4 weeks, you know to add on exactly 250 cals and you'll be at maintenance, and you likely never had to reduce calories as much for smaller body like the other method, because your workouts actually made a beneficial change in your body.
Eating at bare minimum recommended for safety reasons for basic nutrient levels, or eating enough to feed your body for the level of activity you are trying to accomplish with new lifestyle?
Or just walk as part of new lifestyle. That should see major future changes that will prevent it from happening again.
Hmmmmm.
A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004).
A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week).
A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories.[
An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender).
After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:
Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week
After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted).
The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.
Jampolis MB (2004) Weight Gain - Marathon Runner / Triathlete. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5) S148.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions