Can someone PLEASE DUMB it down for me!

Dragonwolf

MFP works on a very basic formula that is not entirely individualistic. I suggest setting it to manual.

Eat above your BMR, below your TDEE. If you are shooting for 2 pounds a week, then if TDEE - (Calories eaten today) < 1000, exercise to add in missing calories.

I don't know how or where the "don't eat below your BMR" came from. It has been practiced throughout the decades in weight loss with success. The issue is loss of muscle mass which is mostly associated with types of workouts and protein intake.

The 2lbs a week thing is individualized, such as the TDEE is.

I think the confusion is coming from an overloaded meaning of the "BMR" acronym.

Usually, "BMR" means "Basal Metabolic Rate," which is what your body needs to function at the most basic level (ie - if you were in a coma). This is what you should never eat below.

What MFPers talk about what MFP calculates is "Base Metabolic Rate" (I thought MFP itself actually used a different name, but I could be wrong), which is your basal metabolic rate + energy expenditure from your job (or TDEE - exercise). You can safely eat below this, and that's what MFP calculates the deficit from.

Where it can get tricky, even if you have the two figured out, is when you add in the deficit. MFP is a "dumb" calculator. It doesn't really care what your BMR (Basal) is, and so will happily go below it if your Base MR is close enough to your Basal MR and you set a large enough deficit. This isn't good, and you should set a smaller deficit to stay above your Basal MR.

Dragonwolf

so how can you "manually" change your goals? My BMR is more than my daily goal set by the site as well but I know I DANG SURE can't handle seeing that I'd be gaining weight if I ate like this everyday when I close out my diary every night! :noway:

My Home > Goals > Change Goals > Custom

ExplorinLauren

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Thank you Informative... but from what I gather, also saying not to eat below BMR.

ExplorinLauren

Weight loss - as you all know - is a numbers game. MFP is a TOOL to help you lose weight. What it says isn't set in stone - it is simply a starting point.

If you're burning between 2000-3000 calories a day, I would push your daily intake up around 1800 or so and see how you feel. There's no reason to starve yourself.

At the end of the day, you'll have to play around with the numbers (but remember.. give yourself a month or so at each calorie goal to really see how your body is reacting to it!) until you find what works best for you.

I'm one of those people who can easily lose weight while eating around 2100-2200 NET calories a day. I can easily maintain anywhere from 2300-3000 net calories depending on how active I am that day. I weigh in the 145-150lb range and have been there for almost 2 years. It's all about finding what works for YOU.

Thank you

ExplorinLauren

I'm trying to make sure I get enough calories for my body to be healthy, taking in the exercise I do, and the food I eat. I'm not here for a quick fix... I'm in it for the long haul. AND I'm doing it the HEALTHY way.
That's the reason I'm asking these questions. I wan't to make sure I'm eating the appropriate amount of calories on a daily basis and not withholding anything my body needs.
That is what worries me between what MFP says I should eat vs what my calorie deficits should be between and resting and active state.
I don't want to be eating 1200 calories a day if my body needs 1600. AND I don't want to look at my diary every day and it say I'm eating to much and going over every day because I eat 1600 when MFP says I should eat 1200. I want to know the science that links the 2 things together so I can figure out what I need for me.

If you read my post above, you'd know the "science" between the 2.

Which? About you being 400 lbs and eating below BMR?

DanaDark

I don't know how or where the "don't eat below your BMR" came from. It has been practiced throughout the decades in weight loss with success. The issue is loss of muscle mass which is mostly associated with types of workouts and protein intake.

The 2lbs a week thing is individualized, such as the TDEE is.

It has been practiced by anorexics for decades yes. Typically results in organ failure.

Do not promote eating disorders please.

It is NEVER healthy to eat fewer calories than is required to keep your heart beating, your lungs breathing, your kidneys functioning etc. Yes, you CAN use some body fat temporarily to power these functions. But your body will see what is going on and begin reducing calories to the organs (this will begin lowering the metabolism). Prolonged reduced calorie supply to your organs begins starving them. Despite YOU having extra fat and energy storage, your organs do not.

I don't know where the whole "Go ahead and starve to your goal weight" became such a popular idea... but eating disorders has never been popular with me.

DanaDark

So if my BMR is 2000, and i eat 1995 i have an eating disorder?? You do realize that lower calorie diets are associated with longer life span. You're missing the point, if you're not providing enough "nutrients" for your body, then you can get in to a dangerous state. Has NOTHING to do with your BMR.

All that stuff you said about organ failure and what not. That is due to lack of amino acids, and the body us use amino acids from muscle tissues. What does this have to do with BMR??? NOTHING. Amino acids are not BMR.

Eating disorders is about not providing enough nutrients for the body. Has NOTHING to do with BMR. You also talked about your metabolism slowing down. This happens anytime you lose weight.

Please state accurate claims.

Due to uncertainty, you could not accurately gage the difference of 2000 vs 1995. This is a statistic analysis. Do remember, BMR and TDEE are two different things.

The body requires more than nutrients, it also requires the energy to USE the nutrients. WOuld you say a person is A-OK taking nothing but vitamin bills and such and eating nothing?

My claims are very accurate and well reasoned. Taking in lower calorie amounts than your BMR for longer periods of time IS unhealthy. Additionally, it is assumed that a person eats REASONABLY when fulfilling their BMR goals. Not just twinkies. That won't supply the nutrients.

There are so many threads on this topic right now. And I have said it in all of them.

The reduced muscle mass that occurs from lower calorie intakes does not account for the vast majority of the lowered metabolism. The reduced calories to organs does. This is EXACTLY why anorexia is not recommended as a weight loss tool.

cmccorma

I don't know how or where the "don't eat below your BMR" came from. It has been practiced throughout the decades in weight loss with success. The issue is loss of muscle mass which is mostly associated with types of workouts and protein intake.

The 2lbs a week thing is individualized, such as the TDEE is.

It has been practiced by anorexics for decades yes. Typically results in organ failure.

Do not promote eating disorders please.

It is NEVER healthy to eat fewer calories than is required to keep your heart beating, your lungs breathing, your kidneys functioning etc. Yes, you CAN use some body fat temporarily to power these functions. But your body will see what is going on and begin reducing calories to the organs (this will begin lowering the metabolism). Prolonged reduced calorie supply to your organs begins starving them. Despite YOU having extra fat and energy storage, your organs do not.

I don't know where the whole "Go ahead and starve to your goal weight" became such a popular idea... but eating disorders has never been popular with me.

You have just joined. He does not promote eating disorders. BMR calculators online are estimates. He stated that actual numbers may vary.

For the OP, perhaps make it less difficult for yourself. Choose a calorie goal you are comfortable with, even if it is higher than what MFP states. If it works for you, keep it up. If not, adjust it. It does not have to be that difficult. If you don't want to eat 1,200 a day, then don't. Customize to eat 1,600 and you won't get that message that you ate too little.

DanaDark

Thank you. He thinks that eating below you BMR = eating disorder. If you're eating enough to fuel your body, and if you feel good, perform well, it makes no difference if you eat below your BMR. If someone can post one scientific study that mentions not to eat below BMR, I'll shut up.

But your BMR = enough calories to "fuel your body" just as you stated...

DanaDark

Oh yeah... and this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490

cmccorma

A VLCD is usually described as 800 calories. In any case, as stated in the abstract, the participants had their resting metabolic rate tested by oxygen expenditure, not by putting their numbers into a website calculator.

DanaDark

Results in weight loss, as is expected. But the BMR drop is significant. 23% is more than simply the fat and muscle loss experienced. The muscle loss at 25% of weight lost is rather insignificant when calculated as maintenance calories. This reduced BMR is due mostly to reduced calories supplied to the internal organs.

DanaDark

A VLCD is usually described as 800 calories. In any case, as stated in the abstract, the participants had their resting metabolic rate tested by oxygen expenditure, not by putting their numbers into a website calculator.

Aye. I am all for finding a more accurate BMR than simple calculators. I just advocate eating MORE than BMR, but LESS than TDEE. If your BMR somehow is like 1000 calories, go ahead and eat 1050 a day.

cmccorma

Results in weight loss, as is expected. But the BMR drop is significant. 23% is more than simply the fat and muscle loss experienced. The muscle loss at 25% of weight lost is rather insignificant when calculated as maintenance calories. This reduced BMR is due mostly to reduced calories supplied to the internal organs.

Yes, at most likely 800 calories which is considered a VLCD. No one on this post is remotely suggesting 800 calories. 800 calories is obviously way below everyone's BMR.

smr0

I've read through this thread a few times and I still can't determine the answer to what I think is a big part of the original poster's question: why would MFP set a calorie goal less than your BMR?

DanaDark

Results in weight loss, as is expected. But the BMR drop is significant. 23% is more than simply the fat and muscle loss experienced. The muscle loss at 25% of weight lost is rather insignificant when calculated as maintenance calories. This reduced BMR is due mostly to reduced calories supplied to the internal organs.

Yes, at most likely 800 calories which is considered a VLCD. No one on this post is remotely suggesting 800 calories. 800 calories is obviously way below everyone's BMR.

Indeed! I also say its perfectly fine to go some time below BMR. Just not LONG periods of time. My BMR is 1500... I don't see people suggesting I eat 100 calories for 5 years to reach my weight loss goals or anything...

I am trying to advocate health, reasonable changes that won't feel overly taxing to people and will result in steady, healthy weight loss.

I just do not see how chaining myself to my bed and starving myself until I am thin is "healthy" as some people suggest.

cmccorma

I've read through this thread a few times and I still can't determine the answer to what I think is a big part of the original poster's question: why would MFP set a calorie goal less than your BMR?

This is MFP's program. Weight Watchers has their own program, which is very successful and quite possible has people eating below their BMR as BMR is not mentioned. OP should perhaps email the creators or moderators or customize the calorie options or find a program that fits with her beliefs.

cmccorma

Results in weight loss, as is expected. But the BMR drop is significant. 23% is more than simply the fat and muscle loss experienced. The muscle loss at 25% of weight lost is rather insignificant when calculated as maintenance calories. This reduced BMR is due mostly to reduced calories supplied to the internal organs.

Yes, at most likely 800 calories which is considered a VLCD. No one on this post is remotely suggesting 800 calories. 800 calories is obviously way below everyone's BMR.

Indeed! I also say its perfectly fine to go some time below BMR. Just not LONG periods of time. My BMR is 1500... I don't see people suggesting I eat 100 calories for 5 years to reach my weight loss goals or anything...

I am trying to advocate health, reasonable changes that won't feel overly taxing to people and will result in steady, healthy weight loss.

I just do not see how chaining myself to my bed and starving myself until I am thin is "healthy" as some people suggest.

Of course I agree with all that, but Pu is not one of those people which is why I responded. He in no way promotes eating disordered behavior as you can see by his many many posts.

DanaDark

It seems like you're trying to say that the less you eat the slower your metabolism goes. This is true, guess what? The more you eat the faster your metabolism goes.(you're eating MORE calories too off setting the deficit) so it makes no difference.


The higher your metabolism the MORE your body has to work, putting stress on it.

You are free to be anorexic all you want. If you actively refuse to listen to science and even YOUR OWN ADVICE as I noted above, that's all on you.

ExplorinLauren

Care to share your stats? (age, weight etc) that you used for the calculations? Something, literally, doesn't add up.

5' 7" , 203.8 lbs. I'm a stay at home mom (not a sit on the couch mom) I clean a 5 bedroom 2/story house daily, mow lawn, have 4 children, chase a 2 year old and infant all day... along with that I exercise 5-6 days a week extra, doing P90X and 30 day Shred, etc.

Oh, and I'm 33 lol

jeez you're a hero! (seriously)
if i'm ever a stay at home mom, i hope i have the energy to get all that done on a daily basis!!

Thanks! lol