BMR can NOT truly be calculated online

Verity1111

And I do agree with others who say it's better to eat nearer your daily requirements and to loose weight steadily - than to aim for a quick fix with an unattainably low daily intake.

1200 would have been too low for me this time last year to contemplate.

Today with my new situation it is right.

Not everyone on 1200 is aiming to loose weight quickly....

That is my point. Thank you for the reply. Yes, some people need help, but if they dont ask for a change to their calories I dont think it should be pushed at them after theyve already said they will gain at any higher. I have seen people go as far to say "Well up your activity level". Im sorry, but I think it is way personal to tell someone to workout more. That is really none of our business and not our place to tell someone unless they ask us.

Verity1111

I completely agree with the OP that the best way to work out your TDEE is actually to try eating at it. I have yet to find a calculator, or even a gadget, that gets anywhere close to predicting my TDEE. Something about me is off the scale (Logging? BMR? NEAT?) but what it is doesn't really matter, now that I have already found my TDEE through experimentation.

I didn't have the sense to do this first, as the OP did. I think the OP is making a perfectly valid point about BMR calculators, and it is a pity that anger against 1200kcal backlashes has masked this. Personally I recommend that people start at mfp's suggested maintenance and adjust from there, but just like 1200, that's just a random number.

Me too! My TDEE is a lot different than calculated. That was my point. I know 1200 is not okay for everyone, but my point is that you shouldnt say "eat more" when for all we know they may need to eat lower than most people for some reason. Every person has a different metabolism and it is controlled by a lot more physical ailments than just activity level and weight. Thank you for the reply. xo Im happy to hear you finally found your TDEE too!

Metabolism is controlled by hormones, calorie/food intake, muscle %, environment (cold/heat/weather), your weight, activity level, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and it changes to a slight degree daily. So even with a doctor's visit, it's not 100% accurate unless you get measured daily, and experimentation is a good thing, but something to consider, if you are vitamin deficient and that's impacting your metabolism then your metabolism may read low, but you may need to eat more to get more vitamins/nutrients to start it working properly again, and by eating less and less you end up exacerbating an underlying unknown condition. Therefore, you should have things checked out by a doctor if you continue to have to eat less and less to lose weight to the point you are at < 1200 calories like some people on here.

I don't think I could go under 1,200, but if it is monitored by a dr and for health reasons or the person is positive and tested to have an abnormally low BMR I guess it makes sense.

MemphisKitten

True that the calculators are not 100% accurate, but they do give someone a general idea of a place to start when beginning a diet and fitness program. There are lots of people on here who don't have the slightest clue on how many calories they should eat and how much and what type of exercise they should do. Some people think eating 1200 calories is for everyone when this is clearly not true. Others go by the skewed government guideline of 2000! Those of us who recommend to people to calculate their BMR using an online program are only trying to help these people. So sorry it upsets you to that degree.

Verity1111

Something about my body/logging/diet means that I have to eat over 2500 kcal to not lose. A BMR prediction would only put me at 1336kcal, which would be half or less of my TDEE, which is one definition of 'starvation', so for me, a calculated BMR is not significantly better than 1200.

If I had had the guts and common sense when I started mfp to just log what I was eating (I was maintaining whilst eating family sized slabs of Cadbury's Dairy Milk on a daily basis) I would have realised 1200kcal was way too little. None of the calculators would have done that. I think starting at 1200 and adding would be very challenging, but if people started from what they were already eating, or maintenance on mfp, an experientially derived TDEE would be more reliable than any calculator.

That works as well. That is how I work it out now. I try different levels. The first time I started with 1200 and worked up, then back down. (It took time, but I felt it was my only real option). The next few times I wanted to adjust I would start with a bit higher number, if I hit a plateau from extra exercise, etc, and see if it helped me. Thank you for the comment, that makes sense too because I guess for some people it could be difficult. xo

petiteLady89

Okay.. what ever you say.

Verity1111

@nikilis I dont take experimentation to literally look and see where your body maintains weight is a "guess". If it is, everything in science is a guess. Once you have your TDEE it makes things simpler and since TDEE is maintanance basically you find that and you should be okay.

@CoderGal. I HAVE tried it. It did NOT work for me. I maintain or I gain. I follow my calories to the T. I track even my 1tbsp ketchup (20 calories) I memorized all the food I eat. Bread, 100 cal or 35 cal (the brands I buy), buffallo mayo 35 cal, mustard 0 cal. It was not that and it was just my calories being too high for my energy expediture. Sorry to say I wish 1550 was my BMR, but it was not and I have tried eating more and I gain, so I would know. That would be why I can say for sure. I experimented and I know my body. Everyone IS a special snowflake. That is the issue. We each burn different amounts of calories per day. If you are 5'4" and 140lbs and so am I we wont likely have the same BMR/RMR. Also, BMR can not be calculated efficiently. If you get your BMR tested it won't likely be the same as these online calculators.

@Sarauk2sf Mine is not spot on, but thank you for making it clear that there are exceptions who it is off for.

@neverstray That is how I feel. I automatically did that. BMR didn't work for me so I tried that and it did work, so I don't see the big deal of me eating 1200 calories for a few days or a week to find my own TDEE. I also dont see why I would argue with someone who eats 1200 calories if they tried 1400 and it makes them maintain their weight.

@Oishii The issue with me is I either dont lose at all, gain, or lose a lot at once. No matter where my calories are. If I lose it will fluctuate though, 3lbs, .5lbs, 1lb, etc.

whitelaurel

I subscribe to the self-experimentation method, too. Although I'd probably start at 1500 myself if I was trying to figure out where to maintain.

I honestly don't trust any of the quick weight-related calculations I find online. It's all proven to be BS (in my case.) Especially anything that simply wants you to plug in height and weight and age and gender. Just lol.

Verity1111

Your logic is flawed--the most acceptable LOW POINT is going to cause hormonal changes that will skew the scale number. Dieting and super high deficits = higher cortisol = more water weight = less weight LOST on the scale than is actually true = distorted picture of your true TDEE = further undereating when you could eat more and get results.

I think you have a good idea but I'd rather start the other way around--with the highest acceptable number and see how close it comes. Then adjust. You're not going to gain any significant amount of weight in 2-4 weeks.

How do you figure? If someone has a BMR of 975, or an RMR of around there lets say, then 1200 is above their low point. Also, if your RMR is 975 how is 1200 a "high deficit" smh. That is flawed. Plus, as I said, the point is that people should be able to do as they wish because they know what works for them better than anyone else usually.

If someone has a BMR that low.....the LAST thing I would suggest is to eat 1200 calories and doing even more damages. Sheesh that is the best way to be sure to gain the weight back.

Why would they want to gain if they are here to lose weight? That makes no sense. I am talking about people who have a slow metabolism and a lower BMR than usual for their size. You know they ARE unique snowflakes. Just because people are the same weight, does not mean they have the same BMR.

Verity1111

True that the calculators are not 100% accurate, but they do give someone a general idea of a place to start when beginning a diet and fitness program. There are lots of people on here who don't have the slightest clue on how many calories they should eat and how much and what type of exercise they should do. Some people think eating 1200 calories is for everyone when this is clearly not true. Others go by the skewed government guideline of 2000! Those of us who recommend to people to calculate their BMR using an online program are only trying to help these people. So sorry it upsets you to that degree.

Recommendation is fine, it is pushing it that drives me up the wall. Like once someone is on here for months, like me now, people still push and push their opinions, like now. I mean holy sh? What dont people get. Not everyone can eat 1600 calories and lose weight. Some people have a very low BMR, medically tested, not "online calculated". I understand what you are saying and agree 100%, but I think half the people on here are clueless to the entire point.

Verity1111

I subscribe to the self-experimentation method, too. Although I'd probably start at 1500 myself if I was trying to figure out where to maintain.

I honestly don't trust any of the quick weight-related calculations I find online. It's all proven to be BS (in my case.) Especially anything that simply wants you to plug in height and weight and age and gender. Just lol.

Me too. -_- It tells me my BMR is 1550. Which is funny, since I gain at slightly over that. Hm. So basically I can not lose weight at any net or Ill be unhealthy. Some bs, so obviously my BMR is lower than it thinks it is.

Verity1111

P.S. We ARE all special snowflakes. I'm not sure what is up with people being so ignorant of that fact? Sorry for people who don't like it, but it is scientifically proven. There are tons more factors in weight loss than height and weight. Just because we are the same height and weight, doesn't mean our metabolisms work the same. I just don't understand why that is so hard to understand. If you're new, just don't assume because you are the same height and weight as someone and their diet doesn't work for you that it is you doing something wrong, you may just be different in other ways metabolically. I am in medical school and it is basic biology to understand that everyone's body works differently and burns differently, etc. The rest is all estimates and while accurate 60 or 80 or whatever % of the time it can be incorrect, so try something new and realize it may not be your error, but an error in the system. This is why when someone eats 1200 calories not EVERY person is under-eating. Many? sure. Everyone? NO. Some people do not burn as quickly for many reasons. Even before I started medical courses my midwife told me while pregnant people often grossly OVER estimate their caloric needs. She said do not go by calculators and simply eat when hungry (pregnant or not) and watch to see how my weight changes, if I gain then eat less and if I lose eat more. That simple.

Verity1111

Forget about bmr or bmi
Just stand in front of mirror if you are satisfiyed that's it. otherwise change your body shape.

Totally this!!!

The problem is people don't know HOW to do it!

I don't care about BMI . I don't count calories annd I didn't feel food part in mfp.
I just look at my body after 2 weeks. If no changes happened then Ichange my diet. less carbs mor protein etc..
I Don't believe on BMI and thoes things.

Me either. Not unless medically tested by a doctor. OR proven through trial and error.

onyxgirl17

I'm pretty damn lazy when not at work or school honestly... I will get up and go to the gym but I don't like moving lol. I like using my brain not my muscles. Anyways because of this my TDEE is fairly low even the calculators show that it's like ~1800. A bit less now since I've already lost 25 pounds. All I know is I lose a little less than a pound a week (3-4 pounds a month) eating ~1300 calories.

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

I'm pretty damn lazy when not at work or school honestly... I will get up and go to the gym but I don't like moving lol. I like using my brain not my muscles. Anyways because of this my TDEE is fairly low even the calculators show that it's like ~1800. A bit less now since I've already lost 25 pounds. All I know is I lose a little less than a pound a week (3-4 pounds a month) eating ~1300 calories.

a pound a week is equivalent to a 500 calorie deficit. 500+1300 = 1800, quite close to what the calculators say.

CoderGal

I HAVE tried it. It did NOT work for me. I maintain or I gain. I follow my calories to the T. I track even my 1tbsp ketchup (20 calories) I memorized all the food I eat. Bread, 100 cal or 35 cal (the brands I buy), buffallo mayo 35 cal, mustard 0 cal. It was not that and it was just my calories being too high for my energy expediture. Sorry to say I wish 1550 was my BMR, but it was not and I have tried eating more and I gain, so I would know. That would be why I can say for sure. I experimented and I know my body. Everyone IS a special snowflake. That is the issue. We each burn different amounts of calories per day. If you are 5'4" and 140lbs and so am I we wont likely have the same BMR/RMR. Also, BMR can not be calculated efficiently. If you get your BMR tested it won't likely be the same as these online calculators.

What does saying you 'did it' mean though? How long did you do it for? What counted as a 'gain'? Over what period? how did you measure your food? What is your diet like? I take all of those things into account when I have my little EE chats. I don't think anyone is disputing that it can be calculated to the T for everyone or for anyone.

But typically, yes, we burn different amounts of calories per day...but that's not because of BMR.

If we are 5'4 and 140 lbs we likely won't calculate the same BMR/RMR indeed. Especially since the Katch-McArdle Formula takes LBM into account? I don't think anyone will argue with that, it's in the equation. That would make BMR/RMR differ from person to person by the equation. There are several calculations that can be more accurate depending who you are. My problem with your post is it seems like some people think if it's 'scientific' it has to be with zero deviation...which isn't true. If you're really out of the normal, know which side you should lye on or go get your numbers read by a doctor. Many of the people who do the BMR calculation thing have had their RMR read and yeah, they are not what they expect. NEAT has a big factor in that too.

It isn't an inaccurate calculation so much as you need to know what it is and when you can use it and what it is used for. It's like plugging x*y into an equation when you really want x+y. When dealing with integers, it'll only accurate if x=y=2.

CoderGal

P.S. We ARE all special snowflakes. I'm not sure what is up with people being so ignorant of that fact?

No need to get angry about it special snowflake. I can explain that to you. Many people realize when we are special snowflakes. And for the majority of cases, this isn't one of them.

Also, BMR is not what you burn during the day...just to clarify...it doesn't seem like you know what it is.

Also, agreed:
"There are tons more factors in weight loss than height and weight. Just because we are the same height and weight, doesn't mean our metabolisms work the same"
"you may just be different in other ways" - absolutely, if you tap your foot more then the person next to you, you can burn more calories...if you tend to sit up straight and flex your muscles, and tap your foot...etc
"everyone's body works differently and burns differently, etc" - correct, especially since we're not in the same place at the same time doing and eating the same things. And if we were it still wouldn't be the same because we're all different shapes and sizes.


ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE STRONGLY:
"1200 calories not EVERY person is under-eating. Many? sure. Everyone? NO." - if you are a regular healthy human being big or small, then yes, 1200 is to little. If you have some kind of metabolic problem...a lot of the time it's strongly recommended you do not go about this the low calorie way (ie many thyroid problems). I can't think of a case where it would be over eating...maybe if you just had your guts taken out. But then that equation once again wouldn't apply...because you no longer contain most of an organ that's suppose to be there for the equation to help.

"if I gain then eat less and if I lose eat more. That simple" - not in all cases. What happened to your special snowflake theory? My friend has metabolic problems. She was eating 1200 calories...and then 900 calories...and then 800....she got down to 600. I argued with her like I'm arguing with you right now. Since I knew she had thyroid problems I told her to use a specific TDEE equation but take into account that her BMR even in normal cases will be less and even more so since she had suppressed it. Well, she doesn't exercise regularly and she's eatting over 1600 calories now. And she's still going down I also know a anorexic who was the same height as me and weighed less. She was gaining on significantly less food then me. She has since smartened up since she realized that she can still be slim and hot and eat more. If you look around these forums you may find the odd ED case that has not been deleted. I've seen several of them where they were gaining on little food, though I wasn't around them at the time so I do not know. However there's a lot of studies indicating that low calorie diets suppress the metabolism. There's also an explanation for the small, inital weight gain people always freak out over. So, special snowflake, please don't send a bunch of new people down the wrong path because they think they're a special snowflake floating around next to you, when they could be doing a whole lot better without this misinformation.

nikilis

Ok, I'd like to apologise to you all. the reason this thread exists is kind of my fault. you see I was having a heated debate yesterday about this very topic with the OP, and around the most heated point in her frustration she vented into a new thread, and walla, we have another 4 pages of it even though the original thread resolved.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/786079-low-cal-high-cal-ima-just-eat-my-cals-feed-the-troll?page=2#posts-11725796

what she's really saying, is that your online BMR's are inaccurate. thats true. the most accurate ANY bmr can be would be up to 75-80% (the only online calc that can boast those numbers is Katch-McArdle) below you will find a graphic from the american journal of clinical nutrition:



source: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/5/941.full

This data demonstrates that even the hospital tests have a variance similar to the Katch-McArdle formula, so its about as accurate as its going to get.

so on the argument of BMR's not being lazer accurate she's right.

her second position she began defending because her experimentation to find her TDEE began at 1200, and people immediately jumped on her because she said 1200 perhaps without realising that it was just the start point of her experiment, which led her to understand 1400 was a good number after testing (i think that is the jist)

so although the statement "people can eat below 1200" is only at the most 20% true (probably more like 5-15%) there is some truth in it and her use of this is reactionary to peoples reactionary responses to the number 1200. ITS A VICIOUS CYCLE.

Finally, she defends her methodology. it is as follows.

start with number xxxx, track your weight fluctuation every 1-3 days and adjust up/down accordingly until you reach maintenance and then adjust down to your weekly weightloss goal.

this isn't that bad, other than ideally it would be better to start at 1500 cals as thats the average BMR and apply the same methodology over a longer time scale, lets say 1 week adjustments, because as we all know, bowel movements can weigh 1lb, and look like a log jam.

So in the end, although the OP's advice is a bit vague in parts and could do with some improvement, its not completely invalid or false.


EDIT: I suppose the only way to get a more specific estimate starting point instead of 1500 would be to calculate your Katch-McArdle BMR. just sayin. ^x^

now I think I'll go



*in reading this post you agree to have at least a 10% level of humour. failure to do so does not hold author liable.