Possibly boring, but I need help

StephCoff1969

So first off I will say that when I was a young girl I was in and out of the hospital due to anorexia. I then became terrified of food and quit eating hardly anything... Of course being sedentary didn't help; I gained a ton of weight.

Fast forward to now. I am just starting out and have been reading quite a bit of the topics here and have a question..

Ok so I am 5'2", 43 and female.. My weight at the moment is 203.
My body fat % is 43.5%
I plugged all my numbers in using the Katch - McArdle method and this is what it gave me...
My BMR is 1489
My TDEE is 1786.80

So I have come to understand through MFP that I need to eat more than my BMR but less than my TDEE. So trying to come up with a calorie deficit is becoming a nightmare.. I know that I can't take away 500 calories to equal a pound of weight loss a week, because it would be lower than my BMR..
I originally started off with what MFP gave me, which is 1200 a day and did lose 4lbs. I don't my metabolism to shut down so I upped it to 1500 today..

So would this be a good starting point? Or should I change it?
Also I have been sedentary up until a couple of days ago and am slowly starting to exercise, and I am really sensitive to carbs, I gain really quickly eating them...

I hope that this makes sense and appreciate any advice or kick in the pants...

bcattoes

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

sandradev1

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

And your evidence for your advice is ???????????????????????????????????????

bcattoes

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

And your evidence for your advice is ???????????????????????????????????????

Hmm, not exactly sure what type of evidence you are looking for. Most everything is in her original post. Did you want me to get a control subject and do a study on the 2 of them or something?

auddii

You are going to be in this for the long haul, so I wouldn't suggest "crash dieting" or eating below your diet. Your body needs the fuel to survive. I'm starting out in this process, so I can't speak from much experience. I am in the eating above your BMR camp, and I'm using the in place of a road map.

If you look at threads, there are a lot of people who say they stalled by eating 1200, and once they upped their calories, they started losing again. There are probably an equal number of people who say they consistently ate at large deficits and didn't have any problem losing (I don't know how many of them have reached goal or who were successfully maintaining; I'm sure there were some). Basically, it seems like different things work.

I'm choosing to go the road map route because I discovered that when I would lose/gain the same 10 pounds I was probably only consuming about 1000 calories on weekdays, and then going on extreme binges on the weekend. I know I'm able to make healthier food choices and say no to bad foods if I don't feel hungry or feel like I'm depriving myself. I feel this will be more sustainable. Also, the recommended maintenance calories for my goal weight is only about 100 calories above what I'm currently eating. It won't be a large adjustment to go to maintenance, and hopefully I'll naturally slow down the weight loss as I get closer to goal (as is often recommended).

I've taken a lot of biochemistry classes, and I do know that the body can destroy itself when it's starved. However, I only learned the process; they never mentioned when it starts to happen (it was a basic medical school biochem). I can't say if eating at 1200 calories will hurt your body or not (again, 50 people will chime in and say it will, 50 will say it won't). If you are concerned, I'd err on the side of caution. Start at 1500, and stay there for a few weeks. When I first upped my calories I gained a few pounds, and I'm going back down again. If after a month you're still gaining or staying steady, maybe you should try and reduce. I wouldn't necessarily jump down to 1200 though. Maybe try 1400 next, etc.

kristen6022

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

Did you even read the OP's post? Her BMR is 1489 and you advised her to eat 1200 even though you also said she shouldn't eat below her BMR. She has 57 pounds to lose according to her ticker - what exactly to you qualify as a "little weight"?

Any way, OP. Give this a shot, just for kicks...

Net your BMR, so everyday you should end the day with at least 1489 calories (or round it up to 1500, just for neat #'s). Try this for 3 weeks, if at the end of the the 3 weeks you haven't lost any weight, start working out, but still eating the same amount of calories. Even if you were just doing 3 30 minute walks a week, getting your heart rate up just a little should kick your metabolism in to a good fat burning machine. If you don't workout, you risk losing muscle mass, so at the end you'll be skinny fat - which is typically frowned upon on here, but it depends on if you go more for numbers on the scale or a reduction in BF.

Try and keep your macros to 40% carbs, 30% Fat and 30% Protein. Lean protein, veggies, fruits, whole grains being a part of your daily diet will make a huge difference!

I also recommend once you incorporate some cardio in to your week - start lifting or doing body weight exercises (planks, push ups, crunches, etc). I'm recommending taking baby steps and not going all gung ho at first because most people get burned out and quit. If you can make these healthy changes slowly, you will more than likely be able to stick with them!

sandradev1

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

And your evidence for your advice is ???????????????????????????????????????

Hmm, not exactly sure what type of evidence you are looking for. Most everything is in her original post. Did you want me to get a control subject and do a study on the 2 of them or something?

I meant evidence for your statement:

Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

That is a very bold statement to make without any evidence to back it up, when there is plenty of evidence around about the effects of eating low calories

bcattoes

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

And your evidence for your advice is ???????????????????????????????????????

Hmm, not exactly sure what type of evidence you are looking for. Most everything is in her original post. Did you want me to get a control subject and do a study on the 2 of them or something?

I meant evidence for your statement:

Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

That is a very bold statement to make without any evidence to back it up, when there is plenty of evidence around about the effects of eating low calories

1200 is not that low for someone only 5'2" tall. There is plenty of evidence that eating that low for someone that small is fine, especially at the beginning. 20% below TDEE is < BMR for her.

ETA: what evidence can you provide that eating 1200 net calories per day would do her harm?

bcattoes

Oops, double post

StephCoff1969

Thank you for all of your advice, and I will take everything at heart.. I will try and stay right above my BMR for a few weeks and see what happens and adjust accordingly.. You all have been a great help.
I am starting to exercise, just not all out quite yet.. I am taking baby steps in order to stay with it..
Again thank you so much for your input.

sandradev1

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

And your evidence for your advice is ???????????????????????????????????????

Hmm, not exactly sure what type of evidence you are looking for. Most everything is in her original post. Did you want me to get a control subject and do a study on the 2 of them or something?

I meant evidence for your statement:

Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

That is a very bold statement to make without any evidence to back it up, when there is plenty of evidence around about the effects of eating low calories

1200 is not that low for someone only 5'2" tall. There is plenty of evidence that eating that low for someone that small is fine, especially at the beginning. 20% below TDEE is < BMR for her.

Perhaps you could answer my point, when you get the chance.

Where is your evidence that eating below your BMR rate will only damage your metabolic rate if you only have a little weight to lose. Also, what is you idea of 'a little weight' I bet it is different to mine and any other person on this site, so how do you qualify it.

dantrick

here is a couple of sites that have information about starvation mode. hopefully this will help solve the mystery on starvation mode being a myth or not.

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

sandradev1

You said:

[/quote]

1200 is not that low for someone only 5'2" tall. There is plenty of evidence that eating that low for someone that small is fine, especially at the beginning. 20% below TDEE is < BMR for her.

ETA: what evidence can you provide that eating 1200 net calories per day would do her harm?
[/quote]


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

wareagle8706

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

Ignore ignore. This makes NO sense.....!!

I'd go with 1550-1600 personally. I honestly am not sure I'm convinced of this whole BMR thing (but I definitely know the poster above is WRONG).... I regularly eat and then excercise to where I would fall below it and have no issues with "stalls" or "starvation mode." Try 1600 for a few weeks and see how you do. Also exercise regularly like taking walks and such.

AllonsYtotheTardis

OP - I'm the same height as you, around the same age, and started about the same weight. I was eating 1490 calories a day at first - that's what MFP calculated for me. And I was losing at that level, just fine. About 1 lb per week.

ETA - I wasn't doing any exercise at all, at the time. I'm eating more now, because I'm exercising (I use MFP's calorie allowance, then eat back most of my exercise calories). I calculated my BMR, TDEE, etc etc,... and I found that for ME what MFP was giving me fit right in with those calculations.

bcattoes

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

And your evidence for your advice is ???????????????????????????????????????

Hmm, not exactly sure what type of evidence you are looking for. Most everything is in her original post. Did you want me to get a control subject and do a study on the 2 of them or something?

I meant evidence for your statement:

Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

That is a very bold statement to make without any evidence to back it up, when there is plenty of evidence around about the effects of eating low calories

1200 is not that low for someone only 5'2" tall. There is plenty of evidence that eating that low for someone that small is fine, especially at the beginning. 20% below TDEE is < BMR for her.

Perhaps you could answer my point, when you get the chance.

Where is your evidence that eating below your BMR rate will only damage your metabolic rate if you only have a little weight to lose. Also, what is you idea of 'a little weight' I bet it is different to mine and any other person on this site, so how do you qualify it.

Yes, I'm sure you are right. My definitions are different from everyone else and everyone else is just like you. You offer no evidence and neither have I, and that makes you right and me wrong.

OP, I'm 3 inches taller than you. I didn't look at your age, if it's available, but I'm guessing I'm also several years older. I've eaten under 1200 calories for long periods of time and it never affected my performance or damaged my metabolism. My advice is based on 30 years in healthcare and personal experience staying thin and fit for several decades. I have no diseases, take no meds and have a healthy weight and BF% and bone density.

I am not suggesting what works for me or anyone else will work for you. I am not in the mood to argue, but you asked for advice and I gave what I had. Do with it what you will, even that is to ignore it. All the best to you.

bcattoes

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

Ignore ignore. This makes NO sense.....!!

I'd go with 1550-1600 personally. I honestly am not sure I'm convinced of this whole BMR thing (but I definitely know the poster above is WRONG).... I regularly eat and then excercise to where I would fall below it and have no issues with "stalls" or "starvation mode." Try 1600 for a few weeks and see how you do. Also exercise regularly like taking walks and such.

I think perhaps you misread my post, or I wasn't clear. I never suggested she'd go into starvation mode.

jfrankic

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

Use the fat2fitradio calculators (link is in IPOARM thread above) to get your TDEE and take your cut from that.

sandradev1

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.



Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

And your evidence for your advice is ???????????????????????????????????????

Hmm, not exactly sure what type of evidence you are looking for. Most everything is in her original post. Did you want me to get a control subject and do a study on the 2 of them or something?

I meant evidence for your statement:

Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

That is a very bold statement to make without any evidence to back it up, when there is plenty of evidence around about the effects of eating low calories

1200 is not that low for someone only 5'2" tall. There is plenty of evidence that eating that low for someone that small is fine, especially at the beginning. 20% below TDEE is < BMR for her.

Perhaps you could answer my point, when you get the chance.

Where is your evidence that eating below your BMR rate will only damage your metabolic rate if you only have a little weight to lose. Also, what is you idea of 'a little weight' I bet it is different to mine and any other person on this site, so how do you qualify it.

Yes, I'm sure you are right. My definitions are different from everyone else and everyone else is just like you. You offer no evidence and neither have I, and that makes you right and me wrong.

OP, I'm 3 inches taller than you. I didn't look at your age, if it's available, but I'm guessing I'm also several years older. I've eaten under 1200 calories for long periods of time and it never affected my performance or damaged my metabolism. My advice is based on 30 years in healthcare and personal experience staying thin and fit for several decades. I have no diseases, take no meds and have a healthy weight and BF% and bone density.

I am not suggesting what works for me or anyone else will work for you. I am not in the mood to argue, but you asked for advice and I gave what I had. Do with it what you will, even that is to ignore it. All the best to you.

I meant that everyone on this site will have a different view, not saying they would have the same view as me. As for evidence, I put the link in the post above. If you want to read further, search on 'In Place Of A Road Map' on the forums.

StephCoff1969

It was not my intention to start an argument. I know that everyone is different and what works for one may not for another.
I do respect all of your opinions and advice. Thank you again..

wareagle8706

1200 sounds like a good number for you. Eating below your BMR is only likely to do damage to your metabolism if you only have a little weight to use and you are not exercising. Your body will use your fat for fuel, you do not have to feed it all the calories it uses.

Another way to do it is to figure your TDEE at your goal weight and eat that amount. Then you should have no transition to maintenance.

Also, remember that the calcualtors are based on averages so if you are not seeing the desired results you may need to adjust.

Good luck!

Ignore ignore. This makes NO sense.....!!

I'd go with 1550-1600 personally. I honestly am not sure I'm convinced of this whole BMR thing (but I definitely know the poster above is WRONG).... I regularly eat and then excercise to where I would fall below it and have no issues with "stalls" or "starvation mode." Try 1600 for a few weeks and see how you do. Also exercise regularly like taking walks and such.

I think perhaps you misread my post, or I wasn't clear. I never suggested she'd go into starvation mode.

I never said you did.

Firefox7275

Given your history I would be concerned about you going low on calories, that can trigger changes in your brain chemistry that risks a relapse. Maybe track number of servings of whole foods that work towards you being healthy, lean and satiated? Base your day around at least nine servings of low sugar fruits and vegetables in the full rainbow of colours, add in reduced fat dairy, oily fish and mineral rich foods (nuts, seeds, beans lentils). Watch your portion sizes but don't deprive yourself, fill up on fruits and veggies. 'Smarter Science of Slim' is no calorie counting, just eat more exercise less - free podcasts on iTunes.