Bmr and all that?

kingon8

I was wanting to lose 2 lbs a week on here, and my bmr is 1595, to lose 2 lbs, they put me at 1200 cals a day, then I read posts on here that you should never eat under your bmr, so I switched my goal to 1 lb a week and now my cals pers day is 1650. Which would be the better route to take? The 1200 a day or the 1650?? I am so confused about all this.

kingon8

I was wanting to lose 2 lbs a week on here, and my bmr is 1595, to lose 2 lbs, they put me at 1200 cals a day, then I read posts on here that you should never eat under your bmr, so I switched my goal to 1 lb a week and now my cals pers day is 1650. Which would be the better route to take? The 1200 a day or the 1650?? I am so confused about all this.

dulceluva

uhm, try searching the forum for a better answer but I have a 1200 calorie per day 'diet' but I also am burning like 400+ calories a day too, so then I add those 400 calories to my 1200 and I am technically allowed to eat 1600 calories a day (if I choose to eat all of my burned calories).

Good luck with the research

auntkaren

I want to loose 2 pounds a week and it put me at 1290, probably because of my age and not as active as others that are working at jobs. But anyway I would think the 1200 calorie would be good to loose 2 pounds a week if that's what you want.

Helawat

This is from another thread:

You should eat your BMR calories + Workout Calories - 500. So if your BMR is say 1300, and you burnt 600, that's 1900 total. So you should eat 1400.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/2829-1960-calories-or-1200-calories-i-am-so-confused?hl=BMR&page=1#posts-18685

AJCM

I'm not sure why people are suggesting that eating less than bmr is a bad thing...

Think of people who have gastric bypass surgery - they certainly eat less! I think it is widely agreed in the health and fitness community that losing 2lbs a week is a healthy goal. I say go for it!

rhondababy

This is from another thread:

You should eat your BMR calories + Workout Calories - 500. So if your BMR is say 1300, and you burnt 600, that's 1900 total. So you should eat 1400.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/2829-1960-calories-or-1200-calories-i-am-so-confused?hl=BMR&page=1#posts-18685

Right- that would be 3500 calorie deficit per week, or a 1 lb. loss. If you want to lose more, adjust accordingly. The best way would be to add exercise, not to drop your calories too low.

rhondababy

Forgot to say- that's because your BMR is your base Metabolic Rate. In other words- what you need to take in to maintain your weight, not lose.

rhondababy

Forgot to say- that's because your BMR is your base Metabolic Rate. In other words- what you need to take in to maintain your weight, not lose.

OOPS!!! So sorry- that's actually not correct. The BMR is the number of calories you need just to survive- no activity whatsovever (including digestion!).
My apologies.

songbyrdsweet

I'm not sure why people are suggesting that eating less than bmr is a bad thing...

Think of people who have gastric bypass surgery - they certainly eat less! I think it is widely agreed in the health and fitness community that losing 2lbs a week is a healthy goal. I say go for it!

Those people are morbidly obese though, and under close watch of a doctor. Since they have so much body fat and are actually close to death due to their weight, they can maintain an extreme caloric deficit. However, those rare cases shouldn't be used as comparison to the general public, even if they are overweight. Like rhonda said, you do need those calories for normal functioning, and the only reason to eat less is if you'll pass on soon at your current weight. Severely restricting calories will have a negative influence on hormones and lean body mass.