TDEE/BMR, am I totally doing this all wrong

VincitQuiSeVincit

I totally get the whole eating back your calories and eating at LEAST at my BMR, but I'm getting some conflicting advice.

My BMR is 1700. Which sounds like more than enough calories in a day, this is true. However, given that I am 5'2", 200 lbs, and have PLENTY of body fat that needs to go, am I really doing myself a major diservice if I am eating between 1200-1500 calories a day, at least for now?

If my TDEE clocks in at 2260, is eating 1700 calories a day already creating the 500 calorie a day deficit I need to lose approx 1lb a week...what's the harm in eating about 1400 calories a day and having that number be about 2lbs a week?

Why is this so frowned upon by some, while others are totally supportive?

sofielein

How can you survive on 1400 if you work out? (or howcome do you have that high BMR if you don't?)

cyberiarob

FWIW - I support it. When I was 200+ I was on a huge deficit and lost an average of 3 pounds per week. I plateaued after a while, which is when I decreased my deficit. Worked for me anyway

BeingAwesome247

In my own personal experience, I started overthinking things.
Decided to relinquish some control and follow the guided MFP calorie goals

VincitQuiSeVincit

How can you survive on 1400 if you work out? (or howcome do you have that high BMR if you don't?)

When I work out (which hasn't been much lately, but when I WAS), I was eating back my work out calories.
I am 5'3" and 200 lbs...BMR/ TDEE calculators give me those numbers. (With the TDEE, I am very honest about how low my activity levels are).

nicleed

How can you survive on 1400 if you work out? (or howcome do you have that high BMR if you don't?)

BMR has nothing to do with workouts. Her BMR is high because she is young and overweight.

The fact that her TDEE is not much higher than her BMR suggests she does not work out much as all..

As to the original question - all you can do is experiment. Try around 1400 to start, eat back exercise cals. If you start feeling hungry, tired, (or stabby - which is my problem when I undereat), then slowly increase till you find a sweet spot. It is not an exact science and the fact you have a bit to lose shows you can operate on a larger calorie deficit that people who only have 20 pounds or so to lose.

VincitQuiSeVincit

FWIW - I support it. When I was 200+ I was on a huge deficit and lost an average of 3 pounds per week. I plateaued after a while, which is when I decreased my deficit. Worked for me anyway

I'm Ok hitting a plateau eventually, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
I'm just hearing time and time again that I should never go under my BMR, but given just how significantly overweight I am at the moment, I don't forsee this being a major issue.

sofielein

Not sure about your low activity levels as you mentioned 2200ish...

My TDEE is 1800 and my BMR is 1380 and I am having 1200 kcal AND still feeling hungry time to time (literally sitting around all day).

So someone with a 2260 TDEE and an 1700 BMR sound like they need 1500-1600 minimum. I cannot imaginge surviving on 1200 in that case.

jesspi68

How can you survive on 1400 if you work out? (or howcome do you have that high BMR if you don't?)

BMR has nothing to do with workouts. Her BMR is high because she is young and overweight.

The fact that her TDEE is not much higher than her BMR suggests she does not work out much as all..

As to the original question - all you can do is experiment. Try around 1400 to start, eat back exercise cals. If you start feeling hungry, tired, (or stabby - which is my problem when I undereat), then slowly increase till you find a sweet spot. It is not an exact science and the fact you have a bit to lose shows you can operate on a larger calorie deficit that people who only have 20 pounds or so to lose.

Sorry this is off topic but I love this if you start feeling hungry, tired or stabby!! That's so me!! I get absolutely wretched when I don't have enough food. I'm a walking snickers commercial! "Dude, you get a little angry when you're hungry"

sofielein

clearly that was meant to be TDEE, but thanks for the explanation

Itsallbs15

[[/quote]
As to the original question - all you can do is experiment. Try around 1400 to start, eat back exercise cals. If you start feeling hungry, tired, (or stabby - which is my problem when I undereat), then slowly increase till you find a sweet spot. It is not an exact science and the fact you have a bit to lose shows you can operate on a larger calorie deficit that people who only have 20 pounds or so to lose.
[/quote]

This is exactly what I had to do to find the happy medium of losing weight and not being "stabby" ( I love that term!!!) due to hunger.

VincitQuiSeVincit

How can you survive on 1400 if you work out? (or howcome do you have that high BMR if you don't?)

BMR has nothing to do with workouts. Her BMR is high because she is young and overweight.

The fact that her TDEE is not much higher than her BMR suggests she does not work out much as all..

As to the original question - all you can do is experiment. Try around 1400 to start, eat back exercise cals. If you start feeling hungry, tired, (or stabby - which is my problem when I undereat), then slowly increase till you find a sweet spot. It is not an exact science and the fact you have a bit to lose shows you can operate on a larger calorie deficit that people who only have 20 pounds or so to lose.

Sorry this is off topic but I love this if you start feeling hungry, tired or stabby!! That's so me!! I get absolutely wretched when I don't have enough food. I'm a walking snickers commercial! "Dude, you get a little angry when you're hungry"

My issue has never been overeating in the way that most people consider over eating... I don't eat BIG meals, just unhealthy ones, so I really don't have issues with hunger, but I have issues with cravings. Im not focused on reducing the size of my meals now so much as what they are. Instead of a bag of M&Ms, a greek yogurt, instead of bacon, egg & cheese sandwhich, a veggie omelette. Some people know that their weight comes from large unhealthy meals, giants bowls of buttery pasta, or burgers and fries, but that's never been me. Ive just always under estimated the number of calories in what appeared to be "small" meals, if that makes sense?

paxbfl

I think it's ok to be under BMR for short periods. It's just important to understand that you shouldn't stay there for long periods as 1) it's not particularly healthy and 2) your weight-loss will eventually slow down or stop entirely.

This is why some people like the idea, some people hate it. Think of eating under BMR as a tool that must be used properly. Misused, it's a very bad thing that can cause frustration and even failure because people can't understand why they aren't losing weight. Eating more calories would seem wrong, but eating fewer calories is unthinkable.

I would recommend working out, though... if you work out, you can eat more and still lose 2 pounds a week. Plus you'll feel better and get all the cardio benefits.

Good luck!

nicleed

How can you survive on 1400 if you work out? (or howcome do you have that high BMR if you don't?)

BMR has nothing to do with workouts. Her BMR is high because she is young and overweight.

The fact that her TDEE is not much higher than her BMR suggests she does not work out much as all..

As to the original question - all you can do is experiment. Try around 1400 to start, eat back exercise cals. If you start feeling hungry, tired, (or stabby - which is my problem when I undereat), then slowly increase till you find a sweet spot. It is not an exact science and the fact you have a bit to lose shows you can operate on a larger calorie deficit that people who only have 20 pounds or so to lose.

Sorry this is off topic but I love this if you start feeling hungry, tired or stabby!! That's so me!! I get absolutely wretched when I don't have enough food. I'm a walking snickers commercial! "Dude, you get a little angry when you're hungry"

My issue has never been overeating in the way that most people consider over eating... I don't eat BIG meals, just unhealthy ones, so I really don't have issues with hunger, but I have issues with cravings. Im not focused on reducing the size of my meals now so much as what they are. Instead of a bag of M&Ms, a greek yogurt, instead of bacon, egg & cheese sandwhich, a veggie omelette. Some people know that their weight comes from large unhealthy meals, giants bowls of buttery pasta, or burgers and fries, but that's never been me. Ive just always under estimated the number of calories in what appeared to be "small" meals, if that makes sense?

Totally makes sense. And guess what, if you eat greek yogurt instead of M&Ms, it will keep you fuller for longer as well. Win/Win!

kathyhull

I'm around your height and started around 190 pounds. I was sticking to around 1,200 - 1,500 calories per day and walking at least 2 miles every day, dropped ~30 pounds in about 4 months. I felt very healthy doing that. I substantially increased my vegie intake and upped my protein. Although I didn't swear off breads and starches, I considered them treats and really limited them. And I substantially increased my water intake. Then I stayed there for a while. The next 10 pounds were a little harder to get off, I started doing some weight training and more aerobic exercise - I love ZUMBA.

The key is to listen to your body. If you're too weak to exercise or too hungry to be a civil human being, eat more. If you're feeling healthy and energetic, stick with it. I've got several different calculators and they all give me somewhat different numbers - it can get your head spinning. Use them as a general guide but tweak it to fit your life. Based on what you've put here, I'm guessing your resting metabolic rate is somewhere around 1600 - 1700, then, you have to add to that based on whether you're sedentary (~2,000), lightly active (~2,300), moderately active, etc... to determine what you need to just exist. Then, if you exercise (specific - 1/2 hour run or 60 minutes of ZUMBA), those are additional calories you need to exist. Decrease by 500 calories per day to lose 1 pound per week. So, if you're lighly active and want to lose 1 pound a week, eat about 1,800 and you should lose. If you feel too hungry (not bored or stressed) eat more. If you're not losing after a couple of weeks, try eating a little less but not too much. I'm no expert and you have youth on your side but you can do this thing! Just stick to it! You're worth it!

mulderpf

FWIW - I support it. When I was 200+ I was on a huge deficit and lost an average of 3 pounds per week. I plateaued after a while, which is when I decreased my deficit. Worked for me anyway

I'm Ok hitting a plateau eventually, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
I'm just hearing time and time again that I should never go under my BMR, but given just how significantly overweight I am at the moment, I don't forsee this being a major issue.

You seem more deadset on losing weight rather than getting healthy. Hitting a plateau shouldn't be ok for the sake of hitting a weight goal - it goes along the same type of thinking many people have that they want to lose weight and don't care whether it's muscle or fat. Rather do it right, than waste your time doing it wrong and having to do it over yet again.

Have you considered why you are almost back at square one? Would you not rather change your lifestyle for the better by learning how to eat better rather than just cutting your calories back to a level you cannot sustain for a long time?

You've already proved that this approach doesn't work for you - by seeing this as a diet, you simply seem to have stopped and quickly fell back to old habits (I'm assuming that this is why you picked the weight straight back up). Rather take your time and make lifestyle changes - do things that you can sustain in the long run rather than simply setting yourself up for future failure.

Justkritter

I totally get the whole eating back your calories and eating at LEAST at my BMR, but I'm getting some conflicting advice.

My BMR is 1700. Which sounds like more than enough calories in a day, this is true. However, given that I am 5'2", 200 lbs, and have PLENTY of body fat that needs to go, am I really doing myself a major diservice if I am eating between 1200-1500 calories a day, at least for now?

If my TDEE clocks in at 2260, is eating 1700 calories a day already creating the 500 calorie a day deficit I need to lose approx 1lb a week...what's the harm in eating about 1400 calories a day and having that number be about 2lbs a week?

Why is this so frowned upon by some, while others are totally supportive?

I've been there. From a 2500 usual I went down to 1300-1600 a day with a lightly active workout. I indeed lost weight at 2 lbs a week. It was good for over a month or so when I came on a plateau. I also was lifting then but was doing a lot lighter weights since I lack energy to do it. So I asked a trainer and he told me that I might have ruined my metabolism by cutting that much just to lose at a faster pace. Now I'm struggling to get back into my usual 2500 and its really hard. My body got kinda used to eating less so I feel bloated most of the time. I'm on my 2nd week in repairing my metabolism and energy and am eating at 2230 cal a day. I add 100 cal every week or so if I see a good rate of loss like .5-1 lb per week. I'm also back to lifting the heavy weights like before but still struggling with it since I'm still rebuilding my strength too.

I guess its really up to you which path you want to take but usually the one that takes longer and is more dedicated will be the better path.

Mads1997

I dont believe eating under your BMR does any harm if you have plenty of weight to lose (i still have 20kg to lose). I am eating 200 under my BMR under the care of my dietician. I am never hungry and feel great.
I tried eating and several hundred over my BMR and my weight stalled out. I found out all the online calculators were completely wrong my BMR was nowhere near what they said. If you can afford it go to a dietician and have your BMR tested.

VincitQuiSeVincit

FWIW - I support it. When I was 200+ I was on a huge deficit and lost an average of 3 pounds per week. I plateaued after a while, which is when I decreased my deficit. Worked for me anyway

I'm Ok hitting a plateau eventually, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
I'm just hearing time and time again that I should never go under my BMR, but given just how significantly overweight I am at the moment, I don't forsee this being a major issue.

You seem more deadset on losing weight rather than getting healthy. Hitting a plateau shouldn't be ok for the sake of hitting a weight goal - it goes along the same type of thinking many people have that they want to lose weight and don't care whether it's muscle or fat. Rather do it right, than waste your time doing it wrong and having to do it over yet again.

Have you considered why you are almost back at square one? Would you not rather change your lifestyle for the better by learning how to eat better rather than just cutting your calories back to a level you cannot sustain for a long time?

You've already proved that this approach doesn't work for you - by seeing this as a diet, you simply seem to have stopped and quickly fell back to old habits (I'm assuming that this is why you picked the weight straight back up). Rather take your time and make lifestyle changes - do things that you can sustain in the long run rather than simply setting yourself up for future failure.

I totally understand how it appears that way, but at this time last year, I was 100% committed to a lifestyle change. I didn't consider for one second that I was going to hit a goal weight and it would be magically ok to eat like crap again. I CRAVED the gym, I fell in love with vegetables I would have never touched before, and feeling fit and strong were better motivators than seeing numbers drop on the scale. While I wont go into detail, a number of things changed all at once in my life in July that caused me to completely stop going to the gym. Without that "strong" feeling, I let bad eating habits creep back up on me.
I am back on track to lose weight the healthy way, I am not trying to go below 1200, or even 1400 calories a day to start, but I feel like right now, seeing those big drops in the begininng is what will help motivate me to really keep this change up.

cyberiarob

Well, at least you're starting off better than I did. My goal when I first started was to just lose it quick then hopefully figure out a way to keep it off. I've changed so much since joining MFP and researching healthy living that I really can't see how I would ever fall back to that nasty lifestyle. Anyway, it sounds like you know how to take care of yourself and you know what needs to be done.

And just to add to my initial reply - I was very diligent about keeping track of my macros and making sure that my "diet" was balanced properly.

DebbieLyn63

I totally get the whole eating back your calories and eating at LEAST at my BMR, but I'm getting some conflicting advice.

My BMR is 1700. Which sounds like more than enough calories in a day, this is true. However, given that I am 5'2", 200 lbs, and have PLENTY of body fat that needs to go, am I really doing myself a major diservice if I am eating between 1200-1500 calories a day, at least for now?

If my TDEE clocks in at 2260, is eating 1700 calories a day already creating the 500 calorie a day deficit I need to lose approx 1lb a week...what's the harm in eating about 1400 calories a day and having that number be about 2lbs a week?

Why is this so frowned upon by some, while others are totally supportive?

If you are only 5'2" and 200 lbs, unless you are very muscular, then your Body Fat % is probably at least 50% and that would put your BMR around 1350, not 1700. You should try the Katch Mcardle BMR calculator which factors in your BF%.

The calculator on the right side of this site is the KM one.
http://www.cordianet.com/calculator.htm