Ok. How much do I need to eat? (BMR Related)

Siege_Tank

When I first joined MFP, ate 1200. Failed.

Got the great advice to look up BMR. Did it. Set my eating to 100 calories more than BMR. Lost 5-6 lbs quickly.

Then plateaued.

So I decided to look up my BMR again. And got three different responses from three different calculators.
MFP - 1540
BMI Calc.net - 1630
Muscle and Strength.com - 1951

Uh. That's confusing.

So now I'm trying to figure out A) which I should follow and how to much to eat ABOVE the BMR I select.

I would love any recommendations on this.

For the record, that's why I've been one of the people who advocate for a lower calorie diet than most of the TDEE -15% followers say, because I think that internet Calorie Calculators are GROSSLY innacurate.

The best advice is to refrain from eating unless you are hungry, and know the difference between bored hunger and ACTUAL hunger. Listen to your body, not a number that may be +/- 20% off. 20% is the value of most people's calorie cuts..

If you really want to know, find a bod pod for $40-70 or get a DXA scan for $100-200. Then you'll KNOW your true values for your body. Otherwise, just eat less. Embrace the feeling of slight hunger and know that when you feel it, you are eating your own stored fat.

ETA: do NOT do this to get to a calorie goal:

tpfoodie

I don't understand this at all (which is probably why I'm not losing weight)

According to the calculations my BMR is right around 1600 - MFP gave me a calorie goal of 1200 but then I exercise and it increases my calories to 1600-1700 which is right at my BMR. So am I supposed to just eat the 1200 (which I have been) or do I follow the math and eat the higher calories.

Please don't laugh at me :-(

DON'T follow the 1200. That's the automatic setting for EVERY female wanting to lose two pounds per week. I did this for six months last year and actually gained weight b/c my body wasn't getting what it needed to function. Follow the math, and eat more. You'll lose more.

DebbieLyn63

http://www.cordianet.com/calculator.htm

Here's another link so you can get 2 more different numbers! These actually are the most accurate for me. Bottom line is that there is not one calculator that will give you the exact magic number. It all comes down to finding out what works for you by trial and error. Pick a number somewhere in the middle of all the numbers you find, and try it out for a few weeks. If you get the loss you want- great, if not, then go up or down a little and see if that works better.

DeanBurrows

Online Calculators suck imo!


SOME SCIENCE FOR YOU!



BMR estimation formulas

Several prediction equations exist. Historically most notable one was Harris-Benedict equation, which was created in 1919.

The Original Harris-Benedict Equation:

for men,

for women,

where P is total heat production at complete rest, m is the weight, h is the height, and a is the age, and with the difference in BMR for men and women being mainly due to differences in body weight. For example, a 55 year old woman weighing 130 lb (59 kg) and 5 feet 6 inches (168 cm) tall would have a BMR of 1272 kcal per day or 53 kcal/h (61.3 watts).

In 1984, the original Harris-Benedict equations were revised using new data. In comparisons with actual expenditure, the revised equations were found to be more accurate.

The Revised Harris-Benedict Equation:

for men,

for women,

The Mifflin St Jeor Equation:

It was the best prediction equation until 1990, when Mifflin et al introduced the equation:

, where s is +5 for males and −161 for females.

According to this formula, the woman in the example above has a BMR of 1204 kcal per day. During the last 100 years, lifestyles have changed and Frankenfield et al showed it to be about 5% more accurate.

These formulas are based on body weight, which does not take into account the difference in metabolic activity between lean body mass and body fat. Other formulas exist which take into account lean body mass, two of which are the Katch-McArdle formula, and Cunningham formula. However, the Cunningham formula is used to predict RMR instead of BMR.

The Katch-McArdle Formula (BMR):

, where LBM is the lean body mass in kg.

According to this formula, if the woman in the example has a body fat percentage of 30%, her BMR would be 1263 kcal per day.

The Cunningham Formula (RMR):

, where LBM is the lean body mass in kg.

Since lean body mass is metabolically active vs. fat cells which need very few calories to be sustained, these formula tend to be more accurate, especially with athletes who have above average lean mass and little body fat.

To calculate daily calorie needs, the BMR value is multiplied by a factor with a value between 1.2 and 1.9, depending on the person's physical activity level.

Causes of individual differences in BMR
The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ); with a mean BMR of 1500 kcal (6279 kJ). Statistically, the researchers calculated that 62.3% of this variation was explained by differences in fat free mass. Other factors explaining the variation included fat mass (6.7%), age (1.7%), and experimental error including within-subject difference (2%). The rest of the variation (26.7%) was unexplained. This remaining difference was not explained by sex nor by differing tissue sized of highly energetic organs such as the brain.

Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR. For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ). This difference of 715 kcal (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day.


There is science behind BMR and therefore TDEE, just some people don't do the research.

Katch-McArdle formula below;

-For Men to calculate BMR = 66 + (13.7 x weight in kg) + (5 x height in cm) – (6.8 x age in years)

-For Women to calculate BMR = 655 + (9.6 x weight in kg) + (1.8 x height in cm) – (4.7 x age in years)

...For your weight, 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds

...For your height, 1 inch = 2.54 cm

Example #1: You are a male, 35 years old, 6 foot tall (182.88 cm), you weigh 200 pounds (91 kg). Your basal metabolic rate (BMR) will be 66 + 1246.7 + 914.4 – 238 = 1989.1 calorie intake per day!

Example #2: You are a female, 35 years old, 5 feet 6 inches tall (170.69 cm), you weigh 132 pounds (60 kg). Your basal metabolic rate (BMR) will be 655 + 576 + 307.24 – 164.5 = 1373.74 calorie intake per day!

Once you know your BMR (basal metabolic rate) then use your daily activity factor to get your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE):

-Sedentary................BMR x 1.2 (little exercise)

-Lightly active...........BMR x 1.375 (light exercise)

-Moderately active.....BMR x 1.55 (moderate exercise)

-Very active.............BMR x 1.725 (hard exercise)

-Extremely active......BMR x 1.9 (hard exercise daily)

For example #1... if you are a moderately active male…your TDEE will be 1989.1 calories times your activity level of 1.55 which equals 3083 calories per day.

For example #2... if you are a moderately active female, your TDEE will be 1373.74 calories times your activity level of 1.55 which equals 2129.30 calories per day.

The Harris-Benedict equation has a separate formula for men and women and is not as accurate as the one shown above.
[/quote]

heybales

I don't understand this at all (which is probably why I'm not losing weight)

According to the calculations my BMR is right around 1600 - MFP gave me a calorie goal of 1200 but then I exercise and it increases my calories to 1600-1700 which is right at my BMR. So am I supposed to just eat the 1200 (which I have been) or do I follow the math and eat the higher calories.

Please don't laugh at me :-(

Actually, MFP gave you 1200 because of the selections you made.
You selected Sedentary activity level probably whether true or not, or totally unknown, just to be on the safe side. That means MFP's BMR x 1.25 to come up with a daily maintenance that includes NO exercise.
Notice activity levels reference no exercise.

You then selected weekly loss goal, 1 lb recommended, most select 2 lbs to lose faster, whether that is wise or not or unknown.
So 1000 comes off that daily maintenance figure.

But MFP doesn't go below accepted safety minimum of 1200. BMR is only used in beginning of math.

Now, when you do exercise and log it, you just increased your daily maintenance figure. So taking the 1000 off again means you end up with a higher figure.
In essence eating your workout calories back to maintain that already included deficit in your daily goal.

Bigger deficit is NOT better and usually backfires, which for many even the 2lb weekly ends up doing.

ash8184

I would HIGHLY recommend you get your BMR tested. Go to a dietitian, and they'll have you blow in to a tube and will then tell you your BMR. The reason this is important is because nobody's metabolisms are the same (ie mine is on the very low side, so 1200 cal/day is what I need). My TDEE is 1897 cals/day, so even if I ate 20% under, I would have a hard time losing weight. Everyone is different, and getting an accurate measure of your BMR might really help! Just a thought.

lisahaug9

Thank you! I went back and checked my settings and I did have it on Sedentary so I corrected it.

heybales

I think I'm going to up my calories to 1700. This is the inbetween point of my -20% of TDEE (around 1760) and my recommended calories from another site that considered BMR (1665).

But now I have a new problem. I'm not hungry enough to eat all of these calories. And I'm not saying that to be all "omg I'm SOOO good at eating under my calories." I'm just literally not that hungry. I'm not quite sure what to do. I already eat breakfast every morning (300 - 400 calories) have a mid-sized lunch (500 -600 cals) and then eat whatever's around for dinner... normally I cap out at 1400 unless I force myself to eat some snacks like bananas or a smoothie.

And on days like today when I miss breakfast, well... I had a HUGE lunch and only at 750 cals. Geez. Any recommendations for hitting my necessary cals?

And that is exactly what a shrunken stomach and screwed up hormones can do to you.

Not feel hungry when you eaten too little for too long.

Too little is determined by how much stress your body is willing to take with the diet before slowing down, besides the fact of burning off muscle mass if wrong exercise and protein levels.
Too long is determined by genetics and body's past experience with yo-yo dieting and again stress. May be quick, may take a while.
Usually speed there is opposite when trying to speed it back up again. Stressed out body willing to slow down quick rev's back up slowly, body that slowly decreased metabolism will rev up quickly. Generally speaking. And men win here too, more muscle mass, even when they lost some.

Move up slowly if you haven't been loosing at a lower amount for over 3 weeks. If you have still, then you still have a deficit, move up quicker.

So slowly would be 200 cal daily for a week at a time. Then another 200.

Fast would be going up half-way for couple weeks, then the other half.

heybales

I would HIGHLY recommend you get your BMR tested. Go to a dietitian, and they'll have you blow in to a tube and will then tell you your BMR. The reason this is important is because nobody's metabolisms are the same (ie mine is on the very low side, so 1200 cal/day is what I need). My TDEE is 1897 cals/day, so even if I ate 20% under, I would have a hard time losing weight. Everyone is different, and getting an accurate measure of your BMR might really help! Just a thought.

Actually, BMR and RMR (Resting MR) based on Lean Body Mass are very accurate within 5% according to any studies where they have tested that. Unless your diet or a medical issue has suppressed it.
That's because it just takes so much energy to handle the basic functions of metabolism. There is no efficiency differences between bodies. But hormones regulating temperature can effect it slightly.

The RMR test could come in about what is expected for your age, weight, height estimate. But is it high or low for your amount of LBM? Don't know.

And if the RMR test is low for age, weight, height. Is it low because you have less LBM than expected, or because you have suppressed it by eating too little for too long, or because you are genetically a tad under? Don't know.

If you have the money, I'd recommend spending it on a Bodpod or DEXA scan to get with 5% accuracy of your LBM.

And then that figure will be best thing to base your BMR on. No need losing more LBM if you already have lower than expected BMR by eating even less and burning off even more muscle.

hnsaunde

Ok, so now I have a new challenge.

I think I'm going to up my calories to 1700. This is the inbetween point of my -20% of TDEE (around 1760) and my recommended calories from another site that considered BMR (1665).

But now I have a new problem. I'm not hungry enough to eat all of these calories. And I'm not saying that to be all "omg I'm SOOO good at eating under my calories." I'm just literally not that hungry. I'm not quite sure what to do. I already eat breakfast every morning (300 - 400 calories) have a mid-sized lunch (500 -600 cals) and then eat whatever's around for dinner... normally I cap out at 1400 unless I force myself to eat some snacks like bananas or a smoothie.

And on days like today when I miss breakfast, well... I had a HUGE lunch and only at 750 cals. Geez. Any recommendations for hitting my necessary cals?

Healthy fats may be an option, depending on preference, allergies, and macro goals.

Peanut butter, almond butter, nuts, olive oil while cooking

I'd also suggest you read this link and read some of the threads in there:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/833026-important-posts-to-read

Siege_Tank

I think I'm going to up my calories to 1700. This is the inbetween point of my -20% of TDEE (around 1760) and my recommended calories from another site that considered BMR (1665).

But now I have a new problem. I'm not hungry enough to eat all of these calories. And I'm not saying that to be all "omg I'm SOOO good at eating under my calories." I'm just literally not that hungry. I'm not quite sure what to do. I already eat breakfast every morning (300 - 400 calories) have a mid-sized lunch (500 -600 cals) and then eat whatever's around for dinner... normally I cap out at 1400 unless I force myself to eat some snacks like bananas or a smoothie.

And on days like today when I miss breakfast, well... I had a HUGE lunch and only at 750 cals. Geez. Any recommendations for hitting my necessary cals?

And that is exactly what a shrunken stomach and screwed up hormones can do to you.

Not feel hungry when you eaten too little for too long.

Too little is determined by how much stress your body is willing to take with the diet before slowing down, besides the fact of burning off muscle mass if wrong exercise and protein levels.
Too long is determined by genetics and body's past experience with yo-yo dieting and again stress. May be quick, may take a while.
Usually speed there is opposite when trying to speed it back up again. Stressed out body willing to slow down quick rev's back up slowly, body that slowly decreased metabolism will rev up quickly. Generally speaking. And men win here too, more muscle mass, even when they lost some.

Move up slowly if you haven't been loosing at a lower amount for over 3 weeks. If you have still, then you still have a deficit, move up quicker.

So slowly would be 200 cal daily for a week at a time. Then another 200.

Fast would be going up half-way for couple weeks, then the other half.

For once, can we see a peer reviewed study showing that eating less causes "shrunken stomachs" and messed up hormone levels?

I HAVE seen studies that show that VLCD 800 or less cause those things, and studies where VLCD's cause an 8-20% drop in Metabolic rate, but I haven not seen anything that shows me that a 1200 causes those things to happen.

So far, All I've seen is conjecture, reasoning, and supposition.

And yes, I've looked for studies that show the proof of the anti-1200 diets, and I can't find them.

cbart2818

Ok, so now I have a new challenge.

I think I'm going to up my calories to 1700. This is the inbetween point of my -20% of TDEE (around 1760) and my recommended calories from another site that considered BMR (1665).

But now I have a new problem. I'm not hungry enough to eat all of these calories. And I'm not saying that to be all "omg I'm SOOO good at eating under my calories." I'm just literally not that hungry. I'm not quite sure what to do. I already eat breakfast every morning (300 - 400 calories) have a mid-sized lunch (500 -600 cals) and then eat whatever's around for dinner... normally I cap out at 1400 unless I force myself to eat some snacks like bananas or a smoothie.

And on days like today when I miss breakfast, well... I had a HUGE lunch and only at 750 cals. Geez. Any recommendations for hitting my necessary cals?

I can only say what has works well for me. I don't eat just to meet a certain daily goal. If my goal is 2300 and I am not hungry later on in the day, I don't stuff myself at Dinner or after just to meet it.

I do however, try my best to make sure I eat by mid morning, lunch and an afternoon snack before Dinner regardless if I feel hungry at those times. Eating every 3-4 hours has really helped with my cravings. I ensure each of those meals has a good amount of protein and carb. If I don't eat 3 meals before Dinner I am WAY to hungry at night and just go nuts on everything. I eat Dinner and if I am full after that, but still have cals left over, I don't worry about it. The rest of the week seems to works it self out for me. I usually have a high cal day in there, and the rest of my days flucuate on how I feel. Some days I am bang on, others I am under.

The more I rack my brain over how much I must eat and how I have to meet a certain cal goal the more I get over whelmed and just give up.

I just eat within my means, log as much as I can to keep track of how much I am eating, and do my exercises.

bzmom

bump

tpfoodie

Thanks to all for the recommendations. I'll do what I can, and will respond to this post in a week or two to let you know how it goes.