What's the reasoning behind eating AT LEAST your BMR?
Replies
-
LOL isnt the whole point of a deficit to cause catabolism
OP I for one see your point
Yeah, I more or less agree. But this is a forum - we're all taking, giving or ignoring advice from amateurs.
I believe eating below your BMR would be dangerous for people with extremely low body fat. And that might be where this is coming from - body building forums.
Sure, you need to get adequate nutrition from the food you're eating (vitamins and minerals) - and that might play into this opinion too.
But as far as "your heart is going to stop because you have no fuel" - meh.
I have over a hundred pounds of "fuel" conveniently stored in my belly. Surely, my body will tap into that to keep my heart beating as long as I cover the hydration, vitamins and minerals.0 -
I think the "Don't eat below your BMR" is a general rule to prevent people from making diet plans with massive caloric deficits.
I think eating at you BMR and burning 1500 calories is just as bad as doing nothing but laying in bed and eating at 1500 calories below your BMR. In both cases the deficit is too large, and that can cause problems.0 -
I ate below my BMR 2 years ago and I dropped nearly 40 lbs in about 3.5 months I was running every day and doing P90X. The intensity of the workouts forced my body to eat a lot of the muscle I was using. So when I weighed about 165 I still looked pretty fat because my body consumed a lot of muscle. You'll lose weight, but don't expect to look fit if you eat below your BMR you'll be scrawny and flabby. The only muscles i had that looked decent were my biceps at the time because I used them so much my body was eating away at other muscles for energy. Then I plateaued. I definitely recommend eating above your BMR if you want to lose weight, build muscle, and look fit when you reach your goals.
Course your actual BMR is gonna differ from a standard calculator which is almost never your actual BMR (which is what I went off of) but if you do eat an extremely low deficit you'll be grouchy and you won't look good when you're at your goal weight either.
I love how the OP completely disregarded this. An actual case of someone who did eat low & ended up flabby. The very same thing happened to me, only I wasn't even lifting. I was eating like 1200 or less & doing cardio. I'm 5'5 120lbs 25% BF now & so skinny fat. Girls my weight and height are normally much lower BF% than I am now. People can't seem to learn by experiences of others though it seems.0 -
This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???
Yes, ur net should b your BMR. Think of it this way. You ate 1400, but worked off 876, so now your body really only has 524 calories.0 -
I ate below my BMR 2 years ago and I dropped nearly 40 lbs in about 3.5 months I was running every day and doing P90X. The intensity of the workouts forced my body to eat a lot of the muscle I was using. So when I weighed about 165 I still looked pretty fat because my body consumed a lot of muscle. You'll lose weight, but don't expect to look fit if you eat below your BMR you'll be scrawny and flabby. The only muscles i had that looked decent were my biceps at the time because I used them so much my body was eating away at other muscles for energy. Then I plateaued. I definitely recommend eating above your BMR if you want to lose weight, build muscle, and look fit when you reach your goals.
Course your actual BMR is gonna differ from a standard calculator which is almost never your actual BMR (which is what I went off of) but if you do eat an extremely low deficit you'll be grouchy and you won't look good when you're at your goal weight either.
I love how the OP completely disregarded this. An actual case of someone who did eat low & ended up flabby. The very same thing happened to me, only I wasn't even lifting. I was eating like 1200 or less & doing cardio. I'm 5'5 120lbs 25% BF now & so skinny fat. Girls my weight and height are normally much lower BF% than I am now. People can't seem to learn by experiences of others though it seems.
I appreciated the post, but I disregarded it because it is almost certain that her problem was the result of too large of a deficit, rather than eating below BMR.0 -
This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???
Yes, ur net should b your BMR. Think of it this way. You ate 1400, but worked off 876, so now your body really only has 524 calories.
Assuming you want to stay at your current weight, yes.0 -
^ people in third world country who are constantly eating way less than their BMR.0 -
^ people in third world country who are constantly eating way less than their BMR. Now OP, can you tell me...... Do you think that is healthy?
Lol, are you kidding?0 -
^ people in third world country who are constantly eating way less than their BMR.
There is a significant difference between eating slightly under your BMR when you have weight to lose, and when you have a large deficit and don't have the extra weight to lose.
Comparing a malnourished child from a third world country is not a fair comparison to someone who is losing weight eating slightly under their BMR. It's trying to equate the two and use an appeal to emotion to make the point.
Eating at a significant deficit will have very similar effects whether you're under your BMR and sedentary, or way under your total expenditure and working out a lot, but staying above your BMR.0 -
This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???
Yes, ur net should b your BMR. Think of it this way. You ate 1400, but worked off 876, so now your body really only has 524 calories.
Assuming you want to stay at your current weight, yes.
She's have to eat her TDEE if she wanted to do that.0 -
I appreciated the post, but I disregarded it because it is almost certain that her problem was the result of too large of a deficit, rather than eating below BMR.
I think people overestimate how much muscle they have to begin with also. plus iam pretty sure even if you eat stupid low calories 1000cals or less as long as you give yourself adequate protein you shouldn't lose much muscle mass.
This can help with long-term adherence. Even a 2-4 week period with a large deficit to get some quick initial weight/fat loss before moving into a more moderate deficit approach can be beneficial here.
And, assuming the diet is set up appropriately (adequate protein) with the right kind of training (heavy weight training as discussed in Weight Training for Fat Loss, muscle loss actually turns out to be minimal or zero. I know this runs counter to the commonly held belief but it’s 100% true (as people following my The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook properly have demonstrated).
Certainly early research suggested that bigger deficits and very low caloric intakes led to more muscle loss but invariably they had inadequate protein and didn’t have weight training as part of the program. When someone is on 300 cal/day and half of that is carbs, well, that’s only 40 grams of protein. Of course muscle is lost, but not because calories are low per se; rather it’s because the diet is set up stupidly.
-lyle mcdonald
this says 2-4 weeks but still.
edit
link
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html0 -
Literally speaking yes. Consensus goes with not eating under your BMR though. Makes sense to me if one is not sedentary and exercises consistently.
Your BMR is the amount of calories burned if you just sat on the couch all day and did NOTHING. If you intend to do NOTHING all day but lie around, then by all means eat 500 less than your BMR. But if you work, move, exercise etc., you're OBVIOUSLY burning more calories. Deficits too high will slow metabolic rate and also may cause catabolism.Just something I was thinking about, as I see people repeatedly say that you shouldn't eat below your BMR. The only explanation I've seen is along the lines of, "Because that's what your body needs to do its most basic functions," but that doesn't really make sense considering the whole point of a caloric deficit is to eat less than what your body needs to function so that it takes from its stored energy.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
So, in other words, it's the caloric deficit that matters rather than the BMR. Glad we cleared that up. Now we need others to understand that BMR isn't some sacred number, other than for calculating TDEE.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Can you refinance for a lower rate?:laugh:It's more about establishing a healthy body economy. Calories are the monetary system. Your BMR is the bill your body has to pay to sustain the roof over its head. Think of a bank where you keep your calories. You have to keep paying your BMR or the bank will start seizing your valuable property (muscles). You invest calories into a diversified portfolio and you can watch your body prosper (muscle growth) while trimming away unnecessary expenditure (fat stores). It's pretty basic budgeting really only with some slight mechanical differences.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
She's have to eat her TDEE if she wanted to do that.
My Bad, For some reason I was thinking TDEE....
0 -
It's more about establishing a healthy body economy. Calories are the monetary system. Your BMR is the bill your body has to pay to sustain the roof over its head. Think of a bank where you keep your calories. You have to keep paying your BMR or the bank will start seizing your valuable property (muscles). You invest calories into a diversified portfolio and you can watch your body prosper (muscle growth) while trimming away unnecessary expenditure (fat stores). It's pretty basic budgeting really only with some slight mechanical differences.
That is an awsome explanation. Very well done.0 -
I believe the biggest element is.. What is the individual's purpose? & the OP's original statement is correct, if you eat below BMR your body will take it from stored energy. By eating less than your BMR / TDEE requirements, your body will tap into your body's resources (body fat + muscle) (we all know this) and Yes, the individual can lose muscle mass by doing this (esp. if they are working out, example below)
** but whether it's body fat or muscle, your weight will decrease, your size will decrease.
Your body burns in this sequence: immediate energy sources (carbs, sugar, etc from food intake) then body fat then muscle
Ex: working out early in the morning, your body will tap into your body's resources b/c there isn't that immediate "food energy" supply b/c you haven't ate. (vs.) working out later in the day, your body will go through the day's "food energy" before tapping into your body's resources. But when you work out (if your metabolism is low d/t your eating habits or out of shape) you can easily go into a high HR that burns protein. (ex: Fat burning HR vs. Cardio HR, aerobic vs. anaerobic work outs)
If you want to lose weight, decrease body fat, increase metabolism, and maintain muscle tone, it's all a BALANCING ACT. If you just want to decrease your "mass" / "size" / "scale weight" then eating your < BMR is effective. Let's admit it. That whole eating less than your BMR is dangerous is an exaggerated statement. You can eat low calorie, high quality foods and get more nutrition, vitamins, and minerals than someone eating high calorie, low quality foods meeting their BMR.
Yes, ideally you would like to at least meet your BMR and balance it w. exercise, protein intake, healthy dieting, etc. but what is the individual's purpose. Referring back to the gentlemen who actually DID THIS, when you plateau, adjust. There are so many methods to accomplish your goal.. and everyone is different. (also the OP wasn't talking about the healthiest method either just what works)
RNursing Graduate, studied nutrition, fitness, and physiology.0 -
Actually I'm a guy and I didn't eat much below my BMR. You will end up looking flabby with a high body fat % its not a mythical ideology, scientists have devoted their entire lives to the study of the human body and how it operates to work this information out. Whether you chalk BMR up as scientific hokum is on you boss hoss lol your body may function slightly different than mine but the simple science is that the body needs energy and it will pull from those muscle stores whether you notice or whether or not you like it if its not getting what it needs from your fat/diet. Truth. You'll lose weight either way its whether you want to look fit or not lol that's up to you. Want to look fit eat between your BMR and TDEE. Want to look flabby and still meet your weight goals eat below your BMR.0
-
I ate below my BMR for quite some time.
If I did HEAVY exercise then I'd eat back about half the calories, but otherwise tried to stick to my "goal" BMR ( BMR of my goal weight, rather than what my current BMR was )
After I lost 50 pounds, I concentrated on fitness gains, and ate back all of my burned calories.
Few months later I started to lose again by simply eating at a deficit, while keeping my activity level high.
Now I'm down 10 more, with only about 10 to go.
It can work, but you have to adjust as you go, and when you're really active, eat more than your BMR, and allow for plenty of cheating, your body needs it 0 -
I've been averaging nearly 1000 calories burned a day and lemme tell ya its hard to eat that back without cheating.0
-
Yep. Only reason I've been able to maintain a thousand calorie deficit some days is simply from sheer volume of aerobic activity, and then filling up after and then being able to be "full" even though I took in way less than I burned.
It's a damn good thing I'm training for an Ironman in august
Most of it's low intensity, so I'm staying in fat burning mode 0 -
Why would the body burn muscle before fat?
Fat is way more calorie dense!
Especially when you have adequate protein and resistance training.0 -
It doesnt unless youre at an extreme deficit. It is because muscle is easier to break down and more efficient at providing the energy your body craves. Fat doesn't provide as much energy per pound as breaking down muscle can provide. When you hit that extreme deficit your body will resort to extreme measures. Your body looks to fat first but when.you start asking too much from your body then it pulls from lean muscle mass. The body is ahighly efficient machine and it wants to live.0
-
It is because muscle is easier to break down and more efficient at providing the energy your body craves. Fat doesn't provide as much energy per pound as breaking down muscle can provide. When you hit that extreme deficit your body will resort to extreme measures.
Sorry but this is 100 inaccurate!0 -
That's how my doctor explained it.0
-
I am doing the 5:2 diet which involves eating only 500 calories 2 days per week. That is well below my BMR and I haven't died. I would never be able to sustain such low calorie intake everyday (because that's what they call having an eating disorder, which is very dangerous and unhealthy), but doing it intermittently is not harmful (quite the contrary).
So I guess the short answer is you can eat less than your BMR, but you should not do it everyday. I don't really know why, but your body reacts different to short fasts than it does to long, sustained periods of starvations. That's my experience anyway.0 -
So you can survive.0
-
That's how my doctor explained it.
As I recall (and it's been a long time and I quite obviously have limited practical experience)
...
In a deficient - it will tear down muscle to get protein, but energy will come primarily from fat.
So, my theory is that if you go low and want to preserve muscle - you should probably kick up your protein intake.
But yeah, obviously no expert.0 -
OP, I understand your question - actually I was wondering about the exact same thing. My understanding is that the BMR is just a guideline so that it stops you from having a deficit that's too large. Other than that I don't see where it plays a role.0
-
This is what I'm worried about right now. Since I got an upper denture a little over a week ago, I haven't been able to get an ideal amount of calories in. I don't want lectures about how many soft foods are out there, if you haven't been in this position. Trying to eat and drink with a big hunk of plastic in your mouth that has never been there before is extremely tough. I am just now learning how to finally chew properly. And the first day or 2 I couldn't even drink water because it was so foreign. And no, you can not just take it out to eat so that you can get proper calories in, because you have to figure it out sooner or later.
So sometimes you are forced to eat quite a bit under BMR and there's really not much you can do about it. But luckily I'm satisfied and not hungry, and my body has PLENTY of fat stores to go to.0 -
As I see it, your BMR calories are the energy your body needs to
pump blodd around your body
repair/mainatin your muscles
repair/maintain your organs
regulate your temerature
grow your hair/nails etc
But it's more than just calories. you also need a certain amount of fats and protein, vitamins and minerals to perform these functions.
So, if you body is getting in less calories than it needs, yes it can take some from stored fat, but where does it get the protein, vitamins/minerals from?
We've seen plenty of cases here where ladies eating low calorie have found that their body has decided to stop some of those functions, such as growing hair.
yes, that may only happen to about 1% of people who chose to regularly eat under BMR, but personally I'd rather not take the risk of being in the 1%.
I figure, yes, I can lose weight eating under BMR, but why would I want to if I can still lose it eating a little more, but still under TDEE?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions