No More TDEE posts

jonnythan

All of your posts indicate a lack of complete understanding as to what BMR is, functionally.

If you were to lie in bed all day, BMR is the number of calories you would burn merely by existing. It takes more calories than your BMR to walk around, talk to people, go to work, etc. TDEE includes BMR + however many extra calories you burn during your daily activity.

In order to lose weight, you must eat less than your body requires, true, but not less than it requires to exist.

Thus, eat above BMR and below TDEE to lose weight.

With only 15 lbs to lose, you should be eating at a small deficit: TDEE-10% would put your intake at 1845 on a daily basis and result in about a 0.5 lb loss per week.

Incidentally, 0.5 lbs is basically the maximum amount of fat that YOUR body (15 lbs from goal) can oxidize in a 7-10 day period without losing Lean Body Mass. This is a desireable rate of loss that keeps your body functioning efficiently and also results in weight loss at a sustainable rate with maximum preservation of muscle.

This post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There's no reason not to eat under your BMR if TDEE - 20% is under BMR.

There's no special magic about the BMR number that it's some hard lower limit. The BMR is the starting point to calculate TDEE. TDEE is the number that actually matters.

Incidentally, I have 10 lbs to lose and am eating TDEE - 500 every day. And I'm losing about a pound a week, 90+% of which is fat mass. Amazing. And I haven't died yet!

I also ate TDEE - 500 when I had 40 pounds to lose. And it worked! Amazing.

betsij

I too spent so much time trying to figure out how much to eat (and being really hungry as well). Then I realized if I wore something to track how much I actually burned every day (not just during work outs) that I could just eat 500 calories less than that. No more complicated math for me, just subtraction.

Love it!

me 2!

8Sam12

I just used that site you linked to and it gave me these numbers:

BMR: 1744
TDEE: 2093
TDEE -20%: 1674

So my TDEE-20% is lower than my BMR. I eat back exercise calories as my exercise patterns can vary a lot depending on how much work I have to do (I'm a student so when deadlines are looming there's much less time) so I just put my activity level as sedentary.
I currently have my calorie limit set to 1400 (up from 1200 after reading the forums). Can someone explain to me what I should do considering my BMR is higher than my TDEE-20%? I'm a bit confused. And to be honest, I still can't quite imagine eating that many calories to loose weight...

do you mind giving me your stats?

Female, 22
hight: 172cm
weight: 92kg

iAMsmiling

All of your posts indicate a lack of complete understanding as to what BMR is, functionally.

If you were to lie in bed all day, BMR is the number of calories you would burn merely by existing. It takes more calories than your BMR to walk around, talk to people, go to work, etc. TDEE includes BMR + however many extra calories you burn during your daily activity.

In order to lose weight, you must eat less than your body requires, true, but not less than it requires to exist.

Thus, eat above BMR and below TDEE to lose weight.

With only 15 lbs to lose, you should be eating at a small deficit: TDEE-10% would put your intake at 1845 on a daily basis and result in about a 0.5 lb loss per week.

Incidentally, 0.5 lbs is basically the maximum amount of fat that YOUR body (15 lbs from goal) can oxidize in a 7-10 day period without losing Lean Body Mass. This is a desireable rate of loss that keeps your body functioning efficiently and also results in weight loss at a sustainable rate with maximum preservation of muscle.

This post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There's no reason not to eat under your BMR if TDEE - 20% is under BMR.

There's no special magic about the BMR number that it's some hard lower limit. The BMR is the starting point to calculate TDEE. TDEE is the number that actually matters.

Incidentally, I have 10 lbs to lose and am eating TDEE - 500 every day. And I'm losing about a pound a week, 90+% of which is fat mass. Amazing. And I haven't died yet!

I also ate TDEE - 500 when I had 40 pounds to lose. And it worked! Amazing.

No cure.

sprintto50

I don't know if it's my age, or what, but when I calculated my TDEE less 20%, I pretty much come out at the same number as 1200 plus my exercise calories. This includes most activity as I am using a Fitbit. As long as I eat according to this,
I am hitting it with both systems. Although I should probably eat a couple hundred more calories on the odd day I don't walk or run.

jonnythan

All of your posts indicate a lack of complete understanding as to what BMR is, functionally.

If you were to lie in bed all day, BMR is the number of calories you would burn merely by existing. It takes more calories than your BMR to walk around, talk to people, go to work, etc. TDEE includes BMR + however many extra calories you burn during your daily activity.

In order to lose weight, you must eat less than your body requires, true, but not less than it requires to exist.

Thus, eat above BMR and below TDEE to lose weight.

With only 15 lbs to lose, you should be eating at a small deficit: TDEE-10% would put your intake at 1845 on a daily basis and result in about a 0.5 lb loss per week.

Incidentally, 0.5 lbs is basically the maximum amount of fat that YOUR body (15 lbs from goal) can oxidize in a 7-10 day period without losing Lean Body Mass. This is a desireable rate of loss that keeps your body functioning efficiently and also results in weight loss at a sustainable rate with maximum preservation of muscle.

This post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There's no reason not to eat under your BMR if TDEE - 20% is under BMR.

There's no special magic about the BMR number that it's some hard lower limit. The BMR is the starting point to calculate TDEE. TDEE is the number that actually matters.

Incidentally, I have 10 lbs to lose and am eating TDEE - 500 every day. And I'm losing about a pound a week, 90+% of which is fat mass. Amazing. And I haven't died yet!

I also ate TDEE - 500 when I had 40 pounds to lose. And it worked! Amazing.

No cure.

Are you also advocating never going below BMR?

Why, exactly? Can you articulate what harm it does to eat 1650 calories on days your TDEE is 2150, if your BMR happens to be 1725?

1ConcreteGirl

I don't know if it's my age, or what, but when I calculated my TDEE less 20%, I pretty much come out at the same number as 1200 plus my exercise calories. This includes most activity as I am using a Fitbit. As long as I eat according to this,
I am hitting it with both systems. Although I should probably eat a couple hundred more calories on the odd day I don't walk or run.

You may have calculated wrong. It is rare that TDEE-20% is 1200 including activity.

Do you mind posting your height and weight? I'd be happy to double check your numbers.

iAMsmiling

All of your posts indicate a lack of complete understanding as to what BMR is, functionally.

If you were to lie in bed all day, BMR is the number of calories you would burn merely by existing. It takes more calories than your BMR to walk around, talk to people, go to work, etc. TDEE includes BMR + however many extra calories you burn during your daily activity.

In order to lose weight, you must eat less than your body requires, true, but not less than it requires to exist.

Thus, eat above BMR and below TDEE to lose weight.

With only 15 lbs to lose, you should be eating at a small deficit: TDEE-10% would put your intake at 1845 on a daily basis and result in about a 0.5 lb loss per week.

Incidentally, 0.5 lbs is basically the maximum amount of fat that YOUR body (15 lbs from goal) can oxidize in a 7-10 day period without losing Lean Body Mass. This is a desireable rate of loss that keeps your body functioning efficiently and also results in weight loss at a sustainable rate with maximum preservation of muscle.

This post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There's no reason not to eat under your BMR if TDEE - 20% is under BMR.

There's no special magic about the BMR number that it's some hard lower limit. The BMR is the starting point to calculate TDEE. TDEE is the number that actually matters.

Incidentally, I have 10 lbs to lose and am eating TDEE - 500 every day. And I'm losing about a pound a week, 90+% of which is fat mass. Amazing. And I haven't died yet!

I also ate TDEE - 500 when I had 40 pounds to lose. And it worked! Amazing.

No cure.

Are you also advocating never going below BMR?

Why, exactly? Can you articulate what harm it does to eat 1650 calories on days your TDEE is 2150, if your BMR happens to be 1725?

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

Mia_RagazzaTosta

bump

jonnythan

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

So the answer is no.

So far no one has articulated a reason not to go below BMR if TDEE - 20% is below BMR. All we've had is some vague words like "it's what your body needs to survive."

There is absolutely no reason not to go a bit below BMR if you have been fairly inactive on a particular day. There's nothing magic about that number.

iAMsmiling

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

So the answer is no.

So far no one has articulated a reason not to go below BMR if TDEE - 20% is below BMR. All we've had is some vague words like "it's what your body needs to survive."

There is absolutely no reason not to go a bit below BMR if you have been fairly inactive on a particular day. There's nothing magic about that number.

If the answer was "no" I would have said "no." But, thanks for demonstrating my earlier statement of "no cure."

Also, please contact the military. I'm sure they'd like to study your brain pan to help in the development of future body armor. Impenetrable is a desireable quality in that line.

mistesh

I finally think I have figured it out – or at least what I think will work for me, and what I’m going to try.

Please figure out me too! The weight of my 600 calorie foods and drinks since I woke up is close to two pounds. Apart from lifting a glass and a fork to my mouth at various times this morning, I haven't engaged in any exercise beyond the occasional use of a TV remote, nor have I gone to the bathroom, cut my nails or shaved any part of my body. And yet I weigh exactly the same now as then. Not a dent in the fender, lol.

Brie4me

I don't know much, but I definitely DO understand TDEE.

From your original post, I wasn't sure if you totally understood why/why not someone might choose to eat back or not eat back exercise calories using TDEE-20%, so I just wanted to explain the reason in case it makes it easier for you to understand what you're doing.

There are two ways to calculate TDEE. You can (a) include your activity level OR (b) set your activity level at sedentary.

If you include your activity level, you WOULD NOT eat back exercise calories, because those are included in the calculation of your TDEE. If you do this, log your exercise as 1 calorie burned and it will not affect your net intake.

If you set activity level at sedentary, you WOULD eat back exercise calories, because they are not included in the calculation. If you do this, log all your exercise calories, and eat them back, resulting in the same net intake as the first method.

The net intake doing either of this is the same. I personally use the second method because I like seeing all my calories burned; it is motivating to me. If your exercise is at all inconsistent, week to week, the second method also makes sure you don't accidentally go over on calories for the week, because you don't have a set number of exercise calories accounted for.

Hope this helps!

It helped me! I like the second method, as well. Thanks!

SatchGallamax

I'm just going to leave this here (from another thread)...

A lot of people like to think of weightloss and getting fit and getting a good body as a 'journey', I like to think of it as a road trip.

Now let's say you want to drive from California to NYC (for funsies). You calculate exactly how much gas it will take you to get from here to there. Let's say, for funsies, that it is 2800 miles, and you know to the drop how much gas that will take.

This is what I would refer to as your BMR. This is how much gas you need just to turn on the engine and drive there. In other words, cardiovascular system, central nervous system, basically just enough fuel (or calories) to drive straight there.

Now - you decide to only bring enough money for 1800 miles and just force your car to work with that. This is considered 'eating below your BMR' and it is very very dangerous to the engine. It will affect your miles per gallon, how often you have to change oil, tough on the gears, crap on everything. Just bad bad bad for the car.

Now - on your way from LA to NYC - you decide to do a few other things - like stop and sightsee here and there. Maybe go off course and find some fun things to do, stop and see friends, go to the bathroom, buy a souvenir or two, stretch your legs, get off the highway, splurge on a hotel, use a phone....

This would be stuff like exercise, cleaning your house, having sex, visiting friends, walking all over the place, playing with kids outside - other things that burn calories ON TOP OF what you burn just 'running' your body's vital systems.

But you still only brought 1800 miles worth of gas money and nothing else...

So now you're stuck in the Midwest. With no gas.

In other words... now you're stuck at this weight.. and you can't do more til you get more fuel.

Give yourself enough gas to get where you're going and do stuff you need to / want to along the way. LIKE EXERCISE.

At first you'll gain a little - and then your body will adjust and it will go away again and take extra pounds with it.

True story.

sixout

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

So the answer is no.

So far no one has articulated a reason not to go below BMR if TDEE - 20% is below BMR. All we've had is some vague words like "it's what your body needs to survive."

There is absolutely no reason not to go a bit below BMR if you have been fairly inactive on a particular day. There's nothing magic about that number.

Except for all the responses that proved you wrong, that you're just flat out denying?

Seriously, if it's working for you, do your thing. But don't give others your horrible advice.

jonnythan

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

So the answer is no.

So far no one has articulated a reason not to go below BMR if TDEE - 20% is below BMR. All we've had is some vague words like "it's what your body needs to survive."

There is absolutely no reason not to go a bit below BMR if you have been fairly inactive on a particular day. There's nothing magic about that number.

If the answer was "no" I would have said "no." But, thanks for demonstrating my earlier statement of "no cure."

Also, please contact the military. I'm sure they'd like to study your brain pan to help in the development of future body armor. Impenetrable is a desireable quality in that line.

You haven't articulated a reason.

BMR is a theoretical value. It's the number of calories your body WOULD use if you stayed in bed all day. We don't stay in bed all day (usually). Therefore, BMR is a theoretical value.

It's not like the body says "ok, these calories I'm burning are for BMR, and these calories I'm burning are for stuff on top of BMR - so I'll take the calorie deficit from the calories on top of BMR but I better have enough calories left over for BMR!" It doesn't work that way.

The calorie deficit comes from actual energy expenditure. Your calorie deficit is a result of calories actually used in a given day minus the calories eaten in a given day. The calories you would have used if you stayed in bed all day are irrelevant.

BMR is useful as a starting point for determining TDEE. There's nothing magic about the number. There's absolutely no reason in the world not to dip below it slightly on days you weren't very active.

We already have the term "broscience." I think I'm going to coin a new term: "MFPscience." The definition is "common knowledge on MFP that has no evidentiary or logical basis."

1ConcreteGirl

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

So the answer is no.

So far no one has articulated a reason not to go below BMR if TDEE - 20% is below BMR. All we've had is some vague words like "it's what your body needs to survive."

There is absolutely no reason not to go a bit below BMR if you have been fairly inactive on a particular day. There's nothing magic about that number.

I have already explained this twice for you, thinking that you actually were looking for an answer rather than trying to spread the derp.

Unfortunately, as has been said, I'm afraid there is no cure for this particularly unexceptional brand of pertinacious misinformation.

Anyone who has a genuine question about TDEE/BMR is more than welcome to PM me and I will help you with what I know.

jonnythan

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

So the answer is no.

So far no one has articulated a reason not to go below BMR if TDEE - 20% is below BMR. All we've had is some vague words like "it's what your body needs to survive."

There is absolutely no reason not to go a bit below BMR if you have been fairly inactive on a particular day. There's nothing magic about that number.

Except for all the responses that proved you wrong, that you're just flat out denying?

Seriously, if it's working for you, do your thing. But don't give others your horrible advice.

I'll ask you, too: please explain a specific downside of eating 1650 calories on a day when TDEE is 2150 for a person whose BMR is 1725.

No one has yet given a reason.

iWaffle

So what happens when your TDEE is only 300 calories over your BMR?

Then your a slug sitting on a couch all day. You're creating unusual scenarios that don't fit inside of what most people live like.

Why wouldn't you want to eat under your BMR? Because you can't do that for the rest of your life. You'll reach your weight goal eventually but be in a sad physical condition and feel starved and probably start to binge and most likely will gain some or quite a bit of the weight back. Now it's going to be harder to lose the next time because you keep training your body to eat fewer and fewer calories.

There's nothing wrong with dipping into your TDEE calories as long as you don't get greedy and start taking out calories needed for just being alive. Don't do this to your body. It isn't sustainable and you're not going to be able to do this forever. Can you occasionally go below BMR and survive. Of course you can. Your body won't fall over and die that instant. The problem is you're not creating healthy habits that will help you achieve your goal.

Can you run though a red light when no cars are coming if you look both ways? Of course you can but you're breaking rules that are there for your own good. It's not there to make you late to work or not have any fun. The rules exist for a good reason. Thumbing your nose at these standard safety procedures and getting away with it doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone to do or that you should be doing it yourself.

jonnythan

You're already arguing with a better informed, more articulate person than myself. Nothing I could say to penetrate that she has not already said.
Good on her for having the patience to try to save others from your disinformation. I haven't got it.

So the answer is no.

So far no one has articulated a reason not to go below BMR if TDEE - 20% is below BMR. All we've had is some vague words like "it's what your body needs to survive."

There is absolutely no reason not to go a bit below BMR if you have been fairly inactive on a particular day. There's nothing magic about that number.

I have already explained this twice for you, thinking that you actually were looking for an answer rather than trying to spread the derp.

Unfortunately, as has been said, I'm afraid there is no cure for this particularly unexceptional brand of pertinacious misinformation.

Anyone who has a genuine question about TDEE/BMR is more than welcome to PM me and I will help you with what I know.

Again: what's the specific downside of eating 1650 calories on a day that TDEE is 2150, when BMR is 1728?

Please give a specific problem with this.