No More TDEE posts

SatchGallamax

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.

Long term healthy sustainability. If you can lose weight eating more than your BMR, why wouldn't you?

jonnythan

Why wouldn't you want to eat under your BMR? Because you can't do that for the rest of your life.

Obviously. No one wants to lose weight for the rest of their lives

Once you get to your goal weight, you eat maintenance (or bulk, or whatever, depending on your goals). That will necessarily be over BMR.

Eating under BMR for the rest of your life means losing weight forever. Of course that's dumb.

_DaniD_

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.

Was about to post this too. :flowerforyou:

will010574

BMR is the absolute basic amount of calories the body requires to do absolutely nothing but stay alive. The point ConcreteGirl is making is that TDEE -any% if it takes you below BMR is unhealthy. Yes you will see weight loss, but GOOD weight loss is fat loss coupled with maintaining lean body mass. Going under BMR and especially continually going under you lose LEAN BODY MASS, not to mention tissue and organ damage, due to not having the nutrients your body REQUIRES to keep itself functioning.

So as ConcreteGirl so eloquently explained above BMR but below TDEE = healthy weight loss.

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.

Long term healthy sustainability. If you can lose weight eating more than your BMR, why wouldn't you?

In what way is long term health compromised by losing weight eating TDEE - 20% every day, even days when you're mostly sedentary?

jonnythan

BMR is the absolute basic amount of calories the body requires to do absolutely nothing but stay alive. The point ConcreteGirl is making is that TDEE -any% if it takes you below BMR is unhealthy. Yes you will see weight loss, but GOOD weight loss is fat loss coupled with maintaining lean body mass. Going under BMR and especially continually going under you lose LEAN BODY MASS, not to mention tissue and organ damage, due to not having the nutrients your body REQUIRES to keep itself functioning.

So as ConcreteGirl so eloquently explained above BMR but below TDEE = healthy weight loss.

I eat under BMR typically twice a week. I have done this every time I've lost weight.
Last time I lost more than 10 pounds was in 2011. I went from about, IIRC, 170 to 153 lbs. Lean mass went from about 139 to 136 lbs. Fat mass went from about 31 lbs to 17 lbs. Body fat % went from about 18% to 11%.

This was eating TDEE - 500 every single day, even on days that number was below BMR.

Where was the problem, exactly?

SatchGallamax

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.

Long term healthy sustainability. If you can lose weight eating more than your BMR, why wouldn't you?

In what way is long term health compromised by losing weight eating TDEE - 20% every day, even days when you're mostly sedentary?

Except that's not at all what I said.



I agree, no cure.

sixout

I was going to spend time breaking this down, but litereally EVERYONE ELSE FOR TWO PAGES HAS ALREADY and you're still saying no one has.

So I'm just going to assume you're that dense, and hope that no one takes your advice.

Mia_RagazzaTosta

BMR is the absolute basic amount of calories the body requires to do absolutely nothing but stay alive. The point ConcreteGirl is making is that TDEE -any% if it takes you below BMR is unhealthy. Yes you will see weight loss, but GOOD weight loss is fat loss coupled with maintaining lean body mass. Going under BMR and especially continually going under you lose LEAN BODY MASS, not to mention tissue and organ damage, due to not having the nutrients your body REQUIRES to keep itself functioning.

So as ConcreteGirl so eloquently explained above BMR but below TDEE = healthy weight loss.

I eat under BMR typically twice a week. I have done this every time I've lost weight.
Last time I lost more than 10 pounds was in 2011. I went from about, IIRC, 170 to 153 lbs. Lean mass went from about 139 to 136 lbs. Fat mass went from about 31 lbs to 17 lbs. Body fat % went from about 18% to 11%.

This was eating TDEE - 500 every single day, even on days that number was below BMR.

Where was the problem, exactly?

You gained it back.

JessicaP327

Once I got past the first post, and started reading into the first few comments, I'm just as confused as I was before I started reading.

UGHHHH

I thought I had it figured out, but I don't think I do.
Someone who knows what they are talking about please message me and explain this again? :-/

My BMR is 1460 and my TDEE- 20% is 1606

I calculated my TDEE WITH the "lightly active" option, so is it that I SHOULD be eating 1606 and NOT eating back exercise cals? Or DO eat back the calories... or eat back HALF?? help!!!

I've resolved to start building my cal intake from the MFP recommended 1200 to now 1400 to slowly increase to 1600.

What the heck to I do now? Again someone who knows whats going on PLEASE message me and help me. Reading these BMR, TDEE blogs post after post just confuses me to death.

jonnythan

You gained it back.

No, I didn't. Nice try though.

sixout

Once I got past the first post, and started reading into the first few comments, I'm just as confused as I was before I started reading.

UGHHHH

I thought I had it figured out, but I don't think I do.
Someone who knows what they are talking about please message me and explain this again? :-/

My BMR is 1460 and my TDEE- 20% is 1606

I calculated my TDEE WITH the "lightly active" option, so is it that I SHOULD be eating 1606 and NOT eating back exercise cals? Or DO eat back the calories... or eat back HALF?? help!!!

I've resolved to start building my cal intake from the MFP recommended 1200 to now 1400 to slowly increase to 1600.

What the heck to I do now? Again someone who knows whats going on PLEASE message me and help me. Reading these BMR, TDEE blogs post after post just confuses me to death.

Eat around 1600-1650 calories and you'll lose weight.

jonnythan

Once I got past the first post, and started reading into the first few comments, I'm just as confused as I was before I started reading.

UGHHHH

I thought I had it figured out, but I don't think I do.
Someone who knows what they are talking about please message me and explain this again? :-/

My BMR is 1460 and my TDEE- 20% is 1606

I calculated my TDEE WITH the "lightly active" option, so is it that I SHOULD be eating 1606 and NOT eating back exercise cals? Or DO eat back the calories... or eat back HALF?? help!!!

I've resolved to start building my cal intake from the MFP recommended 1200 to now 1400 to slowly increase to 1600.

What the heck to I do now? Again someone who knows whats going on PLEASE message me and help me. Reading these BMR, TDEE blogs post after post just confuses me to death.

General recommendation is to calculate TDEE - 20% for "sedentary" and eat back exerise calories.

Admiral_Derp

Passing on the rank of admiral...no cure at all.

bpotts44

BMR is the absolute basic amount of calories the body requires to do absolutely nothing but stay alive. The point ConcreteGirl is making is that TDEE -any% if it takes you below BMR is unhealthy. Yes you will see weight loss, but GOOD weight loss is fat loss coupled with maintaining lean body mass. Going under BMR and especially continually going under you lose LEAN BODY MASS, not to mention tissue and organ damage, due to not having the nutrients your body REQUIRES to keep itself functioning.

So as ConcreteGirl so eloquently explained above BMR but below TDEE = healthy weight loss.

What you are saying just is not true for all people. Certainly you do not want to lose weight too quickly as that may compromise LBM; however, for certain people it is perfectly okay to eat below BMR. There is nothing magic about that number. The key is not to lose weight too quickly as you get lower in BF% and maintain enough protein in your diet. But for smaller people that are inactive their BMR and TDEE might only be 200-300 calories apart. If they have 20 to lose then TDEE-500 is perfectly acceptable.

VorJoshigan

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.

Define theoretical. Many people have done studies in metabolic wards to get a measure of what their actual BMR is. That is not a theoretical number. Most of the numbers available on the calculators are indeed ESTIMATES, but that is different from theoretical.

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.

Please define irrelevant. I think it is important in certain contexts.
If you're thinking long term, then it is very relevant? The closer you eat to maintenance, the easier it is to transition to maintenance when the time comes. The fewer calories you eat, the more your metabolism and the associated hormones are thrown out of whack. I admit that I can not find any studies on my quick "smoke break" at the moment, but eating under your BMR has a more severe effect on these hormones than eating above BMR. Think about it this way - if you have to dip into your savings for daily expenditures, you're going to get more stressed out than if it's just for occasional one-off purchases.

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."

If you have studies or evidence to back up your claim, I would be happy to review them.

Mia_RagazzaTosta

You gained it back.

No, I didn't. Nice try though.

Your statement was "Every time I've lost weight..."

If you've tried more than once it's because you gained.

jonnythan

BMR is the absolute basic amount of calories the body requires to do absolutely nothing but stay alive. The point ConcreteGirl is making is that TDEE -any% if it takes you below BMR is unhealthy. Yes you will see weight loss, but GOOD weight loss is fat loss coupled with maintaining lean body mass. Going under BMR and especially continually going under you lose LEAN BODY MASS, not to mention tissue and organ damage, due to not having the nutrients your body REQUIRES to keep itself functioning.

So as ConcreteGirl so eloquently explained above BMR but below TDEE = healthy weight loss.

What you are saying just is not true for all people. Certainly you do not want to lose weight too quickly as that may compromise LBM; however, for certain people it is perfectly okay to eat below BMR. There is nothing magic about that number. The key is not to lose weight too quickly as you get lower in BF% and maintain enough protein in your diet. But for smaller people that are inactive their BMR and TDEE might only be 200-300 calories apart. If they have 20 to lose then TDEE-500 is perfectly acceptable.

Thank you.

jonnythan

You gained it back.

No, I didn't. Nice try though.

Your statement was "Every time I've lost weight..."

If you've tried more than once it's because you gained.

Yes. People sometimes intentionally gain weight while working out in order to build muscle mass. They gain fat mass at the same time, then they lose weight to get rid of the fat mass.

LBNOakland

This whole thread has def helped me. I hope the "Road Trip" story was clear enough for those considering eating below BMR. My initial thought was that eating below BMR on occasion is no big deal if weekly averages are above BMR. The Road Trip story made me rethink that. WHen a car runs out of gas, it comes to a SCREECHING halt and nothing can make it run again except more gas. For fuel injected engines, you also need to do some damage repair. (Hubby owns a shop LOL). Perhaps it wouldn't do any damage or make a difference but why chance it? Healthy weight loss is the goal.

OP, I came to a similar conclusion as you. I set my cals to BMR about a month ago. Still struggling with the whole mental thing. I like to see cals burned so I eat back exercise calories. Last week, I ate over quite a bit and still lost a little. This week, I am starving! I also feel lighter. FOr the first time, I feel I am on the right track. I really feel like my metabolism has finally begun catching up. Please correct me if you think I am wrong. This is all a learning experience for me. I would much rather be corrected now than find later I was wrong.

One other car comparison. I was talking to my daughter about HIIT. Hubby is a cardio buff. He does lift weights but puts more credence on cardio. He said that you have to get your heart rate up and keep it up - i.e. steady state cardio. He said HIIT doesn't make sense because when you turn an engine off, it's harder on it. That's why truckers keep their engines idling when they stop for short periods. It took me 2 hours but I did finally rebut! When you are driving your car at a steady state then rev the engine, your RPMs go way up and you burn more gas. HIIT is not stopping the engine. It is reving the engine, thus burning more gas (fat). I was proud of that since my hubby is ALWAYS right! He just laughed and had no rebuttal!!