Why not eat below BMR?

Ploogy

Edit: Nevermind. Everything I wrote about was discussed in the posts proceeding the one I quoted and responded to.

But it's nice to realize that I'm not crazy for seeing BMR as nothing but a number to get to TDEE. Nothing more.

jonnythan

Johnnythan, I think their argument would be that anyone in this situation needs to exercise more to make the mathematical obstacle disappear.

But every day? We need rest days

Crankstr

I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!

Help explain if its about netting or eating please!

Pathetically quoting myself because I'd love a clear explanation about the eating vs. netting issue....any thoughts?

After a long run it's good to eat carbs to replenish your muscle glycogen stores. If you are doing so much physical activity as to potentially net less than your BMR, and if this is something you do on a frequent basis, you probably need to up your intake with more nutritionally dense foods. The sort of performance you're talking about - - running 12 miles - - is extremely demanding and draining on your body, and it would be important for you to eat those calories back. Additionally, if you're performing at that level of fitness already, you don't want a large calorie deficit. You're probably looking to shed fat and perform body recomposition - that is best accomplished with a narrow deficit and time.

Stated more simply, shoot to net no less than your BMR at the absolute minimum, and as has been observed, calibrate on the basis of your TDEE.

With love,
Burt

Hm, so what you're saying seems to be slightly different than the poster above, but if I'm understanding correctly you both feel that netting SUBSTANTIALLY less than BMR is the issue, not so much netting a bit under?

Burt, I completely agree about long runs and carbs, and I certainly eat MORE on those days, but usually only by 400-500 cals, not the full 1000+, know what I mean? But I certainly agree about properly refueling...honestly I'm just full at that point (and sometimes a bit queasy for an hour or so after I finish a run.)

Thanks for the suggestions fellas!

The problem is running too large a calorie deficit. The calorie deficit is based on TDEE and your food intake. That's it. BMR only factors into it as a way to help you calculate your TDEE.

Once you know TDEE, BMR has no relevance whatsoever. You want a moderate calorie deficit . 250-500 if you don't have a lot of weight to lose and 500-750 if you have a lot of weight to lose.

I really find the argument silly and non existent. And just to be blunt, I'm not even friends with the above person so I have no horse in this race so to speak, but the bolded part is correct. I'd use a percentage but that's sort of an aside to the point.

If you have a low TDEE due to low NEAT or EAT, you may in fact have to eat below BMR and if you're using a system where you eat back exercise calories and consequently eat less on rest days, you're very very likely going to be eating under BMR on rest days. And there's no real problem with that.

Now that being said, there are plenty of people who create too big of an energy deficit (which could be bad) but it looks like the poster above has already addressed that.

Create your deficit off of TDEE and make sure it's reasonable (20% is a reasonable starting point for most people)and whether or not it's below BMR on some days really does not matter if you did the underlined part correctly.

Sometimes it is the WAY something is said that makes a difference....thank you

Ploogy

No problem. You'll just be in starvation mode on those days.

Johnnythan, I think their argument would be that anyone in this situation needs to exercise more to make the mathematical obstacle disappear.

But every day? We need rest days

SideSteel

So if my TDEE is 2075 and my BMR is 1725, I should run a deficit of no more than 350 calories?

If you were in that position and you wanted to lose weight I would suggest averaging approximately 1650-1700 kcals per day. Whether you did this by eating the same amount daily, or slightly higher on exercise days and slightly lower on rest days would be up to your preferences. (Potential exception to this would be if you are already very lean in which case a smaller deficit may be preferable).

Johnnythan, I think their argument would be that anyone in this situation needs to exercise more to make the mathematical obstacle disappear.

You could also increase it by increasing NEAT rather than adding exercise. Whether or not you need to would depend on context (satiety, current exercise program, etc)

WendyFitMomCHANGED

I had a trainer explain it like this to me "If you were in a coma, the hospital would feed you your BMR via IV just to keep you alive." Why would you feed yourself less than coma state?

Kindof made sense to me

jonnythan

I had a trainer explain it like this to me "If you were in a coma, the hospital would feed you your BMR via IV just to keep you alive." Why would you feed yourself less than coma state?

Kindof made sense to me

Because you're not trying to maintain your weight like they are in the hospital. You're intentionally losing weight.

Sarauk2sf

Tagging to read through the responses.

lh1626

Bump for later

WendyFitMomCHANGED

I had a trainer explain it like this to me "If you were in a coma, the hospital would feed you your BMR via IV just to keep you alive." Why would you feed yourself less than coma state?

Kindof made sense to me

Because you're not trying to maintain your weight like they are in the hospital. You're intentionally losing weight.

Good point to consider ...... also, LOVE your hat! Rarrwwwrrr!

jonnythan

I had a trainer explain it like this to me "If you were in a coma, the hospital would feed you your BMR via IV just to keep you alive." Why would you feed yourself less than coma state?

Kindof made sense to me

Because you're not trying to maintain your weight like they are in the hospital. You're intentionally losing weight.

Good point to consider ...... also, LOVE your hat! Rarrwwwrrr!

Grr, baby!

Spartan_Maker

Hey, Ploogy. Your instincts are right. It's complete and utter bull****, likely first promulgated by the food lobby. I've eaten below my BMR probably about 50 times in the last year.

Whenever you hear these general bromides, think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. If we were that pathetic, we would have been extinct as a species in less than 1,000 years.

SanteMulberry

I do not think it is about organs but more about muscle?

But having said that not feeding your body as a whole organism will eventually deplete and drain ie skin, hair, nails will not do well if you do not feed your body in a good way.

You will find lots of scientific evidence that anorexics can deplete their organs by eating below the BMR consistently.

This is the short answer, you sound educated, so you would not need me to tell you any of this?

Exactly. If an anorexic dies, it is usually because the heart fails, due to damage that is sustained through a starvation diet. What one wants to do is keep a slight deficit going for a long time, and forcing one's body to burn stored fat. The trick is to keep it burning fat and not lean tissue. Anyone can lose weight but it takes a plan to burn body fat.

jonnythan

I do not think it is about organs but more about muscle?

But having said that not feeding your body as a whole organism will eventually deplete and drain ie skin, hair, nails will not do well if you do not feed your body in a good way.

You will find lots of scientific evidence that anorexics can deplete their organs by eating below the BMR consistently.

This is the short answer, you sound educated, so you would not need me to tell you any of this?

Exactly. If an anorexic dies, it is usually because the heart fails, due to damage that is sustained through a starvation diet. What one wants to do is keep a slight deficit going for a long time, and forcing one's body to burn stored fat. The trick is to keep it burning fat and not lean tissue. Anyone can lose weight but it takes a plan to burn body fat.

And the plan is TDEE - 20% or some other reasonable deficit. TDEE - 20% can be below BMR on days you don't work out. Derp.

bumblebums

Ever heard of Google Scholar? A simple search for "Basal Metabolic Rate" will answer a lot of your questions. For example:

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/293/6/E1580.full

This describes a study comparing water only, VLED (very low energy diet, 600 kcal/day 2.5 MJ), and maintenance diets. They did not find differences in protein breakdown between the full starvation and the VLED group--both showed signs of protein breakdown, though with different effects on blood sugar and so on.

Robin_Bin

Many people on this site try to lose weight by extreme, low-calorie diets. (Thinking less is better.) So, there are a few guidelines about not going lower than...
* BMR
* TDEE-20%
* 1,200 calories
If you are working with a knowledgeable doctor, nutritionist or other medical practitioner, with experience in losing weight safely, then it may be ok for you to go below these guidelines. That's because the practitioner should be checking to make sure you're satisfying your basic nutritional needs and performing periodic tests to see if your health and the levels of nutrients in your body are sufficient.
But, when you're working on your own, it's very hard to get the nutrition you need when below these guidelines. (Of course if you're eating very nutritionally low foods, you may not meet your healthy nutrition needs even when above the guidelines.) Also, when going below the guidelines, you're likely to feel other side effects, like low energy levels that make it hard for you to do other things which will keep you healthy and fit, like exercise.
All that said, they are just guidelines and estimates... you can drop below these recommendations periodically without any harm. The problems occur when you eat at a very low amount for extended periods of time. The problems range from the health issues already mentioned, the side-effects of not enough exercise, or starting a cycle of eating at very low levels alternating with giving into cravings, bingeing and yo-yo dieting.
So... given these risks, why eat below the level of calories that your body needs for the energy to maintain itself when you are doing nothing? Why not be healthier and raise the amount of calories your body burns by strengthening muscle and using it?

squirrelzzrule22

I apologize if I've reopened a can of worms. My question stemmed from the fact that I attempt to eat 1700 cals a day, typically burning about 400 on average from running, plus another 100-200 from some circuit-y strength training (before you get on my case I also lift but I'm referring to calorie burning stuff for the moment). This often leaves me netted a bit below my BMR, which is something around 1400. So, I eat above it, net below it, but I don't feel hungry or deprived. However, I'm not losing weight as quickly as I'd like, I feel fairly stagnant. So, even though I feel comfortable and energized and thought I was eating plenty, I was asking in the hopes of figuring out if maybe I should really force myself to net it. That's a scary idea to me because I got chunky by eating (and drinking) too many calories, and I've been quite full on the 1700, I hardly think of it as very low calorie. On long run days I eat something like 2100... And usually still net a bit below BMR.

Seems to be two opinions. One, that mathematically this is fine since 1700 is a roughly 20% cut from my TDEE so BMR doesn't matter. The other, that BMR should always be netted. If I were having more success at what I'm doing now I'd have a stronger opinion about it working but despite the totally well intentioned suggestions...I'm finding myself just as confused as before! Sorry if I'm idiotic and if you're bored of explaining feel free to disregard

Sarauk2sf

I apologize if I've reopened a can of worms. My question stemmed from the fact that I attempt to eat 1700 cals a day, typically burning about 400 on average from running, plus another 100-200 from some circuit-y strength training (before you get on my case I also lift but I'm referring to calorie burning stuff for the moment). This often leaves me netted a bit below my BMR, which is something around 1400. So, I eat above it, net below it, but I don't feel hungry or deprived. However, I'm not losing weight as quickly as I'd like, I feel fairly stagnant. So, even though I feel comfortable and energized and thought I was eating plenty, I was asking in the hopes of figuring out if maybe I should really force myself to net it. That's a scary idea to me because I got chunky by eating (and drinking) too many calories, and I've been quite full on the 1700, I hardly think of it as very low calorie. On long run days I eat something like 2100... And usually still net a bit below BMR.

Seems to be two opinions. One, that mathematically this is fine since 1700 is a roughly 20% cut from my TDEE so BMR doesn't matter. The other, that BMR should always be netted. If I were having more success at what I'm doing now I'd have a stronger opinion about it working but despite the totally well intentioned suggestions...I'm finding myself just as confused as before! Sorry if I'm idiotic and if you're bored of explaining feel free to disregard

No apology needed imo - it's a topic of contention on here. If you have a reasonable caloric deficit, which a TDEE - 20% is, based on the amount you have to lose, you are fine. Look at the week as a whole. Also, where are you getting your BMR from? Presumably an online calculator - which is an estimate for people using sample population inputs of those not calorie restricting. Unless you have the same inputs as that population, it will not actually be *your* BMR.

CristinaL1983

Ever heard of Google Scholar? A simple search for "Basal Metabolic Rate" will answer a lot of your questions. For example:

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/293/6/E1580.full

This describes a study comparing water only, VLED (very low energy diet, 600 kcal/day 2.5 MJ), and maintenance diets. They did not find differences in protein breakdown between the full starvation and the VLED group--both showed signs of protein breakdown, though with different effects on blood sugar and so on.

Uh, really? Because that's not what they wrote in that study...

At a nominal 5% weight loss, whole body protein oxidation and the synthetic rates of specific hepatic export proteins were increased in the starvation group (rapid weight loss) compared with subjects receiving VLED (slower rate of weight loss), where most of these parameters were either unchanged or reduced. The increase in whole body protein oxidation during starvation supports previous studies with lean individuals (40, 53, 69, 70). This contrasts with the VLED treatment, where protein synthesis, breakdown, and oxidation were reduced during weight loss (significant at 7% weight loss relative to the baseline values for synthesis and breakdown only). This agrees with earlier observations that long-term nutrient restriction, either with low-protein or protein-free diets, leads to an adaptation with reduced protein turnover and lowered amino acid catabolism (9, 11).

Additionally, this study was conducted on already lean individuals and as this study states explicitly:

Such understanding may lead to improved management strategies of these or similar situations. However, we should not extrapolate our findings to overweight or obese individuals undergoing weight loss who may respond differently to starvation and VLED than our initially lean subjects. In addition, we do not know how these mechanisms may be modified by coexistent disease or injury, and these remain areas for further investigation.

It's an interesting study to read but I don't think that the argument being made is that lean individuals should eat 600 cal/day. In fact, I think that unless under the supervision of a doctor, no one is advocating eating 600 cal for anyone.

t2kburl

Here is a novel concept:
Pick a number - or let MFP do it for you, or Scooby or IPOARM or ........
Net that many calories for a month.
Did your body change in the ways you want/expect it to?
If yes, continue.
If not, adjust calorie intake accordingly and reassess in another month.