Is eating 4% below BMR really that bad?

CM9178

The TDEE calculator calculates your BMR and your Lifestyle and puts those numbers together, if you add exercise you need to add those calories, so it doesn't count the exercise calories, it uses your daily lifestyle, how much energy you use in a day..that's it!

This only applies to sedentary, not other activity levels. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

wild_wild_life

It's fine. You are talking 60 calories under -- this is well within the range of estimation error. You don't know your BMR exactly, the calorie content of your food exactly, or the amount you are eating exactly. The "don't eat under your BMR" rule is something you only see advocated here on MFP and is basically a way of advising against very large deficits as a way to lose weight -- you would not fall into that category.

TeaBea

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is that exercise (esp. strength training) will help you keep more muscle than just diet alone. But not everyone can exercise... so you just do the best that you can. You eat back calories burned because BMR is for "basic" bodily functions (heart, lungs, kidneys).

Losing weight faster (below BMR) means more muscle loss. Losing weight more slowly means you get to keep more muscle.

jonnythan

I understand that if you use "sedentary tdee" that I need to eat back exercise calories.
But you said that you shouldn't eat at 20% deficit if you are sedentary and not exercising.
My question was why would these calculators even give you a tdee-20% calculation for sedentary, if you shouldn't do that much of a deficit? It doesn't make sense to me that they are just "assuming" that I will exercise on top of that number. If they wanted me to exercise, then sedentary shouldn't even be an option. Do you know what I'm saying?

I want to point out that I'm not arguing with any of the advice being given here. But I see a lot of advice thrown around without an explanation behind it. If I am going to follow the advice of someone - I want to understand the reasoning behind why I should be doing something.

The calculators give you a TDEE-20% calculation for sedentary because they assume you will be adding exercise calories on top of the number that you get.

I personally set my calorie goal to about TDEE - 20% for sedentary. I add exercise calories back on top of that.

If I did no exercise, I would not set my calorie goal to TDEE - 20% for sedentary.

The reason I recommend not doing that is because eating a significant calorie deficit while doing no exercise is a recipe for muscle loss, poor cardiovascular health, fat maintenance, fatigue, and general feelings of tiredness and lethargy.

CM9178

It's fine. You are talking 60 calories under -- this is well within the range of estimation error. You don't know your BMR exactly, the calorie content of your food exactly, or the amount you are eating exactly. The "don't eat under your BMR" rule is something you only see advocated here on MFP and is basically a way of advising against very large deficits as a way to lose weight -- you would not fall into that category.

This is an excellent point. I see a lot talked about on here regarding estimates - and how none of this is exact.

Yet, when I'm asking about a measly 4% below BMR, suddenly that is a horribly bad thing to do.

CM9178

I understand that if you use "sedentary tdee" that I need to eat back exercise calories.
But you said that you shouldn't eat at 20% deficit if you are sedentary and not exercising.
My question was why would these calculators even give you a tdee-20% calculation for sedentary, if you shouldn't do that much of a deficit? It doesn't make sense to me that they are just "assuming" that I will exercise on top of that number. If they wanted me to exercise, then sedentary shouldn't even be an option. Do you know what I'm saying?

I want to point out that I'm not arguing with any of the advice being given here. But I see a lot of advice thrown around without an explanation behind it. If I am going to follow the advice of someone - I want to understand the reasoning behind why I should be doing something.

The calculators give you a TDEE-20% calculation for sedentary because they assume you will be adding exercise calories on top of the number that you get.

I personally set my calorie goal to about TDEE - 20% for sedentary. I add exercise calories back on top of that.

If I did no exercise, I would not set my calorie goal to TDEE - 20% for sedentary.

The reason I recommend not doing that is because eating a significant calorie deficit while doing no exercise is a recipe for muscle loss, poor cardiovascular health, fat maintenance, fatigue, and general feelings of tiredness and lethargy.

Ok, I understand what you are saying.
So basically, to answer my original question - since I am not currently exercising, I should not use TDEE - 20%.
I should use a lower/smaller deficit for now.

If I begin exercising, I can increase the deficit to 20% and it would be ok to be slightly under my BMR.

Correct?

jonnythan

I understand that if you use "sedentary tdee" that I need to eat back exercise calories.
But you said that you shouldn't eat at 20% deficit if you are sedentary and not exercising.
My question was why would these calculators even give you a tdee-20% calculation for sedentary, if you shouldn't do that much of a deficit? It doesn't make sense to me that they are just "assuming" that I will exercise on top of that number. If they wanted me to exercise, then sedentary shouldn't even be an option. Do you know what I'm saying?

I want to point out that I'm not arguing with any of the advice being given here. But I see a lot of advice thrown around without an explanation behind it. If I am going to follow the advice of someone - I want to understand the reasoning behind why I should be doing something.

The calculators give you a TDEE-20% calculation for sedentary because they assume you will be adding exercise calories on top of the number that you get.

I personally set my calorie goal to about TDEE - 20% for sedentary. I add exercise calories back on top of that.

If I did no exercise, I would not set my calorie goal to TDEE - 20% for sedentary.

The reason I recommend not doing that is because eating a significant calorie deficit while doing no exercise is a recipe for muscle loss, poor cardiovascular health, fat maintenance, fatigue, and general feelings of tiredness and lethargy.

Ok, I understand what you are saying.
So basically, to answer my original question - since I am not currently exercising, I should not use TDEE - 20%.
I should use a lower deficit for now.

If I begin exercising, I can increase the deficit to 20% and it would be ok to be slightly under my BMR.

Correct?

Yes, that would be my recommendation.

CM9178

I understand that if you use "sedentary tdee" that I need to eat back exercise calories.
But you said that you shouldn't eat at 20% deficit if you are sedentary and not exercising.
My question was why would these calculators even give you a tdee-20% calculation for sedentary, if you shouldn't do that much of a deficit? It doesn't make sense to me that they are just "assuming" that I will exercise on top of that number. If they wanted me to exercise, then sedentary shouldn't even be an option. Do you know what I'm saying?

I want to point out that I'm not arguing with any of the advice being given here. But I see a lot of advice thrown around without an explanation behind it. If I am going to follow the advice of someone - I want to understand the reasoning behind why I should be doing something.

The calculators give you a TDEE-20% calculation for sedentary because they assume you will be adding exercise calories on top of the number that you get.

I personally set my calorie goal to about TDEE - 20% for sedentary. I add exercise calories back on top of that.

If I did no exercise, I would not set my calorie goal to TDEE - 20% for sedentary.

The reason I recommend not doing that is because eating a significant calorie deficit while doing no exercise is a recipe for muscle loss, poor cardiovascular health, fat maintenance, fatigue, and general feelings of tiredness and lethargy.

Ok, I understand what you are saying.
So basically, to answer my original question - since I am not currently exercising, I should not use TDEE - 20%.
I should use a lower deficit for now.

If I begin exercising, I can increase the deficit to 20% and it would be ok to be slightly under my BMR.

Correct?

Yes, that would be my recommendation.

Ok makes sense.

How accurate do you think the TDEE calculators are that don't include body fat (since I don't have a caliper to measure body fat). ?

nmn2

So glad you posted this question, I have been wondering the same thing!

jonnythan

I understand that if you use "sedentary tdee" that I need to eat back exercise calories.
But you said that you shouldn't eat at 20% deficit if you are sedentary and not exercising.
My question was why would these calculators even give you a tdee-20% calculation for sedentary, if you shouldn't do that much of a deficit? It doesn't make sense to me that they are just "assuming" that I will exercise on top of that number. If they wanted me to exercise, then sedentary shouldn't even be an option. Do you know what I'm saying?

I want to point out that I'm not arguing with any of the advice being given here. But I see a lot of advice thrown around without an explanation behind it. If I am going to follow the advice of someone - I want to understand the reasoning behind why I should be doing something.

The calculators give you a TDEE-20% calculation for sedentary because they assume you will be adding exercise calories on top of the number that you get.

I personally set my calorie goal to about TDEE - 20% for sedentary. I add exercise calories back on top of that.

If I did no exercise, I would not set my calorie goal to TDEE - 20% for sedentary.

The reason I recommend not doing that is because eating a significant calorie deficit while doing no exercise is a recipe for muscle loss, poor cardiovascular health, fat maintenance, fatigue, and general feelings of tiredness and lethargy.

Ok, I understand what you are saying.
So basically, to answer my original question - since I am not currently exercising, I should not use TDEE - 20%.
I should use a lower deficit for now.

If I begin exercising, I can increase the deficit to 20% and it would be ok to be slightly under my BMR.

Correct?

Yes, that would be my recommendation.

Ok makes sense.

How accurate do you think the TDEE calculators are that don't include body fat (since I don't have a caliper to measure body fat). ?

They seem to be really good for normal people actually. Pretty much everyone I know that followed them lost weight at expected speed.

CM9178

I understand that if you use "sedentary tdee" that I need to eat back exercise calories.
But you said that you shouldn't eat at 20% deficit if you are sedentary and not exercising.
My question was why would these calculators even give you a tdee-20% calculation for sedentary, if you shouldn't do that much of a deficit? It doesn't make sense to me that they are just "assuming" that I will exercise on top of that number. If they wanted me to exercise, then sedentary shouldn't even be an option. Do you know what I'm saying?

I want to point out that I'm not arguing with any of the advice being given here. But I see a lot of advice thrown around without an explanation behind it. If I am going to follow the advice of someone - I want to understand the reasoning behind why I should be doing something.

The calculators give you a TDEE-20% calculation for sedentary because they assume you will be adding exercise calories on top of the number that you get.

I personally set my calorie goal to about TDEE - 20% for sedentary. I add exercise calories back on top of that.

If I did no exercise, I would not set my calorie goal to TDEE - 20% for sedentary.

The reason I recommend not doing that is because eating a significant calorie deficit while doing no exercise is a recipe for muscle loss, poor cardiovascular health, fat maintenance, fatigue, and general feelings of tiredness and lethargy.

Ok, I understand what you are saying.
So basically, to answer my original question - since I am not currently exercising, I should not use TDEE - 20%.
I should use a lower deficit for now.

If I begin exercising, I can increase the deficit to 20% and it would be ok to be slightly under my BMR.

Correct?

Yes, that would be my recommendation.

Ok makes sense.

How accurate do you think the TDEE calculators are that don't include body fat (since I don't have a caliper to measure body fat). ?

They seem to be really good for normal people actually. Pretty much everyone I know that followed them lost weight at expected speed.

Good to know!

So problem now is, you say its ok to be a little below BMR (if i'm exercising) because it isn't a magical number and I should be more concerned about the size of my deficit.

Yet others here say the BMR is what you need in a coma and you should never, ever eat below it.

So who is right?

jonnythan

Good to know!

So problem now is, you say its ok to be a little below BMR (if i'm exercising) because it isn't a magical number and I should be more concerned about the size of my deficit.

Yet others here say the BMR is what you need in a coma and you should never, ever eat below it.

So who is right?

The only importance BMR has is that it's the starting point for calculating TDEE. That's it.

There's nothing at all magical about BMR once you have TDEE. The only numbers that matter are the actual number of calories you've burned in a day - your TDEE - and the actual number of calories consumed.

The arguments for "never eat below your BMR ever" are nonsensical. They often resort to ridiculous car analogies or try to scare you with "eating fewer calories than you need to stay alive!" This doesn't make any sense. The entire point is to eat fewer calories than you need to stay alive so that your body taps into its fat reserves to make up the rest.

CM9178

Good to know!

So problem now is, you say its ok to be a little below BMR (if i'm exercising) because it isn't a magical number and I should be more concerned about the size of my deficit.

Yet others here say the BMR is what you need in a coma and you should never, ever eat below it.

So who is right?

The only importance BMR has is that it's the starting point for calculating TDEE. That's it.

There's nothing at all magical about BMR once you have TDEE. The only numbers that matter are the actual number of calories you've burned in a day - your TDEE - and the actual number of calories consumed.

The arguments for "never eat below your BMR ever" are nonsensical. They often resort to ridiculous car analogies or try to scare you with "eating fewer calories than you need to stay alive!" This doesn't make any sense. The entire point is to eat fewer calories than you need to stay alive so that your body taps into its fat reserves to make up the rest.

This is exactly where I get confused and why I posted this question. Tons of people say "never eat below BMR!"
It is hard to ignore that.

Also, you may have already said this and I just forget.. if I'm not exercising - what deficit would you recommend for now? 15%? 10%? (I have 41 lbs to lose)

jonnythan

Good to know!

So problem now is, you say its ok to be a little below BMR (if i'm exercising) because it isn't a magical number and I should be more concerned about the size of my deficit.

Yet others here say the BMR is what you need in a coma and you should never, ever eat below it.

So who is right?

The only importance BMR has is that it's the starting point for calculating TDEE. That's it.

There's nothing at all magical about BMR once you have TDEE. The only numbers that matter are the actual number of calories you've burned in a day - your TDEE - and the actual number of calories consumed.

The arguments for "never eat below your BMR ever" are nonsensical. They often resort to ridiculous car analogies or try to scare you with "eating fewer calories than you need to stay alive!" This doesn't make any sense. The entire point is to eat fewer calories than you need to stay alive so that your body taps into its fat reserves to make up the rest.

This is exactly where I get confused and why I posted this question. Tons of people say "never eat below BMR!"
It is hard to ignore that.

People say a lot of stupid crap. They say milk is only for baby cows, that aspartame is poison, etc etc.

srk369

There is such a wide range of BMR calculations. I have seen 1273 and 1361 using online calculators. A couple of weeks ago I had a Bodpod test and it estimated mine at 1133. I am moderately active working out usually 5 times a week. I had my calories set to 1560 (higher on days with larger exercise burn) for a few weeks after I saw that lower 1133 number but was finding myself still hungry. I have just upped mine to 1660 and will work from there. All the numbers have variables and you just have to set something, see how your body reacts and adjust from there. I keep a spreadsheet and recheck the online numbers every few weeks, adjusting my calories based on my current weight.

jonnythan

Also, you may have already said this and I just forget.. if I'm not exercising - what deficit would you recommend for now? 15%? 10%? (I have 41 lbs to lose)

My recommendation would be to exercise, even if that meant half an hour of jumping jacks and lunges in the living room 3 times a week.

I know that's not the answer you want, but honestly I wouldn't recommend anyone try to lose weight without any exercise unless they were literally so fat they could not do any.

CM9178

Also, you may have already said this and I just forget.. if I'm not exercising - what deficit would you recommend for now? 15%? 10%? (I have 41 lbs to lose)

My recommendation would be to exercise, even if that meant half an hour of jumping jacks and lunges in the living room 3 times a week.

I know that's not the answer you want, but honestly I wouldn't recommend anyone try to lose weight without any exercise unless they were literally so fat they could not do any.

Yeah doesn't really help me at this point, since that isn't an option.

How many calories are burned lifting 3 lbs weights for 20 minutes, 3 times per week?

Linda_Darlene

I try to always eat a bit above my BMR but below my TDEE.

I have managed to lose 50 pounds that way.

jonnythan

Also, you may have already said this and I just forget.. if I'm not exercising - what deficit would you recommend for now? 15%? 10%? (I have 41 lbs to lose)

My recommendation would be to exercise, even if that meant half an hour of jumping jacks and lunges in the living room 3 times a week.

I know that's not the answer you want, but honestly I wouldn't recommend anyone try to lose weight without any exercise unless they were literally so fat they could not do any.

Yeah doesn't really help me at this point, since that isn't an option.

How many calories are burned lifting 3 lbs weights for 20 minutes, 3 times per week?

Very few. Probably on the order of 50 or so per session. 3 pounds hardly counts as a weight. Most purses weigh more than that.

What kind of exercise have you been doing to lose those 40 pounds??

CM9178

Also, you may have already said this and I just forget.. if I'm not exercising - what deficit would you recommend for now? 15%? 10%? (I have 41 lbs to lose)

My recommendation would be to exercise, even if that meant half an hour of jumping jacks and lunges in the living room 3 times a week.

I know that's not the answer you want, but honestly I wouldn't recommend anyone try to lose weight without any exercise unless they were literally so fat they could not do any.

Yeah doesn't really help me at this point, since that isn't an option.

How many calories are burned lifting 3 lbs weights for 20 minutes, 3 times per week?

Very few. Probably on the order of 50 or so per session. 3 pounds hardly counts as a weight. Most purses weigh more than that.

What kind of exercise have you been doing to lose those 40 pounds??

Starting out, I can't lift more than 3 lbs - my arms feel like they are going to fall off after a few times.

I did not exercise at all to lose the 40 lbs. (and it took a year).

elyelyse

I don't recommend trying to lose weight while living a completely sedentary lifestyle. If you simply can't exercise for some reason, IMO it's better to try to maintain your weight, or lose very slowly (TDEE-10% or so).

I see what you are getting at here but... I just can't imagine that staying overweight is the better option for someone who is sedentary. Maybe if you've just got a few pounds to lose, sure, but for someone with a significant amount to lose, who for whatever reason is unable to be active at all, maybe there needs to be a little sacrifice of muscle in order to get rid of some of the fat and extra weight, which may then lead to the person being able to increase their activity.

Do you have any resources about this? Telling sedentary people to maintain or only lose very slowly?

jonnythan

Starting out, I can't lift more than 3 lbs - my arms feel like they are going to fall off after a few times.

I did not exercise at all to lose the 40 lbs.

These facts are probably related.

CM9178

Starting out, I can't lift more than 3 lbs - my arms feel like they are going to fall off after a few times.

I did not exercise at all to lose the 40 lbs.

These facts are probably related.

Yes obviously but you have to start somewhere. If all I can do for now is 3 lbs, isn't that better than doing nothing, and just maintaing my weight, when I still have 40 lbs to lose?

jonnythan

Starting out, I can't lift more than 3 lbs - my arms feel like they are going to fall off after a few times.

I did not exercise at all to lose the 40 lbs.

These facts are probably related.

Yes obviously but you have to start somewhere. If all I can do for now is 3 lbs, isn't that better than doing nothing, and just maintaing my weight, when I still have 40 lbs to lose?

Well, you can do more than 3 lbs, even if you don't think you can. Presumably you can, say, open a car door, yes?

How about a gallon of milk? Can you lift a gallon of milk?

Opening a car door requires more than 3 pounds of force. A gallon of milk weighs almost 9 pounds.

Women always underestimate how much they can lift. I don't know why. They just view themselves as inordinately weak.

So why can't you do any calisthenics or anything in your house? Do you have some physical limitation that you can't do some lunges or something?

CM9178

Starting out, I can't lift more than 3 lbs - my arms feel like they are going to fall off after a few times.

I did not exercise at all to lose the 40 lbs.

These facts are probably related.

Yes obviously but you have to start somewhere. If all I can do for now is 3 lbs, isn't that better than doing nothing, and just maintaing my weight, when I still have 40 lbs to lose?

Well, you can do more than 3 lbs, even if you don't think you can. Presumably you can, say, open a car door, yes?

How about a gallon of milk? Can you lift a gallon of milk?

Opening a car door requires more than 3 pounds of force. A gallon of milk weighs almost 9 pounds.

Women always underestimate how much they can lift. I don't know why. They just view themselves as inordinately weak.

So why can't you do any calisthenics or anything in your house? Do you have some physical limitation that you can't do some lunges or something?

I tested out the dumbells in the store and I could barely lift more than 3 lbs. Yes, I can pick up a gallon of milk. Can I do 45 bicep curls with it? No, I can't. I bought the heaviest ones that I could.

I had an injury and for now, all I can do is light upper body.

jonnythan

I tested out the dumbells in the store and I could barely lift more than 3 lbs. Yes, I can pick up a gallon of milk. Can I do 45 bicep curls with it? No, I can't. I bought the heaviest ones that I could.

I had an injury and for now, all I can do is light upper body.

Doing 45 bicep curls with anything is one of the biggest wastes of time possible.

Look, you need to exercise in some fashion. You seem unwilling to do so. I'm not going to spend all day fighting your excuses.

Best of luck to you.

CM9178

I tested out the dumbells in the store and I could barely lift more than 3 lbs. Yes, I can pick up a gallon of milk. Can I do 45 bicep curls with it? No, I can't. I bought the heaviest ones that I could.

I had an injury and for now, all I can do is light upper body.

Doing 45 bicep curls with anything is one of the biggest wastes of time possible.

Look, you need to exercise in some fashion. You seem unwilling to do so. I'm not going to spend all day fighting your excuses.

Best of luck to you.

It was just an example - I didn't say that all I'm going to do is 45 bicep curls.
My point was that all I can lift right now is 3 lbs.

I am also not making excuses - I told you why I can't do anything more right now - I am not unwilling.

am06or

Starting out, I can't lift more than 3 lbs - my arms feel like they are going to fall off after a few times.

I did not exercise at all to lose the 40 lbs.

These facts are probably related.

Yes obviously but you have to start somewhere. If all I can do for now is 3 lbs, isn't that better than doing nothing, and just maintaing my weight, when I still have 40 lbs to lose?

Well, you can do more than 3 lbs, even if you don't think you can. Presumably you can, say, open a car door, yes?

How about a gallon of milk? Can you lift a gallon of milk?

Opening a car door requires more than 3 pounds of force. A gallon of milk weighs almost 9 pounds.

Women always underestimate how much they can lift. I don't know why. They just view themselves as inordinately weak.

So why can't you do any calisthenics or anything in your house? Do you have some physical limitation that you can't do some lunges or something?

I tested out the dumbells in the store and I could barely lift more than 3 lbs. Yes, I can pick up a gallon of milk. Can I do 45 bicep curls with it? No, I can't. I bought the heaviest ones that I could.

I had an injury and for now, all I can do is light upper body.

Why do you need to do 45 curls? you will get much more benefit from the gallon of milk 8-10 times than the 3lbs weight 45...

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

Can you do stretching exercise? Any walking at all?

When I started I had just had to leave my job on disability for lupus. I started out with just walking 20 minutes at a time, with a cane. Then I added pilates. Anything is better than nothing, imo. And eventually I got well enough to walk a lot more and start lifting, which has actually improved the way I feel a lot.

People say to eat at or above BMR as a rule of thumb because it keeps the deficit from being too steep. Personally I think 4% is still within the margin of error and wouldn't worry too much about it.

ChangingAmanda

It was just an example - I didn't say that all I'm going to do is 45 bicep curls.
My point was that all I can lift right now is 3 lbs.

I am also not making excuses - I told you why I can't do anything more right now - I am not unwilling.

I'm sorry your sidelined with an injury. I agree with Jonny that everyone will see better results when you can exercise while losing weight. It sounds like your injury is/was pretty serious. Is a health care professional advising you on what exercises you can and can't do? Like, you can't lift more than 3 lbs but it's ok to take long walks or swim type of suggestion.