Doctor says eating below BMR is fine
Replies
-
Because this thread is extremely high in opinions and extremely low in science:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/fast-weight-loss-changes-hunger-hormones
This study mentioned examines VLCDs. Eating slightly below your BMR like the OP's doing hasn't been studied extensively as far as I know (if it has, links please, I'd love to read), but I'd rather be safe and not risk messing around with my hormones, personally.
Oh, and your comment about women dieting back in the 50s? It was not in style for women to have muscle definition, so who cares if that's what their body chewed up? Personally, no thanks, I like my quads.
Right so basically theres no proven studies been done for people who eat slightly below their bmr? so no one knows if its 'oh so very bad your going to die book a hole in the ground time correct'? im not on a VLCD whatever, im not 'starving myself' unless my bodys playing a game of chicken and waiting to surprise me one morning with the hahaha got ya now your dead trick i think id know if i was in starvation mode, im taking a wild guess that id be rather peckish? well im not so its all good.
As for the women in the 50s comments your taking it out of context, my point was they didnt have all these bmr online calculators to tell them what there metabolic rate was, they didnt know what a ruddy TDEE was, they used basic human logic, ie eat less eat cleaner and work out, if some of the stuff on this forum were to be belived no one would ever be anorexic seeing as the body wouldnt allow it, starvation mode would set in and youd just store fat, not lose weight......obviously thats rubbish.
Again ill repeat, christian bale survived 4 months on an apple and a can of tuna a day, i very much doubt he met his bmr level never mind his tdee level, he didnt die he didnt become some mass murderer with a finger fixation he simply ya know lost weight, then when the movie was over he gained it back, didnt seem to do him any harm.
Are we debating about what causes weight loss, or what's healthy? Eating below the your BMR will result in weight loss, yes. I'm not arguing that. But the study proves it also results in an adjustment of your hormones at a large deficit below BMR. Is it out of the question to think that eating 500 cals instead of 1000 cals below BMR wouldn't have at least some effect? Losing weight too quickly - and for someone of your size with your goals, 2lbs/week is too quickly - can result in depleted muscle mass and an alteration of how your body determines whether it's hungry or satisfied. I would hate it if I'd lost all this weight and then put it all back on because I was always hungry. This study for VLCDs was done in 2011 - that's fairly recent. Over the next few years, there will probably be a slew of research based around BMR and LCDs like yours because this is the pretty much the first time anyone has realized just how important it could be. Eating at your BMR is important for health and long term stability, not just weight loss.
Christian Bale is lucky he's got a slew of resources for keeping his body how he needs it. He may not have turned into a finger-gnawing lunatic, but I would be shocked if suffered absolutely no hormonal repercussions from his crash diet. He obviously lost a lot of muscle. Movie stars do plenty of things that aren't healthy for their jobs. Please stop using him as an example.
Back in the day, women were told to eat 1000-1200 calories. The research hadn't been done to emphasize anything more than "eat less, eat right, move more". They were weak - just look at photos from that time. Where's the muscle? We know better now, and it's foolish to dismiss current information in favor of old methods.
BMR is an estimate, not an exact number. So are the calories you log and the exercise calories you burn. There's a bit of trial and error involved. Starvation mode is also a horribly misunderstood concept - you're not going to hang onto all your fat, but you are going to deal with your body fighting you to lose fat, and if you do it for too long you can see drops in metabolism lower than what you desire. Study backing that up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
I'm done for the night, and probably won't remember to come back here tomorrow, so.... Make whatever decision you will, but it would be nice if you'd stop encouraging other people to do things that aren't particularly healthy or that fail to set them up for a sustainable lifestyle. Good night!0 -
My doctor also has me eating below my BMR. The online calc's say it is 1900 as I am very overweight and very very very sedentiary. However, my doctor has me eating 1200 calories a day. I have been losing about 3 lbs a week. I don't mind eating so low. I actually have more energy than when I was at 1900 calories. It is a lifestyle I can sustain, whereas 2000 calories was not something I could keep doing for very long.
Just remember that everyone is different. Your doctor knows you better than we do, and better than a generic online calculator so trust in him. As long as you are feeling good and your health is good, I would follow his advice.
There you go, your eating 700 below bmr and thats been medically prescribed, that dosnt mean thats right for everyone but it is for you, just be warned you may be told by certain people on here you going to "turn into a blabbering wreck" "start biting peoples fingers off at random" and "eventually die of starvation"....sorry to be the bringer of bad news
Only kidding
ignore these people and best of luck with your weight loss.
Oh I've been visited by the Calorie Cult many times.0 -
Because this thread is extremely high in opinions and extremely low in science:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/fast-weight-loss-changes-hunger-hormones
This study mentioned examines VLCDs. Eating slightly below your BMR like the OP's doing hasn't been studied extensively as far as I know (if it has, links please, I'd love to read), but I'd rather be safe and not risk messing around with my hormones, personally.
Oh, and your comment about women dieting back in the 50s? It was not in style for women to have muscle definition, so who cares if that's what their body chewed up? Personally, no thanks, I like my quads.
Right so basically theres no proven studies been done for people who eat slightly below their bmr? so no one knows if its 'oh so very bad your going to die book a hole in the ground time correct'? im not on a VLCD whatever, im not 'starving myself' unless my bodys playing a game of chicken and waiting to surprise me one morning with the hahaha got ya now your dead trick i think id know if i was in starvation mode, im taking a wild guess that id be rather peckish? well im not so its all good.
As for the women in the 50s comments your taking it out of context, my point was they didnt have all these bmr online calculators to tell them what there metabolic rate was, they didnt know what a ruddy TDEE was, they used basic human logic, ie eat less eat cleaner and work out, if some of the stuff on this forum were to be belived no one would ever be anorexic seeing as the body wouldnt allow it, starvation mode would set in and youd just store fat, not lose weight......obviously thats rubbish.
Again ill repeat, christian bale survived 4 months on an apple and a can of tuna a day, i very much doubt he met his bmr level never mind his tdee level, he didnt die he didnt become some mass murderer with a finger fixation he simply ya know lost weight, then when the movie was over he gained it back, didnt seem to do him any harm.
Are we debating about what causes weight loss, or what's healthy? Eating below the your BMR will result in weight loss, yes. I'm not arguing that. But the study proves it also results in an adjustment of your hormones at a large deficit below BMR. Is it out of the question to think that eating 500 cals instead of 1000 cals below BMR wouldn't have at least some effect? Losing weight too quickly - and for someone of your size with your goals, 2lbs/week is too quickly - can result in depleted muscle mass and an alteration of how your body determines whether it's hungry or satisfied. I would hate it if I'd lost all this weight and then put it all back on because I was always hungry. This study for VLCDs was done in 2011 - that's fairly recent. Over the next few years, there will probably be a slew of research based around BMR and LCDs like yours because this is the pretty much the first time anyone has realized just how important it could be. Eating at your BMR is important for health and long term stability, not just weight loss.
Christian Bale is lucky he's got a slew of resources for keeping his body how he needs it. He may not have turned into a finger-gnawing lunatic, but I would be shocked if suffered absolutely no hormonal repercussions from his crash diet. He obviously lost a lot of muscle. Movie stars do plenty of things that aren't healthy for their jobs. Please stop using him as an example.
Back in the day, women were told to eat 1000-1200 calories. The research hadn't been done to emphasize anything more than "eat less, eat right, move more". They were weak - just look at photos from that time. Where's the muscle? We know better now, and it's foolish to dismiss current information in favor of old methods.
BMR is an estimate, not an exact number. So are the calories you log and the exercise calories you burn. There's a bit of trial and error involved. Starvation mode is also a horribly misunderstood concept - you're not going to hang onto all your fat, but you are going to deal with your body fighting you to lose fat, and if you do it for too long you can see drops in metabolism lower than what you desire. Study backing that up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
I'm done for the night, and probably won't remember to come back here tomorrow, so.... Make whatever decision you will, but it would be nice if you'd stop encouraging other people to do things that aren't particularly healthy or that fail to set them up for a sustainable lifestyle. Good night!
I was going to reply to this in depth but after reading your last sentence and having covered that SOOOOOO many times i wont bother, if you cant read properly dont bother replying to me, if your going to claim ive said things i havnt dont bother replying to me, its a waste of your time and mine.0 -
My doctor also has me eating below my BMR. The online calc's say it is 1900 as I am very overweight and very very very sedentiary. However, my doctor has me eating 1200 calories a day. I have been losing about 3 lbs a week. I don't mind eating so low. I actually have more energy than when I was at 1900 calories. It is a lifestyle I can sustain, whereas 2000 calories was not something I could keep doing for very long.
Just remember that everyone is different. Your doctor knows you better than we do, and better than a generic online calculator so trust in him. As long as you are feeling good and your health is good, I would follow his advice.
There you go, your eating 700 below bmr and thats been medically prescribed, that dosnt mean thats right for everyone but it is for you, just be warned you may be told by certain people on here you going to "turn into a blabbering wreck" "start biting peoples fingers off at random" and "eventually die of starvation"....sorry to be the bringer of bad news
Only kidding ignore these people and best of luck with your weight loss.
Oh I've been visited by the Calorie Cult many times.
You poor thing, still youve survived this long, you have my respect 0 -
I find it amusing that people are arguing about eating below BMR on a website that puts many people on a below BMR calorie goal when they pick to lose 2lbs per week.
Also, the precious road map thing people link to has been revised to have a slope with a deficit of up to TDEE -35% putting people below BMR and in theory could put some below *gasp* 1200 calories.
I would grab popcorn right now if I were hungry at all.0 -
MY BMR is 1450, or thereabouts. I was eating 1300-1400 calories when I started on MFP and my doctor told me that was insane and to eat more, before I lost my mind and killed my husband..okay, I added that last part myself. :laugh: And then he suggested I see a specialist to get a more focused look at things because that wasn't his area of study.
It seems to me that one doctor saying one thing one way or another is hardly the end all be all. Maybe it works for you, that's cool. I'm 5'4" and eating roughly as much as you do, while also sedentary (not working at the moment so literally spending my days chilling on the couch.) except for working out and that's working for me.0 -
I don't think eating below BMR is bad either, but I do think it is important to net at least around 1200 calories a day if you exercise.0
-
The difference is, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment was controlled (ward setting) and the actually details are not very pretty. The difference with you or most people barring eating disorders is that for the most part what they believe their consuming in calories is not very close to reality, and normally out by 20 to 50% and secondly, if someone was actually starving themselves (50% less than TDEE) for a long enough time for psychological deleterious symptoms to emerge our instinct to survive is too great, especially considering anyone can pick up the phone and have as many calories as they desire delivered in 30 minutes or less. The participants in the MSE didn't have that luxury and the side effects dictated those result.......Losing ones appetite on low calorie diets is a side effect that can last a fairly long time............bingeing is pretty common in that scenario.Duration is important. The starvation diet, you know the Minnesota one you've obviously read considering you've read hundreds of studies regarding this query where they were pretty much reduced to babbling idiots with severe emotional distress and depression after 24 weeks, and one cut off 3 fingers, their sex drive went in the toilet, their BMR was reduced drastically, some had exhibited edema in their extremities and these were smaller guys than you consuming 1560 calories, eventually they would have died of starvation. Maybe mention that to your Dr. for future reference.
Cool story bro..
Right answer me this, if a person were in the dreaded "starvation mode" you so 'scarily' proclaim that person would be feeling pretty rough day to day yes? they'd be physically starving, no energy, feeling like crap basically everyday yeah? right i dont feel any of these things, i eat when im hungry and dont when im not a rather sensible Concept wouldn't you agree? what would be the point of me raiding the fridge in the middle of the night to consume 300 odd calories of food i have no appetite for just to make some online calculater (thats guessing my average bmr anyway) happy?? if eating 1700 cals a day for example had me suitably filled why would i want to pig down another 500 cals just for numbers sake, thats surely unhealthy seeing as your basically force feeding yourself based on a online calculater that isnt even 100% accurate in the first place.
Heres another one, im sure youve heard of a certain christian bale? movie star? well he went on a 4 month diet literally consisting of an apple, a small can of tuna and a cup of black coffee a day (you can look it up if you dont believe me)......thats it, that was his everyday meal for 4 months in prep for a movie, now unless that can of tuna was rather large or the apple had rather more calories than your everyday apple he most certainly was not eating his bmr agreed? ok now i may have missed it but i dont remember reading about him "biting his fingers off" "turning into a blabbering mess" "eventually dieing of starvation" im pretty sure on the last one seeing as hes been in movies quite recently.....so how do you explain this? a guy lives on a can of tuna and an apple a day for 4 months, he loses 60lbs of weight, he dosnt start turning into a zombie or some raving lunatic either, he simply loses weight, now unless your going to tell me he was meeting his bmr then your above post is nonsense, people go on crash diets all the time on well below 1500 cals, IM NOT saying thats healthy im saying its done, so stop scaremongering people ok and its actually more unhealthy to fret about numbers 24/7 than it is actually trying to lose the weight.
Obese people, which your not, unless of course you have very little muscle mass, have stored energy that contributes to the in side of the energy balance equation to the tune of about 30 cals/lb/fat and can survive very well on a low calorie diet until their body fat percentage no longer dictates or can justify that higher deficit. But you at your stats looking to get to 10% are not fueling yourself optimally to get to that 10% simply because of the percentage of lean mass that will be utilized for energy and repair. Personally I think this post promotes more of a pro ana stance that lowering body fat to 10%......Anyway, I wish you luck.0 -
Dude. I am 16 inches shorter than you are, nearly 100 lbs lighter, 5 years older, and I'm a chick. And I eat as much as you do. And I'm losing weight. Eat more.
P.S. Some doctors are idiots.
But whats your daily life like? i doubt your as sedentary as i am right now correct? my TDEE is roughly only 500 cals above my BMR, if i had a job and was walking around and active all day id probably need to eat more, but seeing as walking up and down the stairs is as active as i get (before exercise) im burning very little above 'BMR' level anyway.
What about people who cant exercise? say i puled a hamstring or something and couldn't run for weeks, given my sedentary lifestyle (which would be even more sedentary with a busted leg) if i ate at my bmr i wouldnt lose weight at all, or at best something like a pound every 3 months! i dont want to be collecting my free bus pass at 60 odd and still trying to shift the pounds!
Guess its just what works for you, my goal is to get around 10% body fat and strong, first ive got to cut to get rid of all the excess body fat on me, im at around 18% id guesstimate, im simply not going to lose that fat by eating my bmr with my current lifestyle, at best it would probably take about 10 years at eating my bmr rate.
I would agree with you, but I am much shorter and heavier and eating around my BMR maybe a little more and very sedentary. I am losing weight fine. If you ate at your BMR you could lose one pound a week. You said there is a 500 calorie difference between your BMR and your TDEE. You can also be more active and exercise if you are not injured. You should get active and build muscle if you can. Then you could probably get to 10% body fat pretty easily if you gain muscle mass and not have to lose much weight and could increase your calories.0 -
I'm just wondering why no one on the first page has pictures.
ha ha...who cares??0 -
My point is im not trying to cause a fit of rage on here im simply wondering where people get this never eat below bmr is dangerous stuff from? ive read hundreds of diet studies hundreds of nutritionist stuff etc and never once seen anything about this, its only on these forums where i see this trotted out, hence to be safe i booked a doc appointment and had it confirmed, im sure if i was to simply come on here and say my bmr is 2200 and im eating around 1700 is that ok id get scaremongering telling me how im undereating and going into starvation mode, when put simply it really isnt true.
Quite. Thanks for an intelligent post, and LOL at many of the knuckle head responses. Listen to a doctor or a gym bunny ? not a challenging decision. Anyone that has "killed their metabolism" will be 6ft under the soil.
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment fed the subjects about 1600 calories - a 50% deficit (manual workers). Probably not a mile off their BMR, not that this was a relevant concern. The high carb content of that diet would have driven me round the twist too, however low carb eaters often voluntarily eat at this level and are satisfied - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/23/7/948.full.pdf+html for example.
Practically every clinical study of weight loss uses energy intakes below BMR and never comment on this as being of note. It's largely an MFP thing - an example of group think - and Google can seldom find it elsewhere than here.0 -
I don't think eating below BMR is bad either, but I do think it is important to net at least around 1200 calories a day if you exercise.
See im very new to weight loss, on friday ill be a month into it, and literally when i started if someone asked me what BMR was i wouldn't have had a clue, and if it was a girl asking me id assume it was some stupid member of one direction, i didnt know about any of this, neither did any of my family so i have no idea what 'net' calories are either lol, im assuming if im eating say 1800 today and i exercise and lose 200 im 'netting' 1600? that could be a complete balls up so sorry if thats wrong.0 -
My RMR (fairly close to the same things as BMR, though not as scientific) is 1860. My nutritionist advised me to eat 1800 a day. Calorically speaking its plenty for me to get the nutrition I need in if i make good eating choices. I have hypothyroid too so eating too much over my BMR actually causes weight gain.
Everyone's right. Its not a one size fits all. I'll trust my nutritionist knows her stuff and alter as necessary as I go along.0 -
Just throwing my 2 cents in.
I'm 24 6ft and CW 208lbs (was 226lbs 3 months ago) i eat 2500 calories a day which is around a 25% deficit of my TDEE, i'm fairly active.
I am losing weight eating at a much higher numer than before but i eat wat i want if it fits in my calories and macros it's about healthy lifestyle choices and not a diet.
do what works for you if it's working and you can maintain it then great0 -
The difference is, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment was controlled (ward setting) and the actually details are not very pretty. The difference with you or most people barring eating disorders is that for the most part what they believe their consuming in calories is not very close to reality, and normally out by 20 to 50% and secondly, if someone was actually starving themselves (50% less than TDEE) for a long enough time for psychological deleterious symptoms to emerge our instinct to survive is too great, especially considering anyone can pick up the phone and have as many calories as they desire delivered in 30 minutes or less. The participants in the MSE didn't have that luxury and the side effects dictated those result.......Losing ones appetite on low calorie diets is a side effect that can last a fairly long time............bingeing is pretty common in that scenario.Duration is important. The starvation diet, you know the Minnesota one you've obviously read considering you've read hundreds of studies regarding this query where they were pretty much reduced to babbling idiots with severe emotional distress and depression after 24 weeks, and one cut off 3 fingers, their sex drive went in the toilet, their BMR was reduced drastically, some had exhibited edema in their extremities and these were smaller guys than you consuming 1560 calories, eventually they would have died of starvation. Maybe mention that to your Dr. for future reference.
Cool story bro..
Right answer me this, if a person were in the dreaded "starvation mode" you so 'scarily' proclaim that person would be feeling pretty rough day to day yes? they'd be physically starving, no energy, feeling like crap basically everyday yeah? right i dont feel any of these things, i eat when im hungry and dont when im not a rather sensible Concept wouldn't you agree? what would be the point of me raiding the fridge in the middle of the night to consume 300 odd calories of food i have no appetite for just to make some online calculater (thats guessing my average bmr anyway) happy?? if eating 1700 cals a day for example had me suitably filled why would i want to pig down another 500 cals just for numbers sake, thats surely unhealthy seeing as your basically force feeding yourself based on a online calculater that isnt even 100% accurate in the first place.
Heres another one, im sure youve heard of a certain christian bale? movie star? well he went on a 4 month diet literally consisting of an apple, a small can of tuna and a cup of black coffee a day (you can look it up if you dont believe me)......thats it, that was his everyday meal for 4 months in prep for a movie, now unless that can of tuna was rather large or the apple had rather more calories than your everyday apple he most certainly was not eating his bmr agreed? ok now i may have missed it but i dont remember reading about him "biting his fingers off" "turning into a blabbering mess" "eventually dieing of starvation" im pretty sure on the last one seeing as hes been in movies quite recently.....so how do you explain this? a guy lives on a can of tuna and an apple a day for 4 months, he loses 60lbs of weight, he dosnt start turning into a zombie or some raving lunatic either, he simply loses weight, now unless your going to tell me he was meeting his bmr then your above post is nonsense, people go on crash diets all the time on well below 1500 cals, IM NOT saying thats healthy im saying its done, so stop scaremongering people ok and its actually more unhealthy to fret about numbers 24/7 than it is actually trying to lose the weight.
Obese people, which your not, unless of course you have very little muscle mass, have stored energy that contributes to the in side of the energy balance equation to the tune of about 30 cals/lb/fat and can survive very well on a low calorie diet until their body fat percentage no longer dictates or can justify that higher deficit. But you at your stats looking to get to 10% are not fueling yourself optimally to get to that 10% simply because of the percentage of lean mass that will be utilized for energy and repair. Personally I think this post promotes more of a pro ana stance that lowering body fat to 10%......Anyway, I wish you luck.
Ok:
Your right about calorie counting, as i made mention in my opening post and many times since i dont count every single calorie in what i eat, i dont weigh my food or anything like that, it would drive me nuts and id look like someone with an eating phobia! what i do is try and use some common sense, get a basic idea of whats in what (from my mum the chef of the house) and go with that, for all i know maybe im eating 2000 calories a day and dont know it, maybe im eating 1300 and dont know it, the reason i put between 1600-2000 was because thats within the area im estimating im eating, and its suitably filling me up, im at no stage craving food, ive only been doing this for 3 and a half weeks, so i doubt my bodys tricking me into starvation mode in such a short time even if i ws underrating, it comes back to my point about letting my body tell me when i need to eat and not an online calculator, i dont need a calculator to explain to me when im feeling hungry.
As for my stats, i did explain the glaring problem with this argument earlier, 2 separate men, both 25 years old 6 feet 4 who weigh what i do could very well and probably do require 2 very different food plans, why? because our daily lives could very well be completely different, if i had a job and was on my feet all day lifting things and generally burning more calories of course id need to eat more than a guy (like me now) who is at home doing nothing pretty much 24/7, even eating 500 below my 'estimated' bmr im still within the 1000 deficit even with exercise, thats how sedentary my life currently is, if im eating 1700 and burning 2700 thats a 2lb a week gap, its not TDEE - 50%, id have to be burning 3400 a day to be at that deficit.
All i can say is what im doing right now is working for me, im not visually losing any muscle (im actually feeling stronger and can do more strength work than i previously could) and im looking much leaner, ill try and post a body pic up of me later if i can figure it out and you can see what you think.0 -
I find it amusing that people are arguing about eating below BMR on a website that puts many people on a below BMR calorie goal when they pick to lose 2lbs per week.
Also, the precious road map thing people link to has been revised to have a slope with a deficit of up to TDEE -35% putting people below BMR and in theory could put some below *gasp* 1200 calories.
Indeed. There are others :-
Sedentary = 1.2 * BMR. Sedentary -20% = 0.96 * BMR
If BMR < 2500 and activity = sedentary then recommended calorie intake at 1lb/week loss rate < BMR
If BMR <1417 and activity = sedentary then 1 lb/week recommended deficit takes you to <1200 too
The biggest fail on this site is one method implemented in the tools and 10 different methods touted on the forums. Anyone trying to understand it faces a long uphill task.
Perhaps there should be a separate forum section "Using MFP as intended"0 -
Dude. I am 16 inches shorter than you are, nearly 100 lbs lighter, 5 years older, and I'm a chick. And I eat as much as you do. And I'm losing weight. Eat more.
P.S. Some doctors are idiots.
But whats your daily life like? i doubt your as sedentary as i am right now correct? my TDEE is roughly only 500 cals above my BMR, if i had a job and was walking around and active all day id probably need to eat more, but seeing as walking up and down the stairs is as active as i get (before exercise) im burning very little above 'BMR' level anyway.
What about people who cant exercise? say i puled a hamstring or something and couldn't run for weeks, given my sedentary lifestyle (which would be even more sedentary with a busted leg) if i ate at my bmr i wouldnt lose weight at all, or at best something like a pound every 3 months! i dont want to be collecting my free bus pass at 60 odd and still trying to shift the pounds!
Guess its just what works for you, my goal is to get around 10% body fat and strong, first ive got to cut to get rid of all the excess body fat on me, im at around 18% id guesstimate, im simply not going to lose that fat by eating my bmr with my current lifestyle, at best it would probably take about 10 years at eating my bmr rate.
I would agree with you, but I am much shorter and heavier and eating around my BMR maybe a little more and very sedentary. I am losing weight fine. If you ate at your BMR you could lose one pound a week. You said there is a 500 calorie difference between your BMR and your TDEE. You can also be more active and exercise if you are not injured. You should get active and build muscle if you can. Then you could probably get to 10% body fat pretty easily if you gain muscle mass and not have to lose much weight and could increase your calories.
My goal at the start was to lose 2lbs a week, i read up on many fitness trainers comments which said this amount of weight loss is perfectly fine for people who want to get down to a low body fat% and then go on a bulk, thats what my goal is, if i were to eat my bmr even with my exercise it would be touch and go at best if id even lose 1lb a week, and on the days i cant and dont exercise id lose nothing, so i wouldnt lose 1lb a week with my current lifestyle if i ate my bmr, i know the obvious answer to this is do more, but without wanting to go into detail im not in a position to do this, im a full time carer, i cant leave the house for a 2 hour gym session, i cant get a job and work 9-5, so i have to build my diet and goals around my current lifestyle, which is what ive done.
Its also very hard and highly unlikely ill put on any muscle during weight loss, you need a calorie surplus to build muscle, at a calorie deficit im just looking to maintain what i have until my body fat% is low enough for me to then bulk up a bit, ive read many trainers say dont try and do both at once, when your losing weight just try and maintain muscle.0 -
My point is im not trying to cause a fit of rage on here im simply wondering where people get this never eat below bmr is dangerous stuff from? ive read hundreds of diet studies hundreds of nutritionist stuff etc and never once seen anything about this, its only on these forums where i see this trotted out, hence to be safe i booked a doc appointment and had it confirmed, im sure if i was to simply come on here and say my bmr is 2200 and im eating around 1700 is that ok id get scaremongering telling me how im undereating and going into starvation mode, when put simply it really isnt true.
Quite. Thanks for an intelligent post, and LOL at many of the knuckle head responses. Listen to a doctor or a gym bunny ? not a challenging decision. Anyone that has "killed their metabolism" will be 6ft under the soil.
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment fed the subjects about 1600 calories - a 50% deficit (manual workers). Probably not a mile off their BMR, not that this was a relevant concern. The high carb content of that diet would have driven me round the twist too, however low carb eaters often voluntarily eat at this level and are satisfied - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/23/7/948.full.pdf+html for example.
Practically every clinical study of weight loss uses energy intakes below BMR and never comment on this as being of note. It's largely an MFP thing - an example of group think - and Google can seldom find it elsewhere than here.
Cheers for that mate, ive read all over the net on weight loss and forums really are the only place i ever see BMR take such major importance, dieticians and nutritionists dont even mention this from what ive seen and when they do its not to make a big deal out of dropping below it unless your being a total idiot and trying to starve yourself to death at 500 cals a day.0 -
You're not going to die and you will most likely lose weight faster.
But you will also most likely lose more muscle mass than you would with less of a caloric deficit which is probably.
And do you want to/feel good/have energy eating that much?
And when you're eating that much and your weight loss stalls, what will you do then? Eat less? That will be hard.
My advice, always eat as much as you can while still losing weight as a reasonable pace.0 -
Yeah because at the end of the day every person on here thinks they know more than a physician or people who've lost a measly 20 pounds think they know more than personal trainers.
I do what works for me and what's obvious (like not eating below 1200), rarely coming to these threads for advice.0 -
I do get thats is a decent number to work out if your planning on weight loss as it gives you a rough idea of how to work out a caloric defecit, but i dont think it should be used as some sort of godly figure that your putting your life in danger if you dont meet, if that were true how come christian bale went on a 4 month crash diet eating only an aplle and can of tuna a day with a cup of coffe for a movie role? now unless that can of tuna was rather large or his bmr was very low i doubt that diet met his bmr or anything close, yet he wasnt dead after 4 months of doing it and hed lost about 60lbs..
http://i500.listal.com/image/1281828/500full.jpg
Oh yes, his 75lb weight loss looked fantastic on him! So full of vigor and health.
"The producers of the film claim that Christian Bale dropped from about 173 pounds (78,4kg) in weight down to about 110 pounds (49,8kg) in weight to make this film. They also claim that Bale actually wanted to drop down to 100 pounds, but that **they would not let him go below 120 out of fear that his health could be in too much danger if he did**. His diet consisted of one can of tuna and an apple per day. His 63-pound (28,5kg) weight loss is said to be a record for any actor for a movie role."0 -
people who've lost a measly 20 pounds think they know more than personal trainers.
You must have met different personal trainers than I have. I wouldn't trust the ones I've met to wash my windshield, let alone help me exercise correctly or formulate a dietary plan.0 -
You're not going to die and you will most likely lose weight faster.
But you will also most likely lose more muscle mass than you would with less of a caloric deficit which is probably.
And do you want to/feel good/have energy eating that much?
And when you're eating that much and your weight loss stalls, what will you do then? Eat less? That will be hard.
My advice, always eat as much as you can while still losing weight as a reasonable pace.
First off thanks for your post and conformation im not on a path to meet my maker, you can stay. only messing!
See thats the thing, unless my eyes are deceiving me (and im very harsh on myself at the best of times) ive not lost any muscle, the fact im able to train longer lift more and basically do more strength work suggests im getting stronger, im certainly not feeling weaker, but i can see a visual loss of fat from my stomach and ive been told that by others to, the fact my ab muscles are much more visual than they were suggests im losing fat certainly from that area.
Yes i feel great, at no stage do i feel tired, burnt out, hungry whatever, the food i eat feels plenty to me.
If my weight loss stalls? well then ill try and exercise for longer, maybe take a more detailed look into what im eating, with my weight going down so does my bmr if im not mistaken therefore i wont need to eat as much anyway, but id probably try and do a little more exercise first and foremost.
Of course, but thats my point, me eating what (i think) im eating isnt me depriving myself or certainly dosnt feel that way, from day 1 of stating this diet ive not craved food ive not been dying for a big mac and fries, not at all, i can honestly say not once have i sat around (and i do plenty of that) and felt physically starving, hence my food intake feels plenty for me, until that changes i see no reason to change my diet.0 -
Yeah because at the end of the day every person on here thinks they know more than a physician or people who've lost a measly 20 pounds think they know more than personal trainers.
I do what works for me and what's obvious (like not eating below 1200), rarely coming to these threads for advice.
Yup im the same, sensible healthy eating that satisfys my body to me seems a much healthier way to go than binging on excess calories to satisfy an online calculators ideas on whats right for me.0 -
I do get thats is a decent number to work out if your planning on weight loss as it gives you a rough idea of how to work out a caloric defecit, but i dont think it should be used as some sort of godly figure that your putting your life in danger if you dont meet, if that were true how come christian bale went on a 4 month crash diet eating only an aplle and can of tuna a day with a cup of coffe for a movie role? now unless that can of tuna was rather large or his bmr was very low i doubt that diet met his bmr or anything close, yet he wasnt dead after 4 months of doing it and hed lost about 60lbs..
http://i500.listal.com/image/1281828/500full.jpg
Oh yes, his 75lb weight loss looked fantastic on him! So full of vigor and health.
"The producers of the film claim that Christian Bale dropped from about 173 pounds (78,4kg) in weight down to about 110 pounds (49,8kg) in weight to make this film. They also claim that Bale actually wanted to drop down to 100 pounds, but that **they would not let him go below 120 out of fear that his health could be in too much danger if he did**. His diet consisted of one can of tuna and an apple per day. His 63-pound (28,5kg) weight loss is said to be a record for any actor for a movie role."
Awesome, you missed the point spectacularly, take a bow.0 -
No, I understood the point exactly. I assume you missed the huge sarcastic inflection. I just wanted to bring to light that Christian Bale didn't die after 4 months. But he certainly looked it.
This is obviously a troll thread. I'm leaving the thread. Good day.0 -
people who've lost a measly 20 pounds think they know more than personal trainers.
You must have met different personal trainers than I have. I wouldn't trust the ones I've met to wash my windshield, let alone help me exercise correctly or formulate a dietary plan.
Sounds like your talents are being wasted bro, i say get out there and show em how its done, your obviously an expert.0 -
No, I understood the point exactly. I assume you missed the huge sarcastic inflection. I just wanted to bring to light that Christian Bale didn't die after 4 months. But he certainly looked it.
This is obviously a troll thread. I'm leaving the thread. Good day.
Missed it? of course, i genuinely sat here in a state of shock thinking you thought he looked great, you mean to say you didnt think that at all!?
Good good, dont let the door hit you on the way out, even though the point youve missed already has 0 -
Why the **** would anyone want to eat below their BMR? I could see if you had upwards of 100+ Lbs to lose...but barring that it's completely unnecessary. Personally, I like ****ing food...and drink. If I can lose weight at a steady pace eating more (but obviously still at a deficit of TDEE) then why would I choose to eat so much less. My BMR is 1,850 and I lost steadily grossing 2100 - 2200 calories per day when I was "dieting." What's the rush?
Also, people who eat at severe calorie deficits for prolonged periods of time may not die...but they sure look like **** with all the muscle loss and what not. Whatever OP...you have it all figured out...carry on.0 -
I've ran into a few posts in which people said that your organs will shut down, hair will fall out, and nails will brittle if you eat below BMR. Only on these forums!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
- 423 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