Explain BMR to me

Basal Metabolic Rate

It's the minimum amount of calories that your body requires to function without any extra movement. Think about coma patients-- They aren't moving or using up extra calories to talk or move. They're completely sedentary, but their bodies still need enough calories to breathe and keep the heart pumping. If you're in a coma, the hospital will feed you your BMR requirement-- no more, no less.

We can survive on fewer calories than our BMR requirements because we do have extra fat stores to pull energy from for a limited amount of time-- and that's what causes weight loss. However, you shouldn't eat below your BMR for extended amounts of time because your body will only dig into those fat stores for so long before it will break down muscle for fuel, and when you break down muscle, your metabolism will slow down because it needs fewer calories to maintain your body.

Edit:
MFP is programmed to calculate your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure), and remove 10-15% of that to cut calories. If you set it to sedentary, your TDEE isn't going to be very much higher than your BMR, so removing that 10-15% might be below your BMR. The only restriction on the calculator is that it won't tell anyone to go below 1200 calories because that's what they have deemed to be the average "safety" limit.

But if you're serious about losing weight, don't just rely on cutting calories. Exercise more, lift weights, build muscle. Fuel your body enough to sustain a more active lifestyle.

This reply was perfect for me.

Related -- this is a subject of confusion to me, as well: If, according to MFP, my BMR as a 29/131-lb. female is 1,288, why is MFP then assigning me only 1,240 calories per day?

It depends on what you're telling MFP. It won't go below 1200, but it also won't say, "Hey... you should aim for a half pound a week at this stage of the game."

LorinaLynn, I am approximately 11 lbs. from my initial finish line -- I've been stuck in the 131 lbs. range 3 weeks.

Sorry, not meaning to "split hairs." As I see it, 48 calories is 48 calories, I don't want to unintentionally not give my body what it needs (else I'd not have asked)... Simply trying to understand how this all works.

you can customize your calorie intake in the settings. bump it up to 1,300 calories, but honestly, even that feels too little to me. how tall are you??

Captain_Apoll, I am 5'3" and medium-boned, if that counts for anything.

dawlschic007 : Hehee, there was a MFP thread several days ago advertising, "Find Your Twin [in age/height/weight/goals]." You evidently have. Nice to meet you!

I commit to work out a minimum of 20 min./per day, not including my "lightly active" lifestyle as a scratch-cooking housewife and mother of a toddler. In the beginning I opted for rollerbladding in the garage or a round of Jillian Michaels' "30 Day Shred" level 1; however, a procedure on my back has limited my range of motion the past 10 days and I won't be cleared for jumping jacks and the like for another 2.5 mos., thus I've been strolling outdoors with the toddler most days, generally 2-3 mi. at 3.5 mph. Can't say that I mind the limitation at present; I much prefer walking over Jillian's barking.

What about you?

Thank you for the link! Per Fat2Fit's calculations, my maintenance calories should be around 1,800/day; good information to have on hand for the future. Meanwhile, I believe you are probably correct in that I've hit a plateau and may need additional calories to provide that final push - I've wondered what is that magic number when I'm considered "close to my goal weight"; I guess this is it? In the wake of the procedure my daily goals - healthy eating within my calorie requirements, 3 liters of water, exercise - did suffer slightly, but not, I think, to the point of derailing my progress so severely as to no longer be moving forward at all; which makes calorie intake the apparent culprit.

crazybusymara : As I understand it -- or don't -- one must eat a minimum of 1,200 calories/day "to function"; if one exercises away 200 calories, one must eat 200 calories to meet the 1,200 goal. I've read accounts where people do not "eat back their exercise calories," but I would imagine these folks are eating more than 1,200 calories/day to begin with, or they're simply missing their minimum mark, which can ultimately cause the body to retain weight rather than lose it.

And have you been "eating back your exercise calories," april522, to always close your days around your minimum daily requirement of 1,337 calories despite what exercise has burned?

dawlschic007 : Hehee, there was a MFP thread several days ago advertising, "Find Your Twin [in age/height/weight/goals]." You evidently have. Nice to meet you!

I commit to work out a minimum of 20 min./per day, not including my "lightly active" lifestyle as a scratch-cooking housewife and mother of a toddler. In the beginning I opted for rollerbladding in the garage or a round of Jillian Michaels' "30 Day Shred" level 1; however, a procedure on my back has limited my range of motion the past 10 days and I won't be cleared for jumping jacks and the like for another 2.5 mos., thus I've been strolling outdoors with the toddler most days, generally 2-3 mi. at 3.5 mph. Can't say that I mind the limitation at present; I much prefer walking over Jillian's barking.

What about you?

Thank you for the link! Per Fat2Fit's calculations, my maintenance calories should be around 1,800/day; good information to have on hand for the future. Meanwhile, I believe you are probably correct in that I've hit a plateau and may need additional calories to provide that final push - I've wondered what is that magic number when I'm considered "close to my goal weight"; I guess this is it? In the wake of the procedure my daily goals - healthy eating within my calorie requirements, 3 liters of water, exercise - did suffer slightly, but not, I think, to the point of derailing my progress so severely as to no longer be moving forward at all; which makes calorie intake the apparent culprit.

Nice to meet you, too! Sounds like we came up with the same calculations because it also recommends 1800 for me to maintain my goal weight. I've been eating at 1700 calories for the last 5 months or so and have seen good results. The weight loss is slower, but it's been steady. Since this way already calculates your activity levels and includes them in the calorie goals, you wouldn't eat your exercise calories back (unless you net under 1200 after a hard workout). I also have my macros set to 40% carbs/30% protein/30% fat.

I was doing 30 Day Shred and completed that along with running a few times a week. My routine has been a bit off lately but I'm trying to get back to running 3 times a week with a longer run on the weekend and a few days of some sort of strength training. Even without working out consistently, I haven't gained any weight and have still managed to lose.

If you do up your calories, I recommend increasing them 100 calories each week until you reach the 1700 or 1800 calorie goal. So the first week you would eat 1340 per day, then 1440 per day, etc. This will help your body adjust to the increased calories better. Also, some time there can be a slight gain after increasing calories, but this is normal so don't panic and think it's not working. The weight will go away shortly after.

All I know is this.

If I eat the 1320 calories a day recommended to me by, I lose a little weight. (around 1 lb. a week).
If I eat the 1320 calories a day AND exercise and DO NOT eat back my exercise calories, I lose more weight.(between 1 and 2 lbs. a week)
If I eat the 1320 calories a day AND eat back my exercise calories, I plateau or gain weight. (even or maybe .5 to 1 lb. weight gain)
If ! eat whatever I want, I really gain weight.

So from my own experience, eating at a calorie deficit to my BMR is how I lose weight. I feel fine and have been doing it for months.

THANK YOU @xtrout - I needed to see that in numbers and how you said it made sense. - I am worried about being hungry - but will work on it. Thanks again

Sorry, not meaning to "split hairs." As I see it, 48 calories is 48 calories, I don't want to unintentionally not give my body what it needs (else I'd not have asked)... Simply trying to understand how this all works.

Fifty calories +/- is not going to make or break your weight loss goals.

It seems there is one magic number that the various calculations can't give us. How many fat (deficit) calories can you burn in a day without dipping into muscle? This number is likely different for everyone and has some relation to body fat percentage, which is why people with larger fat stores can get by on a larger deficit. The other calculations help us to guess what that number might be, but I have yet to see a calculator that will actually give me that number. If we knew what that number was, the debates would be over.

WebMD has a pretty good BMR calculator if anyone is interested. Kind of does a weight profile and gives caloric goals similar to MFP. http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus

This is incorrect. Basal Metabolic Rate is TDEE - about 20 to 40 %

It is the energy needed to sustain autonomic systems.

BMR + activity + thermic effect of food = TDEE or maintenance.

That is not necessarily true at all. My BMR is 1951.76. If I eat that, I maintain my weight or sometime gain weight. I have to eat at a deficit to my BMR in order to lose. Maybe it's not true for all people, but I know for a fact that it is true for me.

My suggestion is to play around with the number and find out what work's for you as an individual. If you eat your BMR in calories and you lose weight, the great. If you don't lose weight, try reducing your calories by something like 200 a day and see what happens.
Actually, we are both right. What I quoted is RESTING, without exercise.
In most topics, TDEE is what you are quoting - BMR is the NORM to Maintain

Also, you are ADDING to BMR to get your TDEE :laugh:

Basal metabolic rate (BMR), and the closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at rest or sleep . Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state. In plants, different considerations apply.
Also see: basal metabolic rate an expression of the rate at which oxygen is used by body cells, or the calculated equivalent heat production by the body, in a fasting subject at complete rest. Abbreviated BMR. (This is MEDICAL terminology for BMR.

Former Medic in the US Army. As pertaining to this discussion, I would lean more to my answer. Yes, I am biased.

you should have kept reading the wikipedia definition further.
From the same wikipedia page

About 70% of a human's total energy expenditure is due to the basal life processes within the organs of the body (see table). About 20% of one's energy expenditure comes from physical activity and another 10% from thermogenesis, or digestion of food (postprandial thermogenesis).[10] All of these processes require an intake of oxygen along with coenzymes to provide energy for survival (usually from macronutrients like carbohydrates, fats, and proteins) and expel carbon dioxide, due to processing by the Krebs cycle.

Basal Metabolic Rate, is not maintenance calories. BMR + daily activity + thermic effect of food is maintenance calories.
Daily activity being, waking up, blinking, walking to the bathroom...etc. Anything that requires voluntary muscle action.

You do NOT maintain your weight if you eat your BMR, you lose weight if you eat your BMR, that is, unless, you are in a coma or a quadriplegic and unable to move.

Not necessarily true. If I eat my BMR in calories, 1951.76. then I maintain or gain weight. I have to eat at a deficit to that to lose weight. May not be the same for all people, but it's a fact for me.

Not necessarily true. If I eat my BMR in calories, 1951.76. then I maintain or gain weight. I have to eat at a deficit to that to lose weight. May not be the same for all people, but it's a fact for me.

While your BMR based on age, weight, height is inflated if you are overweight, it's usually by most 200-400, unless you just have a really sad ratio of LBM to fat ratio compared to the participants in the studies.

If your metabolism is healthy and with the 5% deviation of expected because of no other health reasons for it being low, netting at BMR should have a big deficit to the day.

That's why the BMR based on weight, bodyfat% is considered more accurate, actually underestimated if overweight, because fat cells are metabolically active somewhat and do require energy expended on them.

So depending on which BMR you are referring to, if eating at it maintains or gains weight, you got one messed up metabolism no matter what, either by big or little degree depending on which one.

I'd get that checked out. Because guys have less variance than women actually. I'd be concerned when you lose what you are losing as weight.

Not necessarily true. If I eat my BMR in calories, 1951.76. then I maintain or gain weight. I have to eat at a deficit to that to lose weight. May not be the same for all people, but it's a fact for me.

BMR IS a deficit. if you're BMR is1951 by formula and you are gaining or maintaining then 1951 is not really your BMR and you should have a test done using indirect calorimetry instead of using a formula. That's the point, by definition, you can't gain or maintain on BMR unless you are in a state where you aren't using voluntary muscle mass at all (I.E. in a coma) and are consuming calories in a pre-digested format (I.E. being fed intravenously).