Eating below BMR?
meglash
Posts: 22
Before I start, please know that I have done some research on the topic, and am still a little confused.
My TDEE is 2,261 and my BRM is 1,888. MFP has my daily calorie goal at 1,550, but I've heard that it's bad to eat below your BMR. Honestly, most days I end up eating a couple hundred less than my goal anyway because I'm struggling with the fear that I might run out of calories at the end of the day. So I end up way low sometimes. Yesterday I had 300 left, on Tuesday I had 500 left.
Should I increase my calories, or stay where I'm at?
I don't really feel sick, but I don't want to be heading in that direction if I am eating too few calories.
JSYK, I'm 18, 235 pounds, 5' 4", and am starting to work out more and more. I'm also doing the c25k program and am trying to get into running.
I know this can be a kind of controversial topic, but I'm really just looking for advice from people that know more about the topic than I do.
My TDEE is 2,261 and my BRM is 1,888. MFP has my daily calorie goal at 1,550, but I've heard that it's bad to eat below your BMR. Honestly, most days I end up eating a couple hundred less than my goal anyway because I'm struggling with the fear that I might run out of calories at the end of the day. So I end up way low sometimes. Yesterday I had 300 left, on Tuesday I had 500 left.
Should I increase my calories, or stay where I'm at?
I don't really feel sick, but I don't want to be heading in that direction if I am eating too few calories.
JSYK, I'm 18, 235 pounds, 5' 4", and am starting to work out more and more. I'm also doing the c25k program and am trying to get into running.
I know this can be a kind of controversial topic, but I'm really just looking for advice from people that know more about the topic than I do.
0
Replies
-
Your numbers look funny, I don't think your BMR is 1,888.0
-
What tool did you use to figure your BMR?0
-
Your numbers look funny, I don't think your BMR is 1,888.
He has to be right. I'm 7" taller than you and weigh 10 lbs less and my BMR is 1815.0 -
Well I used this site: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/bmr-calculator.html
Then I tried this site: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ and got 1,893.
MFP's calculator says 1,815
Am I doing something wrong?0 -
Your numbers look funny, I don't think your BMR is 1,888.
He has to be right. I'm 7" taller than you and weigh 10 lbs less and my BMR is 1815.
She also 18 though. MFP's calculator gives her BMR at 1832.0 -
Well I used this site: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/bmr-calculator.html
Then I tried this site: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ and got 1,893.
MFP's calculator says 1,815
Am I doing something wrong?
The only thing I can think is that height doesn't calculate into BMR.0 -
I got your BMR as around 1800-1900 too, I don't think you've made a calculation error
0 -
If you are worried about runnin out of calories at the end of the day, start planning your meals in advance. Or at least have an idea of what you will eat.
I do suggest eating at least your BMR.0 -
I was thinking age might be influencing it.0
-
Well I used this site: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/bmr-calculator.html
Then I tried this site: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ and got 1,893.
MFP's calculator says 1,815
Am I doing something wrong?
The only thing I can think is that height doesn't calculate into BMR.
It does but so does age. Unfortunately.
0 -
Well I used this site: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/bmr-calculator.html
Then I tried this site: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ and got 1,893.
MFP's calculator says 1,815
Am I doing something wrong?
your adjusted BMR (or what people here seem to call TDEE) is more than that. you need to use the Harris-Benedict equation. just existing and doing normal everyday tasks (i.e. sedentary activity level) you multiply by 1.2x
so 1888 x 1.2 = 2265. that's your sedentary daily calorie burn without any extra exercise.0 -
You should be eating at least your BMR though - your BMR is the number of calories your body needs to do the living processes. If you're eating lower than it, then you will become quite unhealthy and possibly go into starvation mode (i've read a lot of contradicting stuff about starvation mode, though). If you're low, nuts are a great way to get more healthy calories 0
-
.Well I used this site: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/bmr-calculator.html
Then I tried this site: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ and got 1,893.
MFP's calculator says 1,815
Am I doing something wrong?
your adjusted BMR (or what people here seem to call TDEE) is more than that. you need to use the Harris-Benedict equation. just existing and doing normal everyday tasks (i.e. sedentary activity level) you multiply by 1.2x
so 1888 x 1.2 = 2265. that's your sedentary daily calorie burn without any extra exercise.0 -
You should be eating at least your BMR though - your BMR is the number of calories your body needs to do the living processes. If you're eating lower than it, then you will become quite unhealthy and possibly go into starvation mode (i've read a lot of contradicting stuff about starvation mode, though). If you're low, nuts are a great way to get more healthy calories
not to start another peeing contest on this subject, but this isn't really true.
a woman at 235 lbs is a long way from going into starvation mode.
eating below BMR is a perfectly valid way to lose weight. you won't die. you won't become sickly. you just have to not get crazy about how much under your BMR you go.0 -
If you have a lot of weight to lose, it can be okay to eat below BMR for a time (but I would check with my doctor first). But you can't do this long term, and you will have to raise it at some point.
Also keep in mind that MFP calculates your calories based on how much per week you tell it you want to lose. Asking for 2 pounds per week loss is going to cut your calories by 1,000 per day. You might want to set it at 1.5 pounds per week. And of course it calculates this number so that you will just lose weight by cutting calories alone, not including exercise. So when you exercise, you have to eat more to fuel the workout.0 -
MFP has my BMR around 2400 and my doctor said it's 1960. I'm 6'2 and 255. I eat 1400 cals a day or less and have lost 30lbs in 4 months. I have struggled (lost only 2lbs in September) but I must be doing something right. It's okay to eat under for awhile, but depending on how much you have to lose, you'll probably have to eat more to keep it going. I guess I will too at some point.0
-
MFP has my BMR around 2400 and my doctor said it's 1960. I'm 6'2 and 255. I eat 1400 cals a day or less and have lost 30lbs in 4 months. I have struggled (lost only 2lbs in September) but I must be doing something right. It's okay to eat under for awhile, but depending on how much you have to lose, you'll probably have to eat more to keep it going. I guess I will too at some point.
you don't have to eat 1400 every day to meet the same goal. for example, you can eat 1200 one day and 1600 the next. some people think that going too low for too long slows down metabolism. that seems reasonable to me, but i'm not sure how much it will slow down. however, as i'm trying to eat 1300-1400 calories on average right now, every few days i'll throw in a 1600 or 1800 day just to keep things changing... that's still a good sized deficit from my sedentary BMR (~2700), but it works fine for losing fat/weight. i add in a couple of hours of cardio most days as "icing on the cake".0 -
You should be eating at least your BMR though - your BMR is the number of calories your body needs to do the living processes. If you're eating lower than it, then you will become quite unhealthy and possibly go into starvation mode (i've read a lot of contradicting stuff about starvation mode, though). If you're low, nuts are a great way to get more healthy calories
not to start another peeing contest on this subject, but this isn't really true.
a woman at 235 lbs is a long way from going into starvation mode.
eating below BMR is a perfectly valid way to lose weight. you won't die. you won't become sickly. you just have to not get crazy about how much under your BMR you go.
Starvation mode has nothing to do with the size of your body. Starvation mode has to do with long periods of malnutrition. If you eat below BMR, then your body can not get enough of the micronutrients and macronutrients that it needs to sustain itself. This won't have much of an effect at first, but after a long period of time at malnutrition, then the body will begin to react. Ultimately, your body produces hormones that inevitably lead to a plateau.0 -
You should be eating at least your BMR though - your BMR is the number of calories your body needs to do the living processes. If you're eating lower than it, then you will become quite unhealthy and possibly go into starvation mode (i've read a lot of contradicting stuff about starvation mode, though). If you're low, nuts are a great way to get more healthy calories
not to start another peeing contest on this subject, but this isn't really true.
a woman at 235 lbs is a long way from going into starvation mode.
eating below BMR is a perfectly valid way to lose weight. you won't die. you won't become sickly. you just have to not get crazy about how much under your BMR you go.
Starvation mode has nothing to do with the size of your body. Starvation mode has to do with long periods of malnutrition. If you eat below BMR, then your body can not get enough of the micronutrients and macronutrients that it needs to sustain itself. This won't have much of an effect at first, but after a long period of time at malnutrition, then the body will begin to react. Ultimately, your body produces hormones that inevitably lead to a plateau.
no that's not starvation mode. starvation mode is Auschwitz. if you have fat stores, your body will metabolize them for energy. that's why it put them there in the first place.
if you want to argue that eating too far under your BMR for too long will slow your metabolism, then that's a different topic.
if you want to argue that not eating the right combination of nutrients will make you unhealthy and without energy, that's a different topic too.
but starvation mode - the real one - absolutely does have to do with how large somebody is and how much stored fat they have.0 -
You should be eating at least your BMR though - your BMR is the number of calories your body needs to do the living processes. If you're eating lower than it, then you will become quite unhealthy and possibly go into starvation mode (i've read a lot of contradicting stuff about starvation mode, though). If you're low, nuts are a great way to get more healthy calories
not to start another peeing contest on this subject, but this isn't really true.
a woman at 235 lbs is a long way from going into starvation mode.
eating below BMR is a perfectly valid way to lose weight. you won't die. you won't become sickly. you just have to not get crazy about how much under your BMR you go.
Starvation mode has nothing to do with the size of your body. Starvation mode has to do with long periods of malnutrition. If you eat below BMR, then your body can not get enough of the micronutrients and macronutrients that it needs to sustain itself. This won't have much of an effect at first, but after a long period of time at malnutrition, then the body will begin to react. Ultimately, your body produces hormones that inevitably lead to a plateau.
no that's not starvation mode. starvation mode is Auschwitz. if you have fat stores, your body will metabolize them for energy. that's why it put them there in the first place.
if you want to argue that eating too far under your BMR for too long will slow your metabolism, then that's a different topic.
if you want to argue that not eating the right combination of nutrients will make you unhealthy and without energy, that's a different topic too.
but starvation mode - the real one - absolutely does have to do with how large somebody is and how much stored fat they have.
Admittedly, 'starvation mode' is a misnomer, and I'm guilty of using it inappropriately myself. But what most people on this site term as 'starvation mode' is the reaction that I just described. Normally, I don't even use the terminology that way, but I did this time for simplicity's sake. I'll be sure not to make that mistake twice.
Doesn't change the facts though.
If you eat below BMR, eventually your body will release hormones that hinder weight loss.0 -
Admittedly, 'starvation mode' is a misnomer, and I'm guilty of using it inappropriately myself. But what most people on this site term as 'starvation mode' is the reaction that I just described. Normally, I don't even use the terminology that way, but I did this time for simplicity's sake. I'll be sure not to make that mistake twice.
Doesn't change the facts though.
If you eat below BMR, eventually your body will release hormones that hinder weight loss.
apology accepted. :flowerforyou:
seriously though, in the short time i've been here, i've seen that term thrown around so often and so erroneously that i try to chime in when i can. it's crazy that people are deathly afraid of eating less than their BMR for fear that doing so for even one day will put them in starvation mode. it's not logical and it doesn't match anybody's real world experience.0 -
Admittedly, 'starvation mode' is a misnomer, and I'm guilty of using it inappropriately myself. But what most people on this site term as 'starvation mode' is the reaction that I just described. Normally, I don't even use the terminology that way, but I did this time for simplicity's sake. I'll be sure not to make that mistake twice.
Doesn't change the facts though.
If you eat below BMR, eventually your body will release hormones that hinder weight loss.
apology accepted. :flowerforyou:
seriously though, in the short time i've been here, i've seen that term thrown around so often and so erroneously that i try to chime in when i can. it's crazy that people are deathly afraid of eating less than their BMR for fear that doing so for even one day will put them in starvation mode. it's not logical and it doesn't match anybody's real world experience.
Correct. It takes weeks below BMR to get to this point. I chimed in only because I experienced this myself and I am 200+ lbs still.0 -
Taking all this into account, would I be better off increasing to my BMR and losing more slowly or keep eating like I am and when I hit a plateau, increase to my BMR? Or something different entirely. Also, I've been actually averaging about 1400 or less, some days around 1200 because I haven't been eating all of my calories.
Thanks for you help so far everyone! I don't want to risk doing this in an unhealthy manner and am definitely willing to lose at a slower rate if it means that I will be healthier while doing so. Right now I'm set to lose 1.5 pounds a week.0 -
I figured out my TDEE and then eat 20% less than that every day. With this method you do not eat back any exercise calories. It is easier than trying to track how much I'm exercising and then adding that to my MFP number of calories.0
-
. If you eat below BMR, then your body can not get enough of the micronutrients and macronutrients that it needs to sustain itself.
BS. Utter BS. Nutritionally complete diets are available that would be half my BMR. Quit the misinformation.
At 235 lbs and 50% fat the OPs BMR is more like 15000 -
I too would like some clarification on this topic. I have searched and almost found the correct answer. Maybe can get some help here.
I updated my goals since i have lost 14 pounds.
Current Stats:
47 y/o Male
5'8"
Current weight: 206.5 pounds
MFP calculated BMR = 1786
MFP Net Calorie Goal / Day = 1480
I am not including any TDEE here
I would like to lose 31 more pounds (to get to 175) so I selected goal to lose 1.5 pounds per week. This would take about 20 weeks! - which I don't think is too aggressive . NOTE: Even if I do select the recommended weight loss of 1 pound per week the calorie goal is still under the BMR.
So my confusion stands. Any suggestions to clarify would be greatly appreciated?
PS: If the MFP uses the St. Jeor calculation then I have NO IDEA ow they cam up with Calories Burned from Daily Activities = 2230. I believe I chose sedentary which if I perform the calculation correctly I get 2152.0 -
I too would like some clarification on this topic. I have searched and almost found the correct answer. Maybe can get some help here.
I updated my goals since i have lost 14 pounds.
Current Stats:
47 y/o Male
5'8"
Current weight: 206.5 pounds
MFP calculated BMR = 1786
MFP Net Calorie Goal / Day = 1480
I am not including any TDEE here
I would like to lose 31 more pounds (to get to 175) so I selected goal to lose 1.5 pounds per week. This would take about 20 weeks! - which I don't think is too aggressive . NOTE: Even if I do select the recommended weight loss of 1 pound per week the calorie goal is still under the BMR.
So my confusion stands. Any suggestions to clarify would be greatly appreciated?
PS: If the MFP uses the St. Jeor calculation then I have NO IDEA ow they cam up with Calories Burned from Daily Activities = 2230. I believe I chose sedentary which if I perform the calculation correctly I get 2152.
your daily calorie requirement ignoring exercise should be closer to 2200 (that's for a sedentary daily activity level).
base BMR x 1.2 = daily BMR <
1.2x is the multiplier for sedentary activity
it's from the Harris Benedict equation. the actual numbers are not exact because we are all a little different from each other.0 -
W V, Thanks for your insight.
However the Question remains: Why is MFP putting me at a calorie goal below BMR if going under BMR isn't recommended?
Thanks!0 -
I too would like some clarification on this topic. I have searched and almost found the correct answer. Maybe can get some help here.
I updated my goals since i have lost 14 pounds.
Current Stats:
47 y/o Male
5'8"
Current weight: 206.5 pounds
MFP calculated BMR = 1786
MFP Net Calorie Goal / Day = 1480
I am not including any TDEE here
I would like to lose 31 more pounds (to get to 175) so I selected goal to lose 1.5 pounds per week. This would take about 20 weeks! - which I don't think is too aggressive . NOTE: Even if I do select the recommended weight loss of 1 pound per week the calorie goal is still under the BMR.
So my confusion stands. Any suggestions to clarify would be greatly appreciated?
PS: If the MFP uses the St. Jeor calculation then I have NO IDEA ow they cam up with Calories Burned from Daily Activities = 2230. I believe I chose sedentary which if I perform the calculation correctly I get 2152.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-120 -
I'm sorry, didn't see the answer to my question in your response. Last call for help.
Why does MFP have my calorie goal well below BMR?
BMR (St. Jeor) = 1786
MFP calorie goal = 1480
I chose sedentary as I have desk job..I do move. But figure if I use sedentary and the add calorie burn later it should be more accurate than choosing an activity level multiplier to consider required calories.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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions