Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story

Eating below BMR?

meglash
meglash Posts: 22
in Health and Weight Loss
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.
«13

Replies

  • Chief_Rocka
    Chief_Rocka Posts: 4,710 Member
    Your numbers look funny, I don't think your BMR is 1,888.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    What tool did you use to figure your BMR?
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    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.
  • meglash
    meglash Posts: 22
    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?
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    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.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    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.
  • proudandprejudiced
    proudandprejudiced Posts: 127
    I got your BMR as around 1800-1900 too, I don't think you've made a calculation error :)
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    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.
  • meglash
    meglash Posts: 22
    I was thinking age might be influencing it.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    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. :(
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,733 Member
    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.
  • proudandprejudiced
    proudandprejudiced Posts: 127
    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 :)
  • 3bambi3
    3bambi3 Posts: 1,650 Member
    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.
    .
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,733 Member
    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.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    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.
  • mgobluetx12
    mgobluetx12 Posts: 1,326 Member
    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.
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,733 Member
    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".
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    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.
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,733 Member
    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.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    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.

Categories