Eating below BMR?

Options
2

Replies

  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,735 Member
    Options
    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.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    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.
  • meglash
    meglash Posts: 22
    Options
    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.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    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.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    . 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 1500
  • rogerswm
    rogerswm Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    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.
  • WinnerVictorious
    WinnerVictorious Posts: 4,735 Member
    Options
    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.
  • rogerswm
    rogerswm Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    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!
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    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-7-2-12
  • rogerswm
    rogerswm Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    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.
  • LadyPakal
    LadyPakal Posts: 256 Member
    Options
    Probably because of the rate of loss you set it to - 2lb/wk I suspect. This rate of loss requires 1000cal a day cut.
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    ^^^Yes. If you set it to lose 2 pounds per week, it is going to subtract 1,000 calories per day from your calculated daily need, but only to a minimum of 1,200 calories. So if your daily need is 2,400 then it set you at 1,400. If you choose 1 pound per week, it will subtract 500 calories per day for 1,900 cals. That might be a more reasonable goal.
  • tabi26
    tabi26 Posts: 535 Member
    Options
    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.

    MFP "doesn't care" about your BMR, it only "cares" about your particular goal. The only thing MFP won't do is put you under 1200/day. This is why people really should do a little bit of reading and find their own BMR and TDEE and all that jazz, and set their diaries themselves. MFP tells me I can lose .5 lbs a week at 1600/day BUT my diary is set to 1700/day (I'm almost ALWAYS "over") and I've been losing well over .5 lbs a week. Everybody's different, but MFP treats us all "the same".
  • NocturnalGirl
    NocturnalGirl Posts: 1,762
    Options
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

    A drastic deficit isn't healthy in the long term. Check the link above out that another MFPer has already posted.
  • rogerswm
    rogerswm Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    Thanks folks... My weight loss goal had been set at 1.5 pounds per week. Also I mentioned that I wasn't considering tdee- only interested in the MFP BMR calculator vs. the net calorie goal set for me. The calorie goal assigned is lower than the BMR number.

    Thanks again.
  • S_U_M_M_E_R
    S_U_M_M_E_R Posts: 220 Member
    Options
    Sorry in advance for the stupid question, but would someone tell me what a BMR is. Thank you!
  • amanda_gent
    amanda_gent Posts: 174 Member
    Options
    BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate

    There's no absolute "right" or "wrong" about eating below BMR but always keep in mind that eventually your metabolism will slow down if you continually and habitually underfeed. Longterm thinking required here - do you want a slowed metabolism or a raging fire?

    Be smart about it and you can lose lots of weight while eating enough to keep your metabolism humming!
  • deksgrl
    deksgrl Posts: 7,237 Member
    Options
    Sorry in advance for the stupid question, but would someone tell me what a BMR is. Thank you!

    BMR means Basal Metabolic Rate. This is the number of calories they would feed you if you were in a coma to fuel your basic bodily functions to keep you alive. Heart, lungs, organs, brain. For most people, it does not make sense to eat just this amount. People who are obese can safely eat at this level at a time, but at some point their weight loss will stall and they will need to eat more.
  • jhgreer
    jhgreer Posts: 145
    Options
    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.

    If you're willing to go at a slower rate, eat at least your BMR. Why do you want to ruin what is a pretty great metabolism by training your body to run on fewer calories? When you do finally hit your goal weight, your maintenance calories will be so much lower than they would have been otherwise, and you'll have to be very careful to keep from re-gaining the weight. The "in place of a road map" post someone else linked to is a great way to explain it.

    Good luck!
  • rogerswm
    rogerswm Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    Thanks again for all the input.

    I have gone to sites which say for my stats i should weigh somewhere between 158-164, which I did weigh a few years back before my back issue and operation. Currently I weigh 204.4 so to get to my "ideal wieght" I'd have to drop another 46 or so pounds. I really didnt think that a 1.5 pound per week weight loss was too agressive as according to the calculators out there I am obese! Height = 5' 8". In actuality I think 175 pounds is a good weight for my frame.

    My final thoughts are is that there is something wrong with the MFP calculations and if there is a way to contact these folks who created this app I'd love too.

    Again the MFB BMR calculator indicates my BMR (coma required calories) is 1,777.

    When I set up the goals I set the activity level at sedentary (which I would assume MFP uses the 1.2 multiplier)

    Then I selected to lose 1.5 pounds per week.

    the MFP Calorie goal was calculated at 1480! If I choose 1 pound per week I am still under the BMR. Unless I am doing something wrong I think there is a calculation issue.

    This goes against all I read and find it rather confusing. I will set my own calorie goal WHICH defeats the purpose of the app.

    Thanks again

Categories