Stop the Low-Cal Insanity!

How can a "binge" be blamed on deprivation? To binge is not some uncontrollable thing that you just can't physically stop yourself from doing, right? It's a decision....

A binge is uncontrolled by it's very nature. Psychological issues with certain foods are usually a trigger.

I don't think people understand BMR and TDEE. That seems to be a trend I have noticed among the super low cal group.

^ This is very true. Nor, do they want you to explain it to them. I wonder if it's just because they're gullible(sp?) and happy to accept a standardised number (which btw, is a government-recommended bottom limit to meet other nutritional goals) or just because they're too lazy to do some research on their own bodies needs.

If so and it was a true binge, then that person has bigger problems than just low calories.


And also, it SEEMS like everyone that has dropped their caloric intake and has negative impacts from it automatically assumes it is low calories. But couldn't it be something else? Such as withdrawals from say, sugar, maybe even caffeine? Or maybe even something else missing from their diets? Isn't there vitamins and minerals that can cause mood swings and affect energy levels? A good multivitamin could replace these right?

Would be helpful if I knew how to delete posts lol

The "we are all different" speech is made because our BMRs can differ drastically between 2 people. A 25 yo woman who is 5'3" and weighs 155 pounds and has only 10% body fat, because she is a powerlifter and spends hours a day in the gym, will have a BMR that is quite different from a 50 yo woman, same height and weight, but is sedentary and has a 60% BF. And it will be several hundreds of calories difference, not simply 2 or 3%. The powerlifter may need 3000 cals per day to retain and build her muscle mass, whereas the other woman may maintain on only 1500 cals per day. If she wants to lose 1 pound per week, she would need to consume 500 less calories per day, putting her at 1000 cals. Of course she could go to the gym every day for a couple of hours and burn 500 calories, but she would still need to eat at only 1500 cals a day to lose 1 pound per week. She might decide that eating less is a better option for her, due to time restraints, and medical issues.

You're sort of blending two concepts together... those being BMR and TDEE.

But your point remains... BMR can vary quite a bit across populations of matched age, height, and weight. The variance can be as much as 15% +/- the average. So from highest to lowest you might see a 30% variance, which is pretty substantial.

Thank you.

My understanding of BMR is what rate your body maintains its current weight, without added exercise. Having a higher muscle mass, increases your BMR even before you add in exercise, and having a higher BF% will decrease your BMR. If you use an incorrect BMR number to figure your TDEE, it can increase your TDEE even more.
A 10% difference in BMR would equate to a 15% difference in TDEE if you figure 1.5 as your activity level. For those who simply follow the recommended calorie level to lose one pound that is given to them by MFP, then eat back all their exercise calories as they are instructed to do, can easily end up gaining weight if they are not careful.

Take someone who signs up for MFP and enters their info.
A 40 yo woman, 5'3" and weighing 200 pounds. She wants to lose 80 pounds to get to a healthy 120. MFP asks what rate she wants to lose at, and how much she will be exercising per day. She enters 2 pounds per week, because she has 80 pounds to lose and doesn't want to wait four years to lose it. She figures she could exercise 30 minutes per day for 7 days a week. Sounds reasonable.

MFP figures her BMR at 1546. They add in 300 calories for a 30 minute workout, so that puts her at 1846 per day to maintain. To lose 2 pounds per week, she would need to cut out 1000 calories per day. That leaves her at 846 calories. MFP will not suggest less than 1200, so her calorie goal is set at 1200. She thinks that if she eats this much, she will lose 2 pounds per week, because that is what she entered in her information.
She loses weight the first week and is so happy, then the next week she slows down. Week 3 and she loses nothing, because her body is adjusting to the water weight she lost the first week. She goes on the boards for help and she is told that she needs to 'eat back' her exercise calories. So she gets on her bike or her treadmill for 30 minutes and MFP tells her that she earned 300 calories in exercise, so she eats 1500 calories that day. This continues for a week and she still sees no weight loss. She ups her exercise to 60 minutes and she 'earns' 600 calories so she eats 1800 cals that day. She does this for a week and maybe loses 1/4 of a pound. She goes back to the boards, tells everyone that she is eating 1200 a day plus burning 600 a day in exercise, and suddenly she has a slew of arguing people telling her "you need to eat more" "you need to eat less" "you need to stop the cardio and lift weights" "I would DIE if I only ate 1200 a day!" "your brain will stop functioning if you net below your BMR", you get the point.

This woman is eating 1800 cals per day, and is working out for an hour a day, every day, and is not losing anywhere near the 2 pounds she is wanting to lose. WHY?

This is why- Because since she is over 50% BF, her BMR is actually only around 1350, instead of the 1550 MFP figured it at. And when she walks or rides her bike for an hour, she is only burning around 300 calories instead of 600 that MFP gives her in extra calories. So this puts her MAINTENANCE level around 1920 (1350X1.2+300) if she is fairly sedentary other than the exercise she does. So if she is eating 1800 cals per day, she is only at a 120 calorie deficit per day. Factor in a 10% under estimation of actual calories eaten, which is fairly typical, and she is now actually eating 60 calories more than she is burning.

To lose 2 pounds per week, she has to stay at the same exercise level, but only eat around 920 calories per day. (not widely recommended for long term, but doable and supported by many physicians when the patient is that much overweight)

Or she could eat 1400 calories per day and increase her intensity or duration of exercise to burn an additional 500 calories a day.

Or she could eat 1400 calories, stay at exercising an hour a day, and change her expectations to only lose 1 pound per week and accept that it will take her 80 weeks to reach her goal.

She could also add strength training to increase her LBM, so that her BMR would increase, but she has to understand how slowly muscle actually grows.

Bottom line is she needs accurate information to have reasonable expectations. And she must look at her progress to see what is working or not working for her, and at what level of dedication she is willing to work at. I am not saying that people choosing to lose 1/2 pound per week so they can eat more, are not dedicated. they just have different expectations and goals.

She may decide that 900 per day is ok for her. If she makes healthy choices and gets a good amount of protein in, she can do that without losing a whole lot of muscle mass. At 80 pounds overweight, she would need more muscles to carry her weight around than she would need at 120, so it is ok for her to lose a moderate amount of muscle along with the fat. As she gets closer to her goal weight, she will need to have less of a calorie deficit as her available stored body fat decreases. At a lighter weight, she will be able to exercise at a higher intensity to make up the difference.

Of course these numbers sound crazy for a 30 yo male bodybuilder, or even another 40 yo female who is a serious athlete with a lower BF%, but the facts and experience support them for many women in THIS situation.

And the woman is not going to necessarily gain all of her weight back once she loses it. Ideally she will have learned a lot of good healthy eating and exercise habits and when she reaches her goal weight, have figured out a good maintenance level that she can stay at for life. It CAN and HAS been done by many people.

On the other hand, I have seen many men who were into serious bodybuilding and other athletic activities who ate 3000-5000 cals per day and didn't gain weight. But then life events happened where they couldn't exercise like that anymore, but continued to eat like they were accustomed to eating, they gained a LOT of weight. Have you been to a HS class reunion and seen the football players?

Someone who is comfortable eating at 1200-1400 per day while losing, can adjust their calorie levels when needed much more easily when they get to maintenance, than someone used to eating a lot more when they suddenly lose their 1000+ calorie burns.

The "we are all different" speech is made because our BMRs can differ drastically between 2 people. A 25 yo woman who is 5'3" and weighs 155 pounds and has only 10% body fat, because she is a powerlifter and spends hours a day in the gym, will have a BMR that is quite different from a 50 yo woman, same height and weight, but is sedentary and has a 60% BF. And it will be several hundreds of calories difference, not simply 2 or 3%. The powerlifter may need 3000 cals per day to retain and build her muscle mass, whereas the other woman may maintain on only 1500 cals per day. If she wants to lose 1 pound per week, she would need to consume 500 less calories per day, putting her at 1000 cals. Of course she could go to the gym every day for a couple of hours and burn 500 calories, but she would still need to eat at only 1500 cals a day to lose 1 pound per week. She might decide that eating less is a better option for her, due to time restraints, and medical issues.

60% BF is in the area where none of the BMR formulas work. that's extremely obese.

so that's not a a good example to prove your point.

however, using the Katch-MacArdle equation shows that for most people, the BMR numbers are pretty close.

155lb woman.

10% BF --> 1739
20% BF --> 1587
30% BF --> 1435

that's +/- 9% from the 20% BF number

But according to your numbers above, the difference is over 300 between 10% and 30%. Factor in 1.5 for TDEE and it equals a 450 calorie per day difference. Thus 1200 cals vs 1650 cals for the same results. That is an almost 40% difference in calorie levels. This is my point as to why what works for one person may not work for the next person. Same age, height, weight.

I tried the Eat More thing for a year and a half and never lost a pound, I gained 15lbs by the end of the year and half and my clothes were tight, I was going to have to go buy bigger clothes. I went as high as 1900 cals a day. I went to a personal trainer and she gave me the same advice, 'to eat more' she couldnt figure out why I wasnt losing. I quit that and went to my doctor. She did all the usual tests and nothing was medically wrong with me. My Dr then suggested I lower my cals to around 1200-1300 a day and lo and behold I have been steadily losing ever since. My maintenance level is around 1500 cals a day. So it does not work for everyone. Believe me, I would eat more if I could, but clearly I gain weight and inches.

Thank you.

My understanding of BMR is what rate your body maintains its current weight, without added exercise.

Incorrect. BMR means Basal Metabolic Rate. It is the number of calories they would feed you if you were in a coma, just to fuel your basic bodily functions, like breathing, organ function, etc.

TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure, that includes your BMR.... PLUS everything you do during the day, from the time you get up to the time you go to bed, workouts, fidgeting, walking here and there, typing, everything. This is also known as "Maintenance Calories", the number that you wouldn't gain or lose on, it is what you would need to sustain your everyday activity.

If you eat over TDEE, you gain weight. If you eat less than TDEE, you lose weight.

It makes no sense at all to eat below your BMR, you know, that amount you need just to be alive laying in a hospital bed.

If you do eat below your BMR, can you body used its stored fuel reserves aka fat to make up the difference?

and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.

Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.

If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.

Totally agree with this**** lol

But according to your numbers above, the difference is over 300 between 10% and 30%. Factor in 1.5 for TDEE and it equals a 450 calorie per day difference. Thus 1200 cals vs 1650 cals for the same results. That is an almost 40% difference in calorie levels. This is my point as to why what works for one person may not work for the next person. Same age, height, weight.

no, it's basic statistics. 1 standard deviation. in this case, with only 3 data points. BMR calculations applied to the population would generate a graph heavily centered around 25% BF (for men) and 40% BF (for women). i don't have the data to weight the numbers accurately, but those are the national averages. so yes, i could have done the numbers above with 3 data points at 35%, 40%, and 45% instead, but i just chose some numbers using your example. anyway, i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue. you state that the BMR estimators/calculators are not reliable because everybody is different and then you find extreme corner case scenarios as your proof. are you arguing that nobody should pay attention to BMR or TDEE? or are you arguing that everybody should go to a doctor and get their body fat measured so that a more accurate BMR can be calculated for each person?

here's what i'm saying, you tell me what you don't agree with.

1) everyone should use their BMR/TDEE numbers to figure out a starting point for setting their daily calorie requirements
2) just pulling numbers out of thin air is not a good plan
3) the BMR calculators online are close enough for 90% of everybody who uses them
4) we are not all unique little snowflakes with our own internal laws of physics. people who say "what works for one may not work for another" are promoting a fallacy. we are similar enough that the basic physiology is well understand and statistically works for almost all of us, within a certain error margin.

If you do eat below your BMR, can you body used its stored fuel reserves aka fat to make up the difference?

Only if you have significant fat stores. Your body can only burn so much at a time and as the amount of body fat decreases, so does the amount of fat that your body can burn at once, hence the need to "top up" with other sources of energy. If you don't "top-up" enough, your body starts eating away at muscle which is REALLY bad, because that's what causes plateaus. More muscle means higher metabolism, less muscle means slower metabolism.

So you can imagine that once your body starts eating away at muscle (which will also give you a nice result on the scale, but is probably the cause for an earlier poster's "spare tire"), your metabolism decreases and you have to constantly reduce calories to keep losing. You can only do this for so long. You'll have to keep going around in a circle to lose weight, because the more muscle you lose, the slower your metabolism becomes and the less you have to eat to keep it up, therefore causing your body to burn even more muscle for energy. Before you know it, you'll be a "skinny fat" person - a person with a low weight, but high body fat %.

If you can prevent your body from burning muscle for fuel (by not dramatically reducing calories), you don't affect your metabolism that much. The weight loss will be slow, because you are "topping up", but it can be maintained for much longer because you don't have to continuously and more "drastically" reduce calories to keep up with your metabolism.

Bump...I want to re-read to OP later and use my own goalsto find my own number.

and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.

Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.

If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.

I agree with you 100%! I am 5'1" and my doctor is who told me to set my calories per day to 1200. And that's not including exercise. And as of this morning, I have almost lost a full 16 lbs.

and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.

Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.

If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.

So what of you're short, I know plenty of people that are 5'3" and shorter that eat 2,000+ cals/day and cut. Short height doesn't give you an automatic pass to under eat and potentially lead to an ED. But you're right, why should people care if they see others doing harm to themselves? We should stand back and let them do so, it's their health and body after all, not ours.

^ I agree with the first post about the fact that EVERYONE. IS. DIFFERENT.
I'm losing weight at the rate of 2 pounds a week (or thereabouts) by eating around 1290 calories a day.
I'm short too. That works for us!

I don't agree with the second poster. Again, EVERYONE. IS. DIFFERENT.
You may know people who eat 2,000+ cals/day but that obviously doesn't work for me.
Why say we'll develop an ED? 1,200 calories is the MINIMUM. At least we aren't eating 500 cal/day -_-

Eating 2000 calories a day doesn't work for you because you have destroyed your metabolism by eating so little. Eating that little is not sustainable for the rest of your life and you WILL gain back. Do you think you will be able to eat that when you are 40- 50 or 60 years old and stay the same size?

That's why the people who eat more reset and eat their TDEE for weeks before cutting it by 15%-20% to lose fat. Since I screwed up with 1300 calories for so long. I am having to eat 2501 calories a day to reset my metabolism. Then I will go down to 2000 after a few more weeks.

i ate 1200 cals a day for 8 months to go from 260 to 200.....then when is tarted lifting i bumped up to 1800-2100 now....not only did my hair not fall out.....my body didnt eat all my muscle and my motabolism isnt shot......im bigger and stronger now than i was in college when i was in great shape.....so maybe you shouldnt phrase things so matter of fact

I love the post, hopefully it will help spell it out for people. I agree that their not necessarily "magic" numbers for everyone, but we need to eat enough to fuel our bodies and for many people, it is more then what they are currently eating!

I wish I had the free time and energy to worry about how much other people were eating or not eating.

I wish I had the free time and energy to comment on a post that I think is beneath me.

and I find it annoying how ppl eating 2000 and losing come and try to ¨teach¨ people like if they were a fitness guru.

Yes I eat 1200 cal a day, yes im a shorty, and no i wont eat more than that cause I stop losing thank u.

If you eat 2000 and you lose, GREAT for you :drinker: , if I eat 1200 and lose, GREAT for me :drinker: . What works for you doesnt work for me and viceversa. To each their own, do your thing and stop worrying/complaining about what other people do.

Thank you! Geez! My body has to realize that it needs to reach into it's fat storage a burn some FAT ... it won't do that if I feed it all the calories it needs. 1200 or 2000 or whatever number someone comes up with this week as the magic number is not magic for everyone.

EXACTLY! I'm petite, if I average over 1400 calories a day over a week I GAIN. Average of 1,200 calories in a week works for me! I lose a safe 1 lb a week when I do this. I don't understand the "push" for everyone to eat more. I say you play around with numbers for a month. Adjust your calorie intake according to the level you see you lose weight. I also have a thyroid issue so I'm just HAPPY that even at 1200 I can still lose weight. TO each their own man!