I Had My BMR Tested - It's 1032 Calories

1…457910

Replies

  • almc170
    almc170 Posts: 1,093 Member
    Interesting post. Thanks for sharing!
  • danaweston
    danaweston Posts: 82
    What a great, educational post. Thanks!

    Yes I agree with ^^^^^
    It totally make s sense that is too many calories are consumed and not offset by too many exercise calories burned then the reult will be no weight lost. All of us will have a variation in our BMI so we must all by trial determine what that individual number is.
    thanks
  • Danielle817
    Danielle817 Posts: 62 Member
    bump
  • rowdylibrarian
    rowdylibrarian Posts: 251 Member
    I was having the same problems as a lot of people on here. I was not losing any weight. I tried raising my calories to various levels, and nothing was happening. I had my Resting Metabolic Tate (RMR) medically tested, and it turned out that it was 1195, instead of the 1490 it should have been, according to the charts.

    I'm not sure what my BMR would be based on those numbers. Does anybody know what the usual numeric difference is between BMR and RMR?
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    I was having the same problems as a lot of people on here. I was not losing any weight. I tried raising my calories to various levels, and nothing was happening. I had my Resting Metabolic Tate (RMR) medically tested, and it turned out that it was 1195, instead of the 1490 it should have been, according to the charts.

    I'm not sure what my BMR would be based on those numbers. Does anybody know what the usual numeric difference is between BMR and RMR?

    BMR and RMR are usually deemed interchangeable. Your true BMR will be slightly less, but not likely enough to matter in any meaningful way.
  • judychicken
    judychicken Posts: 937 Member
    bump
  • swat1948
    swat1948 Posts: 302 Member
    Hmmmm, I have an under active thyroid and I claimed that eating back my calories does not work for me. Got a little static about eating close to 1200. I will take this post as some validation, thanks!
  • dap1217
    dap1217 Posts: 26 Member
    Bump for later! Thanks
  • alexapin
    alexapin Posts: 14 Member
    First of all, thank you very much for sharing !!!

    Second, just wanted to ask you a question. I'm thinking about all this debate of eating more or eating less... so I'm curious about this: How do you feel when you eat 1100 calories a day? Are you hungry, feeling tired, dizzy, irritable... or do you feel good and completely normal??

    Just thinking of people who say they struggle to reach 1100-1200 cals a day, while others say they starve in this levels and feel bad... maybe this could have something to do with each of their BMR
  • mamasmaltz3
    mamasmaltz3 Posts: 1,111 Member
    Bump
  • CATindeeHAT
    CATindeeHAT Posts: 332 Member
    First of all, thank you very much for sharing !!!

    Second, just wanted to ask you a question. I'm thinking about all this debate of eating more or eating less... so I'm curious about this: How do you feel when you eat 1100 calories a day? Are you hungry, feeling tired, dizzy, irritable... or do you feel good and completely normal??

    Just thinking of people who say they struggle to reach 1100-1200 cals a day, while others say they starve in this levels and feel bad... maybe this could have something to do with each of their BMR

    First of all, I don't eat 1100 calories a day - I shoot for anywhere between 1200 and 1300 NET calories. For the past couple months I've eaten 1700+ calories while doing a VERY vigorous cardio and weight lifting program and I didn't lose a pound or even a single inch (to see proof of how hard I've been working out check out my blog, I take pictures of my HRM after each workout: http://look-good-nakedd.tumblr.com/)

    Second, if I felt hungry, tired, dizzy, irritable, etc. while eating 1200 calories I would know that I wasn't eating enough and there would be NO WAY to sustain any weight-loss resulting from that low of a calorie intake if I felt that terrible. Alas, I feel fine. Not only fine, fantastic.

    Eating 1200 calories a day is ONLY acceptable if it's a number you can eat for the rest of your life, and for me, it's a piece of cake.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member


    Eating 1200 calories a day is ONLY acceptable if it's a number you can eat for the rest of your life, and for me, it's a piece of cake.

    I don't understand why people say this more than any other calorie numbers. My BMR according to the calculators is 1133 (makes me worry it's actually lower!) Pre-exercise calories, my maintenance is 1440. Why would I need to stick to 1200 for life instead of my 1440?
  • CATindeeHAT
    CATindeeHAT Posts: 332 Member


    Eating 1200 calories a day is ONLY acceptable if it's a number you can eat for the rest of your life, and for me, it's a piece of cake.

    I don't understand why people say this more than any other calorie numbers. My BMR according to the calculators is 1133 (makes me worry it's actually lower!) Pre-exercise calories, my maintenance is 1440. Why would I need to stick to 1200 for life instead of my 1440?

    Because it's a rough estimate that most people lose weight on who don't have any idea what their maintenance is. It's a starting point that weight-loss newcomers can use to gauge their individual needs. I've never seen ANYWHERE that says you should eat 1200 for the rest of your life.

    You said your maintenance is 1440 which sounds like you have a pretty good feel for what your needs are. So why are you looking to change your intake in the first place?
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member

    Because it's a rough estimate that most people lose weight on who don't have any idea what their maintenance is. It's a starting point that weight-loss newcomers can use to gauge their individual needs.

    You said your maintenance is 1440. So why are you looking to change your intake in the first place?

    But why would those people continue to eat 1200 for life? Sorry, but I'm still confused.

    I'm still eating 1200 calories, but I changed my ticker settings because I can't figure out how to take it down, so I just set it all to 0.
  • CATindeeHAT
    CATindeeHAT Posts: 332 Member

    Because it's a rough estimate that most people lose weight on who don't have any idea what their maintenance is. It's a starting point that weight-loss newcomers can use to gauge their individual needs.

    You said your maintenance is 1440. So why are you looking to change your intake in the first place?

    But why would those people continue to eat 1200 for life? Sorry, but I'm still confused.

    I'm still eating 1200 calories, but I changed my ticker settings because I can't figure out how to take it down, so I just set it all to 0.

    It's okay :smile:

    I assume people would consume 1200 calories for the rest of their life because it's their individual maintenance. However, it's highly unlikely for someone to truly eat like that for the rest of their life. Plus, it's well-known that your calories needs change as you age and need to be adjusted based upon changes in body composition.
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member

    Because it's a rough estimate that most people lose weight on who don't have any idea what their maintenance is. It's a starting point that weight-loss newcomers can use to gauge their individual needs.

    You said your maintenance is 1440. So why are you looking to change your intake in the first place?

    But why would those people continue to eat 1200 for life? Sorry, but I'm still confused.

    I'm still eating 1200 calories, but I changed my ticker settings because I can't figure out how to take it down, so I just set it all to 0.
    Reference those people on VLCD who say they feel stuffed eating 1000 calories or under when they initially were eating far more on maintenance. They let the psychological and leptin adaptations continue the cycle of eating less and less out of fear of gaining the weight back as their energy demands reduce while maintaining a chronic deficit. These will be the people who will actually feel ok about maintaining their deficit for life - or thinking they actually can. That's why I recommend people never to use hunger or fullness as a measuring tool when determining meeting energy expenditure needs during a deficit. It should be the other way around.
  • elizabethis
    elizabethis Posts: 155 Member
    bump to read when I'm not so sleepy!
  • CATindeeHAT
    CATindeeHAT Posts: 332 Member
    That's why I recommend people never to use hunger or fullness as a measuring tool when determining meeting energy expenditure needs during a deficit. It should be the other way around.

    What do you mean the other way around? You kind of lost me there :smile:
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    That's why I recommend people never to use hunger or fullness as a measuring tool when determining meeting energy expenditure needs during a deficit. It should be the other way around.

    What do you mean the other way around? You kind of lost me there :smile:

    Maybe I can help. Because hunger will diminish even on an extremely low calorie diet, the absence of hunger should not be used as any indication of what your TRUE caloric needs are. Our hormones respond to a chronic deficit in such a way that the individuals who embark on a 1000, 1200 or any extremely low calorie diet, will initially feel hungry but QUICKLY adjust. Working in reverse you'd figure out your maintenance requirements and set your calorie target based off of that.

    Someone maintaining their weight on 2500 calories SHOULDN'T automatically reduce their calories to 1200--that's a 1300 calorie deficit--and yes they'll lose weight but they'll also wreak havoc on their hormones.

    A 15-20% cut is sufficient and sustainable.
  • ahoier
    ahoier Posts: 312 Member
    When I first started this site.....I too was very skeptical of the BMR......it had me at 2280 when I first started......but I was over 250 lbs, 5'9", 28 y/o, male.....and i rarely ever hit my "recommended" calorie intake....I'm almost always under.....


    THOUGH this is not a bad thing....I think MFP sets it this way to "play a safe zone"......to a newbie, they register and see they can only have 1000 calories.....they will turn away :P


    But I feel since starting this site, my stomach has shrunk, and I just don't eat as much as I used to.....my food bill has gone down, my Miles per Gallon has gone up (less weight behind the wheel....lol), and I feel Grreeaaattt!

    But, as the test showed, the BMR did fluctuate through the night.....so I think MFP does a good "happy medium"/average ;)
  • geekyjock76
    geekyjock76 Posts: 2,720 Member
    That's why I recommend people never to use hunger or fullness as a measuring tool when determining meeting energy expenditure needs during a deficit. It should be the other way around.

    What do you mean the other way around? You kind of lost me there :smile:
    I'm saying that people should base their dietary energy intake on their daily energy expenditure as opposed to basing dietary energy intake on hunger. If one feeds their body based on actual energy needs, their maintenance calories will remain quite stable whereas those who eat only when hungry (while on a continuing deficit) they will find themselves eating less and less due to the adaptations occurring.
  • CATindeeHAT
    CATindeeHAT Posts: 332 Member

    What do you mean the other way around? You kind of lost me there :smile:
    I'm saying that people should base their dietary energy intake on their daily energy expenditure as opposed to basing dietary energy intake on hunger. If one feeds their body based on actual energy needs, their maintenance calories will remain quite stable whereas those who eat only when hungry (while on a continuing deficit) they will find themselves eating less and less due to the adaptations occurring.

    Maybe I can help. Because hunger will diminish even on an extremely low calorie diet, the absence of hunger should not be used as any indication of what your TRUE caloric needs are. Our hormones respond to a chronic deficit in such a way that the individuals who embark on a 1000, 1200 or any extremely low calorie diet, will initially feel hungry but QUICKLY adjust. Working in reverse you'd figure out your maintenance requirements and set your calorie target based off of that.

    Someone maintaining their weight on 2500 calories SHOULDN'T automatically reduce their calories to 1200--that's a 1300 calorie deficit--and yes they'll lose weight but they'll also wreak havoc on their hormones.

    A 15-20% cut is sufficient and sustainable.

    Thank you. Both of you. :flowerforyou:
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member

    What do you mean the other way around? You kind of lost me there :smile:
    I'm saying that people should base their dietary energy intake on their daily energy expenditure as opposed to basing dietary energy intake on hunger. If one feeds their body based on actual energy needs, their maintenance calories will remain quite stable whereas those who eat only when hungry (while on a continuing deficit) they will find themselves eating less and less due to the adaptations occurring.

    Maybe I can help. Because hunger will diminish even on an extremely low calorie diet, the absence of hunger should not be used as any indication of what your TRUE caloric needs are. Our hormones respond to a chronic deficit in such a way that the individuals who embark on a 1000, 1200 or any extremely low calorie diet, will initially feel hungry but QUICKLY adjust. Working in reverse you'd figure out your maintenance requirements and set your calorie target based off of that.

    Someone maintaining their weight on 2500 calories SHOULDN'T automatically reduce their calories to 1200--that's a 1300 calorie deficit--and yes they'll lose weight but they'll also wreak havoc on their hormones.

    A 15-20% cut is sufficient and sustainable.

    Thank you. Both of you. :flowerforyou:

    You're welcome!
  • Greenrun99
    Greenrun99 Posts: 2,065 Member
    I'm saying that people should base their dietary energy intake on their daily energy expenditure as opposed to basing dietary energy intake on hunger. If one feeds their body based on actual energy needs, their maintenance calories will remain quite stable whereas those who eat only when hungry (while on a continuing deficit) they will find themselves eating less and less due to the adaptations occurring.

    ^^^This.. I just laugh when people say "Are you still hungry? No then your body doesn't need food".. Completely incorrect
  • jacquirich
    jacquirich Posts: 105 Member
    I had my tested at a university, and it again tok all day, but to their shock my BMR was 2346, I am 5ft 2 inch

    How much do you weigh? If you don't mind me asking...

    179lbs
  • kiachu
    kiachu Posts: 409 Member
    I had my tested at a university, and it again tok all day, but to their shock my BMR was 2346, I am 5ft 2 inch

    How much do you weigh? If you don't mind me asking...

    179lbs


    How much do you eat on any given day? Do you find it easy to lose weight? I mean that is my off season maintenance, including BRM, lifestyle Activity level, and with being in the gym every single day slinging around a bunch of weight(TDEE).
  • numberscolors
    numberscolors Posts: 254
    definitely want to read this later. bump!
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/805855-got-my-rmr-tested

    Here is someone else who got tested and they fit into the standard deviation.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    I hear you, when I was tested at my local university mine varied between 970 and 1107 or 1170...can't remember but it was low. I've always been thin though, even though I net almost 2000 calories daily at a sedentary level.

    That's interesting. Sounds like there's more to the ideal calorie intake than BMR, like maybe some people naturally burn more calories doing everyday activities?

    I really don't know, I don't fidget, I'm rather lazy.
  • catlily43
    catlily43 Posts: 22 Member
    Thank you for posting! I have always believed the 1200 calorie thing is untrue. On here I am finding it hard most days to hit 1200-I'm simply not hungry. Whenever I have dieted and exercised and kept my cals between 700-900 per day I have lost weight. Right now I am 5'3 135 pds and trying to drop 25 pds.. I believe with my height and weight 1200 is too high for me to intake to lose any pounds.

Categories