What's the reasoning behind eating AT LEAST your BMR?

Options
2456

Replies

  • SmileyFaceGuy
    SmileyFaceGuy Posts: 201
    Options
    can your body tell the difference between losing calories to exercise and losing calories to BMR? my guess is probably not.

    Thank you, that is exactly my point, and that was what I alluded to in my second post.
  • Arexxx
    Arexxx Posts: 486 Member
    Options
    Something about "thats how much you need to live"...... blah blah blah

    I eat when I'm hungry and try to make healthy choices.. not really caring what my BMR / TDEE is.
  • Arexxx
    Arexxx Posts: 486 Member
    Options
    Something about "thats how much you need to live"...... blah blah blah

    I eat when I'm hungry and try to make healthy choices.. not really caring what my BMR / TDEE is.

    Can I ask why you are on this it's then? Just curious because this is a calorie counting site. So, it's odd to me hen someone comes here and sys what you are saying.

    Seem like a waste of time to even bother logging in.

    So I can keep myself in check. I find my "making healthy choices" mantra gets a bit messed up if I don't log my food. It gives me the motivation to swap a 400 calorie muffin for a banana if it's written down and I can see the macros.

    No need to be a ****.
  • tweak222
    tweak222 Posts: 40
    Options
    It's more about establishing a healthy body economy. Calories are the monetary system. Your BMR is the bill your body has to pay to sustain the roof over its head. Think of a bank where you keep your calories. You have to keep paying your BMR or the bank will start seizing your valuable property (muscles). You invest calories into a diversified portfolio and you can watch your body prosper (muscle growth) while trimming away unnecessary expenditure (fat stores). It's pretty basic budgeting really only with some slight mechanical differences.
  • CharNordie
    CharNordie Posts: 96 Member
    Options
    This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???
  • PapaverSomniferum
    PapaverSomniferum Posts: 2,677 Member
    Options
    It's more about establishing a healthy body economy. Calories are the monetary system. Your BMR is the bill your body has to pay to sustain the roof over its head. Think of a bank where you keep your calories. You have to keep paying your BMR or the bank will start seizing your valuable property (muscles). You invest calories into a diversified portfolio and you can watch your body prosper (muscle growth) while trimming away unnecessary expenditure (fat stores). It's pretty basic budgeting really only with some slight mechanical differences.

    !

    nice!:flowerforyou:
  • wmoomoo
    wmoomoo Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    Just something I was thinking about, as I see people repeatedly say that you shouldn't eat below your BMR. The only explanation I've seen is along the lines of, "Because that's what your body needs to do its most basic functions," but that doesn't really make sense considering the whole point of a caloric deficit is to eat less than what your body needs to function so that it takes from its stored energy.
    Your BMR is the amount of calories burned if you just sat on the couch all day and did NOTHING. If you intend to do NOTHING all day but lie around, then by all means eat 500 less than your BMR. But if you work, move, exercise etc., you're OBVIOUSLY burning more calories. Deficits too high will slow metabolic rate and also may cause catabolism.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    LOL isnt the whole point of a deficit to cause catabolism

    OP I for one see your point and i ask this to everyone throwing your argument away.

    can your body tell the difference between losing calories to exercise and losing calories to BMR? my guess is probably not.

    Ahhh...... So is this the same as can your body tell the difference between eating back calories from exercise and eating calories above TDEE? I wonder how people become over weight then. What the hell is metabolism?
  • SmileyFaceGuy
    SmileyFaceGuy Posts: 201
    Options
    This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???

    BMR is irrelevant to your question. You want your net calories to equal your daily calorie goal of 1400, so yes, you want to eat those puppies back.
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    LOL isnt the whole point of a deficit to cause catabolism

    OP I for one see your point

    Yeah, I more or less agree. But this is a forum - we're all taking, giving or ignoring advice from amateurs.

    I believe eating below your BMR would be dangerous for people with extremely low body fat. And that might be where this is coming from - body building forums.

    Sure, you need to get adequate nutrition from the food you're eating (vitamins and minerals) - and that might play into this opinion too.

    But as far as "your heart is going to stop because you have no fuel" - meh.

    I have over a hundred pounds of "fuel" conveniently stored in my belly. Surely, my body will tap into that to keep my heart beating as long as I cover the hydration, vitamins and minerals.
  • badmojo108
    badmojo108 Posts: 72
    Options
    I think the "Don't eat below your BMR" is a general rule to prevent people from making diet plans with massive caloric deficits.

    I think eating at you BMR and burning 1500 calories is just as bad as doing nothing but laying in bed and eating at 1500 calories below your BMR. In both cases the deficit is too large, and that can cause problems.
  • shorty35565
    shorty35565 Posts: 1,425 Member
    Options
    I ate below my BMR 2 years ago and I dropped nearly 40 lbs in about 3.5 months I was running every day and doing P90X. The intensity of the workouts forced my body to eat a lot of the muscle I was using. So when I weighed about 165 I still looked pretty fat because my body consumed a lot of muscle. You'll lose weight, but don't expect to look fit if you eat below your BMR you'll be scrawny and flabby. The only muscles i had that looked decent were my biceps at the time because I used them so much my body was eating away at other muscles for energy. Then I plateaued. I definitely recommend eating above your BMR if you want to lose weight, build muscle, and look fit when you reach your goals.

    Course your actual BMR is gonna differ from a standard calculator which is almost never your actual BMR (which is what I went off of) but if you do eat an extremely low deficit you'll be grouchy and you won't look good when you're at your goal weight either.

    I love how the OP completely disregarded this. An actual case of someone who did eat low & ended up flabby. The very same thing happened to me, only I wasn't even lifting. I was eating like 1200 or less & doing cardio. I'm 5'5 120lbs 25% BF now & so skinny fat. Girls my weight and height are normally much lower BF% than I am now. People can't seem to learn by experiences of others though it seems.
  • shorty35565
    shorty35565 Posts: 1,425 Member
    Options
    This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???

    Yes, ur net should b your BMR. Think of it this way. You ate 1400, but worked off 876, so now your body really only has 524 calories.
  • SmileyFaceGuy
    SmileyFaceGuy Posts: 201
    Options
    I ate below my BMR 2 years ago and I dropped nearly 40 lbs in about 3.5 months I was running every day and doing P90X. The intensity of the workouts forced my body to eat a lot of the muscle I was using. So when I weighed about 165 I still looked pretty fat because my body consumed a lot of muscle. You'll lose weight, but don't expect to look fit if you eat below your BMR you'll be scrawny and flabby. The only muscles i had that looked decent were my biceps at the time because I used them so much my body was eating away at other muscles for energy. Then I plateaued. I definitely recommend eating above your BMR if you want to lose weight, build muscle, and look fit when you reach your goals.

    Course your actual BMR is gonna differ from a standard calculator which is almost never your actual BMR (which is what I went off of) but if you do eat an extremely low deficit you'll be grouchy and you won't look good when you're at your goal weight either.

    I love how the OP completely disregarded this. An actual case of someone who did eat low & ended up flabby. The very same thing happened to me, only I wasn't even lifting. I was eating like 1200 or less & doing cardio. I'm 5'5 120lbs 25% BF now & so skinny fat. Girls my weight and height are normally much lower BF% than I am now. People can't seem to learn by experiences of others though it seems.

    I appreciated the post, but I disregarded it because it is almost certain that her problem was the result of too large of a deficit, rather than eating below BMR.
  • dfquigley
    dfquigley Posts: 186
    Options
    This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???

    Yes, ur net should b your BMR. Think of it this way. You ate 1400, but worked off 876, so now your body really only has 524 calories.

    Assuming you want to stay at your current weight, yes.
  • wmoomoo
    wmoomoo Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    third-world-starvation.jpg

    ^ people in third world country who are constantly eating way less than their BMR.
  • SmileyFaceGuy
    SmileyFaceGuy Posts: 201
    Options

    ^ people in third world country who are constantly eating way less than their BMR. Now OP, can you tell me...... Do you think that is healthy?

    Lol, are you kidding?
  • dfquigley
    dfquigley Posts: 186
    Options
    third-world-starvation.jpg

    ^ people in third world country who are constantly eating way less than their BMR.

    There is a significant difference between eating slightly under your BMR when you have weight to lose, and when you have a large deficit and don't have the extra weight to lose.

    Comparing a malnourished child from a third world country is not a fair comparison to someone who is losing weight eating slightly under their BMR. It's trying to equate the two and use an appeal to emotion to make the point.

    Eating at a significant deficit will have very similar effects whether you're under your BMR and sedentary, or way under your total expenditure and working out a lot, but staying above your BMR.
  • shorty35565
    shorty35565 Posts: 1,425 Member
    Options
    This may seem like a stupid question but, if my BMR is 1346 and I eat 1400 calories but my exercise calories are 876..... Should I now be eating back all my exercise calories to get my NET calories above my BMR???

    Yes, ur net should b your BMR. Think of it this way. You ate 1400, but worked off 876, so now your body really only has 524 calories.

    Assuming you want to stay at your current weight, yes.

    She's have to eat her TDEE if she wanted to do that.

Categories