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

Options
1356

Replies

  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    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.

    I think people overestimate how much muscle they have to begin with also. plus iam pretty sure even if you eat stupid low calories 1000cals or less as long as you give yourself adequate protein you shouldn't lose much muscle mass.


    This can help with long-term adherence. Even a 2-4 week period with a large deficit to get some quick initial weight/fat loss before moving into a more moderate deficit approach can be beneficial here.
    And, assuming the diet is set up appropriately (adequate protein) with the right kind of training (heavy weight training as discussed in Weight Training for Fat Loss, muscle loss actually turns out to be minimal or zero. I know this runs counter to the commonly held belief but it’s 100% true (as people following my The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook properly have demonstrated).
    Certainly early research suggested that bigger deficits and very low caloric intakes led to more muscle loss but invariably they had inadequate protein and didn’t have weight training as part of the program. When someone is on 300 cal/day and half of that is carbs, well, that’s only 40 grams of protein. Of course muscle is lost, but not because calories are low per se; rather it’s because the diet is set up stupidly.
    -lyle mcdonald

    this says 2-4 weeks but still.

    edit
    link
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,708 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

    So, in other words, it's the caloric deficit that matters rather than the BMR. Glad we cleared that up. Now we need others to understand that BMR isn't some sacred number, other than for calculating TDEE.
    Literally speaking yes. Consensus goes with not eating under your BMR though. Makes sense to me if one is not sedentary and exercises consistently.

    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
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,708 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.
    Can you refinance for a lower rate?:laugh:

    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
  • dfquigley
    dfquigley Posts: 186
    Options

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

    My Bad, For some reason I was thinking TDEE.... :p
  • blu_meanie_ca
    blu_meanie_ca Posts: 352 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.


    That is an awsome explanation. Very well done.
  • graceangelina
    graceangelina Posts: 11
    Options
    I believe the biggest element is.. What is the individual's purpose? & the OP's original statement is correct, if you eat below BMR your body will take it from stored energy. By eating less than your BMR / TDEE requirements, your body will tap into your body's resources (body fat + muscle) (we all know this) and Yes, the individual can lose muscle mass by doing this (esp. if they are working out, example below)

    ** but whether it's body fat or muscle, your weight will decrease, your size will decrease.

    Your body burns in this sequence: immediate energy sources (carbs, sugar, etc from food intake) then body fat then muscle

    Ex: working out early in the morning, your body will tap into your body's resources b/c there isn't that immediate "food energy" supply b/c you haven't ate. (vs.) working out later in the day, your body will go through the day's "food energy" before tapping into your body's resources. But when you work out (if your metabolism is low d/t your eating habits or out of shape) you can easily go into a high HR that burns protein. (ex: Fat burning HR vs. Cardio HR, aerobic vs. anaerobic work outs)

    If you want to lose weight, decrease body fat, increase metabolism, and maintain muscle tone, it's all a BALANCING ACT. If you just want to decrease your "mass" / "size" / "scale weight" then eating your < BMR is effective. Let's admit it. That whole eating less than your BMR is dangerous is an exaggerated statement. You can eat low calorie, high quality foods and get more nutrition, vitamins, and minerals than someone eating high calorie, low quality foods meeting their BMR.

    Yes, ideally you would like to at least meet your BMR and balance it w. exercise, protein intake, healthy dieting, etc. but what is the individual's purpose. Referring back to the gentlemen who actually DID THIS, when you plateau, adjust. There are so many methods to accomplish your goal.. and everyone is different. (also the OP wasn't talking about the healthiest method either just what works)

    RNursing Graduate, studied nutrition, fitness, and physiology.
  • tweak222
    tweak222 Posts: 40
    Options
    Actually I'm a guy and I didn't eat much below my BMR. You will end up looking flabby with a high body fat % its not a mythical ideology, scientists have devoted their entire lives to the study of the human body and how it operates to work this information out. Whether you chalk BMR up as scientific hokum is on you boss hoss lol your body may function slightly different than mine but the simple science is that the body needs energy and it will pull from those muscle stores whether you notice or whether or not you like it if its not getting what it needs from your fat/diet. Truth. You'll lose weight either way its whether you want to look fit or not lol that's up to you. Want to look fit eat between your BMR and TDEE. Want to look flabby and still meet your weight goals eat below your BMR.
  • dfquigley
    dfquigley Posts: 186
    Options
    I ate below my BMR for quite some time.

    If I did HEAVY exercise then I'd eat back about half the calories, but otherwise tried to stick to my "goal" BMR ( BMR of my goal weight, rather than what my current BMR was )

    After I lost 50 pounds, I concentrated on fitness gains, and ate back all of my burned calories.

    Few months later I started to lose again by simply eating at a deficit, while keeping my activity level high.

    Now I'm down 10 more, with only about 10 to go.

    It can work, but you have to adjust as you go, and when you're really active, eat more than your BMR, and allow for plenty of cheating, your body needs it :p
  • tweak222
    tweak222 Posts: 40
    Options
    I've been averaging nearly 1000 calories burned a day and lemme tell ya its hard to eat that back without cheating.
  • dfquigley
    dfquigley Posts: 186
    Options
    Yep. Only reason I've been able to maintain a thousand calorie deficit some days is simply from sheer volume of aerobic activity, and then filling up after and then being able to be "full" even though I took in way less than I burned.

    It's a damn good thing I'm training for an Ironman in august ;) Most of it's low intensity, so I'm staying in fat burning mode ;)
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    Why would the body burn muscle before fat?

    Fat is way more calorie dense!

    Especially when you have adequate protein and resistance training.
  • tweak222
    tweak222 Posts: 40
    Options
    It doesnt unless youre at an extreme deficit. It is because muscle is easier to break down and more efficient at providing the energy your body craves. Fat doesn't provide as much energy per pound as breaking down muscle can provide. When you hit that extreme deficit your body will resort to extreme measures. Your body looks to fat first but when.you start asking too much from your body then it pulls from lean muscle mass. The body is ahighly efficient machine and it wants to live.
  • AnabolicKyle
    AnabolicKyle Posts: 489 Member
    Options
    It is because muscle is easier to break down and more efficient at providing the energy your body craves. Fat doesn't provide as much energy per pound as breaking down muscle can provide. When you hit that extreme deficit your body will resort to extreme measures.

    Sorry but this is 100 inaccurate!
  • tweak222
    tweak222 Posts: 40
    Options
    That's how my doctor explained it.
  • PrincessT82
    PrincessT82 Posts: 9
    Options
    I am doing the 5:2 diet which involves eating only 500 calories 2 days per week. That is well below my BMR and I haven't died. I would never be able to sustain such low calorie intake everyday (because that's what they call having an eating disorder, which is very dangerous and unhealthy), but doing it intermittently is not harmful (quite the contrary).

    So I guess the short answer is you can eat less than your BMR, but you should not do it everyday. I don't really know why, but your body reacts different to short fasts than it does to long, sustained periods of starvations. That's my experience anyway.
  • bdamaster60
    bdamaster60 Posts: 595 Member
    Options
    So you can survive.
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    That's how my doctor explained it.

    As I recall (and it's been a long time and I quite obviously have limited practical experience) :) ...

    In a deficient - it will tear down muscle to get protein, but energy will come primarily from fat.

    So, my theory is that if you go low and want to preserve muscle - you should probably kick up your protein intake.

    But yeah, obviously no expert.
  • ElliInJapan
    ElliInJapan Posts: 284 Member
    Options
    OP, I understand your question - actually I was wondering about the exact same thing. My understanding is that the BMR is just a guideline so that it stops you from having a deficit that's too large. Other than that I don't see where it plays a role.
  • chellebublz
    chellebublz Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    This is what I'm worried about right now. Since I got an upper denture a little over a week ago, I haven't been able to get an ideal amount of calories in. I don't want lectures about how many soft foods are out there, if you haven't been in this position. Trying to eat and drink with a big hunk of plastic in your mouth that has never been there before is extremely tough. I am just now learning how to finally chew properly. And the first day or 2 I couldn't even drink water because it was so foreign. And no, you can not just take it out to eat so that you can get proper calories in, because you have to figure it out sooner or later.

    So sometimes you are forced to eat quite a bit under BMR and there's really not much you can do about it. But luckily I'm satisfied and not hungry, and my body has PLENTY of fat stores to go to.
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Options
    As I see it, your BMR calories are the energy your body needs to

    pump blodd around your body
    repair/mainatin your muscles
    repair/maintain your organs
    regulate your temerature
    grow your hair/nails etc

    But it's more than just calories. you also need a certain amount of fats and protein, vitamins and minerals to perform these functions.

    So, if you body is getting in less calories than it needs, yes it can take some from stored fat, but where does it get the protein, vitamins/minerals from?

    We've seen plenty of cases here where ladies eating low calorie have found that their body has decided to stop some of those functions, such as growing hair.

    yes, that may only happen to about 1% of people who chose to regularly eat under BMR, but personally I'd rather not take the risk of being in the 1%.

    I figure, yes, I can lose weight eating under BMR, but why would I want to if I can still lose it eating a little more, but still under TDEE?

Categories