Should I be netting my BMR?

LoganAnthony6
LoganAnthony6 Posts: 164
in Health and Weight Loss
I've been seeing some progress in my weightloss journey so far, but have been seeing my progress slow down a little bit... I've been all over the board with calories by eating like 2600 one day and then 1800 the next...

I just calculated my BMR on three different sites and I averaged at 2283 calories a day..

Should my net calories for the day be at this number?

Thanks in advance!

Replies

  • LoganAnthony6
    LoganAnthony6 Posts: 164
    Bump.
  • katiekfloo
    katiekfloo Posts: 13
    Yes, you should. The best thing to do is calculate your TDEE, which is your total daily energy expenditure. you can check that on a bunch of sites as well. But you should be at LEAST netting your BMR. Once you have your TDEE, make sure in order to lose weight, you are eating around 500 lower than your TDEE.
    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
    that website will help you out a bunch.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Only if you want to. I've seen ZERO scientific evidence that this is necessary. If you're average net is as high as it seems (based on your two examples) I would expect weight loss to slow down if you increase your calories since you're eating a fairly high amount anyway. People will argue with me, but until they can show me a scientific study on the topic, I will disagree with them. I tried the 'eating more' thing for 3 months. I still lost weight, but more slowly than before - almost exactly by the amount of additional calories I added.

    I net 1200. My BMR is probably around 1600. But with my exercise, I'm eating anywhere from 1200 on non-workout days to 2400 on my long run days. Average is probably around 1700 a day.

    ETA: To be fair, I should add that I frequently go over my 1200 net target. I probably average more like 1300 net a day.
  • LoganAnthony6
    LoganAnthony6 Posts: 164
    Thank you for the responses!
  • SmileyFaceGuy
    SmileyFaceGuy Posts: 201
    Only if you want to. I've seen ZERO scientific evidence that this is necessary. If you're average net is as high as it seems (based on your two examples) I would expect weight loss to slow down if you increase your calories since you're eating a fairly high amount anyway. People will argue with me, but until they can show me a scientific study on the topic, I will disagree with them. I tried the 'eating more' thing for 3 months. I still lost weight, but more slowly than before - almost exactly by the amount of additional calories I added.

    Beat me to it. :)
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Oh, and I should add, when I say my BMR is "probably" 1600, what I mean is that I'm estimating a slight reduction from when I had it tested at the local hospital last July. It tested then at 1662 and I've lost about 20 lbs. since then. The value I tested at was a full 10% over the online estimates for my weight/height/age/gender and I had been netting below my BMR for well over a year at that point. So clearly it didn't hinder my metabolism.

    I will have my BMR tested again probably in May.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Only if you want to. I've seen ZERO scientific evidence that this is necessary. If you're average net is as high as it seems (based on your two examples) I would expect weight loss to slow down if you increase your calories since you're eating a fairly high amount anyway. People will argue with me, but until they can show me a scientific study on the topic, I will disagree with them. I tried the 'eating more' thing for 3 months. I still lost weight, but more slowly than before - almost exactly by the amount of additional calories I added.

    Beat me to it. :)

    OMG! Someone that agrees with me? I was starting to think they didn't exist :-)

Categories