What's with the "don't ever go below BMR" stuff?
Replies
-
malarky....it's all malarky
0 -
Why bother asking if you're not willing to listen?..People, don't waste your time and energy replying.
I'm genuinely asking for a reason behind the claim. I have yet to see one. Do you have a good reason or justification?
What do you say about how this applies to IF plans that include fast days?
Did you not see the fueling your car simile in the last thread? That explains it beautifully, and yet you keep claiming that no one is explaining it.0 -
no0
-
Why bother asking if you're not willing to listen?..People, don't waste your time and energy replying.
I'm genuinely asking for a reason behind the claim. I have yet to see one. Do you have a good reason or justification?
What do you say about how this applies to IF plans that include fast days?
Did you not see the fueling your car simile in the last thread? That explains it beautifully, and yet you keep claiming that no one is explaining it.
The car analogy is just an analogy, and it's one that doesn't make much sense in this context. If calories from food are the "fuel tank" you have to account for the calories the body gets by breaking down fat, which would represent a second "fuel tank" that is large enough to drive the car for a long long time.0 -
0 -
hahaha. So you started a new thread? Butthurt much? Go work out and do your thing, bro. Since you're right and everyone else is wrong, there's no point in arguing.0
-
Don't people have rest days? TDEE - 20% or TDEE - 500 can often go a bit below BMR, but common wisdom on MFP seems to be that on any day you go below BMR your metabolism will crash and your hormones will be wrecked.
Where's the reasoning behind this? BMR isn't a magical number - it's just what your TDEE would be if you didn't get out of bed. Your body doesn't have "BMR calories" and "TDEE calories." They're just calories.
If you want to lose weight, eat TDEE - 20% or TDEE - 500 calories. If that drops below your BMR occasionally, don't worry about it. That's fine. There's nothing special about BMR. It's just the starting point for calculating TDEE.
I wonder what these "never below BMR ever!" people have to say about intermittent fasting plans which have you eating well below BMR, or fasting completely, every now and then. Perhaps they think these plans will wreck your hormones.
I understand what you're getting at and I agree. This is especially true in people who are very sedentary overall (low NEAT).
Yup.0 -
hahaha. So you started a new thread? Butthurt much? Go work out and do your thing, bro. Since you're right and everyone else is wrong, there's no point in arguing.
Do you have an answer?
What's wrong with going a couple hundred calories below BMR if that's what your TDEE - 20% is on a particular day? And what about IF plans that have fast days?
Anyone?0 -
0 -
short term no issue.
long term: depends on the person and their food choices but a small person for example will have a lower BMR and it's possible that they won't be able to get adequate micronutrients (just like the magical 1200
). Also, leaner you get and larger the deficit the more chance there is of LBM losses.
Adaptive thermogenesis does not happen overnight.0 -
Why bother asking if you're not willing to listen?..People, don't waste your time and energy replying.
I'm genuinely asking for a reason behind the claim. I have yet to see one. Do you have a good reason or justification?
What do you say about how this applies to IF plans that include fast days?
Did you not see the fueling your car simile in the last thread? That explains it beautifully, and yet you keep claiming that no one is explaining it.
I can't help but chuckle after I posted some research involving mice and received a few "I am not a mouse" responses. Apparently everyone is just fine with being compared to a car, however. :laugh:0 -
Don't people have rest days? TDEE - 20% or TDEE - 500 can often go a bit below BMR, but common wisdom on MFP seems to be that on any day you go below BMR your metabolism will crash and your hormones will be wrecked.
Where's the reasoning behind this? BMR isn't a magical number - it's just what your TDEE would be if you didn't get out of bed. Your body doesn't have "BMR calories" and "TDEE calories." They're just calories.
If you want to lose weight, eat TDEE - 20% or TDEE - 500 calories. If that drops below your BMR occasionally, don't worry about it. That's fine. There's nothing special about BMR. It's just the starting point for calculating TDEE.
I wonder what these "never below BMR ever!" people have to say about intermittent fasting plans which have you eating well below BMR, or fasting completely, every now and then. Perhaps they think these plans will wreck your hormones.
I think people often fail to apply context.
I think a strawman is a strawman. And the context thing.0 -
I made a thread asking the same question a couple weeks ago. It didn't go well. Most people just don't understand, and parrot the same thing everyone else says. They think that BMR and TDEE are totally different energy requirements, but don't realize that BMR is just the basis for TDEE and nothing more. The reason doctors would feed you your BMR if you're in a coma is because it's not their prerogative to help you lose weight while you're frickin' unconscious, nor is it their prerogative to have you 50 lbs. heavier when you wake up.My understanding is that if you eat below your BMR, your body won't get enough nutrients. So, yes you will burn fat and muscle for energy, but it won't have all the nutrients it needs.
In same cases perhaps, but you can have a gross caloric intake that satisfies your body's nutritional requirements, while netting below your BMR.0 -
short term no issue.
long term: depends on the person and their food choices but a small person for example will have a lower BMR and it's possible that they won't be able to get adequate micronutrients (just like the magical 1200).
Smaller people have proportionally smaller nutritional requirements I would think.0 -
I won't comment regarding the IF diets because that's definitely not something I'd do, but I'm not here to judge and people should do what works best for them. As far as BMR, I have a super wacky metabolism due to thyroid problems, so perhaps it is the fear of screwing it up even more that keeps me from wanting to dip below that calorie level. It happens now and again, and I'm okay with that. But, for me, it's not something that I want to do all the time. It could be medically valid, it could be just plain neurotic...doesn't matter. I don't care what anyone else is doing, and if someone asks me what I'm doing and whether or not it works, I can only give my personal experience/opinion.0
-
Don't people have rest days? TDEE - 20% or TDEE - 500 can often go a bit below BMR, but common wisdom on MFP seems to be that on any day you go below BMR your metabolism will crash and your hormones will be wrecked.
Where's the reasoning behind this? BMR isn't a magical number - it's just what your TDEE would be if you didn't get out of bed. Your body doesn't have "BMR calories" and "TDEE calories." They're just calories.
If you want to lose weight, eat TDEE - 20% or TDEE - 500 calories. If that drops below your BMR occasionally, don't worry about it. That's fine. There's nothing special about BMR. It's just the starting point for calculating TDEE.
I wonder what these "never below BMR ever!" people have to say about intermittent fasting plans which have you eating well below BMR, or fasting completely, every now and then. Perhaps they think these plans will wreck your hormones.
I tried to find a thread that states "never below BMR ever!" I cant find it. Hyperbole?0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/907324-no-more-tdee-posts
There are a number of people parroting this advice in that thread.0 -
Surely the micronutrients argument can be countered with a good multivitamin.
Also a vegan diet could very easily net a full house of micronutrients while being under 1000 Cals. Probably under 500 Cals for that matter.
I'd say your macronutrients would be the only thing to suffer from a severe caloric deficit. What with them being, you know, the source of the calories and all.0 -
I tried to find a thread that states "never below BMR ever!" I cant find it. Hyperbole?
It's in just about every thread in which somebody asks about calorie goals, which gets annoying as these people never consider: 1) inactive people can safely dip below BMR, and 2) metabolic slow down has nothing to do with BMR, but rather one's overall deficit relative to their amount of stored energy (fat). For some people, eating below BMR is a bad idea, but only because it means their deficit is too big, not because they're eating below BMR.0 -
My understanding is that if you eat below your BMR, your body won't get enough nutrients.
Which nutrients will it not have enough of?
The ones that are in all that food that's not being eaten. :laugh:
0 -
short term no issue.
long term: depends on the person and their food choices but a small person for example will have a lower BMR and it's possible that they won't be able to get adequate micronutrients (just like the magical 1200).
Smaller people have proportionally smaller nutritional requirements I would think.
macros: yes
micros: I don't think so but not sure. Either way micronutrients are named that because we only need small amounts of them. Disregarding LBM losses, the cal intake is too low when adequate micronutrients cannot be consumed also.0 -
Surely the reason we have fat reserves is to enable us to survive short term periods where we are getting insufficient calories?
Otherwise what would be the evolutionary advantage of being able to have a store of energy?
I follow a 5:2 fasting routine (two very low calorie days a week) and have yet to see any evidence that a short term high deficit has any negative impact on health or metabolism.
Totally agree that long term high deficit is a bad idea but that isn't the point the OP is making.0 -
short term no issue.
long term: depends on the person and their food choices but a small person for example will have a lower BMR and it's possible that they won't be able to get adequate micronutrients (just like the magical 1200).
Smaller people have proportionally smaller nutritional requirements I would think.
Yes and no. In an absolutes sense yes. However, we are inefficient eaters and do not maintain sufficient variety at low volumes to usually guarantee micro nutrient needs. A smaller diet is often not just proportionally less but an exclusion of certain foods. Not anecdotal, picky diet eaters (and women due to TOM related nutrient needs) have higher reported deficiencies in my readings.0 -
Why bother asking if you're not willing to listen?..People, don't waste your time and energy replying.
I'm genuinely asking for a reason behind the claim. I have yet to see one. Do you have a good reason or justification?
What do you say about how this applies to IF plans that include fast days?
Did you not see the fueling your car simile in the last thread? That explains it beautifully, and yet you keep claiming that no one is explaining it.
I can't help but chuckle after I posted some research involving mice and received a few "I am not a mouse" responses. Apparently everyone is just fine with being compared to a car, however. :laugh:
Okay..........0 -
I eat slightly below my calculated BMR quite often, I don't see the issue.
I'm not going to be dogmatic about something that uses a rudimentary correlation based on weight/height/age/sex.
I'm much more interested in empirical data - logging calories consumed, estimated calories burned, actual weight loss - throwing it into a spreadsheet and then seeing if your actual weight loss matches up with what you were expecting.
The other thing is - I would bet most people here are underestimating their calories consumed by 10-20% anyway. So even if you think you are eating below your BMR you probably aren't .... anything with measuring cups, "eyeballing", or logged cooked is going to have some margin of error to the low side for most.0 -
Can someone please help me please on BMR??
I'm a woman, age 17 weight 116
I calculated my BMR and its 1296 calories to maintain my weight. but since i'm one of those girls that are "skinny fat" i really want to lose my belly/love handles.
I don't work out often maybe run here and there every other week.
But to LOSE my fat percentage, would i have to eat as much as my BMR is, work out, then eat again after back up to my BMR number?
I'm really confused because that means that i'm back at my original number of calories consumed for the day..........
please please someone explain this to me
Prom is in 2 months and I'm desperate!
PLEASE AND THANK YOU .
BMR is the number of calories you burn in a day if you don't move. Since you do move during the day, you need more calories than your BMR to maintain your weight.
To lose weight, you need to eat less than your total daily energy expenditure, or TDEE. For a sedentary person, this is generally 1.2 * BMR - so, for you, that would be 1555 calories. Take 20% off that and you get about 1250 calories. So if you eat 1250 calories a day, you will lose weight at a pretty good rate.
Are you short? If you're not, you don't want to go much below 116. Chances are that's already a healthy, functional weight. You're young. You want to form healthy habits about food, not think in terms of quick fixes for prom. Doesn't sound like there's much to fix in terms of weight, though. I'd suggest more exercise.0 -
Well I'm 5'4. But its just that i have a big waist and love handles
So basically eat 1250 a day, with maybe 20 min cardio 3x a week, I'd be able to lose weight?
accounting i eat healthy foods of course. wait lets say i ate 1250 today but burned 200 calories working out. would i have to eat back up to 1250 or no?0 -
Well I'm 5'4. But its just that i have a big waist and love handles
So basically eat 1250 a day, with maybe 20 min cardio 3x a week, I'd be able to lose weight?
accounting i eat healthy foods of course. wait lets say i ate 1250 today but burned 200 calories working out. would i have to eat back up to 1250 or no?
Eat 1250 on days you don't exercise, and eat 1500 on days you do 20 minutes of cardio. Yeah, if you burned 200 calories working out today you'd want to eat 1450 calories today.
You'll lose weight this way. You could lose 5-8 pounds in two months, which is really the most you should probably lose anyway.
Strongly consider some basic strength training. Even in the span of two months, doing strength training while losing weight will give you a surprising amount of tone and definition that doing cardio alone won't do. It's also good for your health and bones, and it'll make you feel much more awesome.
My hope is that if you do this, you'll enjoy how it makes you feel you'll be motivated to do it more and exercise more and maintain a healthy weight.0 -
Well I'm 5'4. But its just that i have a big waist and love handles
So basically eat 1250 a day, with maybe 20 min cardio 3x a week, I'd be able to lose weight?
accounting i eat healthy foods of course. wait lets say i ate 1250 today but burned 200 calories working out. would i have to eat back up to 1250 or no?
Eat 1250 on days you don't exercise, and eat 1500 on days you do 20 minutes of cardio. Yeah, if you burned 200 calories working out today you'd want to eat 1450 calories today.
You'll lose weight this way. You could lose 5-8 pounds in two months, which is really the most you should probably lose anyway.
Strongly consider some basic strength training. Even in the span of two months, doing strength training while losing weight will give you a surprising amount of tone and definition that doing cardio alone won't do. It's also good for your health and bones, and it'll make you feel much more awesome.
My hope is that if you do this, you'll enjoy how it makes you feel you'll be motivated to do it more and exercise more and maintain a healthy weight.
thank you so much for helping me!! I understand now!
Time to work out that core! 0 -
Well I'm 5'4. But its just that i have a big waist and love handles
So basically eat 1250 a day, with maybe 20 min cardio 3x a week, I'd be able to lose weight?
accounting i eat healthy foods of course. wait lets say i ate 1250 today but burned 200 calories working out. would i have to eat back up to 1250 or no?
Eat 1250 on days you don't exercise, and eat 1500 on days you do 20 minutes of cardio. Yeah, if you burned 200 calories working out today you'd want to eat 1450 calories today.
You'll lose weight this way. You could lose 5-8 pounds in two months, which is really the most you should probably lose anyway.
Strongly consider some basic strength training. Even in the span of two months, doing strength training while losing weight will give you a surprising amount of tone and definition that doing cardio alone won't do. It's also good for your health and bones, and it'll make you feel much more awesome.
My hope is that if you do this, you'll enjoy how it makes you feel you'll be motivated to do it more and exercise more and maintain a healthy weight.
thank you so much for helping me!! I understand now!
Time to work out that core!
Best of luck. Remember that you're forming habits for a healthy life. You don't want to look great for prom and then be 40 pounds heavier after college.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions