Why not eat below BMR?

Options
135678

Replies

  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    Options
    Going below BMR for short term periods was once looked at as a "bad" diet habit, but a few studies I recently read said there was no long term lasting effect on the body overall. The point of maintaining that loss over time after losing the weight is another topic.

    However, most of the BMR studies I have come across deal more with long term effcts and longevity of life eating below the BMR level - essentially keeping the body in an extended deficit state. Yes, a body adapts, but it does so at a cost of efficiency and function. I know the Journal of Medicine had a few recent studies as well as Harvard and others. Do a Google search and you'll find more complete info.

    Cheers.
  • Akimajuktuq
    Akimajuktuq Posts: 3,037 Member
    Options
    Truthfully... no reason. Doctors even prescribe VLC diets. which is under BMR.

    Even a reported case of someone with a few vitamins and minerals solely living on fat for a year or something because he had so much to lose... And you know what? Maintained LBM....

    It's myths that MFP decides upon and mods here enforce. They are not part of the medical science community, never will be and yet they pretend it.

    While you are mentioning "myths" perhaps you should explore the myth that doctors are well educated in nutrition? Because most of them are NOT. In fact, I had one doctor who openly admitted that he knew little about nutrition and that there was only one nutrition course that was mandatory in all of his years of university; however, he was only too happy to write me a prescription for a then-popular weight loss drug that prevented dietary fat from being digested. Most doctors I've encountered will not admit their lack of knowledge about nutrition, but have no problem recommending ultra low fat/low calorie diets.

    I'm sure that there are doctors who are knowledgeable about nutrition, but I don't think that they are even close to being the majority.

    We don't have to be medical scientists to discuss the issue of nutrition, especially when we are speaking from first-hand experience. Don't like what someone says? Ignore it.

    By refering to "a reported case of someone" you are just as guilty of not being part of the "medical science community".
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    Truthfully... no reason. Doctors even prescribe VLC diets For people who are obese/morbidly obese. which is under BMR.

    Even a reported case of someone with a few vitamins and minerals solely living on fat for a year or something because he had so much to lose... And you know what? Maintained LBM....

    It's myths that MFP decides upon and mods here enforce. They are not part of the medical science community, never will be and yet they pretend it.

    fixed it. being on a dr. prescribed diet is entirely different than some little 19 year old thing with body issues netting 500 calories per day. That's called an eating disorder.
  • wikitbikit
    wikitbikit Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    BMR is at best an estimate in any case, just as everything else to do with a calorie burned or a calorie eaten... and one method of calculating will give you a different answer than another. If I'm not mistaken, it has a lot to do with body fat percentage which... again... is only going to be an estimation without expensive tests. The closer you are to a lean, ideal weight, the closer those estimates will be, however.

    Me, I'm a good ol' Chubalubba, and in calculating my body fat percentage earlier today based on my measurements, I got one result of 28% and one of 49%. One used a wrist and forearm measurement, the other a neck measurement. Taking those numbers and putting them into a BMR calculator, my BMR is either 1400 or 1800.

    Basically? BMR will make a good starting point.
  • DopeItUp
    DopeItUp Posts: 18,771 Member
    Options
    I try to look at it as a simple guideline. After all, if you eat below your TDEE you will lose weight. Generally, you want to employ a moderate, sustainable deficit to be able to reach your goals in a healthy (and again, sustainable) manner. Generally speaking, your BMR ends up being a good minimum number to apply.

    So basically, as a guideline, eat between your BMR and your TDEE and you will lose weight at a reasonable rate. That's all. You don't HAVE to adhere to this simple guideline but it's a nice 30 second rule of thumb calculation on how much you should be eating.

    In my opinion, it's important to have easy to understand guidelines like this because a lot of peoples thought process tends to become "well if I lose weight while eating 1500 calories a day, why not eat 500 calories a day to lose faster!", which is a dangerous road to go down. You read about it a thousand times a day on these very forums.
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Options
    So normally I'd just gif it out and leave, but this has been bothering me lately. It boils down to energy (***DISCLAIMER***: non-technical terms and simplistic, reductionist explanation ahead...though I could whip out an electron transport diagram if anyone wants). Our cells are imperfect engines. the theoretical yield of ATP from one molecule of glucose is 38, but actual yield is closer to 30. During the course of metabolism, heat is produced (cellular respiration is exothermic). This will damage things in the cell. A certain amount of the nutrition we take in has to go towards self-repair (this is your BMR). If you consistently take in less energy than you need, you will not have the energy for self-repair. this is not so much your body cannibalizing itself, as just saying 'whelp, don't have the energy to keep that muscle'. For all our metabolism is wonderful, it is not self-aware. Your body does not know you are trying to lose fat, so it won't automatically switch to using only fat stores if you under eat. All it knows is that you are not longer receiving what it needs to maintain cellular function. It will respond accordingly.

    So will eating under your BMR a few days automatically put you into 'starvation mode'? No. Especially if you have a lot of weight to lose. True 'starvation mode' only occurs at drastically low body fat %, when your body actually thinks its dying. However, you will lose more muscle than you would if you eat more calories and protein. PM me if you want to know more.
  • twinketta
    twinketta Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    [/quote]

    You will lose lean muscle mass if you do extreme cardio and eat over your BMR too.
    [/quote]


    hmm!! elaborate on that one???
    [/quote]

    The point is even if you are eating at your BMR or higher you will lose lean muscle mass if you do not do resistance training to maintain that muscle.

    I have maintained my lean muscle mass for 4 months now while eating under my BMR under the care of my dietician. Previous to that I was eating above my bmr doing lots of walking and still losing lean muscle mass.

    Edited to say: I have another 13 kilos to lose, that's a lot of fat stores right there.
    [/quote]

    Well done to you for keeping up with the work from your dietician x

    I don`t want to seem pedantic, but walking is not extreme cardio? I agree wholeheartedly that resistance/muscle training is a big factor and you can take your bmr into the quotation?
    [/quote]

    Yes you are being pedantic.
    [/quote]

    I am sorry you feel that way I really applaud you for losing weight x

    I do not agree with eating below your bmr for any length of time...it is my opinion and if you want to go with your dietitian, then who am I to question ???
  • beccalyse
    beccalyse Posts: 21
    Options
    This is the first thread I've ever read. But I have to jump in here.

    I eat below what MFP demands of me every day. It's not a matter of calories, it's a matter of quality. I maintain a Paleo diet (which may or may not be vilified here... not sure), I CrossFit 3x/week (which I'm pretty sure IS vilified most places), and I run 3x/week. I've lost nearly 30 lbs since January, have gained significant muscle mass, have far more energy... and am thoroughly incapable of hitting 1200 calories per day. Every time I submit my food log for the day, MFP warns me that I'm going to die. And then I wake up the next morning and do it all over again.

    If I was eating nutritionally barren, processed foods, then I would probably feel hungrier and need to eat more. But I'm not. And there just aren't that many calories in fruits and vegetables and organic meats.
  • squirrelzzrule22
    squirrelzzrule22 Posts: 640 Member
    Options
    I'd love someone to answer the second part of OPs question about consuming vs. netting because it really confuses me. Is the conventional wisdom not to EAT less than BMR or not to NET less? I run a lot so a normal day burns 300- 600 calories. I never eat below my BMR, but often with exercise I will net below it. An outlier example is today- I ran 12 miles and burned at least 1000 cals....no way I can eat all that back!!

    Help explain if its about netting or eating please!
  • stephvaile
    stephvaile Posts: 298
    Options
    I don't get how the whole "starvation mode" thing works. Ya know, how if you eat under so many calories a day, or none at all, your metabolism will go down and you wont lose weight? But if it's true, how are people with liKe anorexia nervosa so skinny?
    26 Replies (Because they keep eating less. When they eat more they gain weight because their metabolism is so slow.

    If you under eat, your metabolism adapts and is more energy efficient i.e. it shuts down non-essential processes to focus on keeping you alive with what little calories you give it. Because they eat like 300-500 cals a day and your body can only do so much to adapt to a starvation level of cals.

    I don't care for the term "starvation mode". Basically it is metabolic adaption and happens to all dieters to some degree. If your body considers itself in a famine, it will decrease the amount of cals you burn to a certain extent and start burning muscle instead of fat as it takes more to support and you can't have that if you are in a famine. There are also a whole lot of hormonal things that happen when you diet and your body tends to "defend" your starting weight. Someone who has "dieted down" to 140 lbs tends to burn less cals to maintain that 140 lbs then another person who is at that weight naturally and never dieted to get there. The whole process is very complex and everyone's body is differentActually not all anorexics actually eat that low. Some eat in the 500-1200 range and still end up very underweight and sick. If someone is tall then they need more calories naturally so if they normally maintain on 2000 or more then eating 1400 can lead to anorexia. Yes it is true that as your body adapts you have to eat less to keep losing because your body will fight to keep you alive. Also many anorexics actually have a hard time gaining. Sometimes the weight initially come on faster and then the metabolism will kick in and/or they become hyper-metabolic (metabolism goes into hyper burn essentially) and they need more to get to a healthy weight. Most end up needing 2000 or more calories to repair damage and restore weight.

    Also a person who is overweight who drops weight very quickly in an unhealthy manner can still be in the healthy weight range but suffer all the same effects as a person who is classed as anorexic. You can pack all the nutrients you want into your diet but if you don't eat enough your body doesn't have the fuel to use them efficiently. Basically eating as little as possible and losing as fast as possible puts strain on the body and can do damage. Slow and steady wins the race and keeps off the yo-yo ride.

    More important than the metabolism stalling out is the fact that if your body is not getting enough fuel it has to take it from your muscles and bones. You want to eat above your BMR but below your daily burn and exercise to maintain the muscle you have throughout the weight loss journey. Its not just about reaching a number its about attaining/maintaining a strong healthy body that will carry you for a lifetime.
    i found this on a site to explain y under eating is no good to any one



    i found this article some time ago maybe it will explain , but also why would you want to eat so low when you can lose weight by eating more . it just makes the weightloss journey easier and more bearable . xx
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,650 Member
    Options
    It's some sort of weird irrational claim that has really gained a lot of traction here. I've never seen anything that backs it up, other than some strange irrational beliefs about comas and "starvation mode."

    There are certainly issues like losing LBM which should be considered. But that is a conversation about caloric deficit and LBM. Not about BMR. BMR is irrelevant and just muddles the conversation.

    It seems to me that TDEE is a far more valuable number than BMR. With your TDEE you can predict weight loss, and you can predict LBM loss as well. With TDEE you can get a sense of what is right for you and what is inappropriate.

    While TDEE can be derived from BMR, TDEE can be directly measured by anyone, while BMR cannot. All you need to do is track your weight and log religiously for a few months, and you'll get a pretty good idea of your TDEE. You don't need to use "best fit" formulas and you don't need to guess which cookie cutter activity level you actually are. (Odds are you are between two anyway).

    I've been eating slightly below BMR for over a year now. I've been losing between 1 and 2 lb a week for most of that. Oddly I'm still alive. YMMV.

    THIS^^^

    I agree with everything in this post. You can certainly lose weight without knowing your BMR. People have done it for generations. No online calculator or website, or Scooby do, will be able to tell you what your exact BMR and TDEE are. Only your actual experience will tell you what calorie level works for you. (short of paying tons of money to have medical testing done, and even then, it has a margin of error)

    And why is the '1200 minimum safe calorie level' the same for everyone? A 70 yo 5' tall grandma AND a 25 yo 6'6" athlete? Oh, I forgot. We AREN'T all different. We are all the same.

    Someone who has a lot of stored fats can safely eat below whatever the calculator says their BMR number is, as their body will use the excess stored fats for energy. As long as they get in the needed nutrients- proteins, healthy fats, vitamins and minerals, that their body needs, they can function just fine on fewer calories overall.

    Now someone who DOESN'T have extra fat stores, shouldn't be eating at a calorie deficit to begin with. THAT is a whole different story.
  • Jessi_Brooks
    Jessi_Brooks Posts: 759 Member
    Options
    bumping to read later
  • krumpli
    krumpli Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    I would agree with everyone that the whole "starvation mode" thing is rather... unnecessary to worry about for most people. On days I work out (5-6 days a week) I net below my BMR by 200-400 calories. But since I consume 1800-2000 calories every day, I don't worry about it so much. I'm pretty steadily losing about a pound a week, with pretty decent satiation and energy levels, so I think where I am at is ok.

    Now, the thing where I think that eating very small amounts of food will mess you up is in your metabolism. The body adjusts, simply put. That's why people who lose a lot of weight in a relatively short amount of time are more likely to put it back on. That's why it's harder to lose weight the second or third time around. If you want to maintain lean body mass while losing fat, this is much more possible when you lose weight slowly. There are plenty of studies to prove this, and other people have already discussed them much more scientifically than I could.

    I have seen recommended that you eat for the body you want to have. So figure out what you would eat at maintenance at your goal weight, and net that. Then, when you get to that weight, your body will be able to maintain that weight at that number of calories, and not have gotten used to some low number of calories. I just think the worst thing every would be to reach goal and have to continue eating 1200 calories (or, heck, to eat 1200 calories during weight loss would be pretty lame, too, considering it's taken me just over a year to lose the first 70 pounds!).
  • dawnna76
    dawnna76 Posts: 987 Member
    Options
    Why not eat below BMR?



    Because I like food!
  • ThisGirl2013
    ThisGirl2013 Posts: 220 Member
    Options
    My BMR is 1411 or 1441, something above 1400 anyway and MFP put me on a 1220 calorie intake so I am trying to stick to that.
  • Timshel_
    Timshel_ Posts: 22,834 Member
    Options
    Why not eat below BMR?

    Because I like food!

    Yeah, I never understood that. I find most people just want to lose weight fast. Forget that.
    I get to eat and lose weight. I like that better.
  • spirit05
    spirit05 Posts: 204 Member
    Options
    Bump for later
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    My BMR is 1411 or 1441, something above 1400 anyway and MFP put me on a 1220 calorie intake so I am trying to stick to that.

    With 7 Lbs to lose? FTW? MFP simply spit out a number based on what you input as your goal...which is apparently aggressive weight loss with little to lose. MFP isn't god...MFP didn't put you on ****, you put yourself on that.
  • rodow
    rodow Posts: 26
    Options
    Bump for later
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    If eating below your BMR is perfectly fine, then where do you draw the line? When does a diet cease to be a diet and become an eating disorder. Personally, threads like this seem to simply be attempts at justifying and validating eating disorders. Have fun with y'all's anorexia and 500-800 net calories per day.

    I'm out...gotta hit the gym and get home to finish eat my 2150 calories today.

Categories