Doctor says eating below BMR is fine

Sure of course it is "fine", but what happens is your metabolism slows a bit & you lose more muscle mass than you would otherwise. Most people end up gaining all the weight back and possibly more because they increase their calorie intake too fast and go back to their typical normal pre-diet diet. Based on my own personal experience, if you increase SLOWLY, around 100 - 200 calories per week, you should have little to no problems. The scale WILL still increase a bit, probably 5 - 10 lbs, and some people would freak out at this and use it as an excuse to go back to eating less or even binging out of frustration, but you have to push through and ignore it. It'll just be due to water retention from eating more carbs & from having extra food in your system (to be crude: you literally have more poop in you). In a few weeks the number on the scale will either go back down to the weight you were at before you increased your calories if you are lucky or you will just maintain at the 5 - 10 lb higher weight.

You dont lose muscle mass if you eat the right amount of protein (about 1 gram of protein per body weight so for me that would be 215 grams of protein per day) and perform strength resistance training, ive been cutting for 3 and a bit weeks and id say my muscle especially on my arms is visibly larger certainly not less and im performing more strength exercises easier all the time, for example at first i found doing even 10 push ups taxing, now i can do 30 easy hence im stronger.

See thats the thing, i dont feel like im dieting if you see what i mean, im not cutting back and really finding it tough, im finding it very comfortable, im not dying to binge on food, im not dying to raid the fridge in the middle of the night, i can see myself easily eating this way for a long time, its not like im going to get to my goal weight of 180lbs and go cool i can stuff maccy ds again! thats not going to happen, the only way that would happen is if i was really hungry whilst eating what i am and felt i had to binge hence more calories, i dont.

I will always be team 'Do What Works For You.' Everyone can tell you that doctors are dumb, you're starving yourself, your metabolism is going to slow down, etc. If you're not hungry eating below BMR then you're good to go. If you're not getting enough food your body will let you know.

Bingo, i think ill let my body tell me if im starving rather than an online calculater on 'myfitgirls' website (and no it really isnt what it sounds like trust me its genuine), i reckon my body knows itself a bit better than an online calculator, if people want to live their lives based on numbers thats fine go ahead im not saying its wrong whatsoever, but dont get upset when some people feel quite comfortable not doing that and see results and share those results.

Op I have seen you post on here that you don't eat above bmr because you will gain, but TDEE is the number that eating above would cause one to gain weight. Bmr and TDEE will be different even if you set your TDEE to not reflect exercise.

Ex. My bmr is just over 1400, now if I then figire my TDEE at sedentary that number is still higher than bmr at around 1750.

Its because of my lifestyle, its EXTREMELY sedentary, my TDEE without exercise would be 2500 roughly using my bmr estimate, if i ate my bmr which is 2200 and did nothing i wouldn't be losing much weight at all, it would take years at that rate, i dont exercise every day i have sunday as a 'rest day' which means i wouldnt even lose a pound a week if i ate my bmr given my lifestyle, thats why i eat below it and exercise to create the deficit i want to lose 2 pounds a week, it works for me.

My doctor also has me eating below my BMR. The online calc's say it is 1900 as I am very overweight and very very very sedentiary. However, my doctor has me eating 1200 calories a day. I have been losing about 3 lbs a week. I don't mind eating so low. I actually have more energy than when I was at 1900 calories. It is a lifestyle I can sustain, whereas 2000 calories was not something I could keep doing for very long.

Just remember that everyone is different. Your doctor knows you better than we do, and better than a generic online calculator so trust in him. As long as you are feeling good and your health is good, I would follow his advice.

There you go, your eating 700 below bmr and thats been medically prescribed, that dosnt mean thats right for everyone but it is for you, just be warned you may be told by certain people on here you going to "turn into a blabbering wreck" "start biting peoples fingers off at random" and "eventually die of starvation"....sorry to be the bringer of bad news

Only kidding ignore these people and best of luck with your weight loss.

At first I was going to rant about what your doctor said, but then I read. Two points she made and I agree. One she eats in a caloric range...surprise surprise it's not one magic number it's a variable number based on many factors. Second, I completely agree that one of the best methods to set up your caloric RANGE is to look at your goal weight and base it off of maintenance.

Of course we all know BMR is mutable and changes depending on body condition, illness, body composition ect. There is no accurate way to calculate a BMR all are estimates with some indirect caliorimetry, being better than others. It's all a guess.

Last, nurses dont calculate how much a patient is fed when they are in a coma! Dietitians do and yes at minimal you base it on their BMR or easy method 20kcalxkg. But once again this is variable depending on what diseases the patient has or trauma. You would feed a burn patient or a head trauma at least 30kcal/kg. Pediatrics and neonates is another whole ball game. If they are on propofol which once again can decrease the overall calorie intake. However, on average the goal of a person in a coma is to maintain as much LBM and weight, unless morbidly obese, and prevent skin break down.

The "It's all a guess" part from above seems to be lost on so many. I have to say I've chuckled a few times reading this thread when someone says "You must eat your BMR or [consequence list]"

Ok so I should consume BMR. Is that Mifflin St Jeor (2364 calories for me)? Pete Townshend says I should have 2563 (I assume that's the same WHO*) Katch-McCardle (2251) maybe? I think I'll go with Harris-Benedict (2664) so I can eat some more during the day.

*This is a joke, please don't explain that WHO is really the World Health Organization and not one of the greatest bands ever.

Hahaha quality, and the point ive been trying to make.

People get so caught up in online numbers and feel they have to live their lives of these godlike numbers otherwise they will die or develop some serious illness if they dont, if thats what you want to do its fine ive got no idea if thats 'right' or 'wrong' the truth is there is no right or wrong, which is kinda the point, just because some other 6 feet 4 25 year old guy who weighs the same as me eats a load more dosnt mean i need to, maybe he does more work? (wouldn't be hard) maybe he works out more, maybe hes christian bale!!? the point is 2 people with the same 'stats' could very well require 2 very different diet plans.

Hence all these online calculators really are best for only using as a rough guide, a basic idea of where your at, not a life style dependence.

Honestly,

I have never seen anyone on these forums at any time say if you eat below or slightly below your BMR disastrous things will happen. You claim that is the message everyone puts out, when that isn't the message at all. Therefore you decide you want to "defend" eating below BMR.

Plenty of people on 1200 cal a day diets...that is below their BMR....plenty of people that eat at BMR...plenty of people that eat above BMR and they ALL lose weight.

The issue I see the most with those that consistently eat below their BMR is that they don't/can't sustain that activity, it becomes too hard for them and they binge...they end up gaining back, and alot of times more than what they've lost. (And alot of them if they've been doing it long enough start to consume muscle mass as well)

Why you see people recommend to eat TDEE -20% is that it puts you in that range that is easily sustainable and still provides adequate healthy weight loss. Fast weight loss is rarely sustainable. Not everyone is the same, and everyone here knows that.

I have a friend on a physician monitored 950 cal diet...but I would never make a post about how that "works" for her, because it is simply dangerous for others to try without the same level of monitored care.

Most people that I've seen on 1200 cal diets, live on it fine for a while, then as they lean out they can't sustain it, and end up upping calories because they simply don't give their bodies the fuel it needs.

I wish you would get off the BMR soapbox...you want to eat under BMR, that's great, have at it.

I happen to like recommending to people to eat at a level that provides weight loss, but doesn't throw them in a major calorie deficit, as I know most people can't and won't be able to sustain that.

Regardless, I wish you success in your weight loss, even though I think you'd lose weight just fine at BMR!

Ok i think we got off on the wrong foot and i also think your misunderstanding me as well as i was you earlier in this thread, let me clear some things up on my side.

Im really not saying "everyone eat below bmr its fine its great im doing it you should" NO, im not saying this at all, im saying this is at the moment at least working fine FOR ME, and a doctor as told me its fine, i think where were getting confused here is your interpreting that as me saying its great everyone eat below bmr, im honestly not, my post have become a tad more sarcastic as the night has gone on because ive been accused of doing this and its annoying when im really not, my point from the very beginning was its not bad to eat below bmr its not the death zone SOME make it out to be and yes some do read through this thread if you like, im saying some can maybe some cant, i have no idea im not a nutritionist i dont claim to be anything of the sort, all i can and am doing is passing on what im doing and how im doing it, thats all nothing more nothing less.

As for the ability to sustain it, yes i understand this, but again thats not the same for everybody, im more than content eating between 1600-2000 cals a day, i dont at any stage feel hungry or without enegery, it feels fine FOR ME, i cant predict how ill feel down the line but all i can say as of now is i dont see any reason why id want to binge once id lost my goal weight, simply because i dont feel like im dieting if that makes sense, i dont feel like im begrudging myself food, i feel good, i eat when i want and i dont when i dont have any need or requirement to, if i end any given day on 1500 calories for example and im in bed im not going to go "oh crap i need more calories i havnt eaten *insert number here* and then proceed to raid the fridge to satisfy a number if im feeling perfectly fine ie not hungry, that to me seems pointless.

I dont WANT to eat under my bmr, theres no WANT about it, i want to eat what feels comfortable for me, and i fit that into a weightloss diet that gives me a 1000 2 pound a week deficit, i dont think of food as a number, my body will tell me if im underrating the old fashioned way by moaning like a you know what until i do, i dont need a calculator to tell me when im hungry.

Anyway i hope weve kind of started to understand ech others respective positions here and i appreciate the last comment, and i wish you the same.