Doctor says eating below BMR is fine

Because this thread is extremely high in opinions and extremely low in science:

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/fast-weight-loss-changes-hunger-hormones

This study mentioned examines VLCDs. Eating slightly below your BMR like the OP's doing hasn't been studied extensively as far as I know (if it has, links please, I'd love to read), but I'd rather be safe and not risk messing around with my hormones, personally.

Oh, and your comment about women dieting back in the 50s? It was not in style for women to have muscle definition, so who cares if that's what their body chewed up? Personally, no thanks, I like my quads.

Right so basically theres no proven studies been done for people who eat slightly below their bmr? so no one knows if its 'oh so very bad your going to die book a hole in the ground time correct'? im not on a VLCD whatever, im not 'starving myself' unless my bodys playing a game of chicken and waiting to surprise me one morning with the hahaha got ya now your dead trick i think id know if i was in starvation mode, im taking a wild guess that id be rather peckish? well im not so its all good.

As for the women in the 50s comments your taking it out of context, my point was they didnt have all these bmr online calculators to tell them what there metabolic rate was, they didnt know what a ruddy TDEE was, they used basic human logic, ie eat less eat cleaner and work out, if some of the stuff on this forum were to be belived no one would ever be anorexic seeing as the body wouldnt allow it, starvation mode would set in and youd just store fat, not lose weight......obviously thats rubbish.

Again ill repeat, christian bale survived 4 months on an apple and a can of tuna a day, i very much doubt he met his bmr level never mind his tdee level, he didnt die he didnt become some mass murderer with a finger fixation he simply ya know lost weight, then when the movie was over he gained it back, didnt seem to do him any harm.

Are we debating about what causes weight loss, or what's healthy? Eating below the your BMR will result in weight loss, yes. I'm not arguing that. But the study proves it also results in an adjustment of your hormones at a large deficit below BMR. Is it out of the question to think that eating 500 cals instead of 1000 cals below BMR wouldn't have at least some effect? Losing weight too quickly - and for someone of your size with your goals, 2lbs/week is too quickly - can result in depleted muscle mass and an alteration of how your body determines whether it's hungry or satisfied. I would hate it if I'd lost all this weight and then put it all back on because I was always hungry. This study for VLCDs was done in 2011 - that's fairly recent. Over the next few years, there will probably be a slew of research based around BMR and LCDs like yours because this is the pretty much the first time anyone has realized just how important it could be. Eating at your BMR is important for health and long term stability, not just weight loss.

Christian Bale is lucky he's got a slew of resources for keeping his body how he needs it. He may not have turned into a finger-gnawing lunatic, but I would be shocked if suffered absolutely no hormonal repercussions from his crash diet. He obviously lost a lot of muscle. Movie stars do plenty of things that aren't healthy for their jobs. Please stop using him as an example.

Back in the day, women were told to eat 1000-1200 calories. The research hadn't been done to emphasize anything more than "eat less, eat right, move more". They were weak - just look at photos from that time. Where's the muscle? We know better now, and it's foolish to dismiss current information in favor of old methods.

BMR is an estimate, not an exact number. So are the calories you log and the exercise calories you burn. There's a bit of trial and error involved. Starvation mode is also a horribly misunderstood concept - you're not going to hang onto all your fat, but you are going to deal with your body fighting you to lose fat, and if you do it for too long you can see drops in metabolism lower than what you desire. Study backing that up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/

I'm done for the night, and probably won't remember to come back here tomorrow, so.... Make whatever decision you will, but it would be nice if you'd stop encouraging other people to do things that aren't particularly healthy or that fail to set them up for a sustainable lifestyle. Good night!

Duration is important. The starvation diet, you know the Minnesota one you've obviously read considering you've read hundreds of studies regarding this query where they were pretty much reduced to babbling idiots with severe emotional distress and depression after 24 weeks, and one cut off 3 fingers, their sex drive went in the toilet, their BMR was reduced drastically, some had exhibited edema in their extremities and these were smaller guys than you consuming 1560 calories, eventually they would have died of starvation. Maybe mention that to your Dr. for future reference.

Cool story bro..

Right answer me this, if a person were in the dreaded "starvation mode" you so 'scarily' proclaim that person would be feeling pretty rough day to day yes? they'd be physically starving, no energy, feeling like crap basically everyday yeah? right i dont feel any of these things, i eat when im hungry and dont when im not a rather sensible Concept wouldn't you agree? what would be the point of me raiding the fridge in the middle of the night to consume 300 odd calories of food i have no appetite for just to make some online calculater (thats guessing my average bmr anyway) happy?? if eating 1700 cals a day for example had me suitably filled why would i want to pig down another 500 cals just for numbers sake, thats surely unhealthy seeing as your basically force feeding yourself based on a online calculater that isnt even 100% accurate in the first place.

Heres another one, im sure youve heard of a certain christian bale? movie star? well he went on a 4 month diet literally consisting of an apple, a small can of tuna and a cup of black coffee a day (you can look it up if you dont believe me)......thats it, that was his everyday meal for 4 months in prep for a movie, now unless that can of tuna was rather large or the apple had rather more calories than your everyday apple he most certainly was not eating his bmr agreed? ok now i may have missed it but i dont remember reading about him "biting his fingers off" "turning into a blabbering mess" "eventually dieing of starvation" im pretty sure on the last one seeing as hes been in movies quite recently.....so how do you explain this? a guy lives on a can of tuna and an apple a day for 4 months, he loses 60lbs of weight, he dosnt start turning into a zombie or some raving lunatic either, he simply loses weight, now unless your going to tell me he was meeting his bmr then your above post is nonsense, people go on crash diets all the time on well below 1500 cals, IM NOT saying thats healthy im saying its done, so stop scaremongering people ok and its actually more unhealthy to fret about numbers 24/7 than it is actually trying to lose the weight.

The difference is, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment was controlled (ward setting) and the actually details are not very pretty. The difference with you or most people barring eating disorders is that for the most part what they believe their consuming in calories is not very close to reality, and normally out by 20 to 50% and secondly, if someone was actually starving themselves (50% less than TDEE) for a long enough time for psychological deleterious symptoms to emerge our instinct to survive is too great, especially considering anyone can pick up the phone and have as many calories as they desire delivered in 30 minutes or less. The participants in the MSE didn't have that luxury and the side effects dictated those result.......Losing ones appetite on low calorie diets is a side effect that can last a fairly long time............bingeing is pretty common in that scenario.

Obese people, which your not, unless of course you have very little muscle mass, have stored energy that contributes to the in side of the energy balance equation to the tune of about 30 cals/lb/fat and can survive very well on a low calorie diet until their body fat percentage no longer dictates or can justify that higher deficit. But you at your stats looking to get to 10% are not fueling yourself optimally to get to that 10% simply because of the percentage of lean mass that will be utilized for energy and repair. Personally I think this post promotes more of a pro ana stance that lowering body fat to 10%......Anyway, I wish you luck.

Dude. I am 16 inches shorter than you are, nearly 100 lbs lighter, 5 years older, and I'm a chick. And I eat as much as you do. And I'm losing weight. Eat more.

P.S. Some doctors are idiots.

But whats your daily life like? i doubt your as sedentary as i am right now correct? my TDEE is roughly only 500 cals above my BMR, if i had a job and was walking around and active all day id probably need to eat more, but seeing as walking up and down the stairs is as active as i get (before exercise) im burning very little above 'BMR' level anyway.

What about people who cant exercise? say i puled a hamstring or something and couldn't run for weeks, given my sedentary lifestyle (which would be even more sedentary with a busted leg) if i ate at my bmr i wouldnt lose weight at all, or at best something like a pound every 3 months! i dont want to be collecting my free bus pass at 60 odd and still trying to shift the pounds!

Guess its just what works for you, my goal is to get around 10% body fat and strong, first ive got to cut to get rid of all the excess body fat on me, im at around 18% id guesstimate, im simply not going to lose that fat by eating my bmr with my current lifestyle, at best it would probably take about 10 years at eating my bmr rate.

I would agree with you, but I am much shorter and heavier and eating around my BMR maybe a little more and very sedentary. I am losing weight fine. If you ate at your BMR you could lose one pound a week. You said there is a 500 calorie difference between your BMR and your TDEE. You can also be more active and exercise if you are not injured. You should get active and build muscle if you can. Then you could probably get to 10% body fat pretty easily if you gain muscle mass and not have to lose much weight and could increase your calories.