I think I finally understand BMR and Net Calories but…
jerryvo
Posts: 66 Member
After digging through way to many posts on the subject I think I finally understand BMR and net calories but I have a question for clarification. I am 6’5” 228# M age 35 so my BMR is 2226.34 x 1.2 = 2671. So that means if I sit on my butt all day and do nothing and eat 2671 calories I will maintain my current weight as my body would burn that just doing the things needed to live (breath, heartbeat, blinking, working, etc…)
CHECK #1 SO FAR IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?
So to lose weight (lets say 1 lb per week) I would need to NET 500 less calories than that per day. I eat 2671 calories, I burn 500 calories (or eat 500 calories less), net 2171 calories = 1 lb lost per week. I have read the posts about trying to get 0 net calories per day with exercise but if you eat 1000 calories and record 1000 calories of exercise and have 0 net calories you are not leaving anything for your body to function with (breath, heartbeat, walk around, etc…) since those take calories too.
CHECK #2 SO FAR IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?
If I am correct I will get to my question. How can I determine what my minimum safe net calories should be after exercise so my body has the proper energy to perform its daily tasks necessary for living and not go into starvation mode but maximize my weight loss potential? I have seen the 1200 bench mark but have also read that is for a small female which I obviously am not.
If I am wrong please educate me.
CHECK #1 SO FAR IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?
So to lose weight (lets say 1 lb per week) I would need to NET 500 less calories than that per day. I eat 2671 calories, I burn 500 calories (or eat 500 calories less), net 2171 calories = 1 lb lost per week. I have read the posts about trying to get 0 net calories per day with exercise but if you eat 1000 calories and record 1000 calories of exercise and have 0 net calories you are not leaving anything for your body to function with (breath, heartbeat, walk around, etc…) since those take calories too.
CHECK #2 SO FAR IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?
If I am correct I will get to my question. How can I determine what my minimum safe net calories should be after exercise so my body has the proper energy to perform its daily tasks necessary for living and not go into starvation mode but maximize my weight loss potential? I have seen the 1200 bench mark but have also read that is for a small female which I obviously am not.
If I am wrong please educate me.
0
Replies
-
Yes to 1. (oops I misread, you mean your TDEE on sedentary, not BMR)
Yes to 2
Safest way to lose fat and minimize muscle loss is to not net under your BMR.
Your estimated BMR is: 2,087 calories/day0 -
1. FALSE- you said that's your BMR, not your TDEE. It would not include working. That would be how much you need to lay in bed and keep your body alive and functioning. You should not net under this, even in a deficit.
2. TRUE to most of it, but again, you should be talking about TDEE here, not BMR. You do not net under your BMR... you take your deficit from your TDEE and make sure that is above your BMR.
3. Calculate your BMR. Calculate your TDEE. Decide how much weight you want to lose per week. Subtract the corresponding percentage from your TDEE (double check that amount is more than BMR) and eat that amount.
ETA: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html and
http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/bmr-calculator.html0 -
I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from0
-
Using your numbers. 2226 calories are what your body needs to function, things like breathing organ function etc. This does not include your lifestyle, job, etc. Basically if your were in coma.
2671 calories is the amount your body needs for your daily lifestyle, job, etc, but not exercise.
2671 minus 500 = 2171 is the calories you need to eat to be at a weekly total of -3500 (500/day x 7 days)) calorie deficit. 1 lb of fat = 3500 calories.
You want to net 2171 each day. So if you were to burn 300 calories on a particular day, you would want to actually eat 2471 calories that day, so that your NET calories is still at 2171.0 -
Yep.Safest way to lose fat and minimize muscle loss is to not net under your BMR.
Your estimated BMR is: 2,087 calories/day
Try this calculator: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/
It will give you your BMR and TDEE, and if you choose the average goal in step 6 of TDEE-20%, it will give you that number too.
I don't know your exercise habits, but putting it at a desk job (sedentary lifestyle) with little exercise, your TDEE-20% is right around your BMR. I'd recommend trying out 2,100 calories per day for a couple weeks and see where it gets you.0 -
Nutritional requirements and law suits within the industry, I would imagine.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from0 -
Nutritional requirements and law suits within the industry, I would imagine.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
Huh?0 -
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from0 -
BMR is 2226.34 x 1.2 = 2671
What is this multiplier you used? If that is any sort of activity factor, then this is NOT your BMR.
BMR would be 2226. Any kind of activity multiplier would be TDEE or some other calculation, not BMR.0 -
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?0 -
OK.. Please excuse my lack of using the proper acronym as I am new. My BMR was 2226 using the sedentary multiplier of 1.2 I came up with my TDDE of 2671. Now let me rephrase me question:
Knowing my TDEE is 2671 If I want to loose 1 lb per week I would net 2671 - 500 = 2171 net calories
Is it safe to lose 2 lb per week (2671 - 1000 = 1671 net calories)
3 lb per week (2671 - 1500 = 1170 net calories)
etc...
what is the safe point for weight loss per week.
i thing i got us to the right question this time
0 -
If metabolic problems and metabolic adaption means the same then yes adaption will happen and it's not necessarily a bad thing, pretty much normal.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?0 -
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
There will be always some adaptation because BMR decreases with weight loss, but eating above BMR should help prevent muscle loss which in turn will prevent metabolism dropping too far.
ETA: Doh, thought I was replying to OP there.0 -
If metabolic problems and metabolic adaption means the same then yes adaption will happen and it's not necessarily a bad thing, pretty much normal.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
Strong edit where you changed your answer from no to yes0 -
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
There will be always some adaptation because BMR decreases with weight loss, but eating above BMR should help prevent muscle loss which in turn will prevent metabolism dropping too far.
ETA: Doh, thought I was replying to OP there.
So once you go below BMR some how your body knows to start breaking down muscle tissue? Why would it do that? That seems counter intuitive0 -
Depending on how much body fat a person has along with macro's and resistance training lots of studies show no metabolic slowdown eating well below BMR......it's just not something that is generally practiced to the general population.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
There will be always some adaptation because BMR decreases with weight loss, but eating above BMR should help prevent muscle loss which in turn will prevent metabolism dropping too far.
ETA: Doh, thought I was replying to OP there.0 -
Hey, I didn't make it up, I was just answering your question as to where the idea of not eating below BMR comes from. Plus, I never said metabolic adaptation; of course that will happen. Negative adaptation to the point of health problems is where the idea is coming from.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?0 -
Hey, I didn't make it up, I was just answering your question as to where the idea of not eating below BMR comes from. Plus, I never said metabolic adaptation; of course that will happen. Negative adaptation to the point of health problems is where the idea is coming from.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
Negative adaptation?0 -
The body breaks down muscle tissue (amino acids) constantly in the normal course of the day and replenishes those aminos , but it's our total daily macros that dictate net weight loss or gain.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
There will be always some adaptation because BMR decreases with weight loss, but eating above BMR should help prevent muscle loss which in turn will prevent metabolism dropping too far.
ETA: Doh, thought I was replying to OP there.
So once you go below BMR some how your body knows to start breaking down muscle tissue? Why would it do that? That seems counter intuitive0 -
The body breaks down muscle tissue (amino acids) constantly in the normal course of the day and replenishes those aminos , but it's our total daily macros that dictate net weight loss or gain.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
There will be always some adaptation because BMR decreases with weight loss, but eating above BMR should help prevent muscle loss which in turn will prevent metabolism dropping too far.
ETA: Doh, thought I was replying to OP there.
So once you go below BMR some how your body knows to start breaking down muscle tissue? Why would it do that? That seems counter intuitive
Yes this is much more reasonable than saying eating below BMR is a special point at which muscle loss occurs0 -
The general idea is to not have a deficit larger than 20-25% from your TDEE. Depending on the amount of weight you have to lose, the amount to lose per week should be adjusted. For example, someone with 100+ lbs to lose, could safely lose 2 lbs/week and keep their deficit at a larger percentage (20-25%), whereas someone with only 10-20 lbs to lose should try to stick with a smaller loss per week (0.25-0.5lbs/week) and should keep their deficit in the smaller range (5-10%).OK.. Please excuse my lack of using the proper acronym as I am new. My BMR was 2226 using the sedentary multiplier of 1.2 I came up with my TDDE of 2671. Now let me rephrase me question:
Knowing my TDEE is 2671 If I want to loose 1 lb per week I would net 2671 - 500 = 2171 net calories
Is it safe to lose 2 lb per week (2671 - 1000 = 1671 net calories)
3 lb per week (2671 - 1500 = 1170 net calories)
etc...
what is the safe point for weight loss per week.
i thing i got us to the right question this time0 -
The BMR point is just a layman's way of putting it, and as I said, it's a general guideline for those who fall within the "healthy" weight range/BF%. If your macros are set to a certain %, adjusting your caloric intake will change the number of g/mg of each macro. Sure, you could tell people, "Based on your age, weight, activity level, etc., don't go below Xg of fats, Xg protein, Xg carbs, etc.," but it's easier for people to understand if you just give them a number of calories. Their macro intakes will make up percentages of that number and generally shouldn't fall below their minimums that way, so you're just giving them an easier plan to follow with less calculations.
The body breaks down muscle tissue (amino acids) constantly in the normal course of the day and replenishes those aminos , but it's our total daily macros that dictate net weight loss or gain.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
There will be always some adaptation because BMR decreases with weight loss, but eating above BMR should help prevent muscle loss which in turn will prevent metabolism dropping too far.
ETA: Doh, thought I was replying to OP there.
So once you go below BMR some how your body knows to start breaking down muscle tissue? Why would it do that? That seems counter intuitive
Yes this is much more reasonable than saying eating below BMR is a special point at which muscle loss occurs0 -
I think some of the confusion is based on the wide variance of adaption which is dependent on a few important factors. Body fat, macro breakdown, exercise regime for example. There will be a big difference between someone with 7% body fat and someone with 40% while consuming what would be considered below their BMR. Negative adaption I would imagine means, although I've never heard that description before would be the hormonal imbalances that are effected by consuming inadequate amounts of calories like cortisol and adrenal stress and nutrient shortfalls over the course when improper or no supplementation is taking place.
The body breaks down muscle tissue (amino acids) constantly in the normal course of the day and replenishes those aminos , but it's our total daily macros that dictate net weight loss or gain.
It's usually because people in the "average" weight range can suffer metabolic problems from eating below their BMR for an extended period of time. It's not usually much of a problem for overweight or obese people to go below it, but it's a general guideline to avoid people going too far below.I wonder where the idea that something magic happens when you eat under your BMR comes from
I see so eating at my BMR but under TDEE indefinitely will not cause any metabolic adaptation?
There will be always some adaptation because BMR decreases with weight loss, but eating above BMR should help prevent muscle loss which in turn will prevent metabolism dropping too far.
ETA: Doh, thought I was replying to OP there.
So once you go below BMR some how your body knows to start breaking down muscle tissue? Why would it do that? That seems counter intuitive
Yes this is much more reasonable than saying eating below BMR is a special point at which muscle loss occurs0 -
OK.. Please excuse my lack of using the proper acronym as I am new. My BMR was 2226 using the sedentary multiplier of 1.2 I came up with my TDDE of 2671. Now let me rephrase me question:
Knowing my TDEE is 2671 If I want to loose 1 lb per week I would net 2671 - 500 = 2171 net calories
Is it safe to lose 2 lb per week (2671 - 1000 = 1671 net calories)
3 lb per week (2671 - 1500 = 1170 net calories)
etc...
what is the safe point for weight loss per week.
i thing i got us to the right question this time
Let's try to bring this thread back on track, shall we?
2 lbs per week is about the maximum safe weight loss. If you go too low, your body will slow your metabolism down so that it burns fewer calories, essentially lowering your BMR. This is often incorrectly referred to as "starvation mode."
Which brings me to my next point. The BMR calculators are just estimates, based on averages of a population used in a particular study. This is why there are several different BMR algorithms that all provide different answers.
The bottom line is, the BMR calculator is an excellent place to start, but could vary from /your/ particular BMR by up to a few hundred calories. Since you don't have a whole ton of weight to lose, trying to lose 2 lbs a week may be a bit much, trying for 1 to 1 1/2 may be a better place to start.
I would recommend that you start eating between 1800-2200 calories a day, and try that for a month. If you are losing weight, that's awesome, stick with it. If you are not losing weight, then drop that down by a hundred or two and try that for a month.
Weight loss is, unfortunately, not an exact science. BMR and TDEE calculators provide an excellent starting point, but will need to be adjusted to fit you, individually, and you should not spend any time obsessing over the numbers.
Also, if you are exercising, be sure to eat your exercise calories back since your TDEE calculation does _not_ include exercise.
Edit to say: Oh, and also, eat your protein. MFP sets protein way too low. You should at a minimum be getting 150 grams a day. If you start doing any weight training, then that should go up to 250 - 300. And eat enough fiber too. 30-35 grams a day.0 -
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I just didn't feel like going into the full scientific explanation. I used the phrase "negative adaptation" because apparently my first statement of metabolic problems was taken to be the same thing as metabolic adaptation.Negative adaption I would imagine means, although I've never heard that description before would be the hormonal imbalances that are effected by consuming inadequate amounts of calories like cortisol and adrenal stress and nutrient shortfalls over the course when improper or no supplementation is taking place.0 -
OK.. Please excuse my lack of using the proper acronym as I am new. My BMR was 2226 using the sedentary multiplier of 1.2 I came up with my TDDE of 2671. Now let me rephrase me question:
Knowing my TDEE is 2671 If I want to loose 1 lb per week I would net 2671 - 500 = 2171 net calories
Is it safe to lose 2 lb per week (2671 - 1000 = 1671 net calories)
3 lb per week (2671 - 1500 = 1170 net calories)
etc...
what is the safe point for weight loss per week.
i thing i got us to the right question this time
Let's try to bring this thread back on track, shall we?
2 lbs per week is about the maximum safe weight loss. If you go too low, your body will slow your metabolism down so that it burns fewer calories, essentially lowering your BMR. This is often incorrectly referred to as "starvation mode."
Which brings me to my next point. The BMR calculators are just estimates, based on averages of a population used in a particular study. This is why there are several different BMR algorithms that all provide different answers.
The bottom line is, the BMR calculator is an excellent place to start, but could vary from /your/ particular BMR by up to a few hundred calories. Since you don't have a whole ton of weight to lose, trying to lose 2 lbs a week may be a bit much, trying for 1 to 1 1/2 may be a better place to start.
I would recommend that you start eating between 1800-2200 calories a day, and try that for a month. If you are losing weight, that's awesome, stick with it. If you are not losing weight, then drop that down by a hundred or two and try that for a month.
Weight loss is, unfortunately, not an exact science. BMR and TDEE calculators provide an excellent starting point, but will need to be adjusted to fit you, individually, and you should not spend any time obsessing over the numbers.
Also, if you are exercising, be sure to eat your exercise calories back since your TDEE calculation does _not_ include exercise.
MANY THANKS!!! You got us back on track and answered my question!!!0 -
I tried to get back on track and answer the OP before (see above), but apparently it got buried.
The general idea is to not have a deficit larger than 20-25% from your TDEE. Depending on the amount of weight you have to lose, the amount to lose per week should be adjusted. For example, someone with 100+ lbs to lose, could safely lose 2 lbs/week and keep their deficit at a larger percentage (20-25%), whereas someone with only 10-20 lbs to lose should try to stick with a smaller loss per week (0.25-0.5lbs/week) and should keep their deficit in the smaller range (5-10%).OK.. Please excuse my lack of using the proper acronym as I am new. My BMR was 2226 using the sedentary multiplier of 1.2 I came up with my TDDE of 2671. Now let me rephrase me question:
Knowing my TDEE is 2671 If I want to loose 1 lb per week I would net 2671 - 500 = 2171 net calories
Is it safe to lose 2 lb per week (2671 - 1000 = 1671 net calories)
3 lb per week (2671 - 1500 = 1170 net calories)
etc...
what is the safe point for weight loss per week.
i thing i got us to the right question this time0 -
New here too. So, does this mean that the 1200 cal net that MFP suggests to use is an unhealthy level? The MFP number as my BMR is closer to my TDEE (total daily energy expenditure---for other newbies). It really is confusing to me. The whole idea of "eating back" calories, "net" calories, eating too low, eating MORE to lose more. ACK! Thanks for the various calculator links. They've been very helpful in trying to figure out a healthy range.0
-
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I just didn't feel like going into the full scientific explanation. I used the phrase "negative adaptation" because apparently my first statement of metabolic problems was taken to be the same thing as metabolic adaptation.Negative adaption I would imagine means, although I've never heard that description before would be the hormonal imbalances that are effected by consuming inadequate amounts of calories like cortisol and adrenal stress and nutrient shortfalls over the course when improper or no supplementation is taking place.
What is the difference between metabolic adaptation, negative metabolic adaptation and metabolic problems
Feel free to get scientific
Thanks0 -
It can be unhealthy, but it's not necessarily. I know that's a vague answer, and a lot of people will automatically think that 1200 is too low, but it's not for some people.New here too. So, does this mean that the 1200 cal net that MFP suggests to use is an unhealthy level? The MFP number as my BMR is closer to my TDEE (total daily energy expenditure---for other newbies). It really is confusing to me. The whole idea of "eating back" calories, "net" calories, eating too low, eating MORE to lose more. ACK! Thanks for the various calculator links. They've been very helpful in trying to figure out a healthy range.
Remember MFP suggests a number that should be your net. Meaning, if you eat 1200 calories, then burn 600, you should eat back those exercise calories so your net remains 1200, but your gross consumption is 1800. With the TDEE method, your exercise habits/activity level are already taken into account in the number so it may give you a goal of 1800, but then you aren't eating back exercise calories. The numbers (when calculated and followed correctly) should end up in the same range.
Someone explained it in another thread:A properly set MFP goal + exercise should be somewhere in the same ballpark as a properly set TDEE-% goal.
Example:
TDEE of 2200 less 20% = 1760.
MFP goal 1460 + 300 exercise = 1760.
I hope that makes sense to you.
Personally, I like the TDEE method and have consistently lost with it when I was on a roller coaster trying to follow the MFP plan.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions