BMR- what does it mean in weight loss?

You have to eat ABOVE your BMR,

No, you don't. I regularly net below BMR and I probably work out more intensily than a lot of people on this board saying that BMR is a magic health problem number.

You *could* do 1250, but your body still won't get the full calories it needs to function once you get out of bed and start moving around.

Your body doesn't need calories to function; it needs proteins, carbohydrates, and fats to function which all release energy when used in metabolism, in addition to vitamins and minerals for enzymes to keep allow your body to keep conducting metabolic processes.

Calories is a convenient measure to find out if you are eating enough on a macro scale and the daily recommended intake is based upon getting the correct ratio of the above compounds, but it isn't what your body actually needs. If I ate 2000 calories of just carbs, I would eventually succumb to muscle atrophy; if I ate 2000 calories of just amino acids then my brain and muscles wouldn't have the glucose they needs to function properly. Your body has mechanisms to compensate for minor shortages of any of the above, but calories in a vacuum is actually a relatively meaningless number when it comes to physical health and the nutrients your body needs.

In fact, you can calculate how much you *actually* need by multiplying your LBM (in kg) by 1.2 to find out how many g of protein you need, and then multiplying your LBM (in kg) by 3-5 to find out how many g of carbs you need, depending on how active you are (athletes would need to do 7-10 g/lbm). Multiply each number by 4 cal/g and that's how many calories you need to survive. So for me (130 lb LBM @ 18% bodyfat):

70.9 g protein * 4 cal/g + 177 g carbs * 4 cal/g + 40 g fat * 9 cal/g = 1353 calories minimum to survive with a regular exercise routine, which is well below my supposed BMR of 1650. If I use my entire bodyweight for carb intake, the number goes to 1504 calories. And that's because BMR is the amount of energy you need to sustain your weight if you slept all day; it is NOT the bare minimum requirements of caloric intake for metabolic processes. If I took out strength training and running 6x a week, I could survive with 1/2 - 2/3 the amount of calories from protein and lower carb intake to 2 g/lbm and be perfectly healthy (I would almost certainly have to supplement this with a multivitamin because I'm not getting all my nutrients from food, but that's besides the point).

Just remember BMR as standing for Bare Minimum Requirements and you're golden... It is the minimum amount needed to healthily sustain someone of your height, weight, age, and gender at a sedentary activity level without risking health.

It doesn't stand for Bare Minimum Requirements. It stands for Basal Metabolic Rate, which is the amount of energy you would consume by doing nothing but sleeping. Your definition is an incorrect inference based off BMR, which is that somehow your body will break down if you go below this magic number, and is the source of widespread misinformation on this site.

You have to eat ABOVE your BMR,

No, you don't. I regularly net below BMR and I probably work out more intensily than a lot of people on this board saying that BMR is a magic health problem number.

You *could* do 1250, but your body still won't get the full calories it needs to function once you get out of bed and start moving around.

Your body doesn't need calories to function; it needs proteins, carbohydrates, and fats to function which all release energy when used in metabolism, in addition to vitamins and minerals for enzymes to keep allow your body to keep conducting metabolic processes.

Calories is a convenient measure to find out if you are eating enough on a macro scale and the daily recommended intake is based upon getting the correct ratio of the above compounds, but it isn't what your body actually needs. If I ate 2000 calories of just carbs, I would eventually succumb to muscle atrophy; if I ate 2000 calories of just amino acids then my brain and muscles wouldn't have the glucose they needs to function properly. Your body has mechanisms to compensate for minor shortages of any of the above, but calories in a vacuum is actually a relatively meaningless number when it comes to physical health and the nutrients your body needs.

In fact, you can calculate how much you *actually* need by multiplying your LBM (in kg) by 1.2 to find out how many g of protein you need, and then multiplying your LBM (in kg) by 3-5 to find out how many g of carbs you need, depending on how active you are (athletes would need to do 7-10 g/lbm). Multiply each number by 4 cal/g and that's how many calories you need to survive. So for me (130 lb LBM @ 18% bodyfat):

70.9 g protein * 4 cal/g + 177 g carbs * 4 cal/g + 40 g fat * 9 cal/g = 1353 calories minimum to survive with a regular exercise routine, which is well below my supposed BMR of 1650. If I use my entire bodyweight for carb intake, the number goes to 1504 calories. And that's because BMR is the amount of energy you need to sustain your weight if you slept all day; it is NOT the bare minimum requirements of caloric intake for metabolic processes. If I took out strength training and running 6x a week, I could survive with 1/2 - 2/3 the amount of calories from protein and lower carb intake to 2 g/lbm and be perfectly healthy (I would almost certainly have to supplement this with a multivitamin because I'm not getting all my nutrients from food, but that's besides the point).

Just remember BMR as standing for Bare Minimum Requirements and you're golden... It is the minimum amount needed to healthily sustain someone of your height, weight, age, and gender at a sedentary activity level without risking health.

It doesn't stand for Bare Minimum Requirements. It stands for Basal Metabolic Rate, which is the amount of energy you would consume by doing nothing but sleeping. Your definition is an incorrect inference based off BMR, which is that somehow your body will break down if you go below this magic number, and is the source of widespread misinformation on this site.

Well, if she weren't confused by the way we tried to simplify it before, I'm pretty sure this post completely threw her off her stride. Yes, I'm sure we understand the differences that you just pointed out. However, for those who are completely confused by it in the first place, sometimes simplifying the definitions a bit is a little easier.

Thank you for pointing out how stupid we all are by attempting to help someone comprehend a difficult subject. And I'm positive she knows exactly what her LBM is and what it stands for so the exact calculations can be made. Very helpful. Thanks.