Why shouldn't you eat under your BMR?
Options
Replies
-
you have to eat below your bmr in order to lose weight...you doing the right thing by eatig 1200 the only reason why your not seeing any results yet is because ur deficit of calories is so small... it takes 3,500 calories to make a pound so it is just taking longer for u to see results cuz its taking alot time for ur deficit to equal 3,500 calories. normally you eat 500-1,000 calories less a day to lose 1-2 lbs a week but you cant eat less then 1200 calories a day other wise your body goes into starvation mode.
NO!!!!!0 -
you have to eat below your bmr in order to lose weight...you doing the right thing by eatig 1200 the only reason why your not seeing any results yet is because ur deficit of calories is so small... it takes 3,500 calories to make a pound so it is just taking longer for u to see results cuz its taking alot time for ur deficit to equal 3,500 calories. normally you eat 500-1,000 calories less a day to lose 1-2 lbs a week but you cant eat less then 1200 calories a day other wise your body goes into starvation mode.
NOPE.
OP, please ignore this "advice", it is horribly, outrageously wrong. Your BMR is the amount of calories your body needs at rest. As in, if you were comatose you would need to be taking in that amount to keep your body functioning. Eating below it, especially for long periods of time, is not intelligent.
Our bodies are wired for feast vs. famine. If we are not taking in adequate calories our body will assume it's a time of famine and hold on to as much as it can. It will eat muscle first and then fat stores, which means all these people who are eating 500+ below their BMR are not losing fat, they are losing muscle. And generally when you start eating normally again your body will cling to those extra calories because it still thinks it's in a time of famine, which is why so many people gain everything back plus some following a low-cal diet.
When a person wants to lose weight they do need a deficit, that is true. But not from your BMR. If should be taken from your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE), which is the amount of calories your body needs to have daily for all your activities; like walking, cleaning, working out, etc. If you were to take 500 calories a day from your TDEE that would create a deficit of 3,500 calories a week, equivalent to about a pound. The more you move/workout the more your body generally needs. That is why we have members here eating 2,000+ calories daily and still actively losing.
Please do your research. There are some amazing links here on MFP that are stickied to the top of the Getting Started board. Read them and learn how to stay healthy while actively losing.0 -
-
There is no logic or science behind the "don't go below BMR" idea.
Here is a working definition of BMR for youBasal metabolic rate (BMR), and the closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at rest. Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state. In plants, different considerations apply.
The release, and using, of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.
If you agree with that definition, I don't see why you'd think it would be okay to eat less than what is required for minimum bodily function
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
We're talking about BMR, not TDEE0 -
There is no logic or science behind the "don't go below BMR" idea.
Here is a working definition of BMR for youBasal metabolic rate (BMR), and the closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at rest. Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state. In plants, different considerations apply.
The release, and using, of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.
If you agree with that definition, I don't see why you'd think it would be okay to eat less than what is required for minimum bodily function
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
We're talking about BMR, not TDEE
Thanks, but I am well aware of the definitions and the differences.
I still see nothing in there that suggests the needed energy would not simply be acquired from the fat you have stored.
When you are in a deficit of TDEE the energy deficit is filled by tapping into fat stores.
When you are in a deficit of BMR why would the deficit not also be filled by tapping into fat stores?
I am genuinely open to any facts with credible sources that say otherwise, but the definition you pasted doesn't really speak to the question at hand or discount my statement.0 -
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
the definition is ok, it's what you do with it.
The BMR is the largest part of the calories we expend, however it does not have to be provided from food - it can be provided from fat reserves. That's why hunger strikers take months to die, not five minutes of not eating. Geez.
This is where the "don't eat below your BMR" chorus go wrong. Most (or at least many) clinical studies on weight loss feed people less than 1,000 calories a day, which is below pretty well anyone's BMR apart from anorexics.
Find out about Mr AB the very very obese Scotsman, who ate nothing for over a year, lived off his fat reserves which were vastly reduced and he went on to maintain his lower weight for some time.0 -
There is no logic or science behind the "don't go below BMR" idea.
Here is a working definition of BMR for youBasal metabolic rate (BMR), and the closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at rest. Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state. In plants, different considerations apply.
The release, and using, of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.
If you agree with that definition, I don't see why you'd think it would be okay to eat less than what is required for minimum bodily function
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
We're talking about BMR, not TDEE
Thanks, but I am well aware of the definitions and the differences.
I still see nothing in there that suggests the needed energy would not simply be acquired from the fat you have stored.
When you are in a deficit of TDEE the energy deficit is filled by tapping into fat stores.
When you are in a deficit of BMR why would the deficit not also be filled by tapping into fat stores?
I am genuinely open to any facts with credible sources that say otherwise, but the definition you pasted doesn't really speak to the question at hand or discount my statement.
It's difficult enough for most people to get the micronutrients they need for proper body function when eating below maintenance. The lower you go, the more difficult it becomes and the more time and thought is required to plan your diet accordingly. Most people don't take the time to preplan a week's worth of food in order to ensure that those micronutrient minimums are met in order to maintain proper bodily function (some of which it takes weeks to months of poor nutrition for the effects to become noticeable).
Also, eating at such a high deficit runs the risk of the body using a disproportionate amount of muscle to fat as its energy source leaving the person with either the same body fat percentage or in some cases, an even higher % that before the weight loss took place (this is not the case in obese individuals but more for people within 50 lbs of their idea weight). Smaller deficits (especially combined with some sort of weight bearing exercise) will help to ensure that the muscle loss is minimized, leaving the individual with a lower body fat percentage once the weight is lost.
You can and will lose weight eating below BMR but it's difficult to do in a healthy (nutrients) manner and runs the very high risk of high muscle loss.0 -
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
the definition is ok, it's what you do with it.
The BMR is the largest part of the calories we expend, however it does not have to be provided from food - it can be provided from fat reserves. That's why hunger strikers take months to die, not five minutes of not eating. Geez.
This is where the "don't eat below your BMR" chorus go wrong. Most (or at least many) clinical studies on weight loss feed people less than 1,000 calories a day, which is below pretty well anyone's BMR apart from anorexics.
Find out about Mr AB the very very obese Scotsman, who ate nothing for over a year, lived off his fat reserves which were vastly reduced and he went on to maintain his lower weight for some time.
0 -
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
the definition is ok, it's what you do with it.
The BMR is the largest part of the calories we expend, however it does not have to be provided from food - it can be provided from fat reserves. That's why hunger strikers take months to die, not five minutes of not eating. Geez.
This is where the "don't eat below your BMR" chorus go wrong. Most (or at least many) clinical studies on weight loss feed people less than 1,000 calories a day, which is below pretty well anyone's BMR apart from anorexics.
Find out about Mr AB the very very obese Scotsman, who ate nothing for over a year, lived off his fat reserves which were vastly reduced and he went on to maintain his lower weight for some time.
This is pretty much what I've been told too, and what my previous post was referring to. It's assumed that if you eat less than your BMR, your organs will shut down or something. Why won't your body use up the fat stores on your body?0 -
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
Find out about Mr AB the very very obese Scotsman, who ate nothing for over a year, lived off his fat reserves which were vastly reduced and he went on to maintain his lower weight for some time.
Sorry, you mean the guy who was warned every step of the way not to starve himself by his doctors? I'm not claiming you'd go into immediate organ failure eating below BMR, I'm wondering why you would go into such a steep calorie deficit as to eat below your basic daily needs.
A modest deficit from TDEE should be sufficient. Is anyone here operating under the assumption that OP's issue is that she isn't cutting deep enough into her BMR?0 -
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
the definition is ok, it's what you do with it.
The BMR is the largest part of the calories we expend, however it does not have to be provided from food - it can be provided from fat reserves. That's why hunger strikers take months to die, not five minutes of not eating. Geez.
This is where the "don't eat below your BMR" chorus go wrong. Most (or at least many) clinical studies on weight loss feed people less than 1,000 calories a day, which is below pretty well anyone's BMR apart from anorexics.
Find out about Mr AB the very very obese Scotsman, who ate nothing for over a year, lived off his fat reserves which were vastly reduced and he went on to maintain his lower weight for some time.
This is pretty much what I've been told too, and what my previous post was referring to. It's assumed that if you eat less than your BMR, your organs will shut down or something. Why won't your body use up the fat stores on your body?
It will use up your fat stores but at the same time it will use muscle too. The greater the deficit, the greater the percentage of muscle the body will use for fuel. The smaller the deficit, the smaller the percentage of muscle used for fuel.
I personally want my body to use more of my fat than my muscle and that is why I will always eat above BMR but below maintenance when losing. I want to be fit and not flabby when I one day reach my goal weight.0 -
you have to eat below your bmr in order to lose weight...you doing the right thing by eatig 1200 the only reason why your not seeing any results yet is because ur deficit of calories is so small... it takes 3,500 calories to make a pound so it is just taking longer for u to see results cuz its taking alot time for ur deficit to equal 3,500 calories. normally you eat 500-1,000 calories less a day to lose 1-2 lbs a week but you cant eat less then 1200 calories a day other wise your body goes into starvation mode.
So much broscience...
In order to lose weight you must eat below your TDEE which is also called maintenance calories. In order to lose weight healthily, you must eat between BMR and TDEE. This insures your not only in a caloric deficit (anything below TDEE) but also feeding your body proper nutrition as well.
If you eat below your BMR, then you body is not receiving the nutrition it needs for healthy function. Effects of this won't be noticed immediately, but your setting yourself up for issues down the road. The body needs these nutrients for long sustainable healthy living.
Activation of starvation mode below 1200 calories has about as much scientific foundation as the 30 minute anabolic window after weightlifting...0 -
If you think that definition is somehow flawed, I'm open to hear what you think is wrong about it
the definition is ok, it's what you do with it.
The BMR is the largest part of the calories we expend, however it does not have to be provided from food - it can be provided from fat reserves. That's why hunger strikers take months to die, not five minutes of not eating. Geez.
This is where the "don't eat below your BMR" chorus go wrong. Most (or at least many) clinical studies on weight loss feed people less than 1,000 calories a day, which is below pretty well anyone's BMR apart from anorexics.
Find out about Mr AB the very very obese Scotsman, who ate nothing for over a year, lived off his fat reserves which were vastly reduced and he went on to maintain his lower weight for some time.
This is pretty much what I've been told too, and what my previous post was referring to. It's assumed that if you eat less than your BMR, your organs will shut down or something. Why won't your body use up the fat stores on your body?
It will use up your fat stores but at the same time it will use muscle too. The greater the deficit, the greater the percentage of muscle the body will use for fuel. The smaller the deficit, the smaller the percentage of muscle used for fuel.
I personally want my body to use more of my fat than my muscle and that is why I will always eat above BMR but below maintenance when losing. I want to be fit and not flabby when I one day reach my goal weight.
I think this is a good answer, but why does the body use more muscle for fuel in such a high calorie deficit? I definitely want my body to use more fat than muscle, too. I'm not trying to be snarky, I genuinely am curious at the science behind these questions!0 -
Eat less, move more.0
-
Activation of starvation mode below 1200 calories has about as much scientific foundation as the 30 minute anabolic window after weightlifting...
You mean that's not real?!0 -
How about this for a study, by the way: http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17906/1/Garthe IntJSportNutrExercMetabol 2011.pdf
"Effect of Two Different Weight-Loss Rates on Body Composition"
It goes into pretty good detail about how much fat vs. lean mass is burned at various deficit levels.0 -
like 99% of what has been said in this thread so far
There is no logic or science behind the "don't go below BMR ever" idea. A deficit is a deficit and will cause your body to tap into fat stores for the energy it needs. In any deficit you may also lose some muslce but getting your macros right and strength training will help minimize this.
As long as you get your required macros and micros there is no scientific evidence, anywhere, as far as I am aware, that something bad will automatically and always happen if you go below BMR.
I recommend using the calculators on iifym.com to determine your Sedentary TDEE (and eat at a 10% to 30% deficit of that depending how much and how fast you want to lose, and eat back your exercise calories) and use their calculator to determine what your macros need to be.
For those who insist that something bad will happen if you go below BMR please provide a credible source as if such exists I really would like to know. So far I've yet to see a source produced when this topic comes up on the forums.
Credible sources like my kidneys shutting down when I tried VLCD to lose weight? Or how my hair fell out? Or how my immune system took a nose dive and I struggled with fatigue? Or how when I stopped starving myself - surprise of surprises - the weight came back and brought friends?
But since you asked!
Biology’s Response to Dieting: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581.full.pdf+html
Metabolic Responses to Prolonged Weight Reduction: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/290/6/R1577.full.pdf+html
Three Weeks of Caloric Restriction Alters Protein Metabolism in Normal-Weight, Young Men: http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/289/3/E446
Adipose Gene Expression in Response to Caloric Restriction and Weight Regain: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/6/1399.full.pdf+html
Calorie Restruction Increases Mitochondrial Efficiency: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1413655/pdf/pnas-0510452103.pdf
The Defense of Body Weight: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23126426
I also have several book references which focus on the adaptations of the endocrine system, if you are interested.
Would you kindly share your accredited studies stating that eating under BMR/at high deficit calories is considered applicable to the general public safe for a person to pursue long them? I would really like to see them, I'm not stating this as an insult. I have a genuine curiosity about studies in favor of VLCD for the average person.0 -
like 99% of what has been said in this thread so far
There is no logic or science behind the "don't go below BMR ever" idea. A deficit is a deficit and will cause your body to tap into fat stores for the energy it needs. In any deficit you may also lose some muslce but getting your macros right and strength training will help minimize this.
As long as you get your required macros and micros there is no scientific evidence, anywhere, as far as I am aware, that something bad will automatically and always happen if you go below BMR.
I recommend using the calculators on iifym.com to determine your Sedentary TDEE (and eat at a 10% to 30% deficit of that depending how much and how fast you want to lose, and eat back your exercise calories) and use their calculator to determine what your macros need to be.
For those who insist that something bad will happen if you go below BMR please provide a credible source as if such exists I really would like to know. So far I've yet to see a source produced when this topic comes up on the forums.
Credible sources like my kidneys shutting down when I tried VLCD to lose weight? Or how my hair fell out? Or how my immune system took a nose dive and I struggled with fatigue? Or how when I stopped starving myself - surprise of surprises - the weight came back and brought friends?
But since you asked!
Biology’s Response to Dieting: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581.full.pdf+html
Metabolic Responses to Prolonged Weight Reduction: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/290/6/R1577.full.pdf+html
Three Weeks of Caloric Restriction Alters Protein Metabolism in Normal-Weight, Young Men: http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/289/3/E446
Adipose Gene Expression in Response to Caloric Restriction and Weight Regain: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/6/1399.full.pdf+html
Calorie Restruction Increases Mitochondrial Efficiency: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1413655/pdf/pnas-0510452103.pdf
The Defense of Body Weight: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23126426
I also have several book references which focus on the adaptations of the endocrine system, if you are interested.
Would you kindly share your accredited studies stating that eating under BMR/at high deficit calories is considered applicable to the general public safe for a person to pursue long them? I would really like to see them, I'm not stating this as an insult. I have a genuine curiosity about studies in favor of VLCD for the average person.
Whoa
Take a bow. That's fantastic.0 -
My BMR, set to sedentary ((which most of the time I'm not) is 1589 cals a day. I've been eating 1200 and not losing although I think that is due to quitting smoking. I remember someone saying it isn't a good idea to eat below your BMR. Just wondering, why is that? Thanks to anyone that can help!
I skimmed the answers so forgive me if I didn't see it but I think one thing just about eveyrone missed is that the OP refers to her sedentary BMR - of which, there is no such thing. There is a BMR, which is an estimate of the # of calories your body needs to cover basic function (breathing, digestion, etc). Then there's the TDEE which includes activity, starting at the TDEE level with is usually 1.2x BMR.
So the OP's BMR is probably somewhere around1300. The fact that she's only been eating about 100 calories less than this shouldn't have anything to do with her not losing weight - assuming she's netting 1200.
OP, a good place to start is to make sure that you're logging and honestly and accurately as you can. That means measuring/weighing everything and logging everything you eat. It also means logging all your intentional activity and eating back earned calories. Just be careful of MFP's exercise calorie estimates as they can be overestimated. If you tend to do a lot of cardio, investing in a good HRM with chest strap might be something to think about.0 -
How about this for a study, by the way: http://brage.bibsys.no/nih/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_17906/1/Garthe IntJSportNutrExercMetabol 2011.pdf
"Effect of Two Different Weight-Loss Rates on Body Composition"
It goes into pretty good detail about how much fat vs. lean mass is burned at various deficit levels.
While we agree about lean mass loss at high deficits vs low, this was not a good study to illustrate it. This was study using elite athletes and the athletes that lost .7% of their body weight each week actually gained LBM and the group that was at a higher restriction (1-1.4%) maintained their LBM. It should be noted that none of the participants were overweight to start with which makes this study not very applicable to MFP users who's goal is to achieve a normal body weight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions