Why shouldn't you eat under your BMR?
Replies
-
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 -
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.
It's not that simple, protein sparing modified fasts (the clue is in the name) minimise fat free mass loss, as do diets higher in protein or combined with the right sort of exercise. There is usually some loss of fat free mass (FFM) in clinical studies of weight loss, but not always. "Muscle" is seldom measured, though some do nitrogen balances as a proxy. You can lose FFM on a small deficit.
The key issue to me is that I have NEVER seen any reference in a clinical study paper to the "eating less than BMR" thing - it just isn't a thing outside of here. We can debate deficits and the rest but the topic of "eating less than your BMR" is independent of deficit - a sedentary person with a 20% deficit is eating below their BMR and that never seems to worry the ethics committee.
See how the VLCD wins on fat loss :-
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.
I agree :P wow, thank you for so much information0 -
Bump...because I'd like some real answers.
I was once told (can't remember the person's name on here, unfortunately), that eating under your BMR for weight loss is not unhealthy if it's temporary. I believe the reason he said it was because your BMR is the calories it takes for your body to function, but for weight loss, if you eat less than BMR, your body can use fat reserves for fuel. If you are at your goal weight, however, it makes sense that you would not want to eat below BMR because your body would be using your muscles or other source to fuel itself, hence losing weight when you don't want to.
I'd like somebody to confirm or dispute this because I'm not sure if it's right, either.
Eating below TDEE causes you to use fat stores. Eating below BMR causes you to use Fat/Muscle stores as well as minimize (moreso over time) every function of the body. Everything from digestion, to repair, thinking, breathing everything is fueled by the nutrients you eat up to BMR. It's not like this is immediate, and I doubt you would notice it if you did this for a even up to a few months... But it adds up, and the fine line is, it not only is not optimal, but it is not healthy and shouldn't be promoted.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.
Yeah, that's fair. And I'll sheepishly admit that after running estimates for myself, I were completely sedentary, a TDEE-500 would put me very slightly below estimated BMR. In any case though it sounds like we agree that modest reductions, rather than dramatic dips below BMR, are the way to go. At the very, very least, its what worked for me.0 -
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.
Trick question I see - "average" , "long term"
VLCD diets are recommended for obese people for limited duration (like 6-8 weeks). That's why they exist, are licensed and sold by reputable companies and approved by national bodies in more than one country.
Can you share an accredited study that even mentions "eating less than the basal metabolic rate" to break my information famine ?
I am not addressing anyone's circumstances here, as that would be inappropriate, but merely the topic of the thread.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.
This incorrect. You eat below your TDEE to lose weight. You BMR is the calories required just to keep you alive.
Eat more and eat your exercise calories back.0 -
This is incorrect. One's BMR is that calories needed to to keep one's weight the same. If someone is 400lbs, they can definitely eat below their BMR to lose weight even if active.Your BMR is what your body requires to function
Don't eat less than what your body requires to function
If someone is at a "normal" weight, then eating at their BMR or slightly above (depending on activity) will keep their weight the same.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
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.
Thank you
I always used to be a ''there's no way you can NOT lose weight on 1200 calories'' type of person. Although I've always struggled with my weight I never believed in the 'slow metabolism' thing, despite the fact that my sister has always remained effortlessly skinny even despite her efforts to put on weight. Although I've always had weight issues I could always lose weight incredibly fast. One year, I had a holiday booked for June, and between April and mid June I lost almost 50lbs. I'd always cheat and still lose incredibly fast. Around four weeks ago I decided to lose weight again, and expected the usual 8-10lbs first week loss. Nothing. As I've mentioned many times before I also stopped smoking. I thought being super careful with intake would help ensure there was no post-stopping-smoking weight gain. I cheated a few days and lost nothing, so I cut calories. No loss. So went down some more. No loss. I started a stringent 1200 calorie diet, not cheating at all, always feeling that going to bed really hungry would be worth it the next day because unless I was a medical miracle there was NO WAY I wouldn't lose weight. Then...no loss. Over the 4 weeks I've lost around 2lb. I think I have lost inches, but I can't be sure as I am not 100% sure what I measured before. I've never, ever had an issue with weight loss before. I think maybe the yo yo dieting and not smoking anymore may have taken it's toll on my metabolism. I'm also wondering if I have hypothyroidism, as my resting heart rate is in the 50's, I am always very cold and my hair has started to get dry at the ends....although I have been working out more (explaining the heart rate), it is Autumn/Winter now...and my highlights may have just killed my hair :P I guess I need to go get tested.
Thank you again to everyone that has replied I am blown away by how educated and informed everyone is.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.
This is what I was waiting for, too! Thank you! And I'm sorry you had so many health problems after eating VLCD. :-(0 -
My question is: why eat so few calories if you don't have to? I can successfully lose weight eating 1600 calories per day, that's what I'm gonna do. If I was morbidly obese and needed to start dropping weight, obviously it would be another story. But obviously the op is miscalculating somewhere. Or exaggerating that there hasn't been any weight loss.
Eta: or there is an undiagnosed issue holding back weight loss.0 -
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.
I agree :P wow, thank you for so much information
This is what I was waiting for, too! Thank you! And I'm sorry you had so many health problems after eating VLCD. :-(
I'm glad I could be helpful. There is a LOT of information out there about BMR, TDEE, the dangers of VLCD, etc. This is just a handful of articles that I was able to find that gave easy to understand hypotheses. There have been further studies on specific endocrine reactions and further study on the affects of caloric deficits long term in animals.
And while yes, for some, and for a short period of time, a low calorie high deficit diet can help it is not for everyone. You have to pay close attention to what you eat to ensure you meet adequate nutrition levels. For the morbidly obese and those who have severe medical problems it can be a temporary solution, but the way that it is touted about as something "anyone" can do irks me to no end. You need to know -- truly know -- what you are doing or you risk harming yourself.0 -
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.
Trick question I see - "average" , "long term"
VLCD diets are recommended for obese people for limited duration (like 6-8 weeks). That's why they exist, are licensed and sold by reputable companies and approved by national bodies in more than one country.
Can you share an accredited study that even mentions "eating less than the basal metabolic rate" to break my information famine ?
I am not addressing anyone's circumstances here, as that would be inappropriate, but merely the topic of the thread.
As I said in a reply above, I know that VLCD is applicable to a minor percentage of people; those who are morbidly obese and those who need to lose weight quickly for various health reasons fall under this category. I'm not denying that fact. What I am saying is that this is not applicable to people who want to drop 10 pounds and are not under the care of a licensed medical professional who focuses in diet and nutrition.
But that doesn't change the fact that swarms of people are going for these diets when they have minimal weight to lose. When a person in the previously mentioned category (obese or under specific medical circumstances) get to a point that they no longer need to restrict so severely they don't. Yet, there here on MFP and on the plethora of other fitness sites I've seen there is thread after thread of "Eating under 1200 works!", "I eat 10 apples a day look how skinny I am!", "Help me lose 20 pounds in 30 days!", etc. These are people who do not understand that VLCD and the like are not meant for moderate weight loss and the ramifications such a diet can cause.
I listed studies expressing this view in the post you quoted me from. If you really want I will sit down and find more for you or reference several medical books I currently own that focus on the endocrine system and nutrition.0 -
This is incorrect. One's BMR is that calories needed to to keep one's weight the same. If someone is 400lbs, they can definitely eat below their BMR to lose weight even if active.Your BMR is what your body requires to function
Don't eat less than what your body requires to function
If someone is at a "normal" weight, then eating at their BMR or slightly above (depending on activity) will keep their weight the same.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
One's BMR are the calories needed to keep one's weight the same when the body remains completely at rest.
TDEE are the calories needed to keep one's weight the same when taking into account specific activity levels.
Someone with less than 50 lbs to lose should avoid eating below BMR.
Someone with a lot to lose can eat below BMR but should only do so under the supervision of a qualified specialist in order to make sure that individual is eating a nutritionally balanced diet which can be hard to do when limited to very low calories.0 -
This is incorrect. One's BMR is that calories needed to to keep one's weight the same. If someone is 400lbs, they can definitely eat below their BMR to lose weight even if active.Your BMR is what your body requires to function
Don't eat less than what your body requires to function
If someone is at a "normal" weight, then eating at their BMR or slightly above (depending on activity) will keep their weight the same.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
One's BMR are the calories needed to keep one's weight the same when the body remains completely at rest.
TDEE are the calories needed to keep one's weight the same when taking into account normal everyday activity.
Someone with less than 50 lbs to lose should avoid eating below BMR.
Someone with a lot to lose can eat below BMR but should only do so under the supervision of a qualified specialist in order to make sure that individual is eating a nutritionally balanced diet which can be hard to do when limited to very low calories.
This is essentially what I have been trying to explain. Great minds, or sumfin'.0 -
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.
I agree :P wow, thank you for so much information
This is what I was waiting for, too! Thank you! And I'm sorry you had so many health problems after eating VLCD. :-(
I'm glad I could be helpful. There is a LOT of information out there about BMR, TDEE, the dangers of VLCD, etc. This is just a handful of articles that I was able to find that gave easy to understand hypotheses. There have been further studies on specific endocrine reactions and further study on the affects of caloric deficits long term in animals.
And while yes, for some, and for a short period of time, a low calorie high deficit diet can help it is not for everyone. You have to pay close attention to what you eat to ensure you meet adequate nutrition levels. For the morbidly obese and those who have severe medical problems it can be a temporary solution, but the way that it is touted about as something "anyone" can do irks me to no end. You need to know -- truly know -- what you are doing or you risk harming yourself.
I only read your first link but it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. It references 'basal metabolic rate' only in saying that one's BMR is reduced due to the reduction of body mass. We all know that occurs. Larger people burn more. Everyone loses some lean mass when they lose weight, also.
I imagine the other articles are also not about 'eating below your BMR' but about VLCD, which you seem to use interchangeably. I think VLCD is more commonly believed to be like 800 calories and below. Many of us are well below our BMR when we eat at 1200 calories, which is universally considered a safe number for women.0 -
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.
I agree :P wow, thank you for so much information
This is what I was waiting for, too! Thank you! And I'm sorry you had so many health problems after eating VLCD. :-(
I'm glad I could be helpful. There is a LOT of information out there about BMR, TDEE, the dangers of VLCD, etc. This is just a handful of articles that I was able to find that gave easy to understand hypotheses. There have been further studies on specific endocrine reactions and further study on the affects of caloric deficits long term in animals.
And while yes, for some, and for a short period of time, a low calorie high deficit diet can help it is not for everyone. You have to pay close attention to what you eat to ensure you meet adequate nutrition levels. For the morbidly obese and those who have severe medical problems it can be a temporary solution, but the way that it is touted about as something "anyone" can do irks me to no end. You need to know -- truly know -- what you are doing or you risk harming yourself.
I only read your first link but it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. It references 'basal metabolic rate' only in saying that one's BMR is reduced due to the reduction of body mass. We all know that occurs. Larger people burn more. Everyone loses some lean mass when they lose weight, also.
I imagine the other articles are also not about 'eating below your BMR' but about VLCD, which you seem to use interchangeably. I think VLCD is more commonly believed to be like 800 calories and below. Many of us are well below our BMR when we eat at 1200 calories, which is universally considered a safe number for women.
Bold statement is a bold statement. You'll find many people disagree with that, thus making the use of the word 'universal' already incorrect.
universal = everyone agrees, no dissent
It is universally agreed that density = mass / volume.
It is not universally agreed that 1200 calories is considered a safe number for women.0 -
I'll give you that. It's generally considered a safe number for women among those in the field. Though I personally have never run across any diet plan, company, doctor or other entity that doesn't consider it safe. Though 1200 is commonly assumed unsafe here in these forums.0
-
The reason why it's recommended to NOT eat below your BMR is because this is the bare minimum your body needs to do basic functioning.
Bare minimum calories is not the same as bare minimum food intake.
Your fat stores are there for a reason - someone with significant weight to lose and a basic understanding of their nutritional requirements can go below BMR without any meaningful negative side effects.
Hell, most people don't even know what their BMR is.0 -
I'll give you that. It's generally considered a safe number for women among those in the field. Though I personally have never run across any diet plan, company, doctor or other entity that doesn't consider it safe. Though 1200 is commonly assumed unsafe here in these forums.
We disagree but I like you. No sarcasm.0 -
@brower47 - Great explanation
This is incorrect. One's BMR is that calories needed to to keep one's weight the same. If someone is 400lbs, they can definitely eat below their BMR to lose weight even if active.Your BMR is what your body requires to function
Don't eat less than what your body requires to function
If someone is at a "normal" weight, then eating at their BMR or slightly above (depending on activity) will keep their weight the same.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
One's BMR are the calories needed to keep one's weight the same when the body remains completely at rest.
TDEE are the calories needed to keep one's weight the same when taking into account specific activity levels.
Someone with less than 50 lbs to lose should avoid eating below BMR.
Someone with a lot to lose can eat below BMR but should only do so under the supervision of a qualified specialist in order to make sure that individual is eating a nutritionally balanced diet which can be hard to do when limited to very low calories.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions