Losing 2lbs per week puts me under my BMR?? Safe or not..
Options
xxval21xx
Posts: 74 Member
Hello,
I have done a lot of research on weight loss and have gathered some facts to make my weight loss plan successful. Here is what ive gathered:
Calculations with NO exercise:
My BMR is 1897
My TDEE is 2278
Calorie Intake goal: 1897
Deficit: 381 X 7 Days= 2667 calories = 0.76lbs lost per week
If i want to lose 2lbs per week I need my calorie intake goal to be 1278 calories/day
Now many sources say that eating under your BMR is bad and will trigger your body into starvation mode which wont result in weight loss because I am not giving my body enough energy to even keep my vital organs functioning since they require 1897 calories if I am in a coma. This method would be in other words very dangerous and ineffective for my weight loss.
Calculations WITH exercise (2hr walk 3.0Mph/ 7 days per week):
my BMR is 1897
My TDEE is 2278
Calorie Intake goal: 1897
Exercise Calories Burned (Estimated): 700 Calories X 7 Days= 4900
Deficit: 1081 X 7Days= 7567 Calories = 2.16lbs lost per week
This is great, losing 2.16lbs per week but that is ONLY if I dont eat back my exercise calories. But then if i dont eat them back, my total intake of calories daily is just 1197 which is again below my BMR...
If i do eat back my exercise calories im not at a 7000 calorie deficit weekly so i wont lose 2lbs...
What am I supposed to do??
Should I eat 1897 calories a day and not worry about the 700 that i burn off and let my daily intake be below my BMR??
Any help would be appreciated!
Thanks
I have done a lot of research on weight loss and have gathered some facts to make my weight loss plan successful. Here is what ive gathered:
Calculations with NO exercise:
My BMR is 1897
My TDEE is 2278
Calorie Intake goal: 1897
Deficit: 381 X 7 Days= 2667 calories = 0.76lbs lost per week
If i want to lose 2lbs per week I need my calorie intake goal to be 1278 calories/day
Now many sources say that eating under your BMR is bad and will trigger your body into starvation mode which wont result in weight loss because I am not giving my body enough energy to even keep my vital organs functioning since they require 1897 calories if I am in a coma. This method would be in other words very dangerous and ineffective for my weight loss.
Calculations WITH exercise (2hr walk 3.0Mph/ 7 days per week):
my BMR is 1897
My TDEE is 2278
Calorie Intake goal: 1897
Exercise Calories Burned (Estimated): 700 Calories X 7 Days= 4900
Deficit: 1081 X 7Days= 7567 Calories = 2.16lbs lost per week
This is great, losing 2.16lbs per week but that is ONLY if I dont eat back my exercise calories. But then if i dont eat them back, my total intake of calories daily is just 1197 which is again below my BMR...
If i do eat back my exercise calories im not at a 7000 calorie deficit weekly so i wont lose 2lbs...
What am I supposed to do??
Should I eat 1897 calories a day and not worry about the 700 that i burn off and let my daily intake be below my BMR??
Any help would be appreciated!
Thanks
0
Replies
-
Why not do it more slowly and eat as much as you can while losing weight. You really don't want to go beyond TDEE-20%. In your examples, you are showing TDEE-20% which is already a HUGE deficit. And then you are adding even more on top of that? NO! 1278 calories would be your TDEE-over 40%, which is just not sustainable and not healthy. By eating a max of TDEE-20%, you'll learn good skills of how to eat, you won't lose as much muscle and you might not gain weight in the same way once you get to maintenance.0
-
Now many sources say that eating under your BMR is bad and will trigger your body into starvation mode which wont result in weight loss because I am not giving my body enough energy to even keep my vital organs functioning since they require 1897 calories if I am in a coma. This method would be in other words very dangerous and ineffective for my weight loss.
Being under your BMR may or may not be safe, because what's safe isn't directly correlated to your BMR as a threshold. In other words, don't worry about being under your BMR - worry about how much of a deficit you're creating and how much you have left to use. The problem with the above quote is that it doesn't work that way. As a simple example, your body is going to burn X calories per day (your TDEE is an estimate of X) - if you eat X-500 calories, your body will take 500 calories from your fat stores and burn them for energy. If you eat X-1000 calories, your body will take 1000 calories from your fat stores and burn them from energy. Whether X-500 and X-1000 calories are at, under or below your BMR is absolutely irrelevant. The problem comes when your body cannot pull enough calories from your fat stores to meet your X calories burned per day and instead has to go looking for calories in other places (e.g., lean mass). But stop worrying about BMR - that's a myth I really wish would die. BMR is useful for calculating your TDEE and that's about it.
Personally I wouldn't go all the way to 1278 calories, but you can set a fairly aggressive deficit in terms of healthy weight loss (what's sustainable is a more subjective and personal question). Maybe shoot for something like 1500 net calories and see how that goes for a bit?0 -
Maybe a bit deeper way of thinking about this, your BMR is currently an inflated number (because you have some weight to lose), if you run the numbers for your LBM or goal weight the BMR for that is significantly less. Your body will use the nutrition given to it for vital function first and to maintain fat storage second. Eating below BMR should not hurt you this early in the game, but you should still set an appropriate goal, 1600-1700 might give you more of the results you are looking for but still be reasonable. That is based off of no exercise, I was not sure from your origional post if you are wanting to exercise or not?0
-
Your calculations are a bit flawed. TDEE is supposed to include all activity. Your actual TDEE with your 7 day per week 2 hour walks would be 2978 (2278 + 700) so if you deduct 1000 calories per day from that in order to lose 2 pounds per week, that gives you 1978 calories per day which is slightly above your BMR.
As I understand it, for those who are obese, eating slightly below BMR isn't a huge concern becuase you have fat stores to spare - it's more of a concern with those who are at a lower BMI. That said, it is a nice gradual way to lose weight. I played around with all those BMR and TDEE numbers a while back and what I settled on that works best for me is a daily goal based on a number slightly below my BMR (1450 instead of 1500) and to eat back my exercise calories (or at least half of them if not sure of the source). That way if I don't happen to exercise as much as I plan to, I don't risk overeating.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do!0 -
How much weight do you have to lose? The less you have to lose, the slower you should take it off. If 2 pounds per week is putting your intake that low, you need to aim for 1 pound a week or so instead.0
-
If that's really your BMR I envy you and beg, PLEASE PLEASE don't mess it up. Eating less than you are supposed to will just mess up your metabolism, and when you hit 30 like me, you will wish you hadn't damaged something that is so important for maintaining your weight.
Because I didn't know better and was on and off unhealthy diets, today I really struggle with losing weight. My metabolism is soooo slow. Like someone here said, it might not affect you right away but in the long term it will. Wouldn't it be nice to eat a good amount of food and still lose weight? Well, you have that advantage right now. Why be so hard on yourself when you don't have to?
Can I interest you in the strength training approach? This article inspired me:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/
My goal is to slowly build up my metabolism again and lose fat in the process. By lifting heavy weights and eating the right foods you will lose weight and look great in the end. Let me know if you want more info and I'd be happy to help you.0 -
Losing 2 lbs a week is an appropriate number with larger amounts of weight needing to be lost. Just make sure you keep updating your weight as you go in your MFP profile, OP.0
-
If that's really your BMR I envy you and beg, PLEASE PLEASE don't mess it up. Eating less than you are supposed to will just mess up your metabolism, and when you hit 30 like me, you will wish you hadn't damaged something that is so important for maintaining your weight.
Because I didn't know better and was on and off unhealthy diets, today I really struggle with losing weight. My metabolism is soooo slow. Like someone here said, it might not affect you right away but in the long term it will. Wouldn't it be nice to eat a good amount of food and still lose weight? Well, you have that advantage right now. Why be so hard on yourself when you don't to?
Can I interest you in the strength training approach? This article inspired me:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/
My goal is to slowly build up my metabolism again and lose fat in the process. By lifting heavy weights and eating the right foods you will lose weight and look great in the end. Let me know if you want more info and I'd be happy to help you.
*sigh* She is not going to 'ruin' her metabolism with a 2 lb a week weight loss goal. Especially since she has (probably) more than 75 lbs to lose.
But OP, as you go, you will want a less aggressive deficit. I hope someone will come along and post those guidelines because I can never remember where I put them. :grumble:0 -
If that's really your BMR I envy you and beg, PLEASE PLEASE don't mess it up. Eating less than you are supposed to will just mess up your metabolism, and when you hit 30 like me, you will wish you hadn't damaged something that is so important for maintaining your weight.
Because I didn't know better and was on and off unhealthy diets, today I really struggle with losing weight. My metabolism is soooo slow. Like someone here said, it might not affect you right away but in the long term it will. Wouldn't it be nice to eat a good amount of food and still lose weight? Well, you have that advantage right now. Why be so hard on yourself when you don't to?
Can I interest you in the strength training approach? This article inspired me:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/
My goal is to slowly build up my metabolism again and lose fat in the process. By lifting heavy weights and eating the right foods you will lose weight and look great in the end. Let me know if you want more info and I'd be happy to help you.
*sigh* She is not going to 'ruin' her metabolism with a 2 lb a week weight loss goal. Especially since she has (probably) more than 75 lbs to lose.
But OP, as you go, you will want a less aggressive deficit. I hope someone will come along and post those guidelines because I can never remember where I put them. :grumble:
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal0 -
My BMR is 1897
Seems unlikely, unless you had it measured or are very tall. Try the Katch-McArdle equation which uses % body fat and isn't extrapolating outside its range of validity like some equations.0 -
1. Forget about starvation mode as its myth rather than fact. Eating at a very low level may not be good for you (long term issues, not immediate factors) but that's not what you're asking.
2. Eating or not below BMR: there are arguments for/against. Not sure what is factual but the main, bottom line seems to be eat enough to get proper nutrition/fulfill your macro/micro needs. That's not based on BMR.
3. From your ticker you have a medium to large # of pounds to lose. 2 pounds may be too aggressive - perhaps start with 1 pound based on sedentary TDEE and then don't eat your exercise calories back. So exercise would create an additional deficit, and as time progresses you decide based on how you feel if you need to eat additional. Judge by your energy levels and such.
So if 2278 is your sedentary TDEE then eat ~1700-1800 per day.0 -
If that's really your BMR I envy you and beg, PLEASE PLEASE don't mess it up. Eating less than you are supposed to will just mess up your metabolism, and when you hit 30 like me, you will wish you hadn't damaged something that is so important for maintaining your weight.
Because I didn't know better and was on and off unhealthy diets, today I really struggle with losing weight. My metabolism is soooo slow. Like someone here said, it might not affect you right away but in the long term it will. Wouldn't it be nice to eat a good amount of food and still lose weight? Well, you have that advantage right now. Why be so hard on yourself when you don't to?
Can I interest you in the strength training approach? This article inspired me:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/
My goal is to slowly build up my metabolism again and lose fat in the process. By lifting heavy weights and eating the right foods you will lose weight and look great in the end. Let me know if you want more info and I'd be happy to help you.
*sigh* She is not going to 'ruin' her metabolism with a 2 lb a week weight loss goal. Especially since she has (probably) more than 75 lbs to lose.
But OP, as you go, you will want a less aggressive deficit. I hope someone will come along and post those guidelines because I can never remember where I put them. :grumble:
No need to sigh. Like I agreed with someone else here, I think it will be ok for now but it can affect her metabolism if she keeps eating way below her BMR until she reaches her goal weight. I know super overweight people are put on a 1000 calories diet by doctors, which is necessary. I'm just trying to make sure she doesn't continue on it as she loses more weight. It's easy to get caught on it when it works for you even though it might not be the healthiest way of losing weight.0 -
To lose 25 lbs., set your goal to .5 lb. per week and be patient. 2 lbs. per week is way too aggressive a goal at your size.
Please, read the Sexypants post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-Sexypants0 -
I've been eating 1k under my BMR, I lift for strength 3 times a week and do 3 two hour cardio sessions a week. I've lost 3 lb's a week consistently for the last 4 weeks. That said I am near 25% bf and want to get to about 10% bf. The only issue i've notice is that my recovery times from my strength training days is about 2-3 days compared to 1 day when I eat normally.0
-
To lose 25 lbs., set your goal to .5 lb. per week and be patient. 2 lbs. per week is way too aggressive a goal at your size.
Please, read the Sexypants post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-Sexypants
Look more closely... she has more than 25 pounds to lose before her goal weight. She does not need to lose at 0.5 lbs per week, which would take her 3-4 years just to hit her goal weight.0 -
To lose 25 lbs., set your goal to .5 lb. per week and be patient. 2 lbs. per week is way too aggressive a goal at your size.
Please, read the Sexypants post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-Sexypants
I was looking for this post. Definitely read this and the one about setting your macros:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
OP, I've read a few times that starting with TDEE - 30% when you have a good amount to lose is a good starting point. And adjust it from there.0 -
How much weight do you have to lose? The less you have to lose, the slower you should take it off. If 2 pounds per week is putting your intake that low, you need to aim for 1 pound a week or so instead.
I need to lose 105 lbs... my BMI is currently at 41 which just passes the line of morbid obese. I have seen many of users on here that were the same as me and lost around the same weight within a year.. and the smaller i get the harder it will be to lose weight so i dont really know why 2lbs per week at this weight isnt reasonable..0 -
My BMR is 1897
Seems unlikely, unless you had it measured or are very tall. Try the Katch-McArdle equation which uses % body fat and isn't extrapolating outside its range of validity like some equations.
Using http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/ with %BF and Katch-McArdle is get 1807.... not a very big difference..0 -
For each of my goal deadlines listed in my profile i plan on adjusting my weight loss plan to fit my new weight and BF%... Its just I want to make sure I dont damage my metabolism like your saying but still achieve the maximum weight loss possible in my goal time frame All while doing it the healthy way.0
-
Thank you for clearing that up! I shouldve mentioned it in my post...
1. I do not intend to just lose 25lbs. My ticker is based on my first small goal. Which are broken down into steps to reach my ultimate goal of losing 105lbs.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions