Eat Below BMR Question
Dannilee2013
Posts: 37 Member
Hi
Is it considered eating below your BMR if your exercise brings you under BMR but your food intake is above.
For example today I eat 1800 calories and exercised 900 calories (wearing a HRM) which brings my net to 900.
I exercise a lot and it often bring me under my BMR, which I calculated is 1,439
I have just over a stone to lose.
Thanks
D
Is it considered eating below your BMR if your exercise brings you under BMR but your food intake is above.
For example today I eat 1800 calories and exercised 900 calories (wearing a HRM) which brings my net to 900.
I exercise a lot and it often bring me under my BMR, which I calculated is 1,439
I have just over a stone to lose.
Thanks
D
0
Replies
-
You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.0
-
You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.0 -
You should eat below your TDEE not your BMR. BMR is what your body burns just by living.
There is a difference.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.
BMR is the required net calories to remain among the living. Set your deficit below TDEE. Big big difference.0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.
Unless a user is sedentary eating under your BMR is usually really unnecessary and is too much of a deficit. Although admittedly it can easily be safe for many people, I'd never do it without doctors supervision...0 -
BMR is an irrelevant number. You need to eat at a calorie level that is lower than your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) by 500 calories for each pound per week you want to lose. BMR means nothing except as a starting point to help calculate TDEE.0
-
mantium999 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.
BMR is the required net calories to remain among the living. Set your deficit below TDEE. Big big difference.
I know the difference between TDEE and BMR; I just don't see why BMR matters if you are burning fat for fuel. All but a very few of the body's activities can be fueled by fat.
I'm not suggesting people set a calorie goal below BMR, I just don't see why it's a big deal if, due to exercise, your net calories go lower. That's what body fat is for, is it not?0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.
BMR is the required net calories to remain among the living. Set your deficit below TDEE. Big big difference.
I know the difference between TDEE and BMR; I just don't see why BMR matters if you are burning fat for fuel. All but a very few of the body's activities can be fueled by fat.
I'm not suggesting people set a calorie goal below BMR, I just don't see why it's a big deal if, due to exercise, your net calories go lower. That's what body fat is for, is it not?
Its a big deal because, if over an extended period of time, you net below BMR rather than TDEE, your body is going to have some significant problems. When you don't clarify, in a post started by a new member, you are failing to help them understand that what they are doing will eventually be unhealthy and counterproductive.0 -
I am not eating below my BMR, it is just my exercise takes me under. In order for me to net my BMR today I would need to eat 2339, which is above me TDEE.
This is very confusing, well for me it is
0 -
mantium999 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.
BMR is the required net calories to remain among the living. Set your deficit below TDEE. Big big difference.
I know the difference between TDEE and BMR; I just don't see why BMR matters if you are burning fat for fuel. All but a very few of the body's activities can be fueled by fat.
I'm not suggesting people set a calorie goal below BMR, I just don't see why it's a big deal if, due to exercise, your net calories go lower. That's what body fat is for, is it not?
Its a big deal because, if over an extended period of time, you net below BMR rather than TDEE, your body is going to have some significant problems. When you don't clarify, in a post started by a new member, you are failing to help them understand that what they are doing will eventually be unhealthy and counterproductive.
But is it really about netting below BMR, or about too large a deficit? If I am sedentary due to illness and my NEAT and TEF amount to 300 calories, is it somehow dangerous to eat at a 400 calorie deficit if I have excess pounds to lose? If so, why?
Again, not arguing, I just really don't understand why BMR is relevant for an overweight person.0 -
There's nothing inherently dangerous (that I'm aware of) about eating below your BMR. That being said, if you are reasonably active you shouldn't need to in order to lose weight and there's also legitimate reasons to avoid very large calorie deficits -- and most people who are moderately active would be at a fairly large deficit if they eat below BMR, but it's the deficit size that creates the potential for problems, not the fact that it's "below BMR".0
-
To expand on alyhuggan's point:
We approximate TDEE by multiplying BMR by a factor.
So, for sedentary TDEE the approximation is 1.2 x BMR (lightly active is 1.375; active is 1.55, very active is 1.725, extremely active is 1.9)
The maximum recommended (for sustainable, safe weight loss) caloric deficit is a 20% cut off TDEE.
If you eat at a 20% cut off your TDEE, you are eating 80% of your TDEE, which for a sedentary individual is equal to 120% of your BMR as discussed. So, you are eating at 0.96% of your BMR, which is obviously just below your BMR. Which would NOT be safe to do for a sedentary individual for a very long period of time. (remember: 20% off TDEE is a MAXIMUM recommended, NOT MINIMUM recommended cut for safe weight loss)
However, sedentary is commonly defined as someone who engages in less than 25 to 30 minutes of physical activity a day. Alternative definitions for sedentary are: where less than 10% of your TDEE consists of active energy expenditure, or where you "step" less than 3,000 to 5,000 steps in a day.
Even though pretty much every one of us starts on MFP by setting ourselves as sedentary, very few of us, if we are in relatively good health and continue to hang out here, actually meet the definition!
So, if we either eat back our (true and accurate) exercise calories like MFP envisions, or if we bump up our activity level to where it SHOULD be, or if we get an "exercise" adjustment (which should be called a "TDEE adjustment") from a calorie counting gadget like a jawbone or a fitbit, we will usually end up eating more than 0.96% of our BMR.
and if we don't do so we will be generating a greater than 20% deficit off our TDEE, which as initially discussed would be considered too much of a cut to be "safe".0 -
BMR is an irrelevant number. You need to eat at a calorie level that is lower than your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) by 500 calories for each pound per week you want to lose. BMR means nothing except as a starting point to help calculate TDEE.
+1
The real issue is not having an overly aggressive deficit. BMR doesn't matter except that it's part of how we figure TDEE, from which the deficit is figured.
Now, if OP is really doing 900 calories worth of exercise regularly while eating 1800, that could be considered overly aggressive. It would kind of depend on what she means by exercise, how reliable the numbers are, how much she has to lose, etc.0 -
To expand on alyhuggan's point:
We approximate TDEE by multiplying BMR by a factor.
So, for sedentary TDEE the approximation is 1.2 x BMR (lightly active is 1.375; active is 1.55, very active is 1.725, extremely active is 1.9)
The maximum recommended (for sustainable, safe weight loss) caloric deficit is a 20% cut off TDEE.
If you eat at a 20% cut off your TDEE, you are eating 80% of your TDEE, which for a sedentary individual is equal to 120% of your BMR as discussed. So, you are eating at 0.96% of your BMR, which is obviously just below your BMR. Which would NOT be safe to do for a sedentary individual for a very long period of time. (remember: 20% off TDEE is a MAXIMUM recommended, NOT MINIMUM recommended cut for safe weight loss)
However, sedentary is commonly defined as someone who engages in less than 25 to 30 minutes of physical activity a day. Alternative definitions for sedentary are: where less than 10% of your TDEE consists of active energy expenditure, or where you "step" less than 3,000 steps in a day.
Even though pretty much every one of us starts on MFP by setting ourselves as sedentary, very few of us, if we are in relatively good health and continue to hang out here, actually meet the definition!
So, if we either eat back our (true and accurate) exercise calories like MFP envisions, or if we bump up our activity level to where it SHOULD be, or if we get an "exercise" adjustment (which should be called a "TDEE adjustment") from a calorie counting gadget like a jawbone or a fitbit, we will usually end up eating more than 0.96% of our BMR.
and if we don't do so we will be generating a greater than 20% deficit off our TDEE, which as initially discussed would be considered too much of a cut to be "safe".
Perfectly put what I was meaning!0 -
Dannilee2013 wrote: »I am not eating below my BMR, it is just my exercise takes me under. In order for me to net my BMR today I would need to eat 2339, which is above me TDEE.
This is very confusing, well for me it is
Your BMR cannot be above your TDEE if you move at all during the day. BMR, generally, doesn't much change, as it is based on completely sedentary behavior. TDEE can change significantly based on daily activity and exercise. I think you might have the 2 backwards. I am on my phone, otherwise I could find a link to help. Anyone out there wanna help on this?0 -
There's nothing inherently dangerous (that I'm aware of) about eating below your BMR. That being said, if you are reasonably active you shouldn't need to in order to lose weight and there's also legitimate reasons to avoid very large calorie deficits -- and most people who are moderately active would be at a fairly large deficit if they eat below BMR, but it's the deficit size that creates the potential for problems, not the fact that it's "below BMR".
Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to figure out.0 -
This is a more complicated question than it looks.
You shouldn't be eating below your BMR.
However, most people overestimate their calories burned in workouts, and underestimate their calorie intake. You can figure out if your calories in / calories out equation is accurate based on your actual rate of loss compared to your estimated rate of loss based on your logged deficits. (Add up your logged deficits and compare it to the # of actual pounds lost x 3500 calorie deficit required to lose each of those pounds over a specific time frame, maybe a month.)0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.
BMR is the required net calories to remain among the living. Set your deficit below TDEE. Big big difference.
I know the difference between TDEE and BMR; I just don't see why BMR matters if you are burning fat for fuel. All but a very few of the body's activities can be fueled by fat.
I'm not suggesting people set a calorie goal below BMR, I just don't see why it's a big deal if, due to exercise, your net calories go lower. That's what body fat is for, is it not?
Its a big deal because, if over an extended period of time, you net below BMR rather than TDEE, your body is going to have some significant problems. When you don't clarify, in a post started by a new member, you are failing to help them understand that what they are doing will eventually be unhealthy and counterproductive.
But is it really about netting below BMR, or about too large a deficit? If I am sedentary due to illness and my NEAT and TEF amount to 300 calories, is it somehow dangerous to eat at a 400 calorie deficit if I have excess pounds to lose? If so, why?
Again, not arguing, I just really don't understand why BMR is relevant for an overweight person.
I see your point, and it can be argued that a significantly overweight person can maintain a sub BMR intake for a period of time. The OP, however, is trying to lose a stone, which is about 14 lbs. Not a lot of weight, really. That, combined with a 900 calorie exercise expenditure, suggests that BMR is NOT the target this particular individual should be using. So, I guess my argument back to you wasn't so much that nobody should eat below BMR, and more along the lines that your post wasn't providing assistance to the OP, who doesn't seem to properly understand the difference between BMR and TDEE.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »Dannilee2013 wrote: »I am not eating below my BMR, it is just my exercise takes me under. In order for me to net my BMR today I would need to eat 2339, which is above me TDEE.
This is very confusing, well for me it is
Your BMR cannot be above your TDEE if you move at all during the day. BMR, generally, doesn't much change, as it is based on completely sedentary behavior. TDEE can change significantly based on daily activity and exercise. I think you might have the 2 backwards. I am on my phone, otherwise I could find a link to help. Anyone out there wanna help on this?
She is eating 1800, and her (supposed) BMR is 1439. She's NOT eating below BMR.
However, she believes that she is exercising 900 calories (which is worth exploring before telling her she is eating too little, as these estimates are often wrong), and thus netting 900.
In essence, she's saying her TDEE is something like 2625 (depending on how the activity figure is calculated), and she's eating 1800. That's more than a 20% cut if the numbers are right, but it's less than 2 lbs/week, so how aggressive it is depends on lots of things, including how accurate the numbers are.
Bigger point is that there's no reason not to net below your BMR--that's MFP lore. There is a reason not to be overly aggressive in your deficit.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Dannilee2013 wrote: »I am not eating below my BMR, it is just my exercise takes me under. In order for me to net my BMR today I would need to eat 2339, which is above me TDEE.
This is very confusing, well for me it is
It is the NET calories that count.
Total daily energy expenditure is just that. If you exercise a lot your total energy expenditure on that day is higher than what a guess based on a factor based on an arbitrary activity level thought it was.
That said, if your exercise is other than steady state aerobic based, you may find that some of your exercise calorie burns are overstated. Also most exercise burns show you gross, as opposed to net, calories burned.
One of the generally accepted conventions around here is to START with eating back 100% of your steady state aerobic calories, 75% of your circuit training or HIIT calories, and 50% of strength training calories and evaluate your weight loss over a period of a few weeks before deciding whether/how to adjust these figures based on your actual weight loss. Another convention simplifies this to "eat back at least 50% of your exercise calories".
Most people who use Fitbits find that they can eat back 100% of their Fitbit adjustments.
I personally find my Fitbit adjustment to overestimate my caloric expenditure by slightly less than 5%, i.e. by about 162 Cal a day; but, hey, at that point it might as well be a million other factors.0 -
To expand on alyhuggan's point:
We approximate TDEE by multiplying BMR by a factor.
So, for sedentary TDEE the approximation is 1.2 x BMR (lightly active is 1.375; active is 1.55, very active is 1.725, extremely active is 1.9)
The maximum recommended (for sustainable, safe weight loss) caloric deficit is a 20% cut off TDEE.
If you eat at a 20% cut off your TDEE, you are eating 80% of your TDEE, which for a sedentary individual is equal to 120% of your BMR as discussed. So, you are eating at 0.96% of your BMR, which is obviously just below your BMR. Which would NOT be safe to do for a sedentary individual for a very long period of time. (remember: 20% off TDEE is a MAXIMUM recommended, NOT MINIMUM recommended cut for safe weight loss)
However, sedentary is commonly defined as someone who engages in less than 25 to 30 minutes of physical activity a day. Alternative definitions for sedentary are: where less than 10% of your TDEE consists of active energy expenditure, or where you "step" less than 3,000 to 5,000 steps in a day.
Even though pretty much every one of us starts on MFP by setting ourselves as sedentary, very few of us, if we are in relatively good health and continue to hang out here, actually meet the definition!
So, if we either eat back our (true and accurate) exercise calories like MFP envisions, or if we bump up our activity level to where it SHOULD be, or if we get an "exercise" adjustment (which should be called a "TDEE adjustment") from a calorie counting gadget like a jawbone or a fitbit, we will usually end up eating more than 0.96% of our BMR.
and if we don't do so we will be generating a greater than 20% deficit off our TDEE, which as initially discussed would be considered too much of a cut to be "safe".
Perfect, thanks. Just to make sure I understand, it is the deficit that matters, but for nearly everyone, BMR is a useful proxy for a 20+ %, and thus too aggressive, deficit?
Sorry to be dense; like I said, I've never heard about netting above BMR anywhere but here, where it seems to be a given. I just wanted to understand why that number is relevant.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »You shouldn't net below your BMR. This is the amount of energy your body needs to perform it's basic functions. How long were you exercising for? 900 calories sounds like A LOT.
Why shouldn't you eat below your BMR? Isn't making the body use fat as fuel the entire point of dieting?
I get that as deficit increases, sustainability decreases, but what's so magic about BMR? Not being confrontational; I just want to know because outside of MFP I've never read or heard anything about not netting below BMR, but here it seems to be ubiquitous.
BMR is the required net calories to remain among the living. Set your deficit below TDEE. Big big difference.
That isn't quite accurate. I see this thrown around the forums a lot: "BMR is what your body needs JUST TO LIVE!". What BMR is though, is the number of calories your body needs to maintain your current weight if you were in a coma. As stated above, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating under BMR, so long as you are still getting adequate calories and nutrition. Having said that, if you are truly netting 900 calories I'd agree that is too low.0 -
I do know there is a difference between BMR and TDEE, however as mentioned because of all the exercise I do, in order to net my BMR each day I would need to eat over my TDEE most days. This is the part that confuses me, even more so when people are saying you should eat under your TDEE.
Please can someone explain in simple terms
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »To expand on alyhuggan's point:
We approximate TDEE by multiplying BMR by a factor.
So, for sedentary TDEE the approximation is 1.2 x BMR (lightly active is 1.375; active is 1.55, very active is 1.725, extremely active is 1.9)
The maximum recommended (for sustainable, safe weight loss) caloric deficit is a 20% cut off TDEE.
If you eat at a 20% cut off your TDEE, you are eating 80% of your TDEE, which for a sedentary individual is equal to 120% of your BMR as discussed. So, you are eating at 0.96% of your BMR, which is obviously just below your BMR. Which would NOT be safe to do for a sedentary individual for a very long period of time. (remember: 20% off TDEE is a MAXIMUM recommended, NOT MINIMUM recommended cut for safe weight loss)
However, sedentary is commonly defined as someone who engages in less than 25 to 30 minutes of physical activity a day. Alternative definitions for sedentary are: where less than 10% of your TDEE consists of active energy expenditure, or where you "step" less than 3,000 to 5,000 steps in a day.
Even though pretty much every one of us starts on MFP by setting ourselves as sedentary, very few of us, if we are in relatively good health and continue to hang out here, actually meet the definition!
So, if we either eat back our (true and accurate) exercise calories like MFP envisions, or if we bump up our activity level to where it SHOULD be, or if we get an "exercise" adjustment (which should be called a "TDEE adjustment") from a calorie counting gadget like a jawbone or a fitbit, we will usually end up eating more than 0.96% of our BMR.
and if we don't do so we will be generating a greater than 20% deficit off our TDEE, which as initially discussed would be considered too much of a cut to be "safe".
Perfect, thanks. Just to make sure I understand, it is the deficit that matters, but for nearly everyone, BMR is a useful proxy for a 20+ %, and thus too aggressive, deficit?
The TDEE for a sedentary person is BMR x 1.2, so a sedentary person would be below BMR with a 20% deficit.
It's a decent rule of thumb for a non-sedentary person, but here we are talking about eating below BMR, not netting below BMR (which is what the OP asked about).
Say we have someone BMR 1500. Their sedentary TDEE is 1800. If they do 200 calories of exercise a day on top of that they have TDEE 2000. 20% is 400, so they'd eat 1600. But 1600-200 (the net) would be 1400, under TDEE.
It's really not that helpful to focus on BMR, especially since it's just an estimated number and makes no real difference to your body. Easier to focus on overall deficit, as you said originally.0 -
Danni, I think you are over-complicating it, and over-thinking.
Sorry to everyone who has seen me post this before. Here are the basics.
Buy a food scale, weigh and log everything.
Do cardio if you want, and if you do, only eat back 50% of your calories (if you are losing faster than expected after logging for a few weeks, then up the % you eat back). Lift weights and hit your protein goal to help maintain muscle mass while losing.
Cheat meals that take you over maintenance will sabotage your efforts. Log the cheat meals too (falls under the 'log everything' rule).
Eat anything you want in moderation, keeping in mind that your diet will be easier to stick with if you chose foods that make it easier to stay under your calories without feeling hungry.
Also it would be a good idea to read some of the stickies at the top of the various forums such as:
Calorie Counting 101
Logging Accuracy, Consistency, & You're Probably Eating More Than You Think
A Guide To Get You Started on Your Path To Sexy Pants[/quote]0 -
Dannilee2013 wrote: »I do know there is a difference between BMR and TDEE, however as mentioned because of all the exercise I do, in order to net my BMR each day I would need to eat over my TDEE most days. This is the part that confuses me, even more so when people are saying you should eat under your TDEE.
This is where you seem to be misunderstanding. TDEE is BMR plus activity factor plus exercise (or with an activity factor that includes exercise).
IF your BMR is 1439 and you exercise 900 calories and move at least a sedentary amount otherwise, you are saying your TDEE is about 2626. So 1800 is NOT below TDEE.
Now, those numbers seem questionable to me as a regular thing, so I'd need to know more information about how you got them and whether you are losing at a rate that makes them look realistic to have an opinion on how aggressive you are being. In general eating at 1800 seems pretty reasonable to me unless you are really exercising a crazy amount (which a regular 900 calorie number would suggest) or there are other factors we don't know (including height, age, weight).0 -
Dannilee2013 wrote: »I do know there is a difference between BMR and TDEE, however as mentioned because of all the exercise I do, in order to net my BMR each day I would need to eat over my TDEE most days. This is the part that confuses me, even more so when people are saying you should eat under your TDEE.
Please can someone explain in simple terms
Your TDEE includes exercise, so if you are using that method, you don't need to add exercise calories back in the first place.
The MFP method is not TDEE, so the number it gives you is not TDEE and there is nothing wrong with eating more than MFP's target if you exercise and your net intake is at or below it.
And I'm sorry for opening a can of worms on your thread; I didn't mean to derail it.0 -
That's what I said. Not sure if that's the position of anyone else.MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Perfect, thanks. Just to make sure I understand, it is the deficit that matters, but for nearly everyone, BMR is a useful proxy for a 20+ %, and thus too aggressive, deficit?
I will fully accept MrM27's addition that target weight BMR may quite often be more relevant. (And my own addition that for macronutrient targets, for example protein, I would set the minimum target based on final goal weight as opposed to current weight).
In your desire to get the "perfect" answer you are forgetting that this is a general forum on the site of a software app that does not and cannot provide individualized medical advice.
We are talking "safe population averages" here. Not individualized perfection.
For many people here, more harm could come from promoting larger deficits as opposed to the harm experienced by the comparatively slower weight loss promoted by more conservative deficits (and more conservative deficits, in my opinion, have the additional benefit of enhancing the chance of longer term compliance by not letting the person become too hAngry)
How many times have we seen people stick a 2lbs a week weight loss target in MFP in order to move from a BMI of 22 to a BMI of 18?
Yes, a 400lb person could probably eat at below their current BMR for a very long period of time before they suffer any adverse effects.0 -
Hi
Thank you to everyone for your advise and comments. To answer some of your questions:
900 Calories Is A Lot Of Exercise - That was walking over 8 miles, briskly and including hills. I use a Miolink HRM, Garmin Edge 1000 and upload to strava as a walk. I always do this when walking so I can accurately track my calories burned. I walk a heck of a lot, always briskly and always include hills.
We Need More Personal Info - I am female, 43, 156.4lb, 5"5. I am currently eating 1750 - 1850 calories with an exercise deficit of between 3000 - 4000 a week. In the last 2 weeks I have lost almost 5lb, so it's working but I don't want to negatively effect my health, by eating too little for the amount of exercise I do. On the flip I don't wnt to eat too much and not lose or gain.
The problem I am having is all the online TDEE calculates seem to vary greatly.
Using the maths mentioned above I went to Man V Fat and used their TDEE calcultor. According to that:
My BMR is 1438 x 1.2 for sedentary = 1725 + 900 (yesterdays exercise) = 2625 - 20% is 2100. So in theory I should be able to eat 2100 and still lose 1lb a week? However whilst I fully understand the above calculation, it is based on the exercise on a particular day, surely people don't calculate their TDEE like this on a daily basis?
I apologise if I am over complicating things but I want to do it in a way that doesn't have a negative effect on my health.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions