Low BMR

I worked out that my Apple Watch thinks my BMR is around 1250, while according to a Dexascan it's nearer 1350. Food for thought.

rosewolf13 wrote: »

My BMR according to some calculators as well as Samsung health is substantially lower than most at around 1,200. I am fairly sure this is true based on my weight loss in the past.
Anyone have sucess stories of low bmr and weight loss, tips?

That's not particularly low...average BMR for a female is around 1300 calories. BMR is just the calories you burn merely existing...you'd burn them in a coma. Your TDEE is the important number.

My BMR is around 1600-1700 calories depending on the method of estimate...my maintenance calories without any exercise is around 2500 calories...that's my BMR+everyday life. With regular exercise my maintenance calories are typically 2800-3000 or so...so I lose about 1 Lb per week eating 2300-2500 calories per day...BMR isn't typically all that relevant to losing weight other than understanding that's your starting basal number. But we all do a lot more than just exist.

LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »

BMR will be the same for anyone of same height, weight, age...think from memory mine is now 1170 a paltry amount as well.. but its our NEAT that bumps up our calorie burn throughout the day making my average TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) around 1950-2000 - so we have it in our power to add more cals just by moving more.

I 100% agree with your main point, that exercise and daily life activity (NEAT) can materially increase calorie burn, so it almost doesn't matter what BMR is.

But even BMR can vary for people of the same height, weight, age. The so-called "calculators" will estimate it as the same for people of the same characteristics, but that's just spitting out an average. That's close enough to be useful for most of us, but actual lab testing of individuals will show individual variation.

This article is informative on that point:

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

It uses data about resting metabolic rate, which is close to BMR, but is defined slightly differently, IMU. Key fact from the article: One standard deviation of RMR is about 5-8%, so about 68% of people are within 5-8% from the average RMR, and about 96% within 10-16%. That leaves around 4% of people out in the weeds somewhere, higher or lower still.

OP, the calculators estimate my BMR at 1163-1248, depending on the formula in play. (I'm a 5'5", mid-130s pounds 64-year-old woman.) I have no idea what my actual BMR is. I lost about 50 pounds in less than a year at age 59-60, and have kept it off since. Even though I'm sedentary outside of intentional exercise (which isn't massive, maybe 250-300 calories 5-6 days a week), I maintain weight on over 2000 calories plus exercise calories daily, based on 4+ years of logging experience. Even my Garmin fitness tracker - one that's accurate for most people - underestimates by hundreds of calories a day. This is rare, but it can happen.

The so-called calculators of BMR, TDEE, NEAT, etc., are just giving you estimates. The idea is that you use those to set an intial calorie goal based on a reasonable estimate of TDEE (averages in exercise) or NEAT (excludes exercise so you add it separately). Then you stick to that for 4-6 weeks, and adjust based on your actual results. The initial estimate will be close for most people, and it'll probably be close for you. But that calorie goal needs to consider not just your BMR, but your exercise and daily life activity.

Best wishes!

@magnusthenerd I think the DEXA software spits out an estimate based on lean mass, etc. I had a metabolic chamber thing with mine that measured my RMR (1411) and they compared it to the ones the DEXA estimated just to see how close they were.