Suggested Cals Lower than BMR?

toniann97
toniann97 Posts: 18 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi! Im coming back to MFP after some time away. I updated my info to recalculate my calories/macros. My BMR is ~1500 cals but the suggested net calories Im supposed to have daily is 1200? I understand this means if I burn 200 cals in a workout I can technically eat 1400 but it seems odd that it would suggest eating less than my BMR. Is this normal to see?
Quick notes:
I'm a 41 yr old female, 5'4, 185. I workout 3-5x a week for 30-45 mins, a mix of cardio and weights.

Replies

  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    First, My Fitness Pal is giving you a calorie goal based on your weekly weight loss goal. 1200 is the default minimum. Choose a lower weekly goal and you'll get more calories.
  • toniann97
    toniann97 Posts: 18 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    toniann97 wrote: »
    Hi! Im coming back to MFP after some time away. I updated my info to recalculate my calories/macros. My BMR is ~1500 cals but the suggested net calories Im supposed to have daily is 1200? I understand this means if I burn 200 cals in a workout I can technically eat 1400 but it seems odd that it would suggest eating less than my BMR. Is this normal to see?
    Quick notes:
    I'm a 41 yr old female, 5'4, 185. I workout 3-5x a week for 30-45 mins, a mix of cardio and weights.

    I'm not sure BMR is the bright line for "never eat less" in the way that some believe, but . . .

    What weight loss rate did you request? 2 pounds a week? That would IMO be faster than optimal for your current size. A lot of folks here think it's good to not have a deficit that results in loss faster than 1% of current body weight weekly. Your sedentary TDEE would presumably be 1800-1850ish (I understand that you're not sedentary, and that MFP uses NEAT not TDEE, but I'm just spitballing some stuff here, y'know?).

    To lose 2 pounds a week, you need a 1000 calorie defict, so eat around 800-900. Probably not a good plan, even adding back exercise of a couple hundred to get to 1000-1100. Pound and a half, 750 deficit, so a little under the 1200, but a little above with the exercise. Mmm, maybe doable. Pound a week, 500 deficit? Maybe 1300 or so, then 1500 or so with the exercise? Starts to sound a little more sustainable to me (but that's just me, and my opinion).

    So: If you get a really low goal, maybe think about whether the weight loss rate you're shooting for is your best plan, or not. Some people do well with radical/fast plans (though it can be playing with increased health risk). With a meaningful total amount of weight to lose (tens of pounds), a steady fast loss for many months may not be all that realistic. As alternatives, could do punctuated schedule (bigger deficit for a bit, then maintenance, then back to deficit), or just go with slow but steady, only take a maintenance break if things stall out or get challenging to stick with. There are lots of options.

    As a coincidence, I started losing around your size (I was 183, 5'5'), but much older (59). For me, 1200 + exercise was too low. Turns out I"m a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, which is rare, but for anyone, that sustainability issue is important. Fast loss that causes periodic cravings-based overeating, or worse, giving up, may be less effective than a "slower but easy" strategy. Health risks are also a consideration (do you have any pre-existing issues?), and likewise cumulative stress (adding deficit physical stress on top of whatever physical & psychological stresses that may already be part of your life). Personalization of the weight loss methods is key to success, IMO.

    Just some stuff to think about. Best wishes!

    Thanks so much for the response :) I did have 2 lbs a week as my goal but it looks like the MFP goal is 1.3lbs a week presumably because it wont go below 1200 cals. I'm pretty impatient when it comes to weight loss but I've learned a lot over the years so I'm fine with 1 lb a week. I do know I dont do well with 1200 cals a day, especially with working out, I get super hungry, on days where I dont workout I may be able to stick to it but I tend to not want to set myself up for failure and having done "low calorie" plans before I know this will not last. I do like the idea of a punctuated schedule and may try that. I dont have any health issues but Ill admit my weight causes a mental struggle sometimes. I'm the comparison queen, even at 41 I still find myself saying how in the world can they lose 2-3 lbs a week being similar in size to me and I'm struggling to lose .5 lb? In all honesty I know we are all different but its a nasty trick my mind plays on me. When I dont lose like I feel like I should, especially when doing all the right things its taxing on my mental focus. Thank you again for your response, the whole BMR vs suggested cals had me curious.
  • Dogmom1978
    Dogmom1978 Posts: 1,580 Member
    toniann97 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    toniann97 wrote: »
    Hi! Im coming back to MFP after some time away. I updated my info to recalculate my calories/macros. My BMR is ~1500 cals but the suggested net calories Im supposed to have daily is 1200? I understand this means if I burn 200 cals in a workout I can technically eat 1400 but it seems odd that it would suggest eating less than my BMR. Is this normal to see?
    Quick notes:
    I'm a 41 yr old female, 5'4, 185. I workout 3-5x a week for 30-45 mins, a mix of cardio and weights.

    I'm not sure BMR is the bright line for "never eat less" in the way that some believe, but . . .

    What weight loss rate did you request? 2 pounds a week? That would IMO be faster than optimal for your current size. A lot of folks here think it's good to not have a deficit that results in loss faster than 1% of current body weight weekly. Your sedentary TDEE would presumably be 1800-1850ish (I understand that you're not sedentary, and that MFP uses NEAT not TDEE, but I'm just spitballing some stuff here, y'know?).

    To lose 2 pounds a week, you need a 1000 calorie defict, so eat around 800-900. Probably not a good plan, even adding back exercise of a couple hundred to get to 1000-1100. Pound and a half, 750 deficit, so a little under the 1200, but a little above with the exercise. Mmm, maybe doable. Pound a week, 500 deficit? Maybe 1300 or so, then 1500 or so with the exercise? Starts to sound a little more sustainable to me (but that's just me, and my opinion).

    So: If you get a really low goal, maybe think about whether the weight loss rate you're shooting for is your best plan, or not. Some people do well with radical/fast plans (though it can be playing with increased health risk). With a meaningful total amount of weight to lose (tens of pounds), a steady fast loss for many months may not be all that realistic. As alternatives, could do punctuated schedule (bigger deficit for a bit, then maintenance, then back to deficit), or just go with slow but steady, only take a maintenance break if things stall out or get challenging to stick with. There are lots of options.

    As a coincidence, I started losing around your size (I was 183, 5'5'), but much older (59). For me, 1200 + exercise was too low. Turns out I"m a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, which is rare, but for anyone, that sustainability issue is important. Fast loss that causes periodic cravings-based overeating, or worse, giving up, may be less effective than a "slower but easy" strategy. Health risks are also a consideration (do you have any pre-existing issues?), and likewise cumulative stress (adding deficit physical stress on top of whatever physical & psychological stresses that may already be part of your life). Personalization of the weight loss methods is key to success, IMO.

    Just some stuff to think about. Best wishes!

    Thanks so much for the response :) I did have 2 lbs a week as my goal but it looks like the MFP goal is 1.3lbs a week presumably because it wont go below 1200 cals. I'm pretty impatient when it comes to weight loss but I've learned a lot over the years so I'm fine with 1 lb a week. I do know I dont do well with 1200 cals a day, especially with working out, I get super hungry, on days where I dont workout I may be able to stick to it but I tend to not want to set myself up for failure and having done "low calorie" plans before I know this will not last. I do like the idea of a punctuated schedule and may try that. I dont have any health issues but Ill admit my weight causes a mental struggle sometimes. I'm the comparison queen, even at 41 I still find myself saying how in the world can they lose 2-3 lbs a week being similar in size to me and I'm struggling to lose .5 lb? In all honesty I know we are all different but its a nasty trick my mind plays on me. When I dont lose like I feel like I should, especially when doing all the right things its taxing on my mental focus. Thank you again for your response, the whole BMR vs suggested cals had me curious.

    And if you think you should be losing more than you are based on your tracking, take a hard look at that tracking to spot mistakes.

    Many people overestimate calories burned via exercise. Personally, I try to underestimate my calorie burn to help make up for any errors in my food logging. Make sure you use a food scale and choose accurate database entries. I’m not saying you aren’t already weighing everything accurately, but if you aren’t losing at your expected rate of loss, it would be the first place to look.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    For your stats, the "Mifflin-St Jeor" formula would indicate a "sedentary" TDEE estimate of of 1787 kcals/day. The logic goes that if you eat exactly 500kcals/day less than this on average (1287 kcals/day), you will lose a pound a week. This is pretty much what MFP is using.

    Note that, in principle, if you consume anything less than your TDEE, you will lose weight. There is no particular reward for losing faster, in fact losing slower can be to your advantage in terms of keeping it off. I also don't believe there's anything particularly bad about consuming (slightly) below your BMR. I personally do find that it's hard to omit more than about 25% of my TDEE for very long, but that's highly personal.

    You can learn about and play with this formula at

    https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html

    Final note: these formulas are based on population averages and can vary from person to person.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited December 2020
    There's nothing inherently wrong with eating below your BMR. For people who are largely sedentary and have a good amount to lose (more than you, typically), it can be the right choice. When I first started MFP, 2 lbs/week was perfectly appropriate for me and I did eat less than BMR for a while.

    That said, it seems like you'd do better on higher cals. I agree with those who recommend choosing 1 lb/week, and not higher. Beyond that, your numbers suggest you are choosing sedentary. MFP's sedentary is pretty sedentary -- no more than 4000 steps/day outside of intentional exercise. If that's not you, try at least using lightly active in your estimate. And of course eat back exercise cals.

    If your exercise is pretty consistent week to week, another option is going to a TDEE calculator and getting an estimate that way. You would include your exercise when going through the steps, so would not eat back cals as you log exercise (exercise cals would be already built in), but you would eat roughly the same on exercise days and not, so no extra low cal rest days (as with MFP's estimate). These calculators normally cut no more than 20% off total cals, so depending on your numbers that could be around 1 lb (you can also just subtract 500 from the maintenance estimate of TDEE).
  • toniann97
    toniann97 Posts: 18 Member
    Thank you all for your comments and suggestions, very much appreciated!
  • nanastaci2020
    nanastaci2020 Posts: 1,072 Member
    The other side of the coin, if you can increase your non-exercise calorie expenditure it will help in the weight loss big picture. Little things like taking the stairs instead of an elevator/escalator, parking in the far spaces of the lot, walking for errands (instead of using drive thru at the bank, pharmacy, etc.), standing some each day while working if at a desk job, and so forth: burns more calories. Not at a level that you can calculate, but those things do benefit in the long run.

    At the end of 2013 I was 180ish, 5'5", and age 39. I lost ~50 between then and October 2014 by walking/moving more in general (with a goal to hit 10-12k steps daily combined total between exercise and regular daily activity) and mostly eating 1500-1700. The key detail on food logging: accuracy and honesty!
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited December 2020
    toniann97 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    toniann97 wrote: »
    Hi! Im coming back to MFP after some time away. I updated my info to recalculate my calories/macros. My BMR is ~1500 cals but the suggested net calories Im supposed to have daily is 1200? I understand this means if I burn 200 cals in a workout I can technically eat 1400 but it seems odd that it would suggest eating less than my BMR. Is this normal to see?
    Quick notes:
    I'm a 41 yr old female, 5'4, 185. I workout 3-5x a week for 30-45 mins, a mix of cardio and weights.

    I'm not sure BMR is the bright line for "never eat less" in the way that some believe, but . . .

    What weight loss rate did you request? 2 pounds a week? That would IMO be faster than optimal for your current size. A lot of folks here think it's good to not have a deficit that results in loss faster than 1% of current body weight weekly. Your sedentary TDEE would presumably be 1800-1850ish (I understand that you're not sedentary, and that MFP uses NEAT not TDEE, but I'm just spitballing some stuff here, y'know?).

    To lose 2 pounds a week, you need a 1000 calorie defict, so eat around 800-900. Probably not a good plan, even adding back exercise of a couple hundred to get to 1000-1100. Pound and a half, 750 deficit, so a little under the 1200, but a little above with the exercise. Mmm, maybe doable. Pound a week, 500 deficit? Maybe 1300 or so, then 1500 or so with the exercise? Starts to sound a little more sustainable to me (but that's just me, and my opinion).

    So: If you get a really low goal, maybe think about whether the weight loss rate you're shooting for is your best plan, or not. Some people do well with radical/fast plans (though it can be playing with increased health risk). With a meaningful total amount of weight to lose (tens of pounds), a steady fast loss for many months may not be all that realistic. As alternatives, could do punctuated schedule (bigger deficit for a bit, then maintenance, then back to deficit), or just go with slow but steady, only take a maintenance break if things stall out or get challenging to stick with. There are lots of options.

    As a coincidence, I started losing around your size (I was 183, 5'5'), but much older (59). For me, 1200 + exercise was too low. Turns out I"m a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner, which is rare, but for anyone, that sustainability issue is important. Fast loss that causes periodic cravings-based overeating, or worse, giving up, may be less effective than a "slower but easy" strategy. Health risks are also a consideration (do you have any pre-existing issues?), and likewise cumulative stress (adding deficit physical stress on top of whatever physical & psychological stresses that may already be part of your life). Personalization of the weight loss methods is key to success, IMO.

    Just some stuff to think about. Best wishes!

    Thanks so much for the response :) I did have 2 lbs a week as my goal but it looks like the MFP goal is 1.3lbs a week presumably because it wont go below 1200 cals. I'm pretty impatient when it comes to weight loss but I've learned a lot over the years so I'm fine with 1 lb a week. I do know I dont do well with 1200 cals a day, especially with working out, I get super hungry, on days where I dont workout I may be able to stick to it but I tend to not want to set myself up for failure and having done "low calorie" plans before I know this will not last. I do like the idea of a punctuated schedule and may try that. I dont have any health issues but Ill admit my weight causes a mental struggle sometimes. I'm the comparison queen, even at 41 I still find myself saying how in the world can they lose 2-3 lbs a week being similar in size to me and I'm struggling to lose .5 lb? In all honesty I know we are all different but its a nasty trick my mind plays on me. When I dont lose like I feel like I should, especially when doing all the right things its taxing on my mental focus. Thank you again for your response, the whole BMR vs suggested cals had me curious.

    Are these people you see in real life so you have more of a barometer than just social media?

    I know people who only post about their successes. When rapid weight loss becomes unsustainable, they stop posting about it. And then some time goes by and they post that they are back on the wagon and losing quickly again (leaving out that they'd gained it all back.)

    It's better to lose a half pound a week and steadily work towards your goal then yoyoing for years (or decades.)

Categories