Who eats under BMR? HELP!

NovemberJune
NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
edited October 2 in Food and Nutrition
Hi. I've been on MFP for 7 months now and I've lost 33 lbs. I had been eating around my BMR which has gone from about 1750 down to about 1600, if I'm remembering right. I was worried that if I ate under BMR, I would fall into the dreaded starvation mode! ;) I did a lot of research and was unable to find any reputable articles that convinced me that eating under my BMR was unhealthy, or that I wouldn't lose weight if I ate under my BMR. I do believe that eating under BMR can reduce metabolism a bit, but not enough to hinder weight loss.

So I stopped worrying if I was eating up to BMR, and just eating when hungry and not throwing in some more calories just to get to BMR. my calories consumed have gone down from about 1650 to about 1450, on average.

I started this about 2 weeks ago and I have not lost a thing! I'm actually up about a lb. So is it a coincidence? Or is it true that eating a couple hundred less made me stop losing? I would LOVE to see some good articles that say you need to eat at least BMR. I still think it's just a coincidence, and that eating 1450 I should lose 1-2 lbs per week, and this is some more random weight fluctuation. So I'm going to keep this up for the rest of the month and see how it goes. I mean I honestly think for me to go into starvation mode, I'd have to eat like 1000 calories for weeks. And I'm not interested in that. I don't want to feel like I'm on a diet, and I want to eat when I'm hungry.

My exercise has been about the same, about 40-60 minutes 5-6 days per week.

ETA I'm obese. hoping to get to a healthy weight in the next several months. thanks!


____________________________________________________________________________________
These are some of the links I like that say basically how I feel concerning starvation mode. I believe that you have to have a large deficit to go into "starvation mode", that obese people are unlikely to have problems, and that even at really large deficits, the slowing in metabolism isn't great enough to counter the calorie deficit. you might lose 2.5 lbs instead of 3. but, like i said, my deficit is not nearly so large.
but then there are others who argue that if you eat below your BMR for 2 days, you won't lose weight. i've seen people say it over and over but never seen any good links on it. i've tried! ;)

http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501&sc=801
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
http://www.nutracheck.co.uk/Library/ForumArticles/Is+starvation+mode+myth+or+fact.html
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science
«1

Replies

  • wendorfa
    wendorfa Posts: 53
    Well, I can tell you that MFP has my daily calories set to 1410, but based on my BMR I should be eating 1414 ;) So I guess even if I ate all my calories I'd be eating under my BMR. For myself, I make sure I eat at least 1200 calories...some days it is closer to 1400 (with almost 300 'earned' from exercise) and sometimes it's more like 1250. Is it possible you've hit a plateau?
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    If I set MFP to 1 lb lost per week, it gives me 1510 NET calories. but of course with 40-60 minutes of exercise, that would be 1800+

    plateau is definitely possible. and i think that's what i'm leaning toward. i guess that's what i mean by random weight fluctuation. i had a plateau in july but then i just realized it's because i WAS eating around 1800, and 1600 helped me start losing again, and i did great in august.

    thanks!
    Well, I can tell you that MFP has my daily calories set to 1410, but based on my BMR I should be eating 1414 ;) So I guess even if I ate all my calories I'd be eating under my BMR. For myself, I make sure I eat at least 1200 calories...some days it is closer to 1400 (with almost 300 'earned' from exercise) and sometimes it's more like 1250. Is it possible you've hit a plateau?
  • teresarking
    teresarking Posts: 20
    I am having a problem even getting close to my BMR. I have tried several times but I eat extremely healthy and I am always hitting the dreaded "starvation". I have also heard that if you go to far down and dont eat enough calories that what happens is that your body essentially eats itself. So I am constantly trying to reach my goal but I am having a problem getting there.
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    see i don't believe that. I believe that almost all of the weight loss comes from fat, especially for obese people. I'm going to edit my post to add some of the links I like. :)
    I would love to see some good links that are on the opposite side, but I haven't found any. :) People say it all the time. If you eat under BMR, you will go into starvation mode in 2 days and won't lose weight. but i've never seen anything to support it.
    I am having a problem even getting close to my BMR. I have tried several times but I eat extremely healthy and I am always hitting the dreaded "starvation". I have also heard that if you go to far down and dont eat enough calories that what happens is that your body essentially eats itself. So I am constantly trying to reach my goal but I am having a problem getting there.
  • wendorfa
    wendorfa Posts: 53
    I almost have to agree. I was reading the forums about how MFP already has your calories, etc. set to a deficit, so you should make sure you eat back your earned calories. Well I tried that and guess what? I lost less. So clearly if I gain 285 calories with exercise, but still only take in 1250 or 1300 or so, I lose weight and don't go into that 'starvation' mode.
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    If I had MFP set to lose 1 lb per week, and I met my net calories everyday, and ate my exercise calories back, I would not lose weight. I guess that means either 1. my calories burned are overestimated, 2. my calories consumed are underestimated, or 3. my metabolism is lower than MFP estimates. i think all 3 are possible which is why i don't worry about eating my exercise calories back. lol. if I meet my net calorie goal for losing 2 lbs per week, i lose 1 lb per week.
    thanks for replying! :)
    I almost have to agree. I was reading the forums about how MFP already has your calories, etc. set to a deficit, so you should make sure you eat back your earned calories. Well I tried that and guess what? I lost less. So clearly if I gain 285 calories with exercise, but still only take in 1250 or 1300 or so, I lose weight and don't go into that 'starvation' mode.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I am a big believer of eating when hungry as long as you are eating healthy food most of the time. I believe this because it's worked for me for many decades. As long as you exercise regularly and eat healthy food when your hungry, and stop when you're full, I believe you'll get to a healthy weight.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    I don't want to feel like I'm on a diet, and I want to eat when I'm hungry.

    Perfect! My caloric needs change so frequently that following a set amount wouldn't work for me. Personally, I'm not interested in weight loss and I'm not good at following a structured way of eating... just trying to hit a set macro ratio is tough at times. I do understand the importance of tracking and I know that there are many that benefit from the use of these tools, for various reasons.

    You learned an approach to break your through your plateau in July and are applying it again now.....will it work? Don't know, but through trial and error you're gaining so much knowledge. That's great! Give it a couple more weeks, maybe?

    No access to links at the moment but I'll post some when I get to my laptop - if they haven't been posted yet.

    *sorry for rambling off topic, poor sentence structure and so on....I blame my phone. :D
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Thanks :)

    Tracking calories has helped me so so much! When I got back to my diary from February, March, April I can see how I got to be obese. And I think if I'm eating when I'm hungry, then I will lose weight. Now I am mindful of what I eat.

    ETA looking forward to your links later ;)
    I don't want to feel like I'm on a diet, and I want to eat when I'm hungry.

    Perfect! My caloric needs change so frequently that following a set amount wouldn't work for me. Personally, I'm not interested in weight loss and I'm not good at following a structured way of eating... just trying to hit a set macro ratio is tough at times. I do understand the importance of tracking and I know that there are many that benefit from the use of these tools, for various reasons.

    You learned an approach to break your through your plateau in July and are applying it again now.....will it work? Don't know, but through trial and error you're gaining so much knowledge. That's great! Give it a couple more weeks, maybe?

    No access to links at the moment but I'll post some when I get to my laptop - if they haven't been posted yet.

    *sorry for rambling off topic, poor sentence structure and so on....I blame my phone. :D
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    I agree too. One thing I read said that if you don't eat enough, then your metabolism lowers, and then you don't feel hungry. So I thought, well maybe I don't feel hungry because my metabolism dropped but I really should still eat more. But obviously as I lose weight my metabolism will drop. And I don't believe eating under BMR is "bad"

    Thanks!
    I am a big believer of eating when hungry as long as you are eating healthy food most of the time. I believe this because it's worked for me for many decades. As long as you exercise regularly and eat healthy food when your hungry, and stop when you're full, I believe you'll get to a healthy weight.
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    :)
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Hi. I've been on MFP for 7 months now and I've lost 33 lbs. I had been eating around my BMR which has gone from about 1750 down to about 1600, if I'm remembering right. I was worried that if I ate under BMR, I would fall into the dreaded starvation mode! ;) I did a lot of research and was unable to find any reputable articles that convinced me that eating under my BMR was unhealthy, or that I wouldn't lose weight if I ate under my BMR. I do believe that eating under BMR can reduce metabolism a bit, but not enough to hinder weight loss.

    So I stopped worrying if I was eating up to BMR, and just eating when hungry and not throwing in some more calories just to get to BMR. my calories consumed have gone down from about 1650 to about 1450, on average.

    I started this about 2 weeks ago and I have not lost a thing! I'm actually up about a lb. So is it a coincidence? Or is it true that eating a couple hundred less made me stop losing? I would LOVE to see some good articles that say you need to eat at least BMR. I still think it's just a coincidence, and that eating 1450 I should lose 1-2 lbs per week, and this is some more random weight fluctuation. So I'm going to keep this up for the rest of the month and see how it goes. I mean I honestly think for me to go into starvation mode, I'd have to eat like 1000 calories for weeks. And I'm not interested in that. I don't want to feel like I'm on a diet, and I want to eat when I'm hungry.

    My exercise has been about the same, about 40-60 minutes 5-6 days per week.

    ETA I'm obese. hoping to get to a healthy weight in the next several months. thanks!


    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    These are some of the links I like that say basically how I feel concerning starvation mode. I believe that you have to have a large deficit to go into "starvation mode", that obese people are unlikely to have problems, and that even at really large deficits, the slowing in metabolism isn't great enough to counter the calorie deficit. you might lose 2.5 lbs instead of 3. but, like i said, my deficit is not nearly so large.
    but then there are others who argue that if you eat below your BMR for 2 days, you won't lose weight. i've seen people say it over and over but never seen any good links on it. i've tried! ;)

    http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
    http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501&sc=801
    http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
    http://www.nutracheck.co.uk/Library/ForumArticles/Is+starvation+mode+myth+or+fact.html
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science

    first how are you calculating your BMR? using the Harris Benedict formula your BMR comes out to 1,882. that is most likely slightly overestimating things as it has been found to overestimate BMR in obese subjects

    scroll down to large deficit dieting of this article, note the deficit %'s are based on deficit to maintenance not BMR

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html

    personally i understand the rush to lose weight but find a smaller deficit is easier to adhere to
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    I am having a problem even getting close to my BMR. I have tried several times but I eat extremely healthy and I am always hitting the dreaded "starvation". I have also heard that if you go to far down and dont eat enough calories that what happens is that your body essentially eats itself. So I am constantly trying to reach my goal but I am having a problem getting there.
    An underfed body will result in a slower metabolism and signal the body to hold onto fat. We have enzymes to break down protein for fuel and the body will resort to it.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=cBY6SmffnaYC&pg=PT351&lpg=PT351&dq=when+dieting+does+the+body+use+fat+or+lean+tissue+for+fuel&source=bl&ots=8gCOPUYh8x&sig=OGV_hx5OJgcCs5R9Tc8u1XDzV20&hl=en&ei=-wZ4Tp1j09CIApP-1IUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=when dieting does the body use fat or lean tissue for fuel&f=false
  • servilia
    servilia Posts: 3,452 Member
    I am having a problem even getting close to my BMR. I have tried several times but I eat extremely healthy and I am always hitting the dreaded "starvation". I have also heard that if you go to far down and dont eat enough calories that what happens is that your body essentially eats itself. So I am constantly trying to reach my goal but I am having a problem getting there.
    An underfed body will result in a slower metabolism and signal the body to hold onto fat. We have enzymes to break down protein for fuel and the body will resort to it.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=cBY6SmffnaYC&pg=PT351&lpg=PT351&dq=when+dieting+does+the+body+use+fat+or+lean+tissue+for+fuel&source=bl&ots=8gCOPUYh8x&sig=OGV_hx5OJgcCs5R9Tc8u1XDzV20&hl=en&ei=-wZ4Tp1j09CIApP-1IUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=when dieting does the body use fat or lean tissue for fuel&f=false

    The body will do a lot before resorting to breaking down lean tissue in any significant way. The page you referenced states as much.
  • afelty85
    afelty85 Posts: 3 Member
    First off- CONGRATS on sticking with it and your weight loss!

    I ran into this same question. My BMR is 1900. I wanted a little more agressive weight loss so I dropped it to 1200. I also have reached the point that I can run 3 miles daily (at a 10 min/mile pace) which burns around 500 cals (I weigh 230). One day the wife asked, if you eat 1200, burn 500, your body is only getting 700 net calories to function with. The more I think about it, it sounds right and that is too few cals.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    First off- CONGRATS on sticking with it and your weight loss!

    I ran into this same question. My BMR is 1900. I wanted a little more agressive weight loss so I dropped it to 1200. I also have reached the point that I can run 3 miles daily (at a 10 min/mile pace) which burns around 500 cals (I weigh 230). One day the wife asked, if you eat 1200, burn 500, your body is only getting 700 net calories to function with. The more I think about it, it sounds right and that is too few cals.
    Actually if your BMR is 1900 and you eat 1200 you are already at a negative 700 deficit, then you do exercise for 500 extra calories on top of that. That's a negative 1200 which results in 8400 calories a week deficit. The body will feed off lean muscle if you aren't supplying enough calories and that will slow down your metabolic rate. So that 500 calorie run will be lessened to 400, then 350 and so on.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    First off- CONGRATS on sticking with it and your weight loss!

    I ran into this same question. My BMR is 1900. I wanted a little more agressive weight loss so I dropped it to 1200. I also have reached the point that I can run 3 miles daily (at a 10 min/mile pace) which burns around 500 cals (I weigh 230). One day the wife asked, if you eat 1200, burn 500, your body is only getting 700 net calories to function with. The more I think about it, it sounds right and that is too few cals.
    Actually if your BMR is 1900 and you eat 1200 you are already at a negative 700 deficit, then you do exercise for 500 extra calories on top of that. That's a negative 1200 which results in 8400 calories a week deficit. The body will feed off lean muscle if you aren't supplying enough calories and that will slow down your metabolic rate. So that 500 calorie run will be lessened to 400, then 350 and so on.

    don't forget things like NEAT which will make his deficit even larger.

    everyone wants to lose weight quickly by running huge deficits and then wonder what they're supposed to do when they plateau, when it would be a better idea to have a deficit around10-20% of TDEE and then lower it if you plateau. just my opinion of course
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Hi. I've been on MFP for 7 months now and I've lost 33 lbs. I had been eating around my BMR which has gone from about 1750 down to about 1600, if I'm remembering right. I was worried that if I ate under BMR, I would fall into the dreaded starvation mode! ;) I did a lot of research and was unable to find any reputable articles that convinced me that eating under my BMR was unhealthy, or that I wouldn't lose weight if I ate under my BMR. I do believe that eating under BMR can reduce metabolism a bit, but not enough to hinder weight loss.

    So I stopped worrying if I was eating up to BMR, and just eating when hungry and not throwing in some more calories just to get to BMR. my calories consumed have gone down from about 1650 to about 1450, on average.

    I started this about 2 weeks ago and I have not lost a thing! I'm actually up about a lb. So is it a coincidence? Or is it true that eating a couple hundred less made me stop losing? I would LOVE to see some good articles that say you need to eat at least BMR. I still think it's just a coincidence, and that eating 1450 I should lose 1-2 lbs per week, and this is some more random weight fluctuation. So I'm going to keep this up for the rest of the month and see how it goes. I mean I honestly think for me to go into starvation mode, I'd have to eat like 1000 calories for weeks. And I'm not interested in that. I don't want to feel like I'm on a diet, and I want to eat when I'm hungry.

    My exercise has been about the same, about 40-60 minutes 5-6 days per week.

    ETA I'm obese. hoping to get to a healthy weight in the next several months. thanks!


    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    These are some of the links I like that say basically how I feel concerning starvation mode. I believe that you have to have a large deficit to go into "starvation mode", that obese people are unlikely to have problems, and that even at really large deficits, the slowing in metabolism isn't great enough to counter the calorie deficit. you might lose 2.5 lbs instead of 3. but, like i said, my deficit is not nearly so large.
    but then there are others who argue that if you eat below your BMR for 2 days, you won't lose weight. i've seen people say it over and over but never seen any good links on it. i've tried! ;)

    http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
    http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501&sc=801
    http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
    http://www.nutracheck.co.uk/Library/ForumArticles/Is+starvation+mode+myth+or+fact.html
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science

    first how are you calculating your BMR? using the Harris Benedict formula your BMR comes out to 1,882. that is most likely slightly overestimating things as it has been found to overestimate BMR in obese subjects

    scroll down to large deficit dieting of this article, note the deficit %'s are based on deficit to maintenance not BMR

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html

    personally i understand the rush to lose weight but find a smaller deficit is easier to adhere to

    thanks for the link!!! definitely going to check that out.

    i'm a bit curious as to how you are calculating my BMR since i didn't give you all the info ?? I guess you are just going by my ticker? my harris-benedict equation bmr is 1677 and my Mifflin-st.jeor equation bmr is 1602. lol. i'm actually 5'3.5" and i'm 27, going on 28. I did that calculatino by 27 though. they go down just a few at 28. so i probably should go by that. just a few more weeks!

    i think maybe you were going by my start weight. also i go by miffle st. jeor from the research i've done, seems most thinks it's more accurate, like you said.

    Thanks again!

    ETA, i even did my BMR by my start weight and it's 1818 by harris benedict...maybe you were calculating for a male?
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    I am having a problem even getting close to my BMR. I have tried several times but I eat extremely healthy and I am always hitting the dreaded "starvation". I have also heard that if you go to far down and dont eat enough calories that what happens is that your body essentially eats itself. So I am constantly trying to reach my goal but I am having a problem getting there.
    An underfed body will result in a slower metabolism and signal the body to hold onto fat. We have enzymes to break down protein for fuel and the body will resort to it.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=cBY6SmffnaYC&pg=PT351&lpg=PT351&dq=when+dieting+does+the+body+use+fat+or+lean+tissue+for+fuel&source=bl&ots=8gCOPUYh8x&sig=OGV_hx5OJgcCs5R9Tc8u1XDzV20&hl=en&ei=-wZ4Tp1j09CIApP-1IUL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=when dieting does the body use fat or lean tissue for fuel&f=false

    The body will do a lot before resorting to breaking down lean tissue in any significant way. The page you referenced states as much.

    thanks for the link :) i'll check it out too!
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    To the human body, Fat is a higher priority than muscle. Fat is part of the endocrine system, it is used to create hormones to regulate body function and also to insulate and protect vital organs. Also so called "brown fat" is how the body regulates body temperature.

    What this means is that over time, extended large caloric deficits will lead to the body burning muscle for energy over fat. Large caloric deficits cause the body to prioritize what gets energy and what starves. The brain and vital organs are the number one priority, including fat. Also, fat takes very little caloric energy to sustain, compared to muscle. In times of starvation (keep in mind, your body doesn't understand "dieting to lose weight" it only understands getting enough fuel vs not getting enough fuel) your body will burn off muscle in order to conserve energy.

    I don't know where you heard eating under BMR causes starvation mode in 2 days, because that's absolutely false. Complete fasting will cause starvation mode in as little as 2-3 days. Eating at a severe deficit under your TDEE(not BMR) will cause starvation mode, but may take several weeks to several months to kick in, depending on the actual deficit.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    OP,

    It isn't necessarily bad to eat below your BMR on the short term, however it also depends on how morbidly obese a person is. If a person is so overweight then it's fine to knock off the pounds but at some point that person would need to start eating slightly more to slow that weight loss down the more they lose.

    The problem lies when people eat a drastic calorie deficit not only under their TDEE but also under their BMR like the folks that eat 500 calories a day on this HCG diet or some other quick fix.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    To the human body, Fat is a higher priority than muscle. Fat is part of the endocrine system, it is used to create hormones to regulate body function and also to insulate and protect vital organs. Also so called "brown fat" is how the body regulates body temperature.

    What this means is that over time, extended large caloric deficits will lead to the body burning muscle for energy over fat. Large caloric deficits cause the body to prioritize what gets energy and what starves. The brain and vital organs are the number one priority, including fat. Also, fat takes very little caloric energy to sustain, compared to muscle. In times of starvation (keep in mind, your body doesn't understand "dieting to lose weight" it only understands getting enough fuel vs not getting enough fuel) your body will burn off muscle in order to conserve energy.

    I don't know where you heard eating under BMR causes starvation mode in 2 days, because that's absolutely false. Complete fasting will cause starvation mode in as little as 2-3 days. Eating at a severe deficit under your TDEE(not BMR) will cause starvation mode, but may take several weeks to several months to kick in, depending on the actual deficit.

    Sounds like you know the fine words and wisdom of Lyle McDonald. =)
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    To the human body, Fat is a higher priority than muscle. Fat is part of the endocrine system, it is used to create hormones to regulate body function and also to insulate and protect vital organs. Also so called "brown fat" is how the body regulates body temperature.

    What this means is that over time, extended large caloric deficits will lead to the body burning muscle for energy over fat. Large caloric deficits cause the body to prioritize what gets energy and what starves. The brain and vital organs are the number one priority, including fat. Also, fat takes very little caloric energy to sustain, compared to muscle. In times of starvation (keep in mind, your body doesn't understand "dieting to lose weight" it only understands getting enough fuel vs not getting enough fuel) your body will burn off muscle in order to conserve energy.

    I don't know where you heard eating under BMR causes starvation mode in 2 days, because that's absolutely false. Complete fasting will cause starvation mode in as little as 2-3 days. Eating at a severe deficit under your TDEE(not BMR) will cause starvation mode, but may take several weeks to several months to kick in, depending on the actual deficit.

    everyone wants to lose weight quickly by running huge deficits and then wonder what they're supposed to do when they plateau, when it would be a better idea to have a deficit around10-20% of TDEE and then lower it if you plateau. just my opinion of course

    +1
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Also, to the OP, the reason you can't find any articles on eating under your BMR is because BMR is meaningless when it comes to calculating calorie deficits. Take 2 people, same height, weight, and body composition. I'll use my BMR to represent them both, which is ~2069. One of those people is extra active, which gives a TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) of 3932. Obviously, to eat under this person's BMR they would need a deficit of roughly 2000 calories, which will absolutely lead to starvation mode. (Yes, I know someone extra active most likely wouldn't need to lose weight in the first place, but these are hypotheticals after all.) Now, the second person is sedentary. That person's TDEE is 2483. To eat under BMR this person would only need a 400 calorie deficit or so. Eating a 1000 calorie deficit with more than 30 pounds of weight to lose will not lead to any ill effects.

    Basically, some people can eat under BMR, and some people can't, it's just a matter of how active they are and how much weight they have to lose. BMR, in and of itself, is only useful to know to calculate your TDEE, then you set your deficit from there, and you really shouldn't have more than a 1000 calorie deficit, generally. Anymore than that and you will be losing muscle as well as fat, for reasons already stated.
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    thanks. :)
    Also, to the OP, the reason you can't find any articles on eating under your BMR is because BMR is meaningless when it comes to calculating calorie deficits. Take 2 people, same height, weight, and body composition. I'll use my BMR to represent them both, which is ~2069. One of those people is extra active, which gives a TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) of 3932. Obviously, to eat under this person's BMR they would need a deficit of roughly 2000 calories, which will absolutely lead to starvation mode. (Yes, I know someone extra active most likely wouldn't need to lose weight in the first place, but these are hypotheticals after all.) Now, the second person is sedentary. That person's TDEE is 2483. To eat under BMR this person would only need a 400 calorie deficit or so. Eating a 1000 calorie deficit with more than 30 pounds of weight to lose will not lead to any ill effects.

    Basically, some people can eat under BMR, and some people can't, it's just a matter of how active they are and how much weight they have to lose. BMR, in and of itself, is only useful to know to calculate your TDEE, then you set your deficit from there, and you really shouldn't have more than a 1000 calorie deficit, generally. Anymore than that and you will be losing muscle as well as fat, for reasons already stated.
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    thanks. i definitely am not interested in eating 500 calories per day! if i'm hungry i eat! i just haven't been concerning myself with making sure i eat at least my BMR anymore. i've lost 33 in 7 months, and my goal is to lose 60 by the time i hit 1 year, then lose 30 in the following year. i expect it to get harder the more i've lost.

    thanks :)

    OP,

    It isn't necessarily bad to eat below your BMR on the short term, however it also depends on how morbidly obese a person is. If a person is so overweight then it's fine to knock off the pounds but at some point that person would need to start eating slightly more to slow that weight loss down the more they lose.

    The problem lies when people eat a drastic calorie deficit not only under their TDEE but also under their BMR like the folks that eat 500 calories a day on this HCG diet or some other quick fix.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    It definitely gets harder the closer you get to your goal. The lower your body fat percentage, the more your body wants to cling to the fat it has, out of fear of not having enough to survive, since you are at a calorie deficit. This is why calorie deficits must get smaller and smaller as you get closer to goal, and also why you should take a week or two every few months and eat at maintenance, in order for your body to deregulate itself.

    Again, your body and brain to communicate very well. You may be thinking, "gotta lose some weight," but your body just thinks, "Boy there sure is a lot less food around here suddenly, better store some fat to make sure we survive until we find more."

    Feed it, and it gets the message that food isn't that scarce, and burning fat is ok.
  • malenahan
    malenahan Posts: 73 Member
    I love working out and am a marathon runner. My next marathon is in about a month so trying to figure out how many calories I need to eat gets very difficult at times. I typically run 50-55 miles a week which includes a long run of 16-22 miles on Saturday and I also do a lot of cross training (elliptical, ChaLean Extreme, Turbo Fire). I also eat very healthy and pretty much eat the same things all the time. How should I handle my calories after a 22 mile run? Are there any marathon runners that have these same questions? I am not trying to lose weight necessarily but just want to become leaner and stronger.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,336 Member
    I ate under my BMR for the first 60-70 pounds of my weight loss. It didn't seem to negatively effect my weight loss at all. I don't do it now, but then I am no longer obese, so I am no longer trying to lose 2 pounds a week.
  • souki19
    souki19 Posts: 58
    bump
This discussion has been closed.

Categories