My BMR is 1428--- SERIOUSLY. Know yours?

yes, but what should i be eating a day to still loose weight? that is my question...

Whoa - wait a minute -- I thought I understood but now as I read more maybe not. So if I am not supposed to eat less than my BMR (which is 1438) but when I x that number by 1.2 I get 1726 for a 1lb weight loss I would - 500 calories from that and that only gives me 1226 as a goal which is less than my BMR - so can I not lose 1 a week???

Wow -- this is really confusing???

Wait, I want to be sure I'm getting this correctly (see how ingrained it is in people that a drastic calorie reduction is what's needed to lose weight?): If my BMR is 1741 and the Harris Benedict Formula says my daily calorie need (I have a desk job) is 2089, then I need to keep my calories between 1741 and 2089 to lose weight?

Sorry if I'm being dense :ohwell:

Okay, I am NO EXPERT, but I read these forums a lot, read lots of other fitness articles, and belong to a triathlon club with professional coaches who tell me stuff. Here's my take:

Outstanding issues:

--eat no less than your BMR ever? YES
--eat back your exercise calories? DEPENDS ON WHAT WORKS FOR YOU
--multiply by some factor to account for exercise and NOT add back your exercise calories? COULD ALSO WORK
--never go below 1200 calories? EAT YOUR BMR
--and just do what works? low calorie or not? IF YOU MUST TEMPORARILY, YOU WON'T DIE, BUT IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE AND COULD LOWER YOUR METABOLISM IF CONTINUED FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
--if it ain't killed me, it ain't gonna kill you? ILLOGICAL

lol..
Thank you all for this insightful discussion. I am thoroughly confused but I do feel like I have learned a lot in a short period of time. Now, to just figure out what will work for me will be the trick. Time to digest all this great input!

Okay, time for a true story. Hopefully this will help some with the WHY'S.
I belong to a triathlon club where they will measure our BMR using the funny breathe-into-this-machine-for-15-minutes (it's bizaare, but it's what they use in hospitals to figure out how much to give comatose patients, so I figure it's a pretty good estimate. I've had mine tested, by the way, and it's 1800/day. Rare to be an exact number. Anyways...) A client came in wanting to improve his triathlon times and had his BMR tested to see how to properly fuel his workouts. At around 5'8", 170lbs, this man had a BMR of 1100. "?!?" you ask? He raced jetskiis professionally for a number of years and, just like a jockey, severely restricted his calories because every lb of flesh = 1mph slower on the jetski. He had been eating about 1000 cals/day for YEARS. In contrast, my trainer is also around 5'8", 170lbs, races triathlons but has been EATING to fuel his workouts. His BMR is around 2200. Yes, two men, both athletes, who are pretty much the same height/weight have over 1000 calorie difference in what their body thinks it "needs" to function. THAT is the danger of eating below your BMR for an EXTENDED period of time. Your metabolism does slow. I'm not saying if you ever net below it you will immediately throw your body into a crazy funk, but there is a real consequence to consistently following this approach. I am no nutritionist/chemist/doctor of any kind, but my general understanding from reading is that it would take several weeks/months to affect this change.

GOOD NEWS: you can reverse it. BETTER NEWS: just try not to go there. Calcuate your BMR, and try to not eat less than that. So, for the OP, that means eat at least 1428/day. From what I understand from my trainers at the triathlon club (several of which DO have nutrition degrees), occasionally falling below in your NET calories is okay. So, if you eat 1428 and burn 300, making your net 1128, you're okay. Especially if this is not a daily thing, you won't affect your metabolism. In fact, the words straight from my coach's mouth were "To lose weight it's simple: eat your BMR and exercise."

Anyone more educated is free to disagree/clarify. I don't have any fancy letters after my name to make me rock-solid in my stance

Whoa - wait a minute -- I thought I understood but now as I read more maybe not. So if I am not supposed to eat less than my BMR (which is 1438) but when I x that number by 1.2 I get 1726 for a 1lb weight loss I would - 500 calories from that and that only gives me 1226 as a goal which is less than my BMR - so can I not lose 1 a week???

Wow -- this is really confusing???

What that tells you is that a 1lb/week loss is too aggressive for the amount of weight you have to lose, try setting your intake at 0.5lbs/week instead.

I tried that and it still only puts my calories at 1200 -- I find it hard to believe that I can't expect a 1 lb weight loss a week - I have about 35 lbs to lose. Though I am pretty healthy and its more important to be healthy and look fit than to just lose weight. Another question - what does Net mean - I have only been looking at my total calories consumed so should I look at my Net?

Sorry, but it doesn't sound like a good plan to me... your body is going to fight you with the 1000 calories. It isn't enough. Do more research on the right way to lose weight. Eat more, weigh less. Let go of the the theory of starving yourself in order to lose weight.. long term, it just doesn't work and setting yourself up for failure.