BMR is 1353...but told to eat 1200

Options
littleredfairy
littleredfairy Posts: 6
in Food and Nutrition
:noway: :noway: :noway: I have set up my MFP and it says I should be eating 1200 calories a day to lose 1 pound a week. when I calculate my BR it says it is 1229 calories, and on other sites such as Shape Sense and Fat2Fit says it is 1353 or similar.

Thing is, I have read in several place sit's bad to eat less than your BMR, can lower your metabolism and actually stop weight loss as your body thinks it is starving. So should I ignore guidance give by MFP???? How much do I eat?
«1

Replies

  • gaia3rd
    gaia3rd Posts: 151
    Options
    I personally would never eat lower than my BMR, plus I definitely recommend you eat the majority of your exercise calories back. I've been doing this and losing a pound a week for the last 10 weeks. Not knowing your history or how much you're trying to lose, I can't advise you beyond that, but from reading all these forums, I have noticed that the majority of people who eat below their BMR for long periods of time quite often stall/plateau because of lowered metabolism.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Assuming your set your activity level to sedentary your maintenance caloric needs (not including exercise) would be around 1623 ( 1353 x 1.2), subtract 500 cal deficit (needed for 1lb loss per week) gives you 1123 cal - MFP doesn't go below 1200. So it would be reasonable to eat 1200 + your exercise calories.

    Its usually extremely low caloric diets that will mess with your metabolism (below 1000 cal)
  • lin7604
    lin7604 Posts: 3,019 Member
    Options
    ok but now the Op said that they are getting different readings of bmr, which do they go by? i just checked for me and mfp says 1247 and the sites they mentioned was 1356... so what do you go by?
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    ok but now the Op said that they are getting different readings of bmr, which do they go by? i just checked for me and mfp says 1247 and the sites they mentioned was 1356... so what do you go by?

    I used the higher on that she quoted - in both cases (for her) BMR x 1.2 less 500 cal would be under 1200 cal. In this instance it doesn't really matter which one you use as you're not going to be going below a net of 1200

    The problem with these BMR calculators is they're purely mathematical models, short of getting your your RMR tested they are nothing more than estimates.
  • iamfranniefierce
    iamfranniefierce Posts: 305 Member
    Options
    Assuming your set your activity level to sedentary your maintenance caloric needs (not including exercise) would be around 1623 ( 1353 x 1.2), subtract 500 cal deficit (needed for 1lb loss per week) gives you 1123 cal - MFP doesn't go below 1200. So it would be reasonable to eat 1200 + your exercise calories.

    Its usually extremely low caloric diets that will mess with your metabolism (below 1000 cal)

    Thanks for explaining this...
  • karisma81
    karisma81 Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    If you are small or close to your idea weight, 0.5 pounds/week is probably a more reasonable weight loss rate.
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    Options
    Assuming your set your activity level to sedentary your maintenance caloric needs (not including exercise) would be around 1623 ( 1353 x 1.2), subtract 500 cal deficit (needed for 1lb loss per week) gives you 1123 cal - MFP doesn't go below 1200. So it would be reasonable to eat 1200 + your exercise calories.

    Its usually extremely low caloric diets that will mess with your metabolism (below 1000 cal)

    You seem quite switched on... Does the below 1000 mean NET or GROSS calories? I mean, I can eat 1800calories on a day AND burn that through EXERCISE alone giving me a net of 0 yet eaten 1800...

    Just wondering if it counts the same, especially as am eating throughout the day so the energy balance is at the END of the day and fluctuates throughout the day! If that makes sense! :)
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,239 Member
    Options
    Eat at least your BMR.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    If you don't mind me asking, how tall are you, how much do you weigh and how much do you have to lose?. Also, did you set your activity level correctly - sedentary is basically sitting all day - if you move around, even if sitting for most of the day, you should consider altering the settings.
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    Options
    Seeing as there's a lot of different opinions floating about here, can you all back up your answers with some scientific evidence? I believe the 1200 is relating to a particular weight and height and gender therefore may actually be OK to go lower for some people. Why should one eat at least their BMR on a weight loss diet? Justification of these will save a lot of ambiguity and help everyone understand WHY and therefore hopefully stay safe.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,239 Member
    Options
    ok but now the Op said that they are getting different readings of bmr, which do they go by? i just checked for me and mfp says 1247 and the sites they mentioned was 1356... so what do you go by?

    I used the higher on that she quoted - in both cases (for her) BMR x 1.2 less 500 cal would be under 1200 cal. In this instance it doesn't really matter which one you use as you're not going to be going below a net of 1200

    The problem with these BMR calculators is they're purely mathematical models, short of getting your your RMR tested they are nothing more than estimates.

    This is a good reason to not eat below BMR. Odds are most people are not truly sedentary even if they are sedentary at work. True sedentary is someone who basically does very little/sits pretty much all day. Many people see themselves doing that 8-10 hours at work, but don't consider how active they may be outside of work. If the activity level is higher, then the OP would no longer be eating under their BMR. I still stand with eat your BMR at least. I wish I had done that long ago, but didn't
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options

    You seem quite switched on... Does the below 1000 mean NET or GROSS calories? I mean, I can eat 1800calories on a day AND burn that through EXERCISE alone giving me a net of 0 yet eaten 1800...

    Just wondering if it counts the same, especially as am eating throughout the day so the energy balance is at the END of the day and fluctuates throughout the day! If that makes sense! :)

    Net would be logical as you need a certain amount of energy just to keep your heart beating, your brain functioning etc. You could probably get away with the extreme example you used on an occasional basis but you would rapidly deplete your stored glycogen and probably feel very lethargic the following day (and more likely to overcompensate).

    Not sure exactly what you're asking with the second question.......
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    This is a good reason to not eat below BMR. Odds are most people are not truly sedentary even if they are sedentary at work. True sedentary is someone who basically does very little/sits pretty much all day. Many people see themselves doing that 8-10 hours at work, but don't consider how active they may be outside of work. If the activity level is higher, then the OP would no longer be eating under their BMR. I still stand with eat your BMR at least. I wish I had done that long ago, but didn't

    What you're highlighting is the need to accurately establish TDEE (which is what the Harris Benedict factors are attempting to approximate). Ideally, if your goal was to lose 1lb per week and you knew your TDEE it would be simple......eat TDEE less 500 cal
  • lin7604
    lin7604 Posts: 3,019 Member
    Options
    ok so for me for example. i had was set at 1200 in the beginning not knowing my bmr. I was loosing steadly .5 lbs a week. 2-2.5 lbs a month. I am 5 ft 2 and was aimed to loose 10-15 lbs. So yes i get that the 500 deficate wasn't logical for me b/c i didn't have a lot too loose and it was under my bmr. I haven't lost weight in 2.5 months. I upped my cals from 1200- 1310 as i set my lose to .,5 from 1 lbs since i wasn't loosing 1 lb anyway... i gained weight on 1310? so i set my cals now to my bmr of 1252. but when i checked on those 2 sites that the OP mentioned my cals were higher then on mfp... difference of 110... that is quite a bit IMO. so how do i know which i should set mine at to make sure i am eating my bmr? I just don't know what else to do to get the weight loss happening again, i still have 8 lbs to go. and with a 2,5 month stall my goal date came and went.... i increased my exercise and still no change,i always eat back all of my exercise calories and still no loss.... i am wondering if i really will only loose the rest going back down to 1200?
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,239 Member
    Options
    If you had been eating under your BMR for a fair amount of time, you may have lost muscle and seen a slowdown in your metabolism. Even without that, a jump in calories can cause a short term weight gain, several weeks are needed to make sure that is not the case. BMR estimations are in a range. My guess MFP uses the low end, the other sites a higher number. Frankly 110 calories, as big as that seems is not a huge amount. The errors in measuring various foods and exercise calories are probably cumulatively larger than that. Figure any amount of calories between those two would be fine.
  • lin7604
    lin7604 Posts: 3,019 Member
    Options
    ya that is what i am going to do, set it inbetween....
  • littleredfairy
    littleredfairy Posts: 6
    Options
    I am 31, 115cm tall and 128lbs, my goal is at least 114lbs.

    I am going to try for another week and then see about going up to 1300 calories.
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    Options
    My TDEE is 2996. Yet, MFP tells me to eat 1870.

    With a TDEE of 2996, less 15%, I should be eating 2546 per day to lose weight. I think also, this would mean not adding back exercise calories since its already figured in. So, it would be a stable 2546 everyday. That seems reasonable, however, I feel like I'll gain weight. Maybe I should try it for a month and see.

    TDEE accounts for activity, MFP does not, yet that's a large difference. My BMR is 1757.

    I don't know what to do. Very confused.

    To the OP, my understanding is that you have to at least eat BMR. But you should be eating your TDEE! Less 15%, which you can calculate here: http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html
  • Sytera
    Sytera Posts: 75
    Options
    I am very new to all this and enjoy reading threads such as these. This is a calculator I found a few days back and messed around with a bit: http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee If you want to find your current TDEE at different levels of activity, enter your current weight as your goal weight.
  • neverstray
    neverstray Posts: 3,845 Member
    Options
    I am very new to all this and enjoy reading threads such as these. This is a calculator I found a few days back and messed around with a bit: http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee If you want to find your current TDEE at different levels of activity, enter your current weight as your goal weight.

    That's fantastic. Thanks. I think all the various sources I am readin are telling me that I need to eat more in order to lose weight. I'll try it. I'm still a little skeptical, but several sources are telling me I need more calories.

Categories