BMR question
Replies
-
Hi all and thanks for the nice topic!
I am confused though and I need a little help reading the numbers:
I went for the "guided goal setting" from MFP ->
I want to lose 10 kg (22 lbs) at this moment. (Began at 12 kg = 26 lbs 9 days ago)
I put my height, gender, age and current weight.
I said I have "sedentary" normal daily activity + goal for 3 times/week work out.
I choose the recommended "Lose 1 pound per week" (as some of you also mentioned).
The result is NUTRITIONAL Target: 1,280 Calories / Day
So now at GOALS it says:
Calories Burned - From Normal Daily Activity - 1,780 calories/day
Net Calories Consumed* - Your Daily Goal - 1,280 calories/ day
Daily Calorie Deficit - 500 calories
Projected Weight Loss - 1.0 lbs/ week
Then I go to TOOLS and check BMR: Your estimated BMR is: 1,426 calories/day
I understand how the BMR is multiplied to get the Normal Daily Activity, based on my activity level.
I also understand that -500 calories is equal to -1.0 lbs/week.
Still, MFP recommends that I eat UNDER my BMR, which you all said that is not good!
Is there something I get wrong?
P.S. My fitness instructor recommends a lot lower amount of calories/day - around 1000. I am still confused what to set (manually) for a daily goal, but I think I will take MFP's suggestion for more relevant... sorry to say that my fitness instructor is not so good at diet planing
Finally: Thanks for reading... sorry for the long post!
Remember the MFP tool is a dumb tool. That means it is only as good as the information and understanding you bring to it. It is important to realize this. In general it is considered a bad idea to eat below your BMR for an extended period of time. Just as a suggestion try the tool here http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/ and see what it gives for calories. Unlike MFP the activity levels it gives include your exercise. I used this and simply selected the activity level I am at with my exercise which is the amount to maintain, and I took 500 off that. I have about 30 pounds to my goal. Once I get to 15-20 pounds to my goal I will drop that amount I subtract to 250. Then I simply eat that number of calories every day not eating exercise calories since they are already included. So much easier in my mind right now. Simply saying about 2000 calories everyday.
Oh, if your trainer is recommending 1000 calories, I am tempted to say get another trainer. First of all because this trainer obviously knows nothing about nutrition, and as a trainer, should not really be giving diet advise since that is not what a trainer is trained for.0 -
I understand how the BMR is multiplied to get the Normal Daily Activity, based on my activity level.
I also understand that -500 calories is equal to -1.0 lbs/week.
Still, MFP recommends that I eat UNDER my BMR, which you all said that is not good!
Is there something I get wrong?
This confuses me too! If it is true that people shouldn't eat under BMR, then why are the MFP goals so low?
Hope someone knows the answer.
Because can you have a lag time between the metabolism running full steam and slowing down.
So you'll have some period of diminishing weight loss until it stalls.
So it's the way to make people happy and stay here to see the ads that pay for the site. Nothing is truly free - right?
And by then, the hope is you are hooked, and will coming asking for help.
The problem when the BMR slows down and only fix is to increase calories, is you may store some as fat before the body realizes it'll keep getting fed, and speed up the BMR to healthy level.
Problem is, you probably just gained back any bigger weight loss the bigger deficit gave you in the first place.
So indeed, NET above your BMR by a safety margin.0 -
I want to lose 10 kg (22 lbs) at this moment. (Began at 12 kg = 26 lbs 9 days ago)
I put my height, gender, age and current weight.
I said I have "sedentary" normal daily activity + goal for 3 times/week work out.
I choose the recommended "Lose 1 pound per week" (as some of you also mentioned).
The result is NUTRITIONAL Target: 1,280 Calories / Day
So now at GOALS it says:
Calories Burned - From Normal Daily Activity - 1,780 calories/day
Net Calories Consumed* - Your Daily Goal - 1,280 calories/ day
Daily Calorie Deficit - 500 calories
Projected Weight Loss - 1.0 lbs/ week
Then I go to TOOLS and check BMR: Your estimated BMR is: 1,426 calories/day
I understand how the BMR is multiplied to get the Normal Daily Activity, based on my activity level.
I also understand that -500 calories is equal to -1.0 lbs/week.
Still, MFP recommends that I eat UNDER my BMR, which you all said that is not good!
Is there something I get wrong?
Go back to weekly weight loss goal, and change to 1/2 lb weekly. That will be 250, that will be above your BMR.
Now, is your true deficit really only 250?
No - does MFP know what your true daily calorie burn is on non-exercise activities? Not at all.
Your weight loss will be max it can be, and MFP will keep lowering the daily net goal as weight goes down.
Now along with this - you need to eat back your exercise calories, or else you'll be in the exact same boat, underfeeding your BMR, and your metabolism will just slow down.
Or if you don't want to estimate exercise calories and eat it back, and want an easier way without adjusting goals all the time manually,
Then try an easier way - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method0 -
with regard to the activity levels - it always says about doing sports/gym 3 times a week etc.
But I have lots of numbers and not many answers.
I know from averaging three different sites my BMR is 1549
working out my average TDEE = 2350 which is based around my life/job etc not any planned exercise - should I discount the
fact that I do around 6miles on my feet at work etc every day?
I worked out my target net cals at a 15% cut of my TDEE. so around 1997 cals per day.
I've been stuck for months as I didn't realise I moved that much at work I always counted myself as fairly sendentary so I suspect I have been under eating without realising it.
I have been eating higher cals for last 4-6 weeks and I still have same problem of loosing/gaining the same 5lb.
Do I need to do it for even longer or even switch to maintence cals for 3-4 weeks and then try again?
just in case my figures aren't right - 5'4" age 41 female weight 189.
Thanks for any suggestions as I would really like to get back on track.
Feeling thinner though?
Usually what happens is your body finally gets fed for all the work it is doing, and makes repairs and grows and stores more glucose/water - all good things.
While you lose fat.
If you like the method, I'd stick with it.
Oh, you said not including planned workouts. So TDEE is NOT truly your total daily energy expenditure, it is your non-exercise daily calories.
So I hope that means you are eating back your exercise calories.
Or else you are just undercutting your BMR still. Not as bad as before, but still suppressed.
If you are going to do this method, it is 15% off your TDEE, which includes planned workouts.
There with a very planned routine, you may do better with another method that still protects your BMR, gives one goal to eat to, and doesn't worry about exact exercise calories.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method0 -
Ok, first I am going to suggest you read the post in this topic by HelloitsDan. Excellent post explains this all although in this he is talking about the 1000-1200 calorie a day diet, which is not exactly the case but it all still applies. In case the link doesn't take you right there, it is on page 3.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/520938-anyone-else-annoyed-by-other-dieters?error_user_id=11867214&error_username=3dogsrunning&page=3
Here is an excerpt
"Physiologically speaking the human body can only lose so much fat in 1 day or 24 hour cycle.
The fatter you are the more fat you can lose.
Once this quota is met the body Hormonally switches to another fuel source.
You work our and damage lean tissue AKA muscle and your body will target that first.
The reason is if it can burn off some lean tissue, its active tissue and uses calories, it can slow you down.
This is why we call the 1200 calorie diet the "Skinny-Fat" diet.
You are making a smaller version of your former fat self.
Another reason why 1k-1200 calories a day, depending on your height, is stupid is because its normally below the BMR.
Eating below BMR slows metabolism and forces the body to slow itself down.
It does this by Hormonally switching gears, preserving fat, catabolizing lean mass and thus...making you a smaller version of your former fat self. "
I followed that link and he says not to eat less than your BMR. But I went to the fat2fit site that he suggested and there are two different BMR calculations. The Katch-McArdle uses body fat % in the equation so I am using that. It says my BMR is 1803. It then suggests that I eat 1578 cal/day to reach my goal (based on active person who works out 6-7 times/week). So that is much lower than my BMR according to that method.0 -
Also - you should not net below your BMR.
Here is a chart that suggests what your weekly weight loss goal should be depending on how much you have to lose.
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.
1 lb a week is 500 calories less per day. So .5 would be 250 less, 2lbs would be 1000 less, etc.
Hi. Where is this chart taken from? Thanks.0 -
Also - you should not net below your BMR.
Here is a chart that suggests what your weekly weight loss goal should be depending on how much you have to lose.
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.
1 lb a week is 500 calories less per day. So .5 would be 250 less, 2lbs would be 1000 less, etc.
Hi. Where is this chart taken from? Thanks.
I have developed this chart as it is easier to follow then info posted by others. It was done using info from 2 sources, one was a post by Banks. essentially the other charts break weight loss goal down by your BMI or BF%. As I am not a fat of BMI I chose to use weight left to lose as BMI ignores lean muscle. The BF% one mentioned how large a deficit should be at BF% level. since most people don't know their actual BF%, basing it on amount left to lose was easier for most users (I agree that the BF% level deficit basing is superior, but not very practical)0 -
THANK YOU ERICK!
I read that suggested method and decided to try to follow it. Looks so much logical and argumentation is solid.
GREAT JOB!0 -
Bump...great info0
-
Bump, very informative0
-
I realized I was eating way less than what I should have been. MFP gave me 1200 to lose a lb a week and then half lb would be 1310 the no. are low on here. I am 5'2 weight 124 and I am eating 1600 cals a week I burn about 1000 a week.0
-
I followed that link and he says not to eat less than your BMR. But I went to the fat2fit site that he suggested and there are two different BMR calculations. The Katch-McArdle uses body fat % in the equation so I am using that. It says my BMR is 1803. It then suggests that I eat 1578 cal/day to reach my goal (based on active person who works out 6-7 times/week). So that is much lower than my BMR according to that method.
Interesting, that's not usually what happens.
Now, the paragraph above that chart shares what they are doing, taking BMR at the goal weight you entered, and then showing you the activity levels. I thought they had a protection for that though, I guess not.
I'd be curious if you did the same thing in this spreadsheet what happens.
You have to do a bit more homework on activity levels and times, but the idea is the same, eating at future maintenance level, or as close as currently able to estimate.
This just allows you to nail the activity better, to maximize the potential deficit.
But it also usually protects the current BMR, unless very overweight, in which case undercutting the BMR at first won't be as bad.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGZlcmNCNmhJWFhtUGl0ZEk1RFd1c0E
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method0 -
Interesting, that's not usually what happens.
Now, the paragraph above that chart shares what they are doing, taking BMR at the goal weight you entered, and then showing you the activity levels. I thought they had a protection for that though, I guess not.
I'd be curious if you did the same thing in this spreadsheet what happens.
You have to do a bit more homework on activity levels and times, but the idea is the same, eating at future maintenance level, or as close as currently able to estimate.
This just allows you to nail the activity better, to maximize the potential deficit.
But it also usually protects the current BMR, unless very overweight, in which case undercutting the BMR at first won't be as bad.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGZlcmNCNmhJWFhtUGl0ZEk1RFd1c0E
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method
So I plugged my info into the worksheet and the BMR is about the same, averaged 1750 and daily activities averaged 950, with total calories at 2700. Mifflin's goal weight calorie is 2634. So is this the daily calories I should be consuming to lose weight? It doesn't seem like that we do anything since it is only 66 calories less. My goal is to lose 1-2lbs/wk and keep my muscle mass.0 -
So I plugged my info into the worksheet and the BMR is about the same, averaged 1750 and daily activities averaged 950, with total calories at 2700. Mifflin's goal weight calorie is 2634. So is this the daily calories I should be consuming to lose weight? It doesn't seem like that we do anything since it is only 66 calories less. My goal is to lose 1-2lbs/wk and keep my muscle mass.
Wow - you must have a lot of activity on daily basis. Because those calculator calories are actually underestimated except for very light intensity efforts. So to still be at 950 is incredible.
So, take one of your typical workout days.
Take the goal weight calories 2634 minus the real calorie burn you have in that day's workouts. Hopefully HRM estimate, or something other estimate.
Are you left with around your BMR, probably a tad less?
So the real idea here on both methods - you protect the BMR from being suppressed by constantly underfeeding it, and missing out on free burn.
And your real deficit comes from non-exercise daily activity which is mainly fat burning and doesn't need to be fed.
That 66 is not the real deficit. That would be the case if that calculator truly had all burn amounts exact.
You frankly don't have enough to lose to have 1-2 lb loss/wk. And not enough non-exercise activity. If you have been thinking about a rest day, I'd take it, and walk on that day instead. 3-4mph walk. Don't feed it, doesn't need it.
Probably looking at .5 to .75 lb/wk if you increase daily activity. Parking farther, stairs, walking at work, ect.
Now, this method, if your BMR is indeed protected, will allow all your exercise to be fed and body to recover and get stronger, while fat will melt away.
Especially if you've been eating below your BMR for any length of time, weight may not change at first, but everyone has seen inches move first.0 -
Wow - you must have a lot of activity on daily basis. Because those calculator calories are actually underestimated except for very light intensity efforts. So to still be at 950 is incredible.
So, take one of your typical workout days.
Take the goal weight calories 2634 minus the real calorie burn you have in that day's workouts. Hopefully HRM estimate, or something other estimate.
Are you left with around your BMR, probably a tad less?
So the real idea here on both methods - you protect the BMR from being suppressed by constantly underfeeding it, and missing out on free burn.
And your real deficit comes from non-exercise daily activity which is mainly fat burning and doesn't need to be fed.
That 66 is not the real deficit. That would be the case if that calculator truly had all burn amounts exact.
You frankly don't have enough to lose to have 1-2 lb loss/wk. And not enough non-exercise activity. If you have been thinking about a rest day, I'd take it, and walk on that day instead. 3-4mph walk. Don't feed it, doesn't need it.
Probably looking at .5 to .75 lb/wk if you increase daily activity. Parking farther, stairs, walking at work, ect.
Now, this method, if your BMR is indeed protected, will allow all your exercise to be fed and body to recover and get stronger, while fat will melt away.
Especially if you've been eating below your BMR for any length of time, weight may not change at first, but everyone has seen inches move first.
Thanks for the info. And no, I actually don't have that much activity but that is where it put me at. I am working out at least 60mins/day and 2-3 days a week I work 12hr shifts in a busy ER. I don't believe my Polar HR calories so I take 20-30% off of that. I actually was wearing it at work and after a 12hr shift it was over 2500 calories. And during my workouts it is over 1000 cal/hr but I only plug in 600 to MFP. My other days, besides working out, are fairly sedentary. I am mainly working on papers for my graduate degree. So if you are saying 950 is high, than I guess something must be wrong. I put in 8hrs sleep, 10hrs sedentary daily.0 -
Wow - you must have a lot of activity on daily basis. Because those calculator calories are actually underestimated except for very light intensity efforts. So to still be at 950 is incredible.
So, take one of your typical workout days.
Take the goal weight calories 2634 minus the real calorie burn you have in that day's workouts. Hopefully HRM estimate, or something other estimate.
Are you left with around your BMR, probably a tad less?
So the real idea here on both methods - you protect the BMR from being suppressed by constantly underfeeding it, and missing out on free burn.
And your real deficit comes from non-exercise daily activity which is mainly fat burning and doesn't need to be fed.
That 66 is not the real deficit. That would be the case if that calculator truly had all burn amounts exact.
You frankly don't have enough to lose to have 1-2 lb loss/wk. And not enough non-exercise activity. If you have been thinking about a rest day, I'd take it, and walk on that day instead. 3-4mph walk. Don't feed it, doesn't need it.
Probably looking at .5 to .75 lb/wk if you increase daily activity. Parking farther, stairs, walking at work, ect.
Now, this method, if your BMR is indeed protected, will allow all your exercise to be fed and body to recover and get stronger, while fat will melt away.
Especially if you've been eating below your BMR for any length of time, weight may not change at first, but everyone has seen inches move first.
Thanks for the info. And no, I actually don't have that much activity but that is where it put me at. I am working out at least 60mins/day and 2-3 days a week I work 12hr shifts in a busy ER. I don't believe my Polar HR calories so I take 20-30% off of that. I actually was wearing it at work and after a 12hr shift it was over 2500 calories. And during my workouts it is over 1000 cal/hr but I only plug in 600 to MFP. My other days, besides working out, are fairly sedentary. I am mainly working on papers for my graduate degree. So if you are saying 950 is high, than I guess something must be wrong. I put in 8hrs sleep, 10hrs sedentary daily.
Just so you know HRMs are not for all day wear. The formula they use for calculating calories burned is only for cardio exercise and are not accurate at lower heart rates that would be typical doing normal daily activities.0 -
great info thanks!0
-
Bumping!0
-
My BMR is 1720, but MFP tells me to eat 1200 calories in a day (net). Without any exercise this would only be 1200 calories flat out. Do I just trust the MFP? Or should I really be eating 500 calories more every day? How in the world would you lose?!0
-
My BMR is 1720, but MFP tells me to eat 1200 calories in a day (net). Without any exercise this would only be 1200 calories flat out. Do I just trust the MFP? Or should I really be eating 500 calories more every day? How in the world would you lose?!
If you don't want to end up just lowering your metabolism, and slowing your weight loss, and then having it stall - yes, at least 500 more minimum.
You would lose because BMR is NOT your daily calorie burn, that is your TDEE (Total Daily Energy Exenditure).
MFP goes for a non-exercise daily maintenance figure, safeguarding you actually doing the workouts, not just planning them.
You can have BMR level calories pumped into your body during a coma and you will not lose weight. Well, until your muscle atrophy and BMR slows for that reason.
Do you wake up and move around? You burn more than BMR.
MFP is going for the theory that you may indeed undercut your BMR and eventually slow it down, but you will have some weeks of diminishing weight loss in there to keep you hooked for the advertisers. Nothing is free, is it.
Then you'll ask for help.
Even more nefarious thought I just had, perhaps this is part of the plan to help the advertisers of all this diet stuff. Desperate women who usually want the big weight loss goal amount weekly, undercutting the BMR and slowing down, getting aggravated and willing to spend the money on products.
Anyway, sidetracked. So yes, MFP is more than willing to do something unsmart by allowing your goal to go under your BMR. They are NOT willing at least to go under 1200 calorie goals. So they do believe in safety, but not smarts.
If you really aren't working out, you have the easiest setup of all if you don't want to suppress your metabolism.
Home - Settings - Diet/Fitness Profile.
Select activity level of Sedentary.
Select weight loss goal of 1/2 lb a week.
Save out.
That's set your daily net goal to 1814, protecting your BMR from slowing down, and losing that free daily calorie burn. Which would be 520 (1720 eventually lowering to 1200 or lower).
Will that really only be 1/2 lb week weight loss?
No. Does MFP know that maintenance level from selecting sedentary is correct calorie burn for you? No
Do you know what your true daily maintenance is? Probably not.
So your deficit is now ALL your daily activity, everything that is burned when you are not sleeping. Those are exactly the types of activity that draws mainly from fat stores, and you don't need to eat back.
Now - if you start exercising more than a 3mph walk some days a week, you need to feed that workout.
Why?
If you don't, the calories from that will be taken from the food first, and your BMR won't get the 1720, causing it to be suppressed.
Now, with MFP setup as above, as the lbs come off every week, the daily goal, and your BMR, will lower automatically.0 -
-
Thanks a lot Heybales for the excellent post ... Your explanations are always very clear ...!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions