Eating Below your BMR... Why is it bad?
kenny_johnson
Posts: 108 Member
I didn't want to hijack another thread, so I started a new one. Can someone explain this to me. Here's the quote from another user and my response. Also, if anyone has a reliable source to backup the idea/theory that you shouldn't eat below your BMR because it will either cause you to lose muscle or put you in starvation mode, can you please post them.
Also, help me make sense of this. In order to lose weight you HAVE TO have a calorie deficit. So whether you're eating at, above, or below your BMR, the only way you can lose weight is if at the end of the day/week, etc you are burning more calories than you're consuming.
So why would eating below your BMR mean that your calorie deficit is made up by your body from muscle, but at or above your BMR it's from fat?
Either way, it's a deficit and your body needs to make up that deficit by using some of your body tissue.
If you continually eat below your BMR, your body WILL find those calories from somewhere, and the most efficient place to take them from is not fat, it is muscle. Muscle burns more calories than fat, so if your body dumps muscle, it doesn't need as many calories to make it through the day. It will find a way to equal what you are giving it.
Also, help me make sense of this. In order to lose weight you HAVE TO have a calorie deficit. So whether you're eating at, above, or below your BMR, the only way you can lose weight is if at the end of the day/week, etc you are burning more calories than you're consuming.
So why would eating below your BMR mean that your calorie deficit is made up by your body from muscle, but at or above your BMR it's from fat?
Either way, it's a deficit and your body needs to make up that deficit by using some of your body tissue.
0
Replies
-
Unless you are morbidly obese or seriously up there on the BMI for obese, eating under BMR is highly discouraged for health reasons. It can be really hard on your heart to eat less. Especially suddenly eating way less than you have been and not supplying your body enough food to survive.
If you want to lose weight, and look good while doing so, you want to lose as much fat as possible without losing a lot of muscle as well. Eating at least your BMR in calories will help you maintain the muscle you do have (exercise also greatly increases the amount of muscle you get to keep). It ensures your body has enough fuel for everything that keeps you alive AND maintaining lean body mass, bone density and higher brain functions.
If you eat under your BMR long enough, you can even start losing bone density, making your bones more brittle and easier to break.
I use WebMD to verify a lot of things I hear about diet and weight loss. I don't have any of the articles I've read over the years handy, because I don't keep them. Plus, webMD cites their sources so I rarely need to worry about finding them again!0 -
great question, and I haven't ever found anything that makes sense to me either as far as a defecit and where it comes from. Hope there are some good answers0
-
BMR is what your body needs to simply survive. That is what would be burned if you just stayed in bed and did nothing. Your body NEEDS those calories to work correctly and keep the systems going. When your body can not get the calories it needs, then it looks for them wherever it can get them. That could be fat, but it also will be muscle and other systems. The thing is, it will not be just fat!
Your TDEE is where you take your deficit from. This is how much you burn based off of your daily activity.0 -
Your body needs X amount of calories to survive (your BMR). If you do not provide your body with this energy (calories are a unit of energy) via food, it will find it elsewhere. That “elsewhere†it finds it is your muscle (aka lean tissue).
OK, so now you are eating below your BMR and losing fat and muscle. By reducing the amount of muscle your body has, you are lowering your body’s energy requirement. This is known as killing your metabolism. This is why strength training is recommended for people losing weight. The more muscle you build, the more energy your body needs, the better your metabolism.0 -
I like the way Vaclav Gregor (Greg) put it....All credit goes to Greg.
Metabolic slow down & “Starvation modeâ€
According to diet programs, you should experience metabolic slow down or starvation mode, when you are not eating regularly or eating below your BMR (explanations differ sometimes, which I found very entertaining btw). There is no study that would support that, quite the contrary. But instead of some research that you will not understand I’ll give you the most simple and logic explanation. Just look at the pictures of people who survived the holocaust or some tragedy and have been left for months or years without food. Did they trick the metabolism and starvation mode? I don’t think so. That means that eating less or fasting will not put you into “starvation mode†and your metabolism will not slow down.
It’s really nothing to be concerned about. These things exist only to confuse you and trick you into buying more food and supplements. It’s just business, sad but true. There are tons of researches and none of them will ever speak about things like starvation mode and metabolic slow down. In this researches when people lost a lot of weight there metabolism slowed down about 100 calories. That’s one large coffee. And I would say that it didn’t slow down, it just came to the normal level from being overweight. Why? Because BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is calculated by your height and your lean body mass. So when you lose weight, your lean body mass number decreases.0 -
BMR is what your body needs to simply survive. That is what would be burned if you just stayed in bed and did nothing. Your body NEEDS those calories to work correctly and keep the systems going. When your body can not get the calories it needs, then it looks for them wherever it can get them. That could be fat, but it also will be muscle and other systems. The thing is, it will not be just fat!
Your TDEE is where you take your deficit from. This is how much you burn based off of your daily activity.0 -
Sounds bogus to me, I believe its just made up and spread over and over on the MFP forums.
Why would your body attack muscle first instead of fat for energy? That would be quite stupid
I can see it using muscle for protein it needs, but not energy.
I don't believe your BMR is the magical cut off for your body to start eating your muscle tissue, if someone can prove to me otherwise I stand corrected0 -
Good question. I don't think that your body is breaking down only fat if you eat above your BMR and only muscle if you eat below it, I think it is a mix of both either way.
That point aside, why would you want to eat fewer calories than your body needs for the most basic functioning?0 -
So why would eating below your BMR mean that your calorie deficit is made up by your body from muscle, but at or above your BMR it's from fat?
Either way, it's a deficit and your body needs to make up that deficit by using some of your body tissue.
I would also like to see this answered. I get that if you eat between your BMR and TDEE, you will create a deficit and lose weight at a healthy rate. But why is your BMR the magic line between burning mostly fat and burning muscle? Inquiring minds want to know!0 -
I always go back to the anamalistic way of thinking. Animals fatten up for winter when food is scarce so that the fat can be used for energy. Is there any difference when I reduce my calories so my body will tap into my fat stores for energy to survive.0
-
Good question. I don't think that your body is breaking down only fat if you eat above your BMR and only muscle if you eat below it, I think it is a mix of both either way.
That point aside, why would you want to eat fewer calories than your body needs for the most basic functioning?
Why not? You body can get calories from fat stores, its not going to just shut down if you eat under your BMR0 -
I also have a problem wrapping my brain around this. I currently consume my BMR, but net below it after exercise.
If all this is true I do not understand why MFP and other mainstream experts set goals well below what many individuals BMRs would be. The only programs I have seen that sets your calorie intake goal off of BMR and TDEE are bodybuilding or heavy lifting programs, and not all of them do.
I am by no means saying it isn't true, I just don't understand why it isn't more widely known away from MFP and used more often in mainstream fitness/weight loss if it is based in research.0 -
It takes more calories to support muscles than it does to support fat. If you eat below your BMR, your body canabalizes your muscles first, fat second. Unless you have a super serious overload of fat, that is. That's the reason weight loss surgeries and crash diets work, but it's only for a short while. If you want to lose a lot of weight, you need more muscle than fat, not the other way around. You'll be able to keep burning off fat if you maintain your muscle. If you lose all your muscle it will lower your TDEE, meaning you'd have to eat even less to continue to lose. And so on...0
-
And while I'm at it. Why do all the people say you "have to eat 1200 calories". It is alway at least 1200 calories. The state it before even knowing the facts of the person.
My 65 year old 4'11 mother that does nothing and trying to loose 30lbs does not have to eat 1200 calories.
get off the 1200 calorie bandwagon people. Get facts before you state 1200 calories.0 -
I like the way Vaclav Gregor (Greg) put it....All credit goes to Greg.
Metabolic slow down & “Starvation modeâ€
According to diet programs, you should experience metabolic slow down or starvation mode, when you are not eating regularly or eating below your BMR (explanations differ sometimes, which I found very entertaining btw). There is no study that would support that, quite the contrary. But instead of some research that you will not understand I’ll give you the most simple and logic explanation. Just look at the pictures of people who survived the holocaust or some tragedy and have been left for months or years without food. Did they trick the metabolism and starvation mode? I don’t think so. That means that eating less or fasting will not put you into “starvation mode†and your metabolism will not slow down.
It’s really nothing to be concerned about. These things exist only to confuse you and trick you into buying more food and supplements. It’s just business, sad but true. There are tons of researches and none of them will ever speak about things like starvation mode and metabolic slow down. In this researches when people lost a lot of weight there metabolism slowed down about 100 calories. That’s one large coffee. And I would say that it didn’t slow down, it just came to the normal level from being overweight. Why? Because BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is calculated by your height and your lean body mass. So when you lose weight, your lean body mass number decreases.
I'm sorry... have you seen those pictures of people from the holocaust? They sure looked starved to me. No muscle, no fat, just skin and bones. What did their internal organs look like? Is that what you would like to look like?
What everyone is saying you CAN eat below... but it is NOT recommended for Health reasons. No one wants you to look like a Holocaust Survivor or end up in the hospital because your organs have shut down since they were not needed.0 -
Your BMR is the amount of calories that you body needs in order to survive. In order for your heart to pump, for you hair and nails to grow, for you liver and kidneys to work. So if you eat below your bmr, what are you doing to your body? You are stressing it and it needs to get the calories and energy (glucose) from somewhere. When the body runs out of glucose, it can use amino acids which is what protein is made up of, for energy. So it does not pick fat b/c it is not made up with the high amount of amino acids therefore does not have the energy in it that the body needs.
So the quote is saying that the body will take muscle which lowers your calorie intake, because muscle burns more calories throughout the day than fat. The number of calories that 1lb of muscle burns throughout the day varies with the different sources, but from what I have read anywhere between 10-80 calories.
So yes you should not eat below your bmr b/c it stresses your organs. You should eat between your bmr, which is what your body needs to survive and between you tdee (the total amount of calories burned each day). This way you will have a deficit but will not be causing organ problems.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/554481-when-does-the-body-start-to-use-muscle-tissue-for-energy/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/fat-cell.htm0 -
It takes more calories to support muscles than it does to support fat. If you eat below your BMR, your body canabalizes your muscles first, fat second. Unless you have a super serious overload of fat, that is. That's the reason weight loss surgeries and crash diets work, but it's only for a short while. If you want to lose a lot of weight, you need more muscle than fat, not the other way around. You'll be able to keep burning off fat if you maintain your muscle. If you lose all your muscle it will lower your TDEE, meaning you'd have to eat even less to continue to lose. And so on...
Do you have any proof or are you just spewing more nonsense you read on the forums?0 -
I like the way Vaclav Gregor (Greg) put it....All credit goes to Greg.
Metabolic slow down & “Starvation modeâ€
According to diet programs, you should experience metabolic slow down or starvation mode, when you are not eating regularly or eating below your BMR (explanations differ sometimes, which I found very entertaining btw). There is no study that would support that, quite the contrary. But instead of some research that you will not understand I’ll give you the most simple and logic explanation. Just look at the pictures of people who survived the holocaust or some tragedy and have been left for months or years without food. Did they trick the metabolism and starvation mode? I don’t think so. That means that eating less or fasting will not put you into “starvation mode†and your metabolism will not slow down.
It’s really nothing to be concerned about. These things exist only to confuse you and trick you into buying more food and supplements. It’s just business, sad but true. There are tons of researches and none of them will ever speak about things like starvation mode and metabolic slow down. In this researches when people lost a lot of weight there metabolism slowed down about 100 calories. That’s one large coffee. And I would say that it didn’t slow down, it just came to the normal level from being overweight. Why? Because BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is calculated by your height and your lean body mass. So when you lose weight, your lean body mass number decreases.
Pretty cool answer, especially considering most initial studies on starvation mode and slow metabolism actually comes from those holocaust survivors.
The first studies were done with them, how they survived (slowed metabolism) and recovered. Then nowadays studies are done with people with eating disorders, like anorexia. Take a look at any of the studies on this search, for starters : http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=anorexia+metabolism&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
The reason why it's "bad" is just because it's really not an efficient way to lose weight, especially on the long term. In a 24 hour period, your Metabolism is really what burns the most calories, not your activities, not your workouts. Circuit Training and HIIT were developed specifically to rise your metabolic rhythm for the longest period possible.
So the best route is really to eat well, eat plenty and do some well planned workouts to burn more efficiently. But, if you look at things objectively, holocaust victims surely DID lose weight, lots of it. Fat, muscles, BONES. If you are going for health and fitness though... Not the way to go.0 -
Part of the problem in finding the research related to the effects of eating too little aside from weight loss seems to be that much of the research was done long before the internet. I remember watching a PBS show in the 1970's about research that was done either in the military or in a prison where they were looking into very low calorie diets. One of the findings was that even though everybody on the same very low calorie diet over the same period of time with the same amount of exercise, but did not have the same results. In fact, some of them lost next to nothing. The explanation was that their metabolisms had changed to accommodate the reduction in calories. I wish I could find something that could give you the details about the study without relying on my memory.
Another part of the problem is trying to find hard facts and scientific research among all the other chatter on the internet. There is a massive amount of stuff to sort through.
Edit: I did a little more looking and this article "Why do obese patients not lose more weight when treated with low-calorie diets? A mechanistic perspective" from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 2, 346-354, February 2007 looked like it was relevant: http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/2/346.full0 -
I like the way Vaclav Gregor (Greg) put it....All credit goes to Greg.
Metabolic slow down & “Starvation modeâ€
According to diet programs, you should experience metabolic slow down or starvation mode, when you are not eating regularly or eating below your BMR (explanations differ sometimes, which I found very entertaining btw). There is no study that would support that, quite the contrary. But instead of some research that you will not understand I’ll give you the most simple and logic explanation. Just look at the pictures of people who survived the holocaust or some tragedy and have been left for months or years without food. Did they trick the metabolism and starvation mode? I don’t think so. That means that eating less or fasting will not put you into “starvation mode†and your metabolism will not slow down.
It’s really nothing to be concerned about. These things exist only to confuse you and trick you into buying more food and supplements. It’s just business, sad but true. There are tons of researches and none of them will ever speak about things like starvation mode and metabolic slow down. In this researches when people lost a lot of weight there metabolism slowed down about 100 calories. That’s one large coffee. And I would say that it didn’t slow down, it just came to the normal level from being overweight. Why? Because BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is calculated by your height and your lean body mass. So when you lose weight, your lean body mass number decreases.
I'm sorry... have you seen those pictures of people from the holocaust? They sure looked starved to me. No muscle, no fat, just skin and bones. What did their internal organs look like? Is that what you would like to look like?
What everyone is saying you CAN eat below... but it is NOT recommended for Health reasons. No one wants you to look like a Holocaust Survivor or end up in the hospital because your organs have shut down since they were not needed.
But the “Starvation mode†idea here is that you can not loose weight in starvation mode. You have to increase those calories above the BMR. to loose. That is not true. It may be unhealthy but if you have a lot of weight to loose it can be done.0 -
Sounds bogus to me, I believe its just made up and spread over and over on the MFP forums.
Why would your body attack muscle first instead of fat for energy? That would be quite stupid
I can see it using muscle for protein it needs, but not energy.
I don't believe your BMR is the magical cut off for your body to start eating your muscle tissue, if someone can prove to me otherwise I stand corrected
Glucose is energy. When the body runs low on carbs/glucose then it may use amino acids in a process to make energy. No there is no magical cut off number, but what if you are consecutively not giving your body the glucose that it needs and it has to continuously break down the muscle for energy?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/554481-when-does-the-body-start-to-use-muscle-tissue-for-energy/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/fat-cell.htm0 -
I like the way Vaclav Gregor (Greg) put it....All credit goes to Greg.
Metabolic slow down & “Starvation modeâ€
According to diet programs, you should experience metabolic slow down or starvation mode, when you are not eating regularly or eating below your BMR (explanations differ sometimes, which I found very entertaining btw). There is no study that would support that, quite the contrary. But instead of some research that you will not understand I’ll give you the most simple and logic explanation. Just look at the pictures of people who survived the holocaust or some tragedy and have been left for months or years without food. Did they trick the metabolism and starvation mode? I don’t think so. That means that eating less or fasting will not put you into “starvation mode†and your metabolism will not slow down.
It’s really nothing to be concerned about. These things exist only to confuse you and trick you into buying more food and supplements. It’s just business, sad but true. There are tons of researches and none of them will ever speak about things like starvation mode and metabolic slow down. In this researches when people lost a lot of weight there metabolism slowed down about 100 calories. That’s one large coffee. And I would say that it didn’t slow down, it just came to the normal level from being overweight. Why? Because BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is calculated by your height and your lean body mass. So when you lose weight, your lean body mass number decreases.
I'm sorry... have you seen those pictures of people from the holocaust? They sure looked starved to me. No muscle, no fat, just skin and bones. What did their internal organs look like? Is that what you would like to look like?
What everyone is saying you CAN eat below... but it is NOT recommended for Health reasons. No one wants you to look like a Holocaust Survivor or end up in the hospital because your organs have shut down since they were not needed.
But the “Starvation mode†idea here is that you can not loose weight in starvation mode. You have to increase those calories above the BMR. to loose. That is not true. It may be unhealthy but if you have a lot of weight to loose it can be done.
No one said you CAN'T lose weight in starvation mode - you can, its just unhealthy and you will probably end up in a plateau and not lose any MORE weight after a certain point. Your body will also be "starved" of the essential nutrients it needs to function.0 -
Good question. I don't think that your body is breaking down only fat if you eat above your BMR and only muscle if you eat below it, I think it is a mix of both either way.
That point aside, why would you want to eat fewer calories than your body needs for the most basic functioning?
Why not? You body can get calories from fat stores, its not going to just shut down if you eat under your BMR
No, it won't shut down, and assuming you have enough fat I'm sure your body will take from that, in part. I'm just not sure why anyone would prefer that to providing your body the energy it needs at least for basic organ function. But to each his own!0 -
I did some research on this awhile back. I had started gaining weight, and the advice I got was that I wasn't eating enough. I'm training for a half marathon, so I was doing some long runs, without eating any extra on those days. I've read that starvation mode, as it's typically understood, is a myth. However, I also read that if you eat less than half of the calories you've used in a day, your metabolism WILL start to slow down. It won't slow down enough to stop you losing weight altogether, it will just be slower than predicted.
The other factor to consider is cortisol, a hormone that the body releases under physical or psychological stress, which can wreck havoc with weight loss. I that it's cortisol that would explain why I was gaining weight when not eating extra on long run days. It was my first half marathon, so I was putting a lot of new stress on my body with the running, plus, it wasn't getting the fuel it wanted. This was combined with the fact that I was eating just below half of the calories I would have needed to maintain my weight with that level of activity, so my metabolism probably was slowing down to some degree.
In terms of eating below your BMR, if you did it for a long period of time, I'm sure you would eventually lose weight. However, in the short term, your body might react to the stress by releasing cortisol, which might actually cause weight gain. Personally, I think it's important just to listen to your body and observe and respond to what's happening for you.0 -
Sounds bogus to me, I believe its just made up and spread over and over on the MFP forums.
Why would your body attack muscle first instead of fat for energy? That would be quite stupid
I can see it using muscle for protein it needs, but not energy.
I don't believe your BMR is the magical cut off for your body to start eating your muscle tissue, if someone can prove to me otherwise I stand corrected
Fat doesn't need much energy to sustain, that's why energy is stored this way to begin with. Muscles on the other end, contribute to your metabolism. Eating muscles not only gives more energy, it also reduces the metabolic rate. But it doesn't attack muscles FIRST. It just attacks them too.
And if you are doing the most perfect diet out there, eating the most perfect way possible to lose weight, you will still lose a % of fat and a % of muscles, it is inevitable. Just like when you bulk up to get muscles, you gain fat too. The trick though is that your nutrition and workout schedules can be used to tweak those numbers and lose the most fat when you lose, and gain the most muscles when you are going back up.
And for the dude mentioning fattening for winter, how nice is it to leave out the most important part : That they use external (temperature) and internal (slowed down metabolism) to actually lower their caloric needs and thus survive:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m8218m7106171276/
http://physrev.physiology.org/content/83/4/1153.short
But yeah, like you say, keep deluding yourself that science will say anything for a fat check
Edit to add : In fact, the first study even clearly mentions that they lower their BMR during torpor or hibernation, specifically the part about maintaining body temperature. But yeah, "slow metabolism" and BMR, those things don't exist.0 -
Part of the problem in finding the research related to the effects of eating too little aside from weight loss seems to be that much of the research was done long before the internet. I remember watching a PBS show in the 1970's about research that was done either in the military or in a prison where they were looking into very low calorie diets. One of the findings was that even though everybody on the same very low calorie diet over the same period of time with the same amount of exercise, but did not have the same results. In fact, some of them lost next to nothing. The explanation was that their metabolisms had changed to accommodate the reduction in calories. I wish I could find something that could give you the details about the study without relying on my memory.
Another part of the problem is trying to find hard facts and scientific research among all the other chatter on the internet. There is a massive amount of stuff to sort through.
Edit: I did a little more looking and this article "Why do obese patients not lose more weight when treated with low-calorie diets? A mechanistic perspective" from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 2, 346-354, February 2007 looked like it was relevant: http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/2/346.full
Another related link: http://www.stress-free-weight-loss.com/0 -
Hi all
iI need some advice, I am really confused now...I am only 4ft 10 and weigh 50 kg and my BMI is currently 23.5 and would like it to be lower. My BMR according to MFP is 1332 and I am sedentary but walk about 3x a week so my TDEE is 1410 kcal's, so to lose weight I know you should eat 500 less to lose 1lb per week, but I know its bad to eat under 1000 and so I try and aim for 1050 net, but now I'm confused, should i be aiming for more??
I don't want to lose 0.5lb per week, i am going on holiday in 6 weeks and want to wear a bikini and feel confident, so far i have lost 2kg in 4 weeks at this calorie amount and am happy with it.
thanks0 -
I am just now starting to read the studies on the subject but I thought this little article was interesting. I have no opinion on the subject just yet. I have to read more research and studies. Not other peoples opinions of the studies.
http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode0 -
BMR is what your body needs to simply survive. That is what would be burned if you just stayed in bed and did nothing. Your body NEEDS those calories to work correctly and keep the systems going. When your body can not get the calories it needs, then it looks for them wherever it can get them. That could be fat, but it also will be muscle and other systems. The thing is, it will not be just fat!
Your TDEE is where you take your deficit from. This is how much you burn based off of your daily activity.
This is pretty much what about 75% of the responses to my question said. And it's pretty much what my original post was responding to. If you are in a calorie deficit (AT ALL), your body needs to get that energy from somewhere. It's not ONLY if you are eating below your BMR. If you are eating above your BMR, but still in a calorie deficit, your body is deficient of energy and needs to get it from your body tissue. Some of it will be fat, some will be muscle/bone/lean body mass.
My question is.. To those who say you HAVE to eat above your BMR --- why? If you need a deficit to lose weight, why would a deficit below BMR take from muscle but a deficit above BMR take from fat?0 -
Why does the body generate energy by burning calories from fat if you go for a walk but will get this energy from your muscles to perform it's daily tasks?
I'm not convinced it does.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions