MFP warning about eating under BMR

Options
1…1213151718…26

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    So my TDEE is 2300 and my BMR is 1740...what should I be eating? I started at 1200 and lost 18 pounds then stalled.....upped it to 1400 and lost about 4 and am stalled again. IDK WHAT I SHOULD BE ATING

    The basis of the thread is to eat at least your BMR.
  • wandafit4life
    wandafit4life Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    I thought when I made my profile and put in weight and all the other info it customizes? :ohwell:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.full

    The conclusion drawn by the study is that weight loss causes a drop in energy expenditure beyond what was predicted by the loss of mass (i.e. metabolism slows down more than expected), and that the lower EE continues even a year after calorie restriction ends (thus supporting your argument).

    BUT, and I find this very interesting, the majority of the drop comes not from resting EE but non-resting EE. That is, people who lost weight were burning less calories than expected during movement, suggesting that basal metabolic rate was not the main culprit.

    Unfortunately, this study did not address the significance of the size of the calorie restriction to the impact on EE, which is actually what this thread is about. It would be interesting to see if the "extra" drop in EE varies based on the size of restriction that lead to the initial weight loss....

    Very interesting. I've yet to find a study that does indeed leave the eating or net goal at or above BMR.

    Because the idea that any diet will eat away at muscle doesn't make sense to me, if you are not changing your activity level. You've heard it, do your weights, or lose muscle. But what if you don't do extreme cut to cal's as you mention.
    What if the body doesn't feel so threatened as to use the normal carb/fat burning ratio's it always uses. And if not that much activity, there shouldn't be any concern with running out of glucose stores requiring digging into muscle energy.

    Anyway, that Diabetic study was the one with the least cut I've seen.
    They found their maintenance was 1.5, at like 2400. Meaning their BMR was avg 1600. They ate at avg 1200. So 400 undercut.

    And as other studies show, muscle was lost on diet only the most. Diet cardio next, Diet resistance the least.

    What I found interesting though - they all lost about the same amount of weight. And yet 2 groups were working out, and still eating 1200.

    Now, logic would say that if you are burning more cals, and not eating them back, you should have a bigger deficit, and therefore more weight lost. But they did not.

    I guess combined with that study you found, the BMR dropped some, the EE dropped even more, for those exercising.

    I wish they would just do it with all the folks eating at 1600, or one group eat, one group net, both exercise some cardio some strength.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    The prevailing (?) view on here comes over that if you eat less calories than your BMR estimate you won't lose weight. Every study I have ever read with calorie deficits produces weight loss in all compliant subjects. Maybe I'm hearing the message incorrectly.

    I can't conceptually see why the BMR should have a profound significance. If I don't eat for a day I don't drop dead - in fact it takes hunger strikers a couple of months to pull that off. My BMR and other energy expenditures can be fuelled from my ample fat reserves (100,000 calories at least) as well as from what I eat.

    I don't think there has been a claim you eat under your BMR, you don't lose weight at all, but rather slowly. And like so many do, you throw in exercise and don't feed it, then you stall for some odd reason. And that is inches and lbs stall.

    Really, just the diet by itself, while taking out some muscle, would be likely just a slow metabolism. It's when unfed exercise is thrown in the fun begins, since that usually requires more of the limited carbs that aren't there, cuts the deficit big time, and places demands on the body.

    If estimated BMR is anywhere near correct (like Katch perhaps), you'd have to decently undercut it by NET to see the slowdown.
    The length of time in those studies is 3 days to 8 wks. Folks on here seem to say 3-6 weeks on the outside. Add unfed exercise, probably even faster.

    The BMR is significant if you look at what it is really doing, and why it can't get it's energy from your extra fat.

    It is literally energy being supplied to all the cells of the body, not as much to the fat cells though. Since there is no such thing as little perpetual motion machines in our bodies (or else just not eat, and lose what you want, and then eat again), that energy needs to come into the body.

    It's the constant aspect that is not great. 1 day, 3 days, 7 days fast. You can do that. The body stops doing some of the functions of the BMR to get buy, and as that other study shows, and makes sense now, the body will expend less energy on other daily activity, to have enough left over for what it just must do, mainly deal with fluid levels in all the cells.

    But the net result is, your body is slowing down. Does it need to? Is it easier for weight loss? If too low cal, could you have energy supply problems and muscle breakdown for no reason?
    And folks have shown time after time, you can lose as much or faster keeping the metabolism up.

    And the number of folks that do yo-yo diets year after year and gain weight back, shows those diets that normally are cutting you so low, are not sustainable.
    Great loss with great deficit while body is sorting out what it is going to do, but eventually. Either hungry often, or can't eat at maintenance again, have no flexible room for splurges, ect.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Why do you think what others eat is any of your buisness to stop or warn them? Who says under 1200 is unhealthy for everyone? There are studies, right now, in place using low calorie intakes, with all basic nutritions to ward off heart disease, alheimers, diabetes, and aging.

    These threds are getting old pretty quick.

    People ask, people with experience speak. Got some useful experience that has worked long-term?

    Ya - you see all the threads that pop up about people stalling, plateauing, ect? They always seem to pop up.
    People looking for answers that - hey, threads like this spread the answers on.

    Wow how that works great!

    And there is no denying some beneficial studies to having a low metabolism. But for weight loss?

    Get real.

    Excuse me, but what is going to effect your health more, the slight improvement a slower metabolism might give you, or the known health risks associated with being overweight?

    Don't think too hard on the matter, one is of more importance in many people's life right now. They can slow their metabolism down when they are at goal weight and reap other benefits. And if happy with eating less, very maintainable.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I increased my calories and started Netting at my BMR +200. I am in week #4 and just saw a slight weight loss this week of 3 pounds. However, my concern is my body fat percentage has steadily increased by about 6% week over week. Any suggestions on this?

    Do the math to encourage yourself. You could not gain fat 6% week over week by netting just 200 over your BMR.

    The same 3500 to add a lb of fat (actually takes more energy to do that though) must applied that way.

    How many lbs of fat have you supposedly added, over how many weeks?

    lbs * 3500 / days = how many surplus calories you would have to be eating each and every day. That means your daily goal, your exercise calories, your daily activity calories, and that additional amount - each and every day.

    Didn't happen I'd bet.

    Bad measurements, or you've increased energy glucose/water stores.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Excellent links. I think you might find this interesting (if not a bit dry):

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.full

    Ugh, why do I imagine this would normally cause weight loss in someone.

    "Subjects lived in a CRC throughout these studies and were fed only a liquid formula diet [40% of calories as fat (corn oil), 45% as carbohydrate (glucose polymer), and 15% as protein (casein hydrolysate)], plus vitamin and mineral supplements, in quantities sufficient to maintain a stable weight (defined as an average daily weight variation of <10 g/d for ≥2 wk)"

    Talk about eating over the kitchen sink. Or rather, the lab sink I guess. I wonder if they even got different colors.

    "Give me orange for breakfast, green for lunch, blue for dinner, snacks purple"
  • OpenHeaven
    OpenHeaven Posts: 275 Member
    Options

    Google TDEE. Personally, I eat at maintenance and loose weight.

    Here's an example of a calculator:
    http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

    If you don't have any health problems or taking medications that make you magically gain weight, you should loose weight using this (I'm loosing about a pound a week)

    Edit: I vote for the link JennieAL posted above :P


    I am new here, and a little confused too!! I just calculated my TDEE and it said 3172!!! You cannot tell me that I should honestly eat 3100 cals to lose weight!!! That is absurd!! (Oh, and I did input everything honestly). HELP!!! =) My BMR =2067 which seems high too... I'm so confused now!!!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I am new here, and a little confused too!! I just calculated my TDEE and it said 3172!!! You cannot tell me that I should honestly eat 3100 cals to lose weight!!! That is absurd!! (Oh, and I did input everything honestly). HELP!!! =) My BMR =2067 which seems high too... I'm so confused now!!!

    You missed reading the definitions then and some of the posts.

    TDEE, if accurate but probably still low - would have you maintain weight.

    You eat less than that to lose weight.

    And your BMR is wise lower limit. But why do you think that seems to high? Based on what?

    And if you think that is high - do you really have any idea what you used to eat that got you to the point you are wanting to lose weight now?

    Compared to that figure - this is probably not high in the least bit.

    Hard to wrap the mind around it when you've never seen what it was before, huh, just sounds high.

    And yes actually, that BMR is most likely inflated, because it is assuming a certain ration of fat : LBM that probably does not apply to you.

    For better BMR calc, use the Katch formula that uses bodyfat% estimate. As long as the estimates are within 5% of each other, the avg figure is close enough for getting decent BMR estimate.

    Which will of course change/lower your TDEE.

    http://www.gymgoal.com/dtool_fat.html

    Here are the multipliers you take times BMR to get rough TDEE.

    TDEE activity levels and multiplier and description (does include exercise)
    Sedentary_____ 1.2 ___ little or no exercise, desk job
    Lightly active___ 1.375 _ light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk
    Mod. active____ 1.55 __ moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk
    Very active_____ 1.725 _ hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk
    Extra Active____ 1.9 ___ hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.
  • shellsie_j
    shellsie_j Posts: 132 Member
    Options
    bump
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Options
    I thought when I made my profile and put in weight and all the other info it customizes? :ohwell:

    Yes it custimizes, based on it's computer calculations, and whatever info you put in, but it's only a computer and our bodies aren't computers, they don't know that MFP says we are supposed to lose xlbs a weeks by eating xxxx calories.

    I am 4ft 11.5, aged 44, and 169lbs. I sit at a computer all day, run/walk 3 times a week, and do a bit of bodyweight strength stuff at home.

    According to MFP I should eat 1200 calories to lose 1lb a week
    I tried it, and got lightheaded, dizzy, cold, felt ill etc

    So I researched my BMR, TDEE etc, got my numbers ran by a very helpful member, and now I lose every week on 1600 calories. Turns out my TDEE os much higher than MFP thinks it is.

    If I change my activities on MFP to the highest activity level, it tells me I need to eat 1580 to lose 1lb a week.
    I am losing an average of 1.5lbs a week and am certainly not as active as MFP thinks I should be to get that weight loss.

    I could have stuck with the 1200, carried on feeling rubbish, and probably lost lean mass along the way, this way I am losing just fat eating at 1600. Why would I want to lose on 1200 when I can lose on 1600?

    I wish there had been threads like this when i started as I wouldn't have stuck to the 1200 for so long.

    Anyone who says one size doesn't fit all, well it is actually impossible not to lose weight eating between your TDEE and BMR. If you aren't losing, then that isn't your TDEE. It is better to start with the higher allowance of TDEE -20%, then you've got some leeway if it isn't working, than to start at 1200, and then think, oh, that's not working, better lower it to 1000, 900, 800 etc.

    You just need to find the sweet spot for you.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    sometimes the counter said that I have to eat 1500 or 1600 cal, and I think its too much!

    If you have an ongoing weight loss that tells me it can't be too much.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    And folks have shown time after time, you can lose as much or faster keeping the metabolism up.

    It's just a pity none of them turn up in clinical trials, or not the ones I've read so far - but I am still looking.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    The BMR is significant if you look at what it is really doing, and why it can't get it's energy from your extra fat.

    I have read much by intelligent people that really understand human metabolism and I think they would disagree. The fat reserves of the human body exist precisely to fuel its basal metabolic functions during fasting (including overnight).

    http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf shows obese people on 600 calories for several weeks in order to simulate the effect of surgery. They lost about 13kg of fat and under 3kg of fat free mass. Metabolic rate wasn't measured but I can't imagine anyone is suggesting it fell to 600 kcal per day ? So it was fuelled in part by the 13 kg of fat which is about 2000 calories a day.

    Seems about right, 2000 from reserves and 600 from "food" fuelling a 2600 expenditure.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    Because the idea that any diet will eat away at muscle doesn't make sense to me

    Pretty common to lose Fat Free Mass (which includes muscle and water) on diets, higher protein intake and exercise usually reduces the effect somewhat. Perhaps we need less muscle to move lower body weight, or to hold up the fat.
  • scullyuk06
    scullyuk06 Posts: 34
    Options
    bump
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    Options

    http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf shows obese people on 600 calories for several weeks in order to simulate the effect of surgery. They lost about 13kg of fat and under 3kg of fat free mass. Metabolic rate wasn't measured but I can't imagine anyone is suggesting it fell to 600 kcal per day ?

    This!! When you lose weight, you will obviously require fewer calories because you're carrying less weight around (and that requires less work). But any extra drop in metabolism that might be accounted for by adaptive thermogenesis is on the order of like 20-30% (if that), not 100% or more.

    In other words, yes, your metabolism will drop, but it's not nearly as drastic as people think. That doesn't mean that slow and steady is bad, just that the dangers of significant caloric restriction are, in my opinion, exaggerated.
  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    Options
    Anyone who says one size doesn't fit all, well it is actually impossible not to lose weight eating between your TDEE and BMR.

    True and very well put. But it's also impossible to eat below your BMR and not lose weight, at least according to every scientific study done on the subject. Despite all of the personal experiences provided on MFP (and I do not doubt any of them), in every controlled study (where every calorie in and calorie out was counted through some scientific method), calorie restriction resulted in fat loss.

    What is at issue is the statistical significance of "extra" drops in metabolism the further you restrict. For example, if you cut back 500 calories per day you might lose 1 pound per week, but restricting 1000 per day you might only lose 1.7 instead of the expected 2. However, I still haven't seen a study that actually measured the extent of metabolic adaption based on size of restriction. Maybe we should start one :drinker:
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I still haven't seen a study that actually measured the extent of metabolic adaption based on size of restriction

    I found a study that aimed to put two groups of women onto a 1000 calorie diet from their baseline intake of 2300. In practice one group averaged 1052 and the other 884. The groups were different in that the first were abdominally obese and the second had more weight on their thighs and lower waist/hip ratios.

    RMR at baseline was 1495 and 1310 respectively, falling to 1310 and 1276 resp. Only the fall in the first group from 1495 to 1310 was statistically significant on account of modest sample size.

    So in this case the bigger reduction in RMR of 185 cals/day was in the group with the *smaller* energy reduction. Both groups were eating well under RMR. Average weight loss was around 23 lbs in both groups over 8 weeks.
  • FR89
    FR89 Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    Is it possible for MFP to give warning to people eating under their BMR instead of capping out at 1200 calories? Or to state somewhere (like under Tools>BMR) that eating under that amount is not sustainable? There's a lot of people out there who are unaware of this so you get cases where 5'9 women are eating 1200 calories because this is what they think is right because this site tells them to do it despite the fact it's well under their BMR. And how are they suppose to know this isn't healthy if the site doesn't warn them? I even seen a case where a 19 year old man of average height was eating 1200 calories a day which just doesn't seem right to me.


    i'm just a bit over 5"8 and my daily cal count is 1200 too? ..

Categories