MFP warning about eating under BMR

I was asking if you had a source for the "95% of people the 1200 calorie minimum is too low for" comment.

Oh sorry, that was from an article (probably on weight problems) that looked at some recent US-only stats on avg height/weight of men and women. One chart was height ranges with avg weight, other was weight ranges with avg heights.
Since the calorie spread of 20 yr to 60 yr old is only 200 calories, I just used 40 yrs old.

I was curious and ran BMR figures and TDEE at sedentary, worse case scenario.

A woman 4' 6" and 110 lbs has TDEE of 1194.

Which either chart showed was less than 95% of US population. It didn't get closer than 5% ranges.

Since the majority on MFP are trying to lose weight, they are not that light, even if that short. Their BMR/TDEE will be higher while heavier, and could obtain a deficit until they near their goal that does not go under that level.

Now obviously, even the RDA amounts are based on 2000 cal diet for avg person, and someone that short/light doesn't need those amounts of nutrients, so of course could get by with less cal's and nutrients.

It sounds like for >95% of people (those over 4'6", lol) 1200 IS a fine minimum, which seems intuitive to me, given how often you see it recommended.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just hate to see people get so much advice to eat more when I know for most they're going to get so tired of conflicting info and not knowing what's correct and not losing weight immediately, they will give up.

Well, recommended, and warned against that being bare minimum to not go below, I think are 2 totally different things.

The fact that MFP will set a goal for any woman with BMR of 1760 or below selecting sedentary and 2 lb weight loss (when 1lb is actually recommended), does not mean it's generally recommended - it's just what they get.

I think MFP is going on your philosophy too, show good/great results at first so you stick around as a subscriber, if/when the stall comes, the forums will help the person out.
In the meantime, you are a headcount to sell to advertisers for more money.

But actually, anyone taking a 1000 cal deficit off their previous bad eating level will lose 2lbs weekly. And probably even get the initial kick of water weight loss.
The problem being of course as we've talked about, before logging, most have no idea what they used to eat, unless mainly packaged and fast food they could look up after the fact. Even then as you mentioned, forgetting the little things that add up.
And then how do you automatically lower the goal. Yep, without education, it's a hard thing to make come through in 2 screens on a phone app.

Same as faster metabolism has you moving more through the day almost automatically, big eaters probably ate more automatically than could ever be remembered.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/?page=1

That guy fasted for 382 days. It seemed to work for him.

Here's the problem I see with making MFP only work off of BMR...

There are many different methods and theories for weightloss. What works for some won't work for others. MFP in its present state is adaptable. That's why it works. It would be the same if low carb dieters suggested that MFP cap off the carbs at a certain percentage. That seems ludicrous to some on here, but that is essentially the same type of mentality that is being projected.

The TDEE method, as I understand it, is not without it's flaws. From the way it was explained to me, it is based off your activity level which includes your exercise. That's great if I go for the same run every day and do the same routine every week, but what if I don't? What if today something came up, and the 1000 calories that I usually burn off are still there on my plate? Should I continue to eat as though I had expended those calories? What if it happens 5 days in a row?

The way MFP is designed right now, I know my goals. I know each day how much I can eat. I'm happy that I am given the ability to be responsible for my own decisions on how aggressive I want to lose weight.

The low 1200 numbers are given to people who choose "Sedentary" and "Lose two pounds a week."

Or short women like me, who choose "Lose half a pound a week" when in fact someone as small as me could get all the nutrition they need on fewer than 1200 calories. My BMR is around 1000 btw.

EDITED TO ADD: Before I get the calorie police coming down on me, my actual intake is more like 1400 - 1500 a day.

My BMR is usually estimated at 900 -something. 1200, or a little under (and I often go higher) is good for me.

Just to address the TDEE: you can look at it as a weekly average - which works if you are consistent with your workouts, or, if not, most people pick sedentary TDEE and then eat some or all of the exercise calories back.

Then isn't that pretty much the same as MFP has it now?

Just to address the TDEE: you can look at it as a weekly average - which works if you are consistent with your workouts, or, if not, most people pick sedentary TDEE and then eat some or all of the exercise calories back.

Then isn't that pretty much the same as MFP has it now?

In therory, yes - however, many people find the activity levels with MFP to be very light. For example, MFP would have me eating at 350 calories a day less (using a lightly active setting) than my actual non-workout day burn is based on my BMF. I have a desk job and am pretty sedentary outside of workouts and outside of work - so lightly active seems like it should be a reasonable estimate (and most folks use sedentary setting which is even less)

I was just responding to your concern as to what to do with inconsistent workouts.

This was part of a response to an e-mail a friend sent to MFP asking about her 1200 calorie goal they gave her. She sent it to me and I just :noway: .

"Thanks for taking the time to contact us. If you are aiming to lose weight, then yes, you should eat under your BMR calculations. The BMR calculates just what you need if you did nothing at all. When you set up your profile, we ask you for your age, height, weight, gender, normal daily activity level and how much weight you would like to lose/gain per week. We then use all this information and calculate it against the scientific calculation to give you your daily recommended goals."

Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that explanation. It is accurate based on conventional thinking and just about every nutrition article that I've read.

This was part of a response to an e-mail a friend sent to MFP asking about her 1200 calorie goal they gave her. She sent it to me and I just :noway: .

"Thanks for taking the time to contact us. If you are aiming to lose weight, then yes, you should eat under your BMR calculations. The BMR calculates just what you need if you did nothing at all. When you set up your profile, we ask you for your age, height, weight, gender, normal daily activity level and how much weight you would like to lose/gain per week. We then use all this information and calculate it against the scientific calculation to give you your daily recommended goals."

Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that explanation. It is accurate based on conventional thinking and just about every nutrition article that I've read.

She only has 7 lbs left to lose, though, which she stated in her e-mail to them. That's ok? Everything I've read says the opposite.

I was just responding to your concern as to what to do with inconsistent workouts.

Oh, yeah. That's fine. Please don't mistake my tone as being combative. I'm just trying to figure out all the parameters of the debate. I'm just trying to gain an understanding of this theory and the differences between it and my present plan (which is basically MFP).

Then isn't that pretty much the same as MFP has it now?

In therory, yes - however, many people find the activity levels with MFP to be very light. For example, MFP would have me eating at 350 calories a day less (using a lightly active setting) than my actual non-workout day burn is based on my BMF. I have a desk job and am pretty sedentary outside of workouts and outside of work - so lightly active seems like it should be a reasonable estimate (and most folks use sedentary setting which is even less)

Ok, so tell me if I'm right...

You went to a different site and determined your BMR based on a lightly active lifestyle with no exercise. That website then calculated a 20% decrease and recommended that as your suggested intake.

On MFP, you again selected lightly active lifestyle and a goal of whatever weight per week. MFP then recommended an intake that was 350 calories less than the other website. Is this correct?

If so, then there are two variables that I see in play. One is the formula used to calculate BMR. I know that there are differences among them, but I don't think they would be that far off. Of course that's just a guess.

The other variable is how fast you want to lose the weight. In the first situation, this is determined for you. you will lose weight at whatever level BMR-20% gives you. In the second situation (MFP), you are given the opportunity to determine the speed at which you will lose. This could very well lead to a suggested intake of less than BMR-20%. Makes sense to me. I guess the question is "How fast do you want to lose?".

This was part of a response to an e-mail a friend sent to MFP asking about her 1200 calorie goal they gave her. She sent it to me and I just :noway: .

"Thanks for taking the time to contact us. If you are aiming to lose weight, then yes, you should eat under your BMR calculations. The BMR calculates just what you need if you did nothing at all. When you set up your profile, we ask you for your age, height, weight, gender, normal daily activity level and how much weight you would like to lose/gain per week. We then use all this information and calculate it against the scientific calculation to give you your daily recommended goals."

Yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that explanation. It is accurate based on conventional thinking and just about every nutrition article that I've read.

Ditto. I think 1200 is actually on the conservative end. There are many nationally recognized diet plans that go much lower.