Beating a dead horse..
Replies
-
As much as an advocate I am for eating more calories, I don't believe it's terrible to eat below your BMR. Now, what I do suggest is to exercise to increase your calories in order to maintain lean body mass as well as your metabolism. But below is a study of those on LCD with two groups (one anaerobic workouts and one with resistance training).
"At the end of the twelve-week study, both groups lost weight but the difference in muscle vs. fat loss was striking. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds over the course of the study. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds. A focus on weight loss would lead us to the conclusion that aerobic exercise is best. However, when looking at the type of weight lost it was shown that the aerobic group lost almost 10 pounds of muscle on average while the resistance training group lost fat exclusively and maintained their muscle mass. Most important, when the resting metabolic rate of the participants was calculated, the aerobic group was shown to be burning 210 fewer calories at rest per day!! In contrast, the resistance-training group actually increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day."
I understand the concept and believe it will help maintain LBM, but in reality, RT can offset said loss. Now,this is only a 12 week study, so long term affects of a LCD can end up being detrimental to your maintenance of LBM, but I haven't found a study that backs it up. But I will note, that for the 200+ people I have designed programs for, I use 20% less then TDEE to cut fat.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/topic/38-nutrition-lifestyle.aspx
Best and most well informed post in this thread so far! Very nice bro!0 -
the aerobic group was shown to be burning 210 fewer calories at rest per day!! In contrast, the resistance-training group actually increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day.[/B]"
I understand the concept and believe it will help maintain LBM, but in reality, RT can offset said loss. Now,this is only a 12 week study, so long term affects of a LCD can end up being detrimental to your maintenance of LBM, but I haven't found a study that backs it up. But I will note, that for the 200+ people I have designed programs for, I use 20% less then TDEE to cut fat.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/topic/38-nutrition-lifestyle.aspx
Wow, that's a big effect... 210 calorie higher BMR! I traced back to the 1999 study and it's probably relevant to note that the dieters were obese and on 800 calorie liquid diets. That's totally not what I'm suggesting is safe for people.
I should add we're basically on the same page here. It's just the "you're eating your organs if you eat below BMR" that I can't stop refuting when I see it.0 -
As much as an advocate I am for eating more calories, I don't believe it's terrible to eat below your BMR. Now, what I do suggest is to exercise to increase your calories in order to maintain lean body mass as well as your metabolism. But below is a study of those on LCD with two groups (one anaerobic workouts and one with resistance training).
"At the end of the twelve-week study, both groups lost weight but the difference in muscle vs. fat loss was striking. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds over the course of the study. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds. A focus on weight loss would lead us to the conclusion that aerobic exercise is best. However, when looking at the type of weight lost it was shown that the aerobic group lost almost 10 pounds of muscle on average while the resistance training group lost fat exclusively and maintained their muscle mass. Most important, when the resting metabolic rate of the participants was calculated, the aerobic group was shown to be burning 210 fewer calories at rest per day!! In contrast, the resistance-training group actually increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day."
I understand the concept and believe it will help maintain LBM, but in reality, RT can offset said loss. Now,this is only a 12 week study, so long term affects of a LCD can end up being detrimental to your maintenance of LBM, but I haven't found a study that backs it up. But I will note, that for the 200+ people I have designed programs for, I use 20% less then TDEE to cut fat.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/topic/38-nutrition-lifestyle.aspx
This is a good point. But the people in this study were fairly overweight. It's harder for people that are closer to their "ideal" weight to retain muscle when losing. I'd be interested to see studies on people with, say 20 lbs to lose--how much would RT help them to retain said muscle mass? Also, when you no longer have a lot of fat stores it can be harder to get through high intensity RT that will help you retain muscles.0 -
I keep reading claims about eating below BMR, but I've yet to see anything close to resembling a convincing argument either way. That's the problem with level of armchair "science" on finds in a forum like MFP.
Have you noticed how folks call it "science" like that's some sort of automatically correct magic word to invoke?
P1: I don't think I need to eat above BMR
P2. So you think science is wrong?
P1. ... WTF?
P2: *smug look*
Of course some folks here give absolutely great advice, while others give horrible advice. The trick is figuring out who is giving which. Good luck with that! Or do what most people do, play the averages and just follow the herd.
But if I dare to look hypocritical by applying some logic to the BMR situation... if one eats below BMR for the rest of their life, then yes, they'll have a huge problem. But if one does it only for a period of time, then it has the potential to be helpful. The point of eating below TDEE is to use those fat stores to make up the deficit. Does eating below BMR, when BMR and TDEE aren't that far apart for the 5'0 girl, for example, suddenly putting her at risk? Doesn't seem likely to me, if done intelligently. But heck, I can't back that up except to say, science!!0 -
Every time I think I undserstand I find myself questioning what I think I know..
I'm sorry to be the queen of redundant topics, but I'm curious... I hear a lot of people say NEVER eat bellow your bmr because that's what your body needs just to function.
Then I hear people say you should eat your tdee- 500..
If I follow these rules then I would be eating bellow my bmr on the days I don't excersize..
my bmr 1631
tdee 1958 (with little to no excersize) = 1458 Bellow bmr?...
tdee 2243 (1-3 days excersize) =1743
tdee 2529 (3-5 days excersize) =2029
Is this right? Basically my calories for the day would be determined by my activity level and subtracting 500 from that days tdee?
If you are doing the TDEE-500 method, you eat the same amount every day. If you exercise 1 to 3 days a week, eat 1743 every day, for instance. Only if you're using the MFP method do you tailor your eating so strictly to your workout on a daily basis.
Regarding whether it's "ok" to eat below BMR, I don't think that debate is ever going to be settled. Read up on the pros and cons and pick a side, I guess. Personally I wouldn't but if I were very obese I might consider it.
I like this answer the best. You don't change your TDEE on a daily basis depending on what you're doing, you set it just like you set your activity level here on MFP. Pick one and stick with it...at least until your activity level changes drastically like you get hurt and can't workout for a month or decide to up your activity from 1-3 days exercise to 3-5 days exercise.
Good luck!
Makes sense. Thanks!0 -
Eat below what your body needs to survive in a coma?
Sounds smart to me.
If you think your BMR is "what your body needs to survive in a coma" then there is probably no hope for you to ever understand the interaction between nutrition and weight loss.
Eating less than your BMR just means your body will get the energy from its reserves.... from the body's fat stores, from your lean muscle tissue, etc... in other words, you will lose weight. I've been eating below my BMR for about eight weeks, I've been losing a couple pounds a week. Surprisingly, I have not starved to death.0 -
Every time I think I undserstand I find myself questioning what I think I know..
I'm sorry to be the queen of redundant topics, but I'm curious... I hear a lot of people say NEVER eat bellow your bmr because that's what your body needs just to function.
Then I hear people say you should eat your tdee- 500..
If I follow these rules then I would be eating bellow my bmr on the days I don't excersize..
my bmr 1631
tdee 1958 (with little to no excersize) = 1458 Bellow bmr?...
tdee 2243 (1-3 days excersize) =1743
tdee 2529 (3-5 days excersize) =2029
Is this right? Basically my calories for the day would be determined by my activity level and subtracting 500 from that days tdee?
You subtract 500 from your daily TDEE if your goal is to lose 1 lb per week. If you are close to your goal weight (say within 20 lbs), a better goal is around 1/2 a lb per week. Also, a simpler way is to accurately identify your activity level to determine your TDEE instead of choosing sedentary and "eating back exercise calories."
Of course, you could stick with a large deficit which would likely take you under you under your BMR. I think a lot of people find that hard to sustain b/c of energy levels, especially if you exercise, and nutrition. You will also probably lose muscle mass at a faster rate than you would at a more moderate deficit. You probably wouldn't want to eat that little for a long period of time, but most people asking this question probably will try it anyway. But I don't think BMR is a magic number and you won't harm yourself by doing it for a short time. Just keep your protein intake up (and your fat levels fixed) and reduce calories from your carbs. This is better than sticking to the percentage methods MFP recommends.
I am going to eat at 500 bellow my tdee. The only reason I put light workouts 3 times a week is because I hurt my left ankle somehow and can't seem to workout more than 20 minutes before its tight and throbing. I plan on working out more when it feels better. Thanks for the advice.0 -
Any slowdown in metabolism is (1) slight and (2) temporary. It's a myth that you will hurt yourself or starve or not lose or die or be miserable and eat your couch and murder your family.
I do not lose if I eat below my BMR.0 -
THANK YOU! Someone??What's TDEE?0 -
THANK YOU! Someone??What's TDEE?
Total Daily Energy Expenditure - the amount you burn: your BMR x your activity level0 -
Weight loss is simple. You lose weight if you eat less calories than you burn. You will burn some through breathing, heart beating, brain function etc (this is your Basal Metabolic Rate or BMR) and you will burn some by walking around, lifting your phone, typing on MFP, running a marathon (these calories PLUS your BMR = your Total Daily Energy Expenditure or TDEE).
Eat less than your TDEE and you will lose weight. Period.
Eating less than your BMR when you have ZERO surplus fat is a bad idea, but, no one is on MFP because they have ZERO surplus fat are they????0 -
Eat below what your body needs to survive in a coma?
Sounds smart to me.
If you think your BMR is "what your body needs to survive in a coma" then there is probably no hope for you to ever understand the interaction between nutrition and weight loss.
Eating less than your BMR just means your body will get the energy from its reserves.... from the body's fat stores, from your lean muscle tissue, etc... in other words, you will lose weight. I've been eating below my BMR for about eight weeks, I've been losing a couple pounds a week. Surprisingly, I have not starved to death.
I too thought BMR was what your body needs doing nothing, to just sustain it's basic functions (hence why you need to factor in your actiivty level when calculating TDEE)? What exactly is BMR then?0 -
This is another one of those blanket statements that doesn't necessarily pertain to everybody.
Depending on your bodyfat %, would determine whether your best course of action would be to make sure you are eating above your BMR every day. If you are 30% you could get away with not eating above your BMR everyday. If you are 20%, you should probably reavaluate.0 -
I will eat to my TDEE regardless if I workout or not... but here is what I have done which of course has worked so far for ME...
Calculated TDEE at sedentary, then set MFP at TDEE and 40% protein-40% carbs-20% fat and to 0 exercise - so on the days I do not work out I eat at TDEE and on the days I do, I eat about 80 - 90% of my calories burnt back...
The most important thing you can ever do is, do your own research, play around with the possibilities and find what works for you
0 -
I too thought BMR was what your body needs doing nothing, to just sustain it's basic functions (hence why you need to factor in your actiivty level when calculating TDEE)? What exactly is BMR then?
That is what BMR is but it's ONLY pertinence to weight loss is to arrive at your TDEE so you can estimate your total deficit, so you can make realistic deficit goals (e.g., 2 lbs/week or 1000 deficit/day). Your estimated new calorie level for weight loss might be higher than BMR or might be lower. It doesn't matter. Your body WILL sustain it's bodily functions just fine on the calories available to it, which are your daily intake PLUS your stored fat.
chachita- If most of us ate at our TDEE we would never lose anything, by definition of TDEE. If you exclude workouts, then if all the inputs (logged calories, etc) are fairly correct, one would have to burn 500 calories a day in workouts (an hour of tough cardio for me) to lose one pound a week. That's a perfectly acceptable plan but most of us are more than willing to eat less to lose faster (and/or workout less).0 -
As much as an advocate I am for eating more calories, I don't believe it's terrible to eat below your BMR. Now, what I do suggest is to exercise to increase your calories in order to maintain lean body mass as well as your metabolism. But below is a study of those on LCD with two groups (one anaerobic workouts and one with resistance training).
"At the end of the twelve-week study, both groups lost weight but the difference in muscle vs. fat loss was striking. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds over the course of the study. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds. A focus on weight loss would lead us to the conclusion that aerobic exercise is best. However, when looking at the type of weight lost it was shown that the aerobic group lost almost 10 pounds of muscle on average while the resistance training group lost fat exclusively and maintained their muscle mass. Most important, when the resting metabolic rate of the participants was calculated, the aerobic group was shown to be burning 210 fewer calories at rest per day!! In contrast, the resistance-training group actually increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day."
I understand the concept and believe it will help maintain LBM, but in reality, RT can offset said loss. Now,this is only a 12 week study, so long term affects of a LCD can end up being detrimental to your maintenance of LBM, but I haven't found a study that backs it up. But I will note, that for the 200+ people I have designed programs for, I use 20% less then TDEE to cut fat.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/topic/38-nutrition-lifestyle.aspx
Wow. Thats some great info. Thanks a lot. I know that I definitely don't want to lose muscle. I will try to keep mixing cardio and strength together as well as follow the tdee- 500 plan.0 -
I will eat to my TDEE regardless if I workout or not... but here is what I have done which of course has worked so far for ME...
Calculated TDEE at sedentary, then set MFP at TDEE and 40% protein-40% carbs-20% fat and to 0 exercise - so on the days I do not work out I eat at TDEE and on the days I do, I eat about 80 - 90% of my calories burnt back...
The most important thing you can ever do is, do your own research, play around with the possibilities and find what works for you
Thats pretty much what I have done for now. I'm gonna give this a try for a few weeks and see what happens...0 -
Everyone's input has been really helpful. Thanks a lot! 0
-
Take what you hear with a grain of salt. BMR is difficult to judge correctly. If I ate at my BMR I cannot lose weight. I have been eating consistently below my calculated BMR, not eating back calories burned for 6 months now. I feel great, have tons of energy and lose about .5 to 1lb a week.
Ignore all the "starvation mode" BS, eat enough protein to minimize muscle loss, basically experiment and do what works for you.0 -
Do what works for you. It's been my experience that 9 people out of 10 on MFP don't know their backside from their elbow but talk like they have a PhD in nutrition.
Agreed. If you really want to know, do some reasearch. Everyone has different opinions. IMO you shouldn't eat below your BMR,... I never do, but again research0 -
Take what you hear with a grain of salt. BMR is difficult to judge correctly. If I ate at my BMR I cannot lose weight. I have been eating consistently below my calculated BMR, not eating back calories burned for 6 months now. I feel great, have tons of energy and lose about .5 to 1lb a week.
Ignore all the "starvation mode" BS, eat enough protein to minimize muscle loss, basically experiment and do what works for you.
Thanks. I am gonna try to eat the tdee-20% which is pretty much at my bmr to see if that helps. We'll see..0 -
Do what works for you. It's been my experience that 9 people out of 10 on MFP don't know their backside from their elbow but talk like they have a PhD in nutrition.
Agreed. If you really want to know, do some reasearch. Everyone has different opinions. IMO you shouldn't eat below your BMR,... I never do, but again research
So I see. lol Different strokes for different folks and definitely trial and error. But I think I am clear on what my calorie intake is now.0 -
Take what you hear with a grain of salt. BMR is difficult to judge correctly. If I ate at my BMR I cannot lose weight. I have been eating consistently below my calculated BMR, not eating back calories burned for 6 months now. I feel great, have tons of energy and lose about .5 to 1lb a week.
Ignore all the "starvation mode" BS, eat enough protein to minimize muscle loss, basically experiment and do what works for you.
ITA!0 -
Thanks0
-
Any slowdown in metabolism is (1) slight and (2) temporary. It's a myth that you will hurt yourself or starve or not lose or die or be miserable and eat your couch and murder your family.
AMEN0 -
I'd suggest taking some time to read up on MFP and how this system works.
If you follow what's recommended here, you'll do fine. Your results will be healthy, lasting and the quality of your life will improve.
Make sure your MFP settings are right, set your goals, and you're off and running.
Eat to goals daily, including your exercise calories.
Good luck!0 -
I just use logic.
There is some minimal requirement to function in a healthy manner. I just assume that is BMR. It is your minimum. I often wonder if some people calculate it totally wrong, which is why they can eat below it.
I realize that humans are incrdible. And, the body can take an incredible amount of abuse. Incredible. So much so, that it might seem like it's OK to eat below your BMR. Similar to how it seems OK to not drink enough water. But, really, it's very damaging in all kinds of ways. You just don't know it.
If you at least eat BMR, you are part way there. Then, if you move at all, you need to eat a little more. Then, if you are trying to lose weight, you need to eat at a deficit from that "little more" amount, but above BMR. Some people just eat at their goal weight TDEE. Eventually, you'll get there if you stick with it. In orther words, just eat at your goal weight maintenance.
I feel that eating below BMR is damaging. But, of course, i don't have proof. It just logically seems really bad for you.0 -
I eat what I want. I'm very low currently but will increase with time and understand I may or may not lose during that time. What I do works for me. I lost 8 lbs in 8 days. gained a couple back but some is water and some is due to not being able to eat the way I want on while coming home from vaca. It's okay for me. I would never encourage anyone to eat the way I eat, but I'm happy where I am. You will have to find what works for you. I don't believe in starvation mode therefore it's not a factor in my personal diet. Do your own research and don't be afraid to change things up to suit you. Don't let people scare you into eating more than you want to eat. Everyone knows what works for them but you aren't them and they tend to forget that.0
-
I think the problem with these fancy calculations is that we talk about these things - BMR, TDEE, calories burned during exercise, NEAT.... we talk about these things like we *know* the actual numbers. They are ALL gross estimations. Despite the fancy Polar HRM - you actually don't know how much you are burning when you exercise for an hour.
You have to play around with things - eat less, move more, and find what you can live with..... what doesn't make you a crazy, yo-yo dieting nut.0 -
Your TDEE will always be higher than your BMR, even when you don't workout. Your BMR determines that calories your body needs to survive if it were performing zero activity, like sleeping for 24 hours. Any activity above complete motionlessness is going to raise your TDEE.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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