Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Eating Below Your BMR..
psuLemon
Posts: 38,420 MFP Moderator
For some odd reason, there is an overwhelming amount of post that say, do NOT eat below your BMR.. they are the amount of calories to survive.
So to clarify, below is an abstract from a study. Now, let me state, I know this was done on obese people and normal weight people and obese people may or may NOT be treated the same. I am also a huge advocate for eating 20% below your TDEE and training like an athlete. But more importantly, I am a huge advocate for using studies to provide good information, not just one person assumptions.
"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"
So to clarify, below is an abstract from a study. Now, let me state, I know this was done on obese people and normal weight people and obese people may or may NOT be treated the same. I am also a huge advocate for eating 20% below your TDEE and training like an athlete. But more importantly, I am a huge advocate for using studies to provide good information, not just one person assumptions.
"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"
0
Replies
-
A good argument for doing both! (Especially men over the age of 40 who are already at risk of losing about 1% lean muscle mass per year)0
-
I'm a personal trainer and have talked to many people who eat well below their BMR. Upon reading one lady's 3-day food diary, I saw each day she ate no more than 500 calories while burning an estimated 220 calories from exercise. She was puzzled as to why she was dropping weight but remaining just as fat. She also exclusively did cardio and never did any resistance training.
I always tell people to consume 80% of their TDEE in calories and find that works best for the vast majority of people and its more easily sustainable since they realize soon enough they don't have to starve themselves to get the results they desire.0 -
Last time you posted the study I pointed out that the subjects were on 800 calorie liquid diets, which is kind of an important factor to include.
But I'm in total agreement that there's no scientific reason to not eat below your BMR and that one can mitigate some of the effects of decreased LBM through resistance training, if that's your point.0 -
My current TDEE is 3187... I consume between 1600-1800 calories per day, some days a little less some days a little more....I go to the gym 3-4 times a week (weights and cardio) and I play Slo Pitch 1 or 2 times a week... I have lost about 6 pounds in 5 weeks.. Obviously the TDEE calculations are not rock solid for everyone... According to the TDEE model I should be losing much more weight than I have.. My goal is 2 per week but it has not worked out that way so far.... It is very frustrating.....0
-
My current TDEE is 3187... I consume between 1600-1800 calories per day, some days a little less some days a little more....I go to the gym 3-4 times a week (weights and cardio) and I play Slo Pitch 1 or 2 times a week... I have lost about 6 pounds in 5 weeks.. Obviously the TDEE calculations are not rock solid for everyone... According to the TDEE model I should be losing much more weight than I have.. My goal is 2 per week but it has not worked out that way so far.... It is very frustrating.....
Another thing you have to consider is, was the weight loss fat, muscle, tissue, water or a make up of all things. Additionally, you can want to lose 2 lbs all you want, but if you are 20 lbs from your goal, it won't happen. Bodies don't follow math, its plain and simple. So it's better off having a smaller target deficit and properly fueling your body so you can drop fat, as opposed to LBM.0 -
Last time you posted the study I pointed out that the subjects were on 800 calorie liquid diets, which is kind of an important factor to include.
But I'm in total agreement that there's no scientific reason to not eat below your BMR and that one can mitigate some of the effects of decreased LBM through resistance training, if that's your point.
That was a validate point. I was hoping you would bring it up again.0 -
just wondering if you know your true BMR - the 'books' tend to say my BMR IS 1800+, I had it tested 2 ways and is actually 1540-1600, which makes a difference of nearly 400 calories a day, or shy of 1 lb per week. eye opener for me but valuable to know0
-
just wondering if you know your true BMR - the 'books' tend to say my BMR IS 1800+, I had it tested 2 ways and is actually 1540-1600, which makes a difference of nearly 400 calories a day, or shy of 1 lb per week. eye opener for me but valuable to know
I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but personally I don't know my BMR or RMR. Katch McArdle has me at 2080.0 -
sorry - no - my typing is compromised - sick kid in my lap - addressed to the poster about tdee calcs0
-
My current TDEE is 3187... I consume between 1600-1800 calories per day, some days a little less some days a little more....I go to the gym 3-4 times a week (weights and cardio) and I play Slo Pitch 1 or 2 times a week... I have lost about 6 pounds in 5 weeks.. Obviously the TDEE calculations are not rock solid for everyone... According to the TDEE model I should be losing much more weight than I have.. My goal is 2 per week but it has not worked out that way so far.... It is very frustrating.....
^^ here -- this is what i was asking about bmr. if u go off paper and ur bmr is really off as is mine, the tdee will be skewed0 -
and I used the Katch Mcardle too..
Most of the typical calculators based on age height weight, gender - put me around 1800+ BMR. The reality is, I had it tested with a machine, and that came back at 1540, and then used an alternate method to cross verify, and that was using LBM and the katch Mcardle which put me at 1600 ish. They were very close and comparable, but no where near 1800+
If I went strictly off the online calculators my TDEE would be higher as would my calorie intake, and results slower. its just helpful info
0 -
and I used the Katch Mcardle too..
Most of the typical calculators based on age height weight, gender - put me around 1800+ BMR. The reality is, I had it tested with a machine, and that came back at 1540, and then used an alternate method to cross verify, and that was using LBM and the katch Mcardle which put me at 1600 ish. They were very close and comparable, but no where near 1800+
If I went strictly off the online calculators my TDEE would be higher as would my calorie intake, and results slower. its just helpful info
Unfortunately, stuff like harris benedict is based on law of averages, so if you have more or less muscle than the average job, then you will be highly skewed. I have a lot more LBM than the average 200 lb guy. This is probably due to the sports I played growing up (soccer, ice hockey, tang soo do) where I was eating 5000+ calories and exericing like crazy.
I just find it annoying that people make blanket statements without any real information to back it up.0 -
bump to follow0
-
and I used the Katch Mcardle too..
Most of the typical calculators based on age height weight, gender - put me around 1800+ BMR. The reality is, I had it tested with a machine, and that came back at 1540, and then used an alternate method to cross verify, and that was using LBM and the katch Mcardle which put me at 1600 ish. They were very close and comparable, but no where near 1800+
If I went strictly off the online calculators my TDEE would be higher as would my calorie intake, and results slower. its just helpful info
Unfortunately, stuff like harris benedict is based on law of averages, so if you have more or less muscle than the average job, then you will be highly skewed. I have a lot more LBM than the average 200 lb guy. This is probably due to the sports I played growing up (soccer, ice hockey, tang soo do) where I was eating 5000+ calories and exericing like crazy.
I just find it annoying that people make blanket statements without any real information to back it up.
Agreed. I was EXTREMELY disappointed when I realized my TDEE was so low -- or to be more precise, that the calculations I used gave me a falsely higher number
From a Calories in standpoint, it's invaluable to know (to me) (well as close as we can get anyhow) what you burn. 1800 x 1.5 = 2700 1546 *1.5 = 2319. I'm shooting for a 30% deficit (have a good 80 to lose still) One calculation has me eating 1890 a day, the other 1623, 250 calories a day x7 = .5 lb. per week difference.
If I went off a straight "cut 500 cals to lose 1 lb/wk, or 1000 cals to lose 2/wk" well, it would have been close to 400/day difference from one number to the other.
Anyhow. For me. I found that I try to shoot for a 300 calorie burn, and a 700 calorie food deficit, and it seems to be working. Some days those numbers change a bit, more exercise, more food, but overall, I try to get a 1000 calorie (or close) deficit overall.
It's working.. for me. and I know everyone is different. I just really wanted to share that my trust in the on line calcs caused me to lose less until I found a more accurate method of determining TDEE.
Thank you!
Tina0 -
My current TDEE is 3187... I consume between 1600-1800 calories per day, some days a little less some days a little more....I go to the gym 3-4 times a week (weights and cardio) and I play Slo Pitch 1 or 2 times a week... I have lost about 6 pounds in 5 weeks.. Obviously the TDEE calculations are not rock solid for everyone... According to the TDEE model I should be losing much more weight than I have.. My goal is 2 per week but it has not worked out that way so far.... It is very frustrating.....
One last thing - I just realized, my TDEE is around 2300 to 2500 depending on the day. I'm eating 1740 ish per day, plus 1-2 days at 'maintenance' of 2500, and am losing close to 2 lbs per week. i.e., I'm eating as much or more, and my TDEE is far lower, and (knock on wood) losing about 2/wk pretty well. (and yes I have a long way to go, so I am sure that plays into it somehow) If you are disappointed in rate of loss, maybe the TDEE isn't right? Just trying to help. if you're satisfied in the success - and 1-2 /week is not bad, then disregard this post
Good luck!
Tina0 -
Agreed. I was EXTREMELY disappointed when I realized my TDEE was so low -- or to be more precise, that the calculations I used gave me a falsely higher number From a Calories in standpoint, it's invaluable to know (to me) (well as close as we can get anyhow) what you burn. 1800 x 1.5 = 2700 1546 *1.5 = 2319. I'm shooting for a 30% deficit (have a good 80 to lose still) One calculation has me eating 1890 a day, the other 1623, 250 calories a day x7 = .5 lb. per week difference.
If I went off a straight "cut 500 cals to lose 1 lb/wk, or 1000 cals to lose 2/wk" well, it would have been close to 400/day difference from one number to the other.
Anyhow. For me. I found that I try to shoot for a 300 calorie burn, and a 700 calorie food deficit, and it seems to be working. Some days those numbers change a bit, more exercise, more food, but overall, I try to get a 1000 calorie (or close) deficit overall.
It's working.. for me. and I know everyone is different. I just really wanted to share that my trust in the on line calcs caused me to lose less until I found a more accurate method of determining TDEE.
Thank you!
Tina
This is the reason I don't believe in the standard 500/1000 calorie cuts but rather set most people u around 20% less than TDEE. It's more adaptive towards the user. I can obviously withstand a large cut than some who is 5' and 130 lbs that works out 3 times a week.0 -
bookmark0
-
At least 90% of studies put subjects on diets well below their BMR, most are at least 50% below.
100% of studies never mention the fact that the subjects are eating less than their BMR.
BMR estimates only catch about 70% of the population within +/- 10% of the estimate.
People that say "don't eat less than your BMR" cannot offer a single shred of evidence to back up their sound bite.
I would agree that a % cut from total energy is the best approach. My jury is out on whether exercise is a good use of time.0 -
I think one of my biggest issues with these studies is they seem to all be conducted on obese subjects. This is great for 50% of the population but my biggest question is how this affects those in a normal weight range or even athletes.0
-
I think one of my biggest issues with these studies is they seem to all be conducted on obese subjects. This is great for 50% of the population but my biggest question is how this affects those in a normal weight range or even athletes.
I don't know if it's relevant but I think the study in your first post was all people firmly in the "overweight" BMI range, not obese.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions