calories too low on mfp

Options
245

Replies

  • Tsfppb
    Tsfppb Posts: 3
    Options
    If your BMR is around 1400 (where mine is) and you are slightly active (workout 3 days a week and low cal burning job) a way to roughly estimate your daily caloric needs is to multiply your BMR by 1.2 this puts me at 1680 for my daily burn. So in order to lose 1lb per week I have to have a 500 cal deficit putting me around 1200 cals per day. I am 5'1" and 145 but muscular. On days I don't work out I eat right at 1200 cals but on days I work out I make sure to eat between 200 and 300 more. If you are only working out for 30 mins a day at most with a VERY intense workout you will burn around 400 to 500 cals depending on your size, health, and overall fitness level so if you do not eat bellow your BMR and only workout that much you WILL NOT lose weight at a speed of 2Lb a week unless you have a lot to lose. If you only have 20 lb to lose and a life beyond the gym there is no reason that eating slightly below your BMR will hurt your metabolism. A good rule of thumb is to not go over a 1000 cal deficit unless severely over weight. So watch your calories and your working out and eat back the calories that make you have a bigger deficit than that but not all of them if your goal weight is 30 or less pounds away.
  • kiwipez
    kiwipez Posts: 144
    Options
    this is all so confusing

    I agree!
  • Eadne
    Eadne Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    My BMR is around 1400 and MFP set my calories at 1200. I decided that was far too low and changed it to 1500... I'm still losing weight :)
  • Kppr59
    Kppr59 Posts: 12
    Options
    Where can I find the group, eat more to weigh less? I see it discussed all the time but don't know where it is.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    The American Heart Association says nothing about BMR.

    "To lose weight, you must use up more calories than you take in. One pound equals 3,500 calories. To successfully and healthfully lose weight—and keep it off—most people need to subtract about 500 calories per day from their diet to lose about 1 pound per week."

    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/WeightManagement/LosingWeight/Losing-Weight_UCM_307904_Article.jsp

    By the way, none of these sites say anything about 'eating back your exercise' either.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    Nothing on BMR or 'eating back' from Mayo Clinic. There's a warning not to go under 400-800 calories, though. You'd think they'd use BMR if there was any evidence that eating under it was unwise.

    "If you lose weight by crash dieting or by drastically restricting yourself to 400 to 800 calories a day, you're more likely to regain weight quickly, often within six months after you stop dieting."

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/weight-loss/AN01619
  • marie_cressman
    marie_cressman Posts: 980 Member
    Options
    If you feel it's too low, change it like others have posted. I personally eat 1,600 calories a day and was just told by my nutritionist to up my calories to about 1,800 a day because of the intensity of the workouts I'm doing. I honestly in all of the years of alorie tracking have never gone as low as 1,200 and I've lost over 100lbs. I haven't seen the eat more group either but I wouldn't mind visiting!!
  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    "ur weight in pounds times 14 lb times 13 that tells u what u need to stay at ur current weight x "

    This calculation is not correct. When I tested it on my current weight, I got a total of 21,476 calories per day.

    As a dietitian, I have learned that people in general underestimate their total calorie intake from food by as much as 42%. They also overestimate their energy expenditure by more than 23%. So, if I say I am eating roughly 1500 calories a day (not using calculating tools), I am probably eating closer to 2130 calories. If I say I am burning about 475 calories a day on exercise, I am probably only burning about 366 calories. At the end of the day, I think I have a net calorie intake of 1025 calories. However, my ACTUAL net intake is about 1764 calories a day, a difference of 739 calories. An increase of 500 calories a day over your daily recommended needs can cause a 1# weight gain per week. So I can expect to see about 1-1.5# weight gain instead of the anticipated 1# weight loss in a week.

    Bottom line: use caution when calculating your energy expenditure; measure your food to ensure accuracy with documentation; stay within your recommended daily calorie needs. There is no need to think you are eating back your calories (or however it was stated). Just stay with a set calorie number based on your specific needs everyday regardless if you exercise that day or not. Don't forget to drink a minimum of 8 glasses of water. Water is very important for hydration and appetite control.
  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    The AHA is correct about the 500 calories a day. But you have to know how many calories you are eating in the first place before you can subtract the 500 a day. That is why using a tool like MFP is so helpful. However, you have to be totally honest with yourself with the amount of food you are actually consuming for anything to work.

    There is no such thing as 'eating back your exercise' unless you are deliberately consuming extra calories on exercise days. Recommended daily calorie ranges are based on a stable daily intake, not highs and lows based on exercise days and non-exercise days.
  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    Nothing on BMR or 'eating back' from Mayo Clinic. There's a warning not to go under 400-800 calories, though. You'd think they'd use BMR if there was any evidence that eating under it was unwise.

    "If you lose weight by crash dieting or by drastically restricting yourself to 400 to 800 calories a day, you're more likely to regain weight quickly, often within six months after you stop dieting."

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/weight-loss/AN01619

    Not only do you gain the weight back but what you lose in the first place is muscle and water, not fat. But what you gain back is typically more fat, not muscle. This is what happens with YO-YO dieting. The problem is that muscle is active tissue that burns calories - more muscle, more calories burned. Fat, however, is a storage form of tissue. It is active in the respect that all body tissue is alive and active, but not to equal extents. If you want to lose fat tissue, increase your strength training (we are not talking 'body building' here), add more intensity to your cardio, and stay within your recommended calorie needs everyday.
  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    how does age factor into all of this?


    Oh good grief! That calculator says I should be eating almost 1700 cal a day to lose weight! That just seems so wrong...


    ** it also says you have to recalculate your numbers as you go down in weight.

    As we age our normal metabolism decreases by approximately 10% per decade after age 30. The typical reason is a more sedentary lifestyle leading to more muscle loss. The way to combat it is simply to stay active at any age and ALWAYS include strength training.

    Depending on how much weight you are wanting to lose you may need to re-calculate your energy needs as the weight comes off. Consider a person who weighs 210# wants to lose 35# and weigh 175#. Their calorie requirements are about 2000 calories a day to reach and maintain the 175# weight. If that person wants to lose another 35# to their goal weight of 140#, their calorie needs drop to 1590 calories a day. If they continue eating the 2000 calories everyday, they will not lose the desired weight to reach their goal.
  • Nutrition1st
    Nutrition1st Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    There are too many variables to discuss in a free online public forum. When I was 300 lbs I was barely eating 1200 cals a day. When I got to 175 lbs I was eating a calculated 3,000 calories religiously each and every day. I am an example of eat more, weigh less. But this can't take in to consideration if you are an endomorph, have thyroid issues, and several other variables that will determine your dietary needs.

    HTH
  • shaynak112
    shaynak112 Posts: 751 Member
    Options
    I'm about the same height/weight as you and mine is set at 1,200 and I find that too high lol, I can hardly manage to eat 1,200 calories in a day. Maybe you need to eat different foods?
    If you exercise, you should eat back SOME exercise calories but not all!!
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Options
    The AHA is correct about the 500 calories a day. But you have to know how many calories you are eating in the first place before you can subtract the 500 a day. That is why using a tool like MFP is so helpful. However, you have to be totally honest with yourself with the amount of food you are actually consuming for anything to work.

    There is no such thing as 'eating back your exercise' unless you are deliberately consuming extra calories on exercise days. Recommended daily calorie ranges are based on a stable daily intake, not highs and lows based on exercise days and non-exercise days.

    We're pretty much in agreement. MFP (with its 1200 floor) is not always "too low", which was the title of the thread.

    I totally agree about exercise and eating back.

    Since you're a dietician will you please tell people that the statement "eating below your BMR is dangerous" is a myth? I'm not advocating anyone specifically do it, I'm just saying there is no reason to use BMR as some line in the sand value. People act like your basic body functions will stop (or your body will eat its organs) if you eat 1200 when your BMR is 1450.

    Weight Watchers plans have had a floor of 1000ish for a long time, just as another example of an authority that does not consider BMR to be some special danger zone indicator value.
  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    My BMR according to the Katch mcardle calculator is 1352.
    So why is MFP calculating my daily calories at 1200?

    I would like it to say 1352, and then if I exercise, I would not eat back the exercise calories unless I was at a deficit for the day.
    (in which case I would never go below 1352.)

    Currently, if I don't exercise, I'm stuck at 1200, and that is too low for me.
    It is too low, right?

    (female, 5'2'', 164 lbs, 35 yrs old)

    Thanks.

    What is your desired goal weight? Based on your current weight of 164#, your daily recommended calorie needs are 1675-1863. The problem with most calculating tools is that they provide only the basic calorie needs. BMR stands for 'BASIC Metabolic Rate'. Meaning how many calories your body requires to survive day to day doing only the very basic of activities such as sleeping, breathing, slow movements, resting, etc. It is up to us to determine how active we are and then to increase the BMR by that factor. I always recommend using a very basic number such as 1.1-1.3 because we typically are not as active as we think we are. You can always increase calories if needed if you truly are more active. So for a BMR of 1352, if you used the (my) recommended activity factors, your daily calorie needs are actually 1487-1758. The best way to know if this range is okay or needs to be adjusted down is by your weight: if you are gaining weight, you are taking in too many calories based on your exercise; if you are losing weight at a rate of 0.5-2# per week, you are doing okay; if you are losing more than that, you need more calories.

    A very simple way to estimate daily needs is to multiply your desired goal weight by 11.36. This gives just a rough estimate of calorie needs but it is actually pretty acurate in most cases. Using the information from above, a goal weight of 164# would require 1863 calories daily.
  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    There are too many variables to discuss in a free online public forum. When I was 300 lbs I was barely eating 1200 cals a day. When I got to 175 lbs I was eating a calculated 3,000 calories religiously each and every day. I am an example of eat more, weigh less. But this can't take in to consideration if you are an endomorph, have thyroid issues, and several other variables that will determine your dietary needs.

    HTH

    You are absolutely correct!! I am also assuming that at 300# you probably were not very active or worked out much but at 175#, you are most likely doing a lot of body building which is why you need more calories. More muscle = more calories.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Sorry, just had to jump in here re eating exercise calories. The activity modifier MFP uses to determine maintenance is different from (lower than) what is used to determine TDEE. MFP calls their maintenance number "TDEE" but it is calculated differently because it is meant to only include daily activity and not purposeful exercise. That is why more calories are allotted when exercise is logged.

    So you can either use the TDEE method that is used pretty much everywhere else but here and not eat calories back or do it the MFP way, use the lower daily activity modifier and add additional for exercise if it is done. I'm not saying MFP is the best way but it has its own logic.
  • ArmyRD
    ArmyRD Posts: 24
    Options
    The AHA is correct about the 500 calories a day. But you have to know how many calories you are eating in the first place before you can subtract the 500 a day. That is why using a tool like MFP is so helpful. However, you have to be totally honest with yourself with the amount of food you are actually consuming for anything to work.

    There is no such thing as 'eating back your exercise' unless you are deliberately consuming extra calories on exercise days. Recommended daily calorie ranges are based on a stable daily intake, not highs and lows based on exercise days and non-exercise days.

    We're pretty much in agreement. MFP (with its 1200 floor) is not always "too low", which was the title of the thread.

    I totally agree about exercise and eating back.

    Since you're a dietician will you please tell people that the statement "eating below your BMR is dangerous" is a myth? I'm not advocating anyone specifically do it, I'm just saying there is no reason to use BMR as some line in the sand value. People act like your basic body functions will stop (or your body will eat its organs) if you eat 1200 when your BMR is 1450.

    Weight Watchers plans have had a floor of 1000ish for a long time, just as another example of an authority that does not consider BMR to be some special danger zone indicator value.

    The only reason I have been able to come up with why MFP so often gives women a calorie range of 1200 is to suggest that they should not go below that. Eating less calories is not always synonomous with weight loss. You can go too low below your recommendations and possibly gain weight. This is because your body is not being fed sufficiently enough to prevent deficiencies (vitamin, protein, etc) therefore, your metabolic rate slows down to prevent weight loss if possible. We all know that you can 'starve' your body into weight loss (anorexia nervosa) but most of us do not go to that extreme.

    It is not a good idea to go too low below the recommended BMR. A female body requires a minimum of 1200 calories daily to prevent serious deficiencies; a male 1600-1800 calories. So it is not always about the amount or rate of weight loss. It is about being healthy and fit at a healthy weight.

    When someone tells me they only consume about 800-900 calories a day because they gain weight on1200 calories, I tell them to increase their calories to a number that better fits their needs. Most people do not want to do it, but find that they start losing weight on the higher calorie intake. You have to feed your body if you want your body to work for you.
  • wingednotes
    wingednotes Posts: 279
    Options
    If you want to try out a calorie/fat/protein/carb goal other than the default for MFP, go to goals, then change goals, then choose manual. You can fill out the amount of calories you would like and the percentage of the fat/carb/protein breakdown you would like. You can also change other goals like sodium.

    THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what I was looking for!!
    You rock :)
  • zaithyr
    zaithyr Posts: 482 Member
    Options
    Nothing on BMR or 'eating back' from Mayo Clinic. There's a warning not to go under 400-800 calories, though. You'd think they'd use BMR if there was any evidence that eating under it was unwise.

    "If you lose weight by crash dieting or by drastically restricting yourself to 400 to 800 calories a day, you're more likely to regain weight quickly, often within six months after you stop dieting."

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/weight-loss/AN01619

    If you look at any site that gives the definition of Basal Metabolic Rate it stresses the importance of it in relation to running your vital organs and your basic ability to function even before you add in exercise or activity. It's common sense that you should be fueling your body enough to run itself so you don't start wearing it down, and BMR is basically the number that your body needs to run itself at the very least. The long term effects of under-eating are well known and well-documented. there are plenty of anorexics that eat 800-1000 calories a day and they still suffer the effects of malnutrition and all the problems that come with it.

    These are just a couple sites with resources emphasizing the significance of BMR. If you research into what BMR actually is and couple that with common sense, you can see why it's not a good idea to eat below it.

    http://exercise.about.com/cs/fitnesstools/g/BMR.htm
    http://health.discovery.com/centers/heart/basal/basal.html

Categories