calories too low on mfp

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

BMR has nothing to do with the calories you take in today. Just like you don't have to fuel your run with the calories you take in today or your walk to work. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for people. I'm not saying anyone has to eat 1000 calories a day. The reason all the authorities and MFP use 1200 is because you need to create a deficit. WHAT activities you fuel with your deficit, it doesn't matter and we have no way of knowing. Our pool of calories is just that-- one pool, and it includes our body fat. Caloric minimums are for nutrition purposes.

It doesn't have to be. MFP's plan is confusing. Then the fact that the forums contradict it makes it worse.

Then you get people diagnosing 'stalls' that are perfectly normal weight loss trends with info like "you need more fruit/less sodium/more water/less packaged foods/more strength training/more protein/EAT MORE EAT MORE EAT MORE".

Nearly all respected authorities will tell you weight loss is pretty much calories in vs. calories out. Aim for .5-2 lbs/week. Eat well and move often, if you can. That's it.

Okay, so you said to multiply my desired weight by 11.36? So 150x11.36 is 1704, correct? And with eating that I could lose weight to get to 150? UGH... feeling extremely ignorant. What is a Healthy loss? is two lbs too much a week?

I think you are assuming that people who talk about not eating below your BMR as saying that you won't lose weight if you do. That isn't what they are saying (and if it is, they are misunderstanding the principle). The idea is that when you eat below your BMR consistently, you slow your metabolism. That doesn't effect weight loss directly in the beginning because, as you said it's basically making sure that your calories in are fewer than your calories out. The idea is that by eating more and losing more slowly, you are less likely to fall into Yo-yo dieting and give up because you are seeing results but not feeling hugely deprived.

Once the weight is lost and the person naturally increases their caloric intake, their weight should remain fairly stable for two reasons: 1)They've been eating somewhere between 1600-2000 calories all along so they don't have a "yay I can eat again!" reaction and 2) by staying above their BMR they never slowed their metabolism, so they can always eat at or just above their BMR rather than having to stick near the amount they at on their diet.

That's the theory any way. Does it work? Sure, because the basic negative trend is maintained. It might work more slowly, but because the change isn't so drastic a person might be more likely to stick to it. Both ways will work in the short and intermediate term. The idea is how eating habits effect the long term.

As for the website sources: it will take awhile for them to change their standards because it often takes physicians a bit to change their standards and because they have to make general statements that apply to many people. The USDA myplate website (it replaced the food pyramid last year) has a calculator and gives recommendations that are much more in line with the "eating more and losing more slowly" theory. It gave me a recommendation of 2000 calories per day, which is right in line with what I have MFP set to based on numbers given to me by fat2fit radio.

I hope that helps everybody.

In the interest of full disclosure: the literature the USDA provides about weight loss still makes mention to the 1000-1200 calorie diet in contrast to what the website says. This is likely because the literature is out of date (it's copyright is 2005). While the new recommendations are only about a year old.

I think you are assuming that people who talk about not eating below your BMR as saying that you won't lose weight if you do. That isn't what they are saying (and if it is, they are misunderstanding the principle). The idea is that when you eat below your BMR consistently, you slow your metabolism. That doesn't effect weight loss directly in the beginning because, as you said it's basically making sure that your calories in are fewer than your calories out. The idea is that by eating more and losing more slowly, you are less likely to fall into Yo-yo dieting and give up because you are seeing results but not feeling hugely deprived.

Once the weight is lost and the person naturally increases their caloric intake, their weight should remain fairly stable for two reasons: 1)They've been eating somewhere between 1600-2000 calories all along so they don't have a "yay I can eat again!" reaction and 2) by staying above their BMR they never slowed their metabolism, so they can always eat at or just above their BMR rather than having to stick near the amount they at on their diet.

That's the theory any way. Does it work? Sure, because the basic negative trend is maintained. It might work more slowly, but because the change isn't so drastic a person might be more likely to stick to it. Both ways will work in the short and intermediate term. The idea is how eating habits effect the long term.

As for the website sources: it will take awhile for them to change their standards because it often takes physicians a bit to change their standards and because they have to make general statements that apply to many people. The USDA myplate website (it replaced the food pyramid last year) has a calculator and gives recommendations that are much more in line with the "eating more and losing more slowly" theory. It gave me a recommendation of 2000 calories per day, which is right in line with what I have MFP set to based on numbers given to me by fat2fit radio.

I hope that helps everybody.

I do understand. They're saying it's dangerous to eat under BMR. I'm saying it's not dangerous unless your BMR is under 1200.

I think that USDA myplate site is recommending 2000 calories per day for all women for maintenance, isn't it? Just as a general rule?

Also the USDA website is reccomending the 2000/day as weight loss.That suggests, rather depressingly, that the average American probably eats more than 2500 in combination with a sedentary lifestyle.

I don't think it's giving maintenance of 2000 because that isn't maintenance level for everyone. You have a point about Americans, it's part of out instant gratification culture. I personally prefer the slower loss with more food to the faster loss with little food, but admittedly because I am heavier it could easily be related to my body actually needing more calories to function. Interestingly enough, my sedentary TDEE at my current weight and the moderate (3-5 days/week) active TDEE of my goal weight are identical. Of course I would have to build up to that.

My whole point is "why does no one besides MFP forumites, not even the MFP plan itself, use BMR as the floor if it's some magic number that it's a bad idea to eat below?" It's because it's not. 1200 is considered the value people should eat above.

That myplate site isn't recommending 2000 for me, but you're right, it's giving a high weight loss recommendation. It's suggesting 1800 for me. I would lose about a pound a month at that. I really don't think most Americans are going to bother tracking every bite for a pound a month. I think it's giving your maintenance calorie level estimate at a healthy BMI. They do say there most women should eat around 2000 for maintenance.

Almost all formulas for calorie recommendations are based on the BMR. It's just that it is part of the formula used so it is not specifically stated. When you use a website to calculate your calorie needs, you typically enter a height, weight, and age. These are the things that determine your BMR. Then you also are asked how 'active' you are. This is the activity factor which is multiplied by the BMR. But when you click 'enter' all you see is a number - the calories it recommends. You do not see the details of the calculations.

BMR is simply your basic metabolic rate for normal body functions. That is how many calories your body requires to maintain a specific weight and nutritional level each day. The more active you are, the more calories your body burns (activity factor). But to lose weight, you have to consume less calories (from food) than your body burns (exercise). So maintaining a daily dietary intake at or around the recommended BMR can help you lose weight if you are more active rather than sedentary.

My whole point is "why does no one besides MFP forumites, not even the MFP plan itself, use BMR as the floor if it's some magic number that it's a bad idea to eat below?" It's because it's not. 1200 is considered the value people should eat above.

That myplate site isn't recommending 2000 for me, but you're right, it's giving a high weight loss recommendation. It's suggesting 1800 for me. I would lose about a pound a month at that. I really don't think most Americans are going to bother tracking every bite for a pound a month. I think it's giving your maintenance calorie level estimate at a healthy BMI. They do say there most women should eat around 2000 for maintenance.

Your reply to what you want to reply to. You asked a dietician her opinion, and she does inform you about the importance of BMR in weight loss, and you keep on going. Drop it. Honestly. Worry about your weight loss and not others. People who tell others about BMR are trying to help people do it in a healthy and sustainable way. I am not saying that you are pushing 1000 calories a day. but geez. You are so avidly against it. Be done.