calories too low on mfp
Options
Replies
-
By that logic, if you multiply your goal weight by 13 you should arrive at the calories you need to eat to reach your goal weight. Taking my numbers for example:well done u have have so well since march ive been on 3 wks now and ive lost 2 pounds, weigh in weds , my cals on this is 1380 , i have been keeping to this as much as i can i no to stay at aweight its ur weight in pounds times 14 lb times 13 that tells u what u need to stay at ur current weight x
Current: 244 x 13 = 3172 to maintain
Goal: 150 X 17= 1950
That's still WAY above 1200.0 -
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.0 -
this is all so confusing
Agreed. :sad:0 -
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.0 -
MFP is way too low and gives everyone the same 1200 calories. Or, so it seems to me. I suggest you go to fat2fitradio.com and use their calculator. Use the number that's right for you and do not eat back the calories. I've had good luck doing this. I would never try to live on 1200 calories or less a day. It's totally dangerous and you end out losing weight but it's muscle, not fat.
I love fat2fitradio. I have their podcasts on my phone for walking.0 -
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?0
-
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 know you're not asking me because I just posted two posts up that up to two pounds is a healthy aim. But I'm going to answer anyway! LOL
You can get to 150 by eating 1704 but it might take a while. I have no idea your TDEE estimate but if it's say 2000, your daily deficit will be about 300, so you could lose about 3 lbs. the first month. The closer you get to goal, the slower it will go because that deficit will keep shrinking as your BMR gets lower. So if you have 30 lbs. to lose, plan on tracking every bite you eat for maybe a year. Though your TDEE might be higher so it might be faster at first. And you gotta admit 1700 is hardly deprivation. And you'll have no transition to maintenance because 1700 is it.
Personally, I'll take the '2 lbs/week' plan and lose that same weight in 1/4 the time but that's just me.
0 -
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.0 -
Im 45, 5' 1.5" and at 163 right now. I use the bmr/tdee calculator and my calories are set at 1646. I manually enter my desired calories in my goals because MFP is not accurate for me, either. Doing this has been working well for me. The link is
http://calorieline.com/tools/tdeee0 -
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.0
-
Very simply, to lose weight by dieting only, you must eat fewer calories than your body needs each day. How much less do you need to eat? Well, to lose one pound of pure fat weight - NOT water or lean muscle tissue - you must consume approximately 3500 calories less than what your body needs.
And how do you know how much your body needs? Great question.
Your daily energy requirements are made up of your BMR or Basal Metabolic Rate plus your daily activity levels. If it makes it easier, think of your BMR as your Bare Minimum Requirements. In other words, if you were to lay in bed all day and not move a muscle, your BMR would be the amount of energy necessary to keep your heart beating, your lungs breathing, your kidneys functioning and so on. Add on the calories needed to support your daily activity, which includes every movement you make while awake, and you have your total daily energy requirements or TDER.
By the way, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that the absolute minimum number of calories per day for women is 1200 and for men is 1800. (And at those levels, I wouldn't recommend doing anything strenuous.)
The whole article
http://befitandstrong.com/the-only-3-ways-to-lose-body-fat-part-i/0 -
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?0 -
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?
See no they aren't. Nobody is suggesting that you will drop dead if you go below your BMR. Nobody is even suggesting that your body will drop dead if you consistently eat below BMR. The theory is that by eating below your BMR on a consistent basis, your body believes it's in a state of starvation. In response it slows your metabolism to conserve the calories it gets. Now because the calories it gets are above 0/nothing but below what you need to maintain your weight, you lose weight (at a rapid pace because you create as much as a 1000 per day deficit). However, when you hit your goal weight and no want to settle at the slightly higher caloric rate (let's say 1300-1500 rather than the 1000-1200 from the diet phase), your metabolism is slower. So because you regain weight even though you are still technically below your "maintenance calories" (that is, the amount of calories needed to maintain your goal weight).
Too long, didn't read: No it's not dangerous, just a bad idea in the long term.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
Very well stated. Thank you for this great information.0 -
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.0 -
The problem with the forums is that they are prime breeding ground for false information.
Actually the problem with forums is that it's very difficult to tell who's spouting the false information.
And quite often it can be the majority all parroting each other to the point that people believe it's a truism.
--
For me personally, I have found that the MFP calculation to be the most accurate of all the ones I've tried. This includes scooby and fat2fit. But YMMV.0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions