calories too low on mfp

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.

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.

I will never drop it. You guys are so convinced of this one misconception that you won't even listen to me. I'm not worried about anyone's weight loss. I'm worried about the spread of misinformation. I'm not against people eating at whatever level they choose. That's the difference. The "you can't eat below your BMR" people are the ones that insist their way is the only safe way. Many of us can eat well below our BMR but over 1200. It's not dangerous, it's not starvation, it's not crash dieting.

The importance of BMR in weight loss is in estimating your BURN. Your intake is a whole separate thing. That's why no authority ties those two concepts together.

Please find the ignore function if you're tired of hearing me.

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?

Yes you are correct with the calculations. However, one more thing to consider is your 'goal weight' as compared to your 'current weight'. If the difference is too drastic, you may not be able to maintain it. So having smaller interrim goals may be better.

For example: actual weight = 250# x 11.36 = 2840kcals daily; goal weight = 150# x 11.36 = 1704kcals daily. A difference of 1136 calories. With that much of a drop, there is a risk of constant hunger, which can lead to bing eating.

Instead, start with a goal weight of 200# x 11.36 = 2272, a difference of 568 calories. This range may be more 'livable'. Once the goal of 200# is reached, then go for the desired goal - 150#. The difference in calorie needs between 200# and 150# is 568 calories.

Healthy weight loss is not fast but is more likely to remain permanent because you are making gradual changes over time. Plus losing the weight at a slower rate (3-8#/month) is more apt to lead to fat loss, not muscle loss.

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

Check this out. This may help you.

Good luck!

I eat 980 a day. To loose a pound a week I cut 500 calories of my BMR a day. I also take my calculated BMR and only use 80% of it as my BMR. If you have to loose weight then you need to cut %20 out of your estimated BMR. I saw that in a documentary not to long ago. So far it has been working for me. As soon as I reach my weight goal, I will add 500 back to my daily BMR (but still only %80 of my calculated BMR for myself)....I had to manually update my settings for the 980 calories a day on MFP.

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.

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?

I eat 980 a day. To loose a pound a week I cut 500 calories of my BMR a day. I also take my calculated BMR and only use 80% of it as my BMR. If you have to loose weight then you need to cut %20 out of your estimated BMR. I saw that in a documentary not to long ago. So far it has been working for me. As soon as I reach my weight goal, I will add 500 back to my daily BMR (but still only %80 of my calculated BMR for myself)....I had to manually update my settings for the 980 calories a day on MFP.