1200 vs BMR

samwise29
samwise29 Posts: 31 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help me.
I have been on here and using it properly for about 5 weeks now. I have so far managed to lose 5lbs.
I am currently have my calories set at 1200, but I wondered if it is more sensible to eating the amount of calories the BMR calculator says.
Any help would be brilliant.
Thanks,
Sam

Replies

  • zozzabubba
    zozzabubba Posts: 137 Member
    wondering the same thing! answers??? :)
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    to lose weight the generally accepted view is that you have to eat less calories than you use. The difference being a "deficit".

    What you use consists of your BMR multiplied by a factor for lifestyle - 1.2 for sedentary. On top of that you can add exercise that happens occasionally into the diary here and it increases your food goal to match.

    If your BMR is 1400 and you're sedentary then you'll use 1680 calories a day, so 1200 would be a deficit of 480, eating your BMR would be a deficit of 280 so you would expect to lose weight about half as fast eating your BMR as eating 1200, in this example.

    A deficit of at least 500 cals/day (3500 a week) is required to lose about a pound a week.

    Hope that helps.
  • samwise29
    samwise29 Posts: 31 Member
    Thank you so much. That makes perfect sense :bigsmile:

    I think I will stick at 1200 then, as it seems to be working for me and I vary between 1-2lb weight loss a week.
  • brneydgrlie
    brneydgrlie Posts: 464 Member
    There are a lot of discussions on MFP about this, so you will probably hear a few different opinions.

    My thought is, you need to take into account what BMR actually is. It stands for Basal Metabolic Rate. This is the measurement of how many calories your body needs just to survive - in other words, to perform basic bodily functions if you were to stay in bed all day.

    I have come to my own personal conclusion that eating too far below my BMR is part of what caused my problems (fat & hormonal). I find now that I am regularly eating a bit above my BMR, I have much more energy, I feel much better, my workouts are stronger and my endurance is increasing faster, and my weight loss is actually more steady.
  • cheekyleonie
    cheekyleonie Posts: 140 Member
    In my opinion it's a good idea to aim for your BMR if you're finding 1200 too hard.

    At the end of the day BMR says that is how much energy your body burns for your day to day functions if you just lay in bed all day. But usually you'd walk around the house, in and out of work, around the office etc. So at the end of the day as long as you burn more than you consume, you'll be OK!!!
  • JosieRawr
    JosieRawr Posts: 788 Member
    There are a lot of discussions on MFP about this, so you will probably hear a few different opinions.

    My thought is, you need to take into account what BMR actually is. It stands for Basal Metabolic Rate. This is the measurement of how many calories your body needs just to survive - in other words, to perform basic bodily functions if you were to stay in bed all day.

    I have come to my own personal conclusion that eating too far below my BMR is part of what caused my problems (fat & hormonal). I find now that I am regularly eating a bit above my BMR, I have much more energy, I feel much better, my workouts are stronger and my endurance is increasing faster, and my weight loss is actually more steady.


    ^^
    This, except I don't know if my weight loss is steady because I'm avoiding scales n sticking to measurements(but I lost a full inch in my waist in six days, i didn't do it by not eating, feel free to check out my food n exercise diaries) I'm new around here, but I know that inches are more reliable than pounds and I feel marvelous!
    (I'm on here specifically because I was blowing my metabolism by under eating severely-unthinkingly- on days that I was working out, leading to nightly headaches n feeling very tired.)
  • CChandler81
    CChandler81 Posts: 100 Member
    Interesting...I've heard about this eat more to weigh less thing, but it's nerve wracking putting it into practice. I started out with my cals at 1550 (about 30cals over my BMR) but bumped it down to 1420 b/c I was rarely meeting my goal. So is having it below my BMR a negative thing in the long run? 1400 cals is pretty manageable if you eat right...however, I do steer away from healthy fats like nuts b/c of the high calorie content. I would love to add some almonds back into my diet.
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    Your BMR has nothing to do with today's intake. People seem to think your body needs to fuel some base functions with today's food intake but that's not any more true than your car needs to get you to the office on gas you put in it today. Yesterday's gas works just fine. Last month's gas works just fine. It's all one tank.

    1200 is recommended for purposes like getting enough fiber and essential amino acids/fatty acids (compounds your body can't create from stored calories), and for satiety, not for 'fuel' needs. Your body runs just fine on the fuel in your fat stores.
  • ElizaBennettDarcy
    ElizaBennettDarcy Posts: 10
    Hi,
    Sorry to hijack the thread..
    My BMR is 1222. I verge between sedentary and lightly active - so saying sedentary! and multiplying by 1.2, that's a total of 1466.

    To lose a lb a week, am I right in thinking I should be eating about 950 a day?

    I used the MFP calculator. Twice.

    It does explain why eating 1200 is getting me nowhere!
  • mcarter99
    mcarter99 Posts: 1,666 Member
    I think you're right. It might be easier to bump your activity level a little higher than to eat less, though. Though I imagine at your size 950 probably doesn't feel like all that little. Maybe split the difference? Aim for 250 under TDEE (about 1200 of food intake) and up your activity by about 250 calories a day?
  • taylor5877
    taylor5877 Posts: 1,792 Member
    Interesting...I've heard about this eat more to weigh less thing, but it's nerve wracking putting it into practice.

    I agree there, but it works, ESPECIALLY if you're eating whole veggies and some fruit, lean proteins, healthy fats...yada yada.

    I'm a male currently cutting so I'm at about 2400 calories/day plus excercise for my caloric goals (usually 2800 on average). That sounds like a LOT, but I've lost about 10lbs over the last 10 weeks just like I should be.

    My actual caloric intake to maintain my weight is like 3400. And that number is even low because MFP doesn't give you a calories burned number for strength training.

    Don't let the number scare you. More calories also gives you room to eat more (of) nutritious foods!

Categories