OMG Ya'll. Still not Losing.

McCarter99, just watched your video... the guy said exactly what I say. Going under BMR for a while is fine (In fact, many people lose weight this way) but in time it stalls (Due to the issues I describe as bad) and as your source himself says will result in negative effects.

I generally say NEVER go under BMR, because when you say a person can (When they are for long term weight loss), what happens is they over estimate how often they can do it. Which is bad.

I also tell people, that post about "OMG ate under my BMR!" that its okay to happen here and there.

The 'do not eat below your BMR' myth will never die. There isn't a managed diet plan or authority in the world who gives that advice. If YOU feel better at some level above it, that's great. But there is absolutely nothing dangerous about eating under your BMR when you have body fat to reduce.

You lost weight the first week and not the second, right? That's 100% normal. That short of a period, the fat loss is too small to tease out of all the other noise that goes into your weight (water mainly).

Dana- Have you met helloitsdan? He too thinks he's stumbled upon the key. Maybe you two can get together and inform the weight loss and medical industries about this key that they've all missed.

Actually, medically speaking it is not good to eat below your BMR. If you can find me a study that proves it is a good idea to eat 500 calories a day for a year, I'll GLADLY read it. By your very logic alone, anorexia doesn't exist.

I have never met a single medical doctor or nutritionist that would suggest a person literally stop eating until they were their goal weight.

Read the journal entry about the man who fasted for 18 months, lost a ton of weight and kept it off after starting to eat again, there is just the study you are asking for. Eating below the BMR is just fine, the body actually adjusts better. I never eat anywhere near my BMR and have been doing just fine for over a year. More healthy now than I've ever been.

Read the journal entry about the man who fasted for 18 months, lost a ton of weight and kept it off after starting to eat again, there is just the study you are asking for. Eating below the BMR is just fine, the body actually adjusts better. I never eat anywhere near my BMR and have been doing just fine for over a year. More healthy now than I've ever been.

A story is not a study. And "healthy" is a medical term, not based totally on physical weight. And again, by this VERY argument, 100 calories a day is A-OK.

And as I have mentioned MANY times, the body does adjust. It does this by reducing the number of calories and nutrients to the organs, and as I mentioned, is why anorexic people (eating below BMR) eventually die of acute organ failure.

What you are advocating people do is become anorexic, this IS NOT a healthy or recommended lifestyle.

Eating below BMR for short period is fine, your body CAN handle that. Extended period is BAD.

He did it for over 18 months and was just fine. I by no means have fasted, but have not eaten anywhere close to my BMR for over a year, so by your argument I am anorexic and about to die from organ failure

I didn't say "eat 500" or "eat nothing". I said BMR is meaningless in this context. I've been beating this horse here for 8 weeks and not one person can come up with one recommendation from any (non-forum) person to 'not eat below your BMR'. Because it's not something authorities say. They say 'don't eat below 1200 calories' and/or 'don't aim to lose more than 2 lbs/week'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAvFsIUxvY

I have not seen you before, so I have yet to hear your arguments, or ANY data to the contrary to suggest eating below BMR for significant periods is okay. (I do not believe a day or two or three below BMR will kill ya)

Can't watch the video you linked at the moment, but would love to see it later.

I would definitely LOVE to hear well reasoned arguments for being able to eat below BMR (Although, you still say not too low but don't define too low, and even went along with someone upping their calories in another thread).

I am not being "confrontational", I just want to get the BEST information possible. And when someone says I am wrong, I like to know why rather than just being like "Okay, I'm wrong." you know what I mean?

I said authorities use 1200 calories or 1000 calorie deficit/per day as the recommended floor. You said I didn't 'define too low'. I don't define anything. I'm just saying what the authorities say.

I'm not being confrontational either. I know it sounds like it. I just am tired of hearing this advice dished out here left and right like it's gospel. People misunderstand BMR. Look at it this way-- losing fat requires a caloric deficit. SOME bodily activity is going to be 'funded' by calories in fat cells, rather than in today's food. We don't get to pick which day's calories fuel which activities. All that matters is that there is a deficit and that it's not too steep to neglect our bodies' needs for daily fiber, essential amino and fatty acids, satiety, that sort of thing. Energy is not addressed by today's calories alone. Stored calories hold the exact same energy as today's calories (3500 to a lb.) That's what a calorie is, by definition. A unit of energy.

You need to eat breakfast and get 20minutes of exercise in the morning in order to rev up your metabolism. This is from a very famous fitness and nutrition trainer that Oprah used for years. I'm not sure of his name. I know this works. Also be patient. Keep doing healthy things that you can live with for the rest of your life and it will happen. Trying clothes on is always a better measurement for me.

I said authorities use 1200 calories or 1000 calorie deficit/per day as the recommended floor. You said I didn't 'define too low'. I don't define anything. I'm just saying what the authorities say.

I'm not being confrontational either. I know it sounds like it. I just am tired of hearing this advice dished out here left and right like it's gospel. People misunderstand BMR. Look at it this way-- losing fat requires a caloric deficit. SOME bodily activity is going to be 'funded' by calories in fat cells, rather than in today's food. We don't get to pick which day's calories fuel which activities. All that matters is that there is a deficit and that it's not too steep to neglect our bodies' needs for daily fiber, essential amino and fatty acids, satiety, that sort of thing. Energy is not addressed by today's calories alone. Stored calories hold the exact same energy as today's calories (3500 to a lb.) That's what a calorie is, by definition. A unit of energy.

I think we are on very similar pages. My route is safer and more controlled though. Given that even your source (A guy with a big chest) even agreed with me is nicely re-assuring.

"Authorities" tend to be so because they have data, facts, and science to back them up. They rarely go on "Just because I believe".

I won't ever recommend a person starve themselves to be skinny. As I mentioned, that is anorexia, and I will NOT promote it. I will promote a healthy lifestyle that includes eating proper foods in the proper amounts in combination with resistance and cardio training.

Yikes....

To the OP, there is a lot of bad information in this thread.. And I know it is impossible to discern who knows what they are talking about and who, through best of intentions, are passing along meaningless information, but since you have asked for opinions you will get everything here and I leave it to you to discern your best choices.

Here are my thoughts:

Studies regularly show time of day eating is meaningless to weight *loss* unless the eating pattern results in a decrease in calorie intake... So the key is simply finding a pattern of eating that meets your needs, helps you feel satisfied, and helps you meet your calorie goals.

The scale is very very fickle, your body weight fluctuates a lot for a number of reasons including water retention for a whole bunch of reason (newly started workouts often results in temporary water retention being held as part of the process to repair muscle tissue - this water retention typically goes away after a few weeks; high sodium foods can rigger retention, monthly cycles, etc) as well as differences in waste retention depending on the nature of food eaten in the period prior to weighing, etc....

So trust this... If you are eating below your daily expenditure, and you are doing workouts that will help you retain your muscle mass, and you have protein to also help in muscle retention, your body will shed fat... Sometimes it will show up clearly in the scale, and other times it won't be immediately apparent... But it is happening...

I'd suggest you simply keep doing what you are doing for a little bit longer and be patient... Most of us didn't gain our weight quickly and won't lose it quickly - slow and steady wins the race here. Small adjustments may be necessary, but you will need to take some time to dial in what you are doing and how your body is responding.... You can be certain that if you see the scale go up and you have, for say the past week overall (as opposed to any individual day) , been under your daily expenditure ... Then you are seeing other things being measured by the scale than just fat and lean mass - extra water, more waste, whatever. The body simply cannot create mass from nothing and can't simply do silly things like 'store all food intake as fat' etc like you may read just because you have a low cal day....

Good luck in your journey and I hope this is helpful!

Edited for typos

Looked at your diary. Try drinking more water. Aim for 64 oz/day, and see what happens from there.

How do you look at someone else's food diary? thanks

TDEE, BMR, BREAKFAST (which I don't eat, thanks very much) aside:

Are you using a food scale? The only thing I noticed is that a lot of your foods are home made or generic (which I think is a great thing -- if you are cooking so you know what you are eating) food. Before I got a food scale a few years ago, I would use measuring cups and guesstimates. Then I got a scale and realized that A LOT of the time I was either eating way more or why less than an actual serving. That helped a lot.

I also resisted working out when I was first losing -- then I got to about my goal weight and didn't look how I wanted to look - I tried dropping another 20 pounds -- which I have been "trying" for like 8 years. Finally I gave in and started working out -- I have only lost 2 pounds but have lost nearly 20 total body inches in 6 weeks. I look like I weigh 10-15 pounds less. So definitely do two things: measure yourself and work out.

That's all I got. Good luck to you.