How close to your bmr do you need to be?

Yes, another bmr question. I calculated my bmr to be 1638. For about five weeks, I have been trying to eat around 1600 cals. Some days I ate above that and some days under (between 1500-1600). I also sometimes round up what I log for calories so that I make sure that I am not over-eating.

So if I am actually eating 40 to maybe 150-200 calories below my bmr on some days (not many though) would that be enough to put me in starvation mode.

On a side note, How much sodium per day would likely cause water weight?  (I asked this in foods, but no response yet).

** BUMP**

OK... My understanding is you would need to be between 500 and 1000 calories less to have a deficit that would lead to consistent weight loss. As far as only 40/50 calories, you would have to maintain that deficit for a long time to lose weight... not likely to happen because we all have our ups and downs.

As far as going into 'starvation mode' 40 or 50 or even as much as 1 or 2 hundres,  calories less than used is not starvation... starvation is generally desribed as 1000 or more calories less than what your body needs in order to maintain, per day, consistently.

As far as the water weight question ... I haven't got anything close to a clue on this. However, I would suggest searching through the forums... answers to all your questions have probably been addressed (I know the calorie ones have been, more times than I can count)

Good luck to you in finding what you are looking for ...

Namaste
~Katt

Original Post by xaspar:

OK... My understanding is you would need to be between 500 and 1000 calories less to have a deficit that would lead to consistent weight loss. As far as only 40/50 calories, you would have to maintain that deficit for a long time to lose weight... not likely to happen because we all have our ups and downs.

 I think you're mixing up daily burn and BMR.  BMR is just the calories the body's organs and such need to function on a daily basis.  In other words, the number of calories you'd burn if you were in a coma.  You want to avoid eating lower than your BMR.

With regard to the original question, I have no idea whether 40-50 calories low is low enough to cause problems.  I know I occasionally (i.e. once every couple of weeks) have a day where I eat 50-100 calories below my BMR and it hasn't caused me any trouble, but I eat 100-200 calories over it on most days - and more than that on heavy exercise days.

You should be taking in more than your BMR even if you are trying to lose weight. BMR only takes into account your basic life functions. Just walking and talking will need more calories than your BMR, to say nothing of exercise or other strenuous activity.

You want to eat under your maintenance level, that is your BMR, plus an estimated number of calories you burn based on your activity level. Use the calorie target tool to figure out how many calories you should take in daily.

Ok, some clarification. My BMR is 1638. My daily calorie burn is 1910 plus about 400 calories burned through exercise. Therefore I eat around 1600 calories a day (between 1550-1650) and burn 2310, so a deficit of 750 to 650 respectively.

I have had a calorie deficit every day for several weeks, but little change on the scales. My question that mistere29 did address, is whether I should be eating a little OVER my bmr instead of aiming 40 below. I know your bmr is what you need to be eating to give your body enough calories to function. Do you think such a low difference would be enough to put me into starvation mode? Im concerned that if I up my calories too much, I will have to exercise alot longer to get a good deficit of 500-750 calories.

keb, what's your goal weight and what do you currently weigh? If you're not  too far off from your goal weight (something like 10-15ish pounds away, but closer to ten), then you might find that you're going to have to lose at a slower rate than you're currently trying to attempt.

As for your question of BMR: I find that if I eat under my BMR for more than two days or so, I don't lose any weight. My BMR is about the same as yours, and I aim for 1700 calories or so a day. My sedentary burn is a bit more than yours, and my current activity level burn (light activity) is about the same as your actual daily burn. I've been losing roughly 1-1.5lbs a week, this way, by eating slightly more than my BMR at the very least every day. At the same time, though, I'm a long ways off from my ultimate goal weight (130), so I might have a lot more fat to lose than you do.

Try eating around 1700 calories a day, and see what happens. Your rounding up could be leading you to greater deficits than you think. My body is happy with a deficit no larger than 750 calories. It may be possible your body only will give up weight if you don't go over a certain deficit. =)

Thanks for the reply armandleg. My stats are 24 F, 5'2 and 185 lbs. I have already lost 40 lbs since January with 40-45 more to lose. I took a bit of a break during the summer, but now Im trying to get back on track.

I think I will up my calorie intake to 1700 for a few weeks and see what happens.

Original Post by keb1984:

Thanks for the reply armandleg. My stats are 24 F, 5'2 and 185 lbs. I have already lost 40 lbs since January with 40-45 more to lose. I took a bit of a break during the summer, but now Im trying to get back on track.

I think I will up my calorie intake to 1700 for a few weeks and see what happens.

keb, after hearing your stats, no wonder our numbers are very similar. =) I'm 20 years old, 5'2'', and currently weigh 198lbs. I've even lost at roughly the same rate as you (35lbs since March 1st).

1700 certainly has been working for me, and I think it will definitely work for you. =) Trying it out definitely seems to be a good idea.

Original Post by armandleg:

Original Post by keb1984:

Thanks for the reply armandleg. My stats are 24 F, 5'2 and 185 lbs. I have already lost 40 lbs since January with 40-45 more to lose. I took a bit of a break during the summer, but now Im trying to get back on track.

I think I will up my calorie intake to 1700 for a few weeks and see what happens.

keb, after hearing your stats, no wonder our numbers are very similar. =) I'm 20 years old, 5'2'', and currently weigh 198lbs. I've even lost at roughly the same rate as you (35lbs since March 1st).

1700 certainly has been working for me, and I think it will definitely work for you. =) Trying it out definitely seems to be a good idea.

 Wow, thats so weird. Whats your exercise routine like? What do you usually have for a calorie deficit?

If you are losing weight at your current calorie level, then why change anything.  And if someone told you that you would go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR, they are full of crap.  That is absolutely not true. 

While there is nothing wrong with using your BMR as the basis for your calorie intake, it isn't a hard and fast rule that you have to eat your BMR, and unless you have had your metabolic rate tested by a medical professional, then BMR is just an estimate and all of the BMR calculators are subject to statistical error, some more than others.  50 - 60 calories isn't even statistically significant.

And to trigger true starvation mode, you would have to significantly eat below your caloric needs (like half) for an extended period.  The way people use the phrase "starvation mode" around here is not only wrong, it is a simply a scare tactic and should be banned.

Thanks Techdog. The reason I am so concerned is because I have been eating about 300 calories below what CC calculates as my daily burn, plus about 450 cals burned through exercise, yet Im not losing any weight! And my body shouldnt be used to the amount of exercise that I am doing because I only started a week and a half ago. Im trying to figure what the problem is.

Well, I don't make suggestions as to caloric intake because weight loss is not an exact science and what works for me might not work for you.  As I said, eating close to your BMR isn't a bad idea because it will ensure that you are getting enough calories to get proper nutrition, but don't stress too much over the exact numbers and if you are willing to experiment a little and not stress over the scale, then you can find what works for you.  I say this as someone who created their own diet based on what and how I like to eat and lost over 100 pounds in about a year.  I don't use the tools here because I find them too unweildy and they cause more confusion than they are worth (in my opinion).

Other things that you could try include adjusting the ratios of fat, protein, and carbs, calorie cycling (having different calorie targets on different days), and varying your exercise routine.

Whatever you try, keep good records, so you can figure out what works for you and make small changes, one at a time.  This will help you identify what works and what doesn't.

Good luck.

Original Post by keb1984:

Original Post by armandleg:

keb, after hearing your stats, no wonder our numbers are very similar. =) I'm 20 years old, 5'2'', and currently weigh 198lbs. I've even lost at roughly the same rate as you (35lbs since March 1st).

1700 certainly has been working for me, and I think it will definitely work for you. =) Trying it out definitely seems to be a good idea.

 Wow, thats so weird. Whats your exercise routine like? What do you usually have for a calorie deficit?

Right now, I don't have a set exercise routine. But I did recently purchase the Wii Fit, and I'm aiming to play 20 minutes to 30 minutes of it a day, with a focus on either the aerobic games, strength training games, and yoga games. Though 5 days a week I work, and am on my feet all day and will occasionally bust my butt for an hour or two of it, while the other 4-7 hours I'm basically standing there and not lifting/running around much.

Because of what I do for my job, I put myself at light activity and had something like a 500-700 calorie deficit a day. What I was doing appeared to definitely be working, as I've been losing roughly 1-1.5lbs a week since I've started aiming at 1700 a day and just continued working with no structured exercise. Now that I've added the Wii Fit (and other activity that I haven't been getting in the past 7 months because my husband was gone  in Iraq), and will be adding DDR back in to my routine, I'll probably have to see if 1700 calories is not enough--I don't lose weight if I start to have a deficit larger than 800 calories.

Right now, I have upped my calories to between 1700-1800 for a week and then I think I might start calorie cycling. Hopefully that works!

Original Post by techdog:

If you are losing weight at your current calorie level, then why change anything.  And if someone told you that you would go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR, they are full of crap.  That is absolutely not true. 

Yes you will go into starvation mode if you eat under your BMR. That is the basic amount of calories you need to survive. You are confusing it with your daily burn which is your bmr + your activity level. It is ok to eat under that as long as you are still getting more than your BMR.  The calorie target tool will give you a number between the two.

Original Post by keb1984:

Ok, some clarification. My BMR is 1638. My daily calorie burn is 1910 plus about 400 calories burned through exercise. Therefore I eat around 1600 calories a day (between 1550-1650) and burn 2310, so a deficit of 750 to 650 respectively.

I have had a calorie deficit every day for several weeks, but little change on the scales. My question that mistere29 did address, is whether I should be eating a little OVER my bmr instead of aiming 40 below. I know your bmr is what you need to be eating to give your body enough calories to function. Do you think such a low difference would be enough to put me into starvation mode? Im concerned that if I up my calories too much, I will have to exercise alot longer to get a good deficit of 500-750 calories.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. What are you using to calculate your BMR?

Edit, just found a BMI calculator, got around the same number when i plugged your numbers in. For reference my BMR is 1740 and I am losing about lb a week eating 1900 cals or so.

1700 is probably a good number, since another poster has the same stats as you and it seems to be work for her. I doubt you have to go lower.

Original Post by mistere29:

Original Post by techdog:

If you are losing weight at your current calorie level, then why change anything. And if someone told you that you would go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR, they are full of crap. That is absolutely not true.

Yes you will go into starvation mode if you eat under your BMR. That is the basic amount of calories you need to survive. You are confusing it with your daily burn which is your bmr + your activity level. It is ok to eat under that as long as you are still getting more than your BMR. The calorie target tool will give you a number between the two.

That is absolutely not true.  If eating under your BMR put you into "starvation mode", then I would have been there a long time ago instead of losing over 100 pounds. 

Calories needed for your body to function don't only come from what you consume, they can also come from burning stored fat.  I am not confusing anything because I don't use the burn meter here.  I know perfectly well that BMR and burn meter are not the same thing. 

There is no rule that you have to eat your BMR.  That is a bald faced lie.

That is absolutely not true.  If eating under your BMR put you into "starvation mode", then I would have been there a long time ago instead of losing over 100 pounds. 

Calories needed for your body to function don't only come from what you consume, they can also come from burning stored fat.  I am not confusing anything because I don't use the burn meter here.  I know perfectly well that BMR and burn meter are not the same thing. 

There is no rule that you have to eat your BMR.  That is a bald faced lie.

The problem with that way of thinking is that if you started at 350, your BMR was already high to begin with, so you could get away with eating under your BMR without triggering the starvation response. Where people run into a problem is when the get closer to their target weight, they continue to cut calories downward at the same rate and that is when they hit starvation mode.

You also have to remember that fat isn't just to store energy, it provides insulation, cushioning, and hormone production. You can't keep burning up fat indefinitely. Again, once you get closer to that target weight, you body is going to want to hold on to that fat.

While there is no hard and fast rule that you can't eat under your BMR, it is a good guideline, if you do, you won't get anywhere near the starvation response.  As long as you maintain a calorie deficit you will lose weight, and you don't need to go under your BMR to do that.

I never said that eating at your BMR was not a good idea, but to claim that you will go into starvation mode if you eat below it is simply not true.

The originator of this thread is not a child and we don't need to protect her from the truth.  I gave her the facts and suggested a couple of things that she could try if she isn't losing weight doing what she is currently doing.

None of the advice I gave her is dangerous and the suggestions (calorie cycling, adjusting the ratios between different types of foods, and changing up her exercise routine) are tried and true methods that many people here use to lose weight.  I never suggested a calorie level for her, because I am not a doctor and I don't know if she has any medical conditions that could be impacting her weight loss.

She expressed a concern that wasn't based in fact and appeared to be stressing over it.  I gave her the information she needed to relieve that stress, since stress can be detrimental to weight loss.  THAT is why I object to people who incorrectly state that eating below your BMR will trigger starvation response.

The best weight loss plan is one that is tailored to your body, so trying out things to find out what works for you, armed with the facts necessary to allow you to experiment safely, is sound advice.  Giving people half truths and trying to act like weight loss is one size fits all is not and baldly stating that eating below your BMR will trigger starvation mode is not only not helpful, but it is harmful, since it leaves the person trying to lose weight ignorant of the facts.

I agree with your final response, where you admit that eating your BMR is simply a guideline that is safe and works for a lot of people.  But you must admit that you pulled a political candidate move (flipping your position when confronted with the facts).  You originally said:

Yes you will go into starvation mode if you eat under your BMR.

And that remains an untrue statement.  A correct statement would have been:

As you get closer to your target weight, eating at or above your BMR and maintaining your deficit by increasing your activity and exercise levels becomes more important, since you have much less fat stores from which to draw upon.  If you eat significantly less than your BMR when you have very little fat stores, and do it for an extended period, you MIGHT trigger starvation response, where you body adjusts your metabolism and tries to hold on to every calorie it can get.

While it takes a lot longer to type that out, it accomplishes two purposes.  It gives the reader the facts and it doesn't perpetuate a lie.

Original Post by techdog:

  You originally said:

Yes you will go into starvation mode if you eat under your BMR.

And that remains an untrue statement. 

 

It's a perfectly true statement. It's true, however, in the same way that "everyone in this thread is about to die" is a true statement. It's lacking in a certain degree of scale.

While I generally agree with your "keep doing what's working" mentality, a lot of people come in here with questions that befuddle BRM and RMR, so it's a natural place to go.

Also, there is no simple explanation of starvation mode. It's a totally misunderstood bugbear. I'd totally be willing to write it off to bad calorie estimates, but there are far too many people who've successfully "eaten back" calories. Of course, in some true starvation mode, that shouldn't work, simply because starvation is starvation, so I highly suspect there are more things going on than have been explored.

But that's another discussion entirely.