Not eating below BMR and still losing weight?

I keep reading posts about people who are eating at their BMR and consistently losing weight (most without exercising).  How is that possible?  I just don't understand.  Aren't you supposed to have a calorie deficit each day to lose weight?

BMR: Basal Metabolic Rate.  This is the number of calories to keep your organs alive.

RMR: Resting Metabolic Rate.  This is the number of calories you need to sit and do nothing. 

RMR = BMR * 1.2

So, if your BMR is 2000, your RMR is 2400.  If you do no exercise, you still have a 400 calorie deficit, and that will cause you to lose almost 1 lb per week. 

You don't seem to have the right definition of BMR.  That is your Basal Metabolic Rate -- what you burn at rest.  So that means if you are active and workout and you eat less than what your burn in a day then you will lose weight.

You are supposed to eat more than BMR to maintain proper health.

Please read the article linked above so that you can fully grasp the meaning of BMR.

"...is the amount of energy expended while at rest in a neutrally temperate environment, in the post-absorptive state (meaning that the digestive system is inactive, which requires about twelve hours of fasting in humans). The release of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, such as the heart, lungs, brain and the rest of the nervous system, liver, kidneys, sex organs, muscles and skin."

Okay - I have my terms mixed up.  I get them now (although in my head I knew what I was talking about I just mixed them up on the post)

I still don't see how they are losing weight.  And when I mean losing weight, I mean 1-3 lbs per week.  Phord, I get what you're saying but I guess maybe I don't see how it's possible b/c for someone my size, it seems almost impossible to use that method.  According to this site, I burn 1600 just sitting around doing nothing.  So if I ate 1200 I should lose 1.5 lbs (ish) every two weeks.  Right? 

Maybe I just don't get it b/c it doesn't seem possible for someone as short as me (5') with 20-30 lbs to lose to use that method.  I would love to be wrong but the math doesn't seem to add up.  Am I doing something wrong?

Does anyone have any other calculators? 

Also - has anyone else found that the RMR on this site is a bit high?  I think I was on another site and they said my RMR (getting it right now marneedear - lol) was only 1388 vs. the 1600 on this site.

The calculators on this site are NOT RMR or BMR calculators.  They include your BMR and an allowance for activity.  If the site says you burn 1600 at sedentary, then that includes your BMR and calories for being sedentary, which is on top of BMR - BMR is what you burn to exist, not to shower, type, walk, scratch, etc.

If you have calculated it to be 1388, then that means that you shouldn't eat under 1388 calories.  If you burn 1600 at sedentary, then that gives you 212 calories deficit before exercise.  You shouldn't go below your BMR, so you'd have to add exercise to burn more calories.

Oh okay.  Well that would explain why even on my best days I still eat 1300 to 1400 calories (I am always too hungry to just eat 1200).  I guess now I know why.  If my BMR is 1360 then my body must not be "happy" until it gets that. 

 

Original Post by hhaussler:

Does anyone have any other calculators?

Funny you should ask: http://phord.com/cc/

If you eat your BMR, the amount of energy/calories your body uses to function at rest.  That is lying down in bed doing zip!  So if you eat your BMR, any activity as well as being sedentary puts you in a deficit.  For example my BMR is 1613, at sedentary its 2080 or something like that, so I already have deficit there.  If I exercise or do activities beyond getting up and going to the bathroom its more deficit.

try freedieting.com, they have BMR calculators.  And for future reference your RMR, resting metabolic rate is usually lower that your basal metabolic rate.

Yet again, more misinformation about "you have to eat your BMR" and no mention of how inaccurate most calculators that use Harris-Benedict formula are.

Follow the logic. Your body needs X number of calories to function. If you consume some number of calories Y that is less than X, you body will still function, but will have to make up those calories in some other way. Two ways where the difference between X and Y could be made up is by burning your fat stores (which is what they are there for) or by burning muscle tissue (which you want to avoid as much as possible).

So the "requirement" to consume your BMR is bunk.

Is it a bad idea to consume your BMR and to create the deficit by exercising more? No. In fact, that is a very good thing because it guarantees that you are not undereating and by creating the deficit through exercise, you get all of the added benefits that come from being physically fit.

Do you have to eat your BMR to lose weight and be healthy? Not if you have sufficient fat stores to make up the difference between your intake and BMR and if you are exercising to minimize muscle loss.

I am not discounting the advice to eat your BMR and to create your calorie deficit by increasing activity. That is a very safe suggestion and following it will help ensure that you get enough calories to get good nutrition as well.

I am just debunking the myth that you "have" to consume your BMR to lose weight and letting you know that BMR calculators like those referenced here are only estimates and that weight loss is not an exact science with immutable rules.

Anyone care to help me out here?

jjlewis305 wrote: And for future reference your RMR, resting metabolic rate is usually lower that your basal metabolic rate.

My RMR is higher (1778) than my BMR (1482).  That is on Sedentary.  Is something wrong? 

CC calculated me to eat only 1200 calories a day with a the burn meter at 1800.  Again at Sedentary.  I add in my excercise manually.  Which hasn't been alot lately.  I'm still hungry at the end of the day.  Should I eat the 1482? Also, I have wondered why I havent lost weight at times.  Could it be that I'm not eating enough and my metabolism is shutting down?  Frustrated.

Original Post by techdog:

Yet again, more misinformation about "you have to eat your BMR" and no mention of how inaccurate most calculators that use Harris-Benedict formula are.

 

Who said anything about Harris-Benedict?  If you use my calculator (posted above) I do calculate HB, but I ignore it for all the data.  I only calc it for comparison with what people may have seen elsewhere.

 

Original Post by techdog:

I am not discounting the advice to eat your BMR and to create your calorie deficit by increasing activity. That is a very safe suggestion and following it will help ensure that you get enough calories to get good nutrition as well.

I am just debunking the myth that you "have" to consume your BMR to lose weight and letting you know that BMR calculators like those referenced here are only estimates and that weight loss is not an exact science with immutable rules.

That's true.  But unless you can go into the whole issue of nutrition and safety margins here, it's fare easier (and safer) to say "Eat your BMR". On my calculator page I base the EAT/BURN range on BMR to begin with ("activity deficit").  But I also calculate your "Max Fat Burn deficit" if you supply your BF%.  And I use whichever is smaller as the limiter.  (I have an advanced page that lets you disable safeguards as you see fit, but I haven't released it to the public yet.)

 

Original Post by hockeymom26:

Anyone care to help me out here?

jjlewis305 wrote: And for future reference your RMR, resting metabolic rate is usually lower that your basal metabolic rate.

My RMR is higher (1778) than my BMR (1482). That is on Sedentary. Is something wrong?

CC calculated me to eat only 1200 calories a day with a the burn meter at 1800. Again at Sedentary. I add in my excercise manually. Which hasn't been alot lately. I'm still hungry at the end of the day. Should I eat the 1482? Also, I have wondered why I havent lost weight at times. Could it be that I'm not eating enough and my metabolism is shutting down? Frustrated.

jjlewis is wrong.  BMR is your basal rate.  RMR is your sedentary rate. 

You should ignore the CC recommended eat numbers, especially if it's leaving you hungry.  If you're not exercising a lot, you're safest eating your BMR or more (1482+).  Also, you should probably use a more accurate BMR calculator like this one: http://phord.com/cc/

You may be plateauing from undereating.  It's hard to tell with such limited info, but it's also hard to tell even if we have all the data.  :-\ 

Original Post by phord:

Original Post by techdog:

Yet again, more misinformation about "you have to eat your BMR" and no mention of how inaccurate most calculators that use Harris-Benedict formula are.

Who said anything about Harris-Benedict? If you use my calculator (posted above) I do calculate HB, but I ignore it for all the data. I only calc it for comparison with what people may have seen elsewhere.

 

Original Post by techdog:

I am not discounting the advice to eat your BMR and to create your calorie deficit by increasing activity. That is a very safe suggestion and following it will help ensure that you get enough calories to get good nutrition as well.

I am just debunking the myth that you "have" to consume your BMR to lose weight and letting you know that BMR calculators like those referenced here are only estimates and that weight loss is not an exact science with immutable rules.

That's true. But unless you can go into the whole issue of nutrition and safety margins here, it's fare easier (and safer) to say "Eat your BMR". On my calculator page I base the EAT/BURN range on BMR to begin with ("activity deficit"). But I also calculate your "Max Fat Burn deficit" if you supply your BF%. And I use whichever is smaller as the limiter. (I have an advanced page that lets you disable safeguards as you see fit, but I haven't released it to the public yet.)

The BMR calculator that the other person pointed to is a Harris-Benedict BMR formula calculator, so even though they didn't say Harris-Benedict, if the person went to that calculator and used it, they would be getting numbers based on the Harris-Benedict formula, which is one of the less statistically accurate formulas.  I don't know why people continue to use it when there are much more statistically accurate methods of estimating BMR available.

I don't have a problem with the method you use to calculate a safe calorie target based on eating at or above your BMR.  As I said, I think that consuming your BMR and creating a deficit by increasing exercise and other physical activity is a good idea.  But there are people here, who unlike you, haven't done their homework and just blindly state that you "must" eat your BMR.  That is bunk.

And although it is easier to just say "Eat your BMR" and it is a safe recommendation, these are adults we are talking to, not children.  They don't need us to hold their hand and keep them safe.  I think it is simply better to give people as much knowledge as possible and let them make an informed decision.  I'm not saying that you have to write a three page response to every question, but being able to point people to books, websites, or other references regarding nutrition and weight loss doesn't take that much effort.

So I think that if you just say "Eat your BMR" because it is safe and easy, it is not as helpful as saying "Eat close to your BMR and here are some books and links that will help you understand why this is a good idea." 

Your calculator helps people to understand the rules and that is a good thing and I have found your advice to people to be good.  But there are others who blindly quote the "eat your BMR" mantra as if it was a commandment handed down from God.  It isn't and I would rather take the time to help people learn about nutrition, why creating a deficit by increasing activity is better than drastically reducing their calories, and the known deficiencies in BMR calculations than to take the easy way out.  Knowledge should be shared and that is what I am trying to do. 

I think that you would agree with me that the more a person knows about nutrition and healthy weight loss, the better.  I firmly believe that increasing your knowledge about weight loss and nutrition is one of the keys to not only losing weight safely, but to keeping it off.  Knowledge is power.  You spread it by pointing people to your website.  I spread it through this forum.  We're on the same side, just using different methods to accomplish the same goal, to help people learn what they need to know to safely lose weight and live a healthy lifestyle. 

This is what I have done and am doing.  Warning: Long.  Skip if you wish.  I hope it helps anyone who does read it.

These are the calculators I use.  (And yes, the BMR calculation uses the H-B equation - more on that in a paragraph.)

http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/ - minimum daily caloric intake     http://www.consumer.gov/weightloss/bmi.htm - determine healthy BMI range  http://www.healthstatus.com/cbc.html - to determine caloric burn for activities

A word about calculators - they are all estimates.  The most accurate way to get these numbers is to go to a professional with the special-purpose equipment to do real fat/lean and bone structure measurements -- and even those numbers are just closer to accurate. The human body is a complex, organic system, and no two are exactly alike; science is still discovering how it works.

So, as far as I am concerned, any of them are ok.  Don't get obsessed about them, though.  I use the above ones because they work for me and work better than the CC+ calculators.  My goal is to come up with a weight loss plan that I can keep to while I lose weight and then can convert to a permanent weight maintenance life style. 

Here are the calculations I made using the above cited websites.

1. calculate my current BMR
2. calculate my current maintenance caloric load (#1*1.2)
3. subtract 500 cals - to lose between 0.5 and 1 pound per week
4. add back additional calories from my activities beyond sedentary

The result is the maximum I can eat at my current weight and still lose around 1 pound per week (my goal rate.)  If your goal rate is up to 2 pounds per week, subtract 1000 cals.  I would not subtract more.  Losing weight too fast is not only unhealthy, but counter-productive (says a 54 year old veteran of the yo-yo weight wars.)

Now, repeat the above calculations for my goal weight -- making sure to use the BMI ranges for a healthy weight goal, and skipping the 500 calorie subtraction, because at my goal weight I need to maintain weight , not lose.  My current plan is to reach a BMI of 24.9 according to the charts.  I am particularly large-boned (with very dense bones) and I am already fairly muscular and am getting more so as I work out, so I know that my healthy BMI is on the high range, if not slightly above the charts.  So I'm going for the top of my range.  Then I'll see if I need fine-tuning from there.  I'm in this for the long haul (the rest of my -- long, I hope -- life.)

Result:  The best caloric load for me to lose weight safely is somewhere between the minimum at my goal weight and the maximum at my current weight.  As my current weight decreases, so will that maximum, so over time, I will get closer to my goal weight load, at which time I'll be eating the way I need to eat for the rest of my life.  Meantime, this method gives me a weight-loss plan I can realistically keep to.

I keep these other conditions in mind.

 1) I must burn at least 500 cals more than I eat each day, regardless of limits.  (This is why I put myself as sedentary for the CC+burn meter -- so I can see where I stand on my caloric loads throughout the day and adjust accordingly.)

2) I must not, under any circumstances, go below 1200 calories intake per day.  (with my bone structure, that will always be too low for me, anyway.)  It is extremely difficult for a woman to get sufficient nutrition in less than 1200 calories -- I would not attempt it without direct supervision by an expert in the field.

3) I must keep the caloric deficit no larger than 1000 per day.

For the record, I have lost 7 pounds in 2 months -- or an average of 0.875 pounds (just under 1 pound) per week.  I expect I will increase my rate to 1 pound per week as soon as I am consistent with my exercise program.

Why am I losing more than 1/2 a pound with a 500 calorie deficit?  Because I'm not obsessing about my measurements.  I count every calorie I eat, but I only count as additional burn my real exercise routines.  Extra calories burned doing housework, or shopping, or other such activities I simply don't count.  So I am actually keeping a deficit somewhat higher than 500 calories.  As I said, as I continue, I will be fine tuning this to match my changing circumstances.

Good luck to us all!

 

Original Post by techdog:

there are others who blindly quote the "eat your BMR" mantra as if it was a commandment handed down from God. It isn't and I would rather take the time to help people learn about nutrition, why creating a deficit by increasing activity is better than drastically reducing their calories, and the known deficiencies in BMR calculations than to take the easy way out. Knowledge should be shared and that is what I am trying to do.

I had this same argument (less fully stated) previously.  But then I realized that most people won't read a long post, won't take the time to learn, and might be misguided by my objections to "Eat your BMR".  That last bit is what did me in.  So now I propose, Eat your BMR, and I even designed a calculator to show the math used to lose weight while you do so (because so many other calculators don't). Because while I enjoy teaching, it seems that the majority do not enjoy learning so much detail.  So I must learn to teach with less detail.  If they want to learn more, they can ask or do research.

"Why must I look both ways before crossing the street?" 

Two possible answers: 

1. Because if you don't, you may not see a car which may be approaching at a speed too high for you to escape even if you are able to run very fast.  But sometimes you can outrun it, and you may judge accordingly.  However, the driver of the car may panic if you dart out in front of him and it can cause him to get into a separate accident.  Or he may swerve and hit you even though you would have been safe if he had proceeded normally.  So in most cases, it is best to look first and then cross only when you may do so at a leisurely pace.  In cities it may even be illegal to cross unless you are at a crosswalk and have a signal that indicates your allowance to cross.  Even then you should look both ways to make sure the cars are going stop as they are legally (but not physically) required to do.
2. Because if you don't you'll get run over.

 

"Why must I look both ways before crossing the street?" 

Two possible answers: 

1. Because if you don't, you may not see a car which may be approaching at a speed too high for you to escape even if you are able to run very fast.  But sometimes you can outrun it, and you may judge accordingly.  However, the driver of the car may panic if you dart out in front of him and it can cause him to get into a separate accident.  Or he may swerve and hit you even though you would have been safe if he had proceeded normally.  So in most cases, it is best to look first and then cross only when you may do so at a leisurely pace.  In cities it may even be illegal to cross unless you are at a crosswalk and have a signal that indicates your allowance to cross.  Even then you should look both ways to make sure the cars are going stop as they are legally (but not physically) required to do.
2. Because if you don't you'll get run over.

 

I like that.  I hope your point is taken by the other party.  

Phord:

Let me first say that the way I approach the problem of potentially misguiding someone is that I don't recommend specific numbers, but a generic guidance that it is better to eat until you aren't hungry and then create the deficit by being more active.  I only bring up the deficiencies in BMR calculations if some specifically mentions BMR and one of the drive by "eat your BMR" crowd pops up and then vanishes from the thread.  You aren't one of these people. 

Like I said, I believe that we are both on the same side, just that you use your website to educate and take the stance, "If they want to know more, they can ask." That is fine. I take the approach, "I'll give them more information up front. If they learn from it great, if not, then at least I know that I didn't withhold information that could help them." I think that both are valid approaches. As I said, I don't count you as one of the mantra people because you took the time and effort to create a very useful website and point people to it when they ask. And your calculator shows the math involved and how you arrived at the numbers. Not as much information as I would give, but still more than just a blind recitation of "eat your BMR" with no other information given. And I have noticed that while you might start with a simple "eat your BMR", you usually stick around the thread to see if they have more questions. This, plus the fact that you took the time to learn this stuff and create your website, is, in my opinion, what makes you a valuable member of this community.

You may be right and most people may not read my long posts. I would still rather make the effort, which doesn't cost me anything more than a few keystrokes (which burns more calories for me and is therefore good for my weight loss) in the hope that even one person will take the time to read what I have written and gain some useful knowledge from it. Because if I help even one person, then I feel like I have made a valuable contribution to this community. I just choose to contribute in a different way than you do. And that is a good thing, because those people who I don't help learn can still be caught by you.

I am verbose by nature, probably because one of the many things I have done in life is be an author (3 books so far).

Peace.

You may be right and most people may not read my long posts. I would still rather make the effort, which doesn't cost me anything more than a few keystrokes (which burns more calories for me and is therefore good for my weight loss) in the hope that even one person will take the time to read what I have written and gain some useful knowledge from it. Because if I help even one person, then I feel like I have made a valuable contribution to this community. I just choose to contribute in a different way than you do. And that is a good thing, because those people who I don't help learn can still be caught by you.

I am verbose by nature, probably because one of the many things I have done in life is be an author (3 books so far).

Peace.

Techdog - as you have no doubt seen in this thread, I am cut from your jib.

So far, I've had loads of thanks for my long, detailed posts.  I, too, avoid absolutes and talk in generalities, and caution that a doc's opinion is the way to go.  But in this site, anyway, I've found that most folks do want to know and learn.

Thanks are due to both you and Phord, imo.

Original Post by techdog:

And your calculator shows the math involved and how you arrived at the numbers. Not as much information as I would give, but still more than just a blind recitation of "eat your BMR" with no other information given.

I am adding more information as I can, but I've been focusing on the math first.  And I appreciate people like you filling in details, backing up the raw data and offering different perspectives. Thanks for the props; I give 'em back, too.

 

I know that sometimes I might come off as a little harsh, but I think that is partly due to the medium.  I'm much more laid back in person.  The truth is that I really enjoy a spirited discussion and hope that the spectators might learn something from the exchange between those of us who have done our homework.

sure we can - more information=more power to our weight loss, i guess:-)