BMR #'s - Need some clarification (2024)

ninerbuff Posts: 48,622 Member

May 26

A good rule of thumb us just eat up to your BMR. I do this a lot with clients to start.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

tomcustombuilder Posts: 1,779 Member

May 26

HappyDonkey75 Posts: 45 Member

May 26

ninerbuff wrote: »

A good rule of thumb us just eat up to your BMR. I do this a lot with clients to start.

thanks for the response

HappyDonkey75 Posts: 45 Member

May 26

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

The proof of how your equation is working will be after a month. Adjust from there. The numbers from MFP and other calculators are a starting point. Much depends on the accuracy of your data entries

thank you .. I suspected the MFP #'s were a starting point. I had worked with a nutritionist with FORM health a year or so ago and she had me set at 1800 calories but it was not working. I lost maybe 5 lbs over the course of 4 months.. I was even trying out semiglutide injections.. I got frustrated and walked away ..
for whatever reason I am now having better luck being on my own and using MFP. Maybe I am more committed or motivated? I am also working on food entry accuracy as I learn more.

May 26

it looks like you're trying to lose at least 2.3lbs per week to reach the goal in 4 months. That is very stiff and likely not possible. If your TDEE, thus including the exercise is 2,398 then you'd need to eat about 1150kcal less per day to reach that goal (1248). That leaves you with very, very little. And you doubt the numbers given by the calorie calculator, meaning you think it should even be lower.

Yes, you have some weight to lose, but not so much that this rate of loss is likely to happen. I can only urge you to consider a slower rate and embrace what you've achieved in 3-4months time.

HappyDonkey75 Posts: 45 Member

May 26

@yirara I am a little confused- I thought the BMR calculator number of 2398 calories is what should shoot for. I was saying that number seemed high. Can you explain further why your mentioning the subtracting the 1150Kcal from that?

tomcustombuilder Posts: 1,779 Member

May 26

HappyDonkey75 wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

The proof of how your equation is working will be after a month. Adjust from there. The numbers from MFP and other calculators are a starting point. Much depends on the accuracy of your data entries

thank you .. I suspected the MFP #'s were a starting point. I had worked with a nutritionist with FORM health a year or so ago and she had me set at 1800 calories but it was not working. I lost maybe 5 lbs over the course of 4 months.. I was even trying out semiglutide injections.. I got frustrated and walked away ..
for whatever reason I am now having better luck being on my own and using MFP. Maybe I am more committed or motivated? I am also working on food entry accuracy as I learn more.

At your stats and activity I can almost guarantee you’re taking in more than 1,800 calories every day consistently.

May 26

HappyDonkey75 wrote: »

@yirara I am a little confused- I thought the BMR calculator number of 2398 calories is what should shoot for. I was saying that number seemed high. Can you explain further why your mentioning the subtracting the 1150Kcal from that?

Wait, maybe I'm confused.
The number of 2400 calories is what you need to eat to stay on your current weight, including the exercise you do, right? If this is correct then in order to lose 40lbs in 4 months you need to eat a total of 140000 calories less, or 8750 per week, or 1250 less per day. 2400-1250 = 1150 to eat per day. (rounded, currently on phone)

AnnPT77 Posts: 32,584 Member

May 26 edited May 26

Your OP is missing some information I'd prefer to have in order to give informed-ish advice. (Especially height, age, the actual nature/frequency/duration of your exercise, how long you've been "slowly losing" and what that means numerically, i.e., how many pounds in how many weeks of eating at a logged 1400.)

You say:

I am slowly dropping weight but still working on limiting sugar. My goals is to lose as aggressively as safely possible to get to my goal of 165 in 3-4 months .
Current weight is 202.

Some people here (me included) think a good rule of thumb is to lose no more than 0.5-1% of current weight per week, with a bias toward the lower end of that unless severely obese and under close medical supervision for deficiencies or complications. For you, now, that range would be about 1-2 pounds per week.

Another common rule of thumb is no more than a 20% to maybe 25% cut from TDEE. If 2398 is your TDEE (estimated calorie level to maintain your current weight), that would suggest eating at least 1799 to 1918 gross calories daily, assuming all logging and other estimates are accurate.

If 2398 is current maintenance calories, 1400 would (as yirara said) look like aiming at over 2 pounds a week weight loss, a bit above the rule of thumb pace already, let alone as you get lighter.

I'm not saying bad things will happen, but health risks go up with aggressive loss, as do the odds of bouts of deprivation-triggered overeating, lowered energy (so lower energy expenditure through fatigue), and other hindrances to steady success.

All I can say about 2398 calories subjectively is that that would be just a smidge above maintenance calories for me (on an exercise day) at 5'5", around 132 pounds now, age 68, female, quite active . . . but I'm a mysteriously good li'l ol' calorie burner for some reason, so I don't think that helps. I lost weight pretty handily back in 2015-16 (starting from class 1 obese, a bit under 200 at my height) at 1400-1600 plus estimated exercise calories most days.

Some people, maybe especially women, believe that it's necessary to eat really low calories to lose weight, so I'm thinking of your comment in that light. (The "2398 seems high" thing.) But you're right, logging is a surprisingly subtle skill, with a learning curve, so getting all of the estimates dialed in is something that comes with time and the collection of personal experience data.

I'd advocate for a slow and steady approach, not looking at the calendar as a weight loss tool, but rather with a focus on finding and grooving in relatively easy, pleasant (at least tolerable), practical new eating and activity habits that will carry you to your goal weight, and then help you stay there almost on autopilot long term. (Many people find maintenance harder than loss, FWIW. That's one reason I looked at loss as sort-of maintenance practice, only with somewhat fewer calories until I reached goal.)

Best wishes: The results are worth the effort, in my experience!

PAV8888 Posts: 13,786 Member

May 26 edited May 26

There is confusion and impatience here... both can be resolved! 😂

You want what you want but it is obvious that your body and it's own mind disagree enough that you're not getting it to date 🤔 so stop wanting to force what you want and work at tricking everyone into relative cooperation!😉

Don't make things punitive. Try to find long term solutions. Look at things as an exploration of long term alternatives you can embrace or tolerate as opposed to penance or high intensity correction you can quickly perform and then move on without long term changes.

Take it slow enough that you actually find and develop long term changes and ways of doing things.

BMR is your base calories that your body needs to be alive without you doing anything at all.

Population equations estimate your daily expenditure based on multiplying your BMR by an activity factor.

You gain or lose fat storage based on the actual (not estimated) long term balance between calories taken in and calories spent.

You don't see that balance on the scale right away because of weigh in artifacts colloquially known as water weight even when not directly related to water. Though a lot do have to do with water inside your cells which is not quite the same as water inside your tummy.

But you do see that balance by watching how your weight trend changes in the longer term.

Direction is more important than speed. Continuing in the correct direction gets you there. Frustration and anger because you lost 1lb less this week than you deserved for your efforts gets you heading for a go around.

If you're an obese active male 2300 Cal could well be a weight loss goal. It was for me at the time. But chances are high that a figure of 2300 is a maintenance estimate which would require a deficit to create weight loss.

The multipliers are usually 1.2 for sedentary (1.25 at MFP which includes some base activity)

A 1.0 (eat up to BMR) is a good sized 20 to 25% cut for someone sedentary depending on your definition of sedentary.

Given issues with counting intake and the desire for faster results and natural resilience and ability to start a bit faster than what can be continued longer term, 1x BMR is a viable short term start.

Sticking to it longer term would leave me a bit concerned as to whether i was found my best to set up for maintenance or whether I was over pushing in the short term to my longer term detriment.

HappyDonkey75 Posts: 45 Member

May 27 edited May 27

interesting feedback. Yes I am well aware slower and long term is better. I will adjust as needed which is why I was asking in the first place BECAUSE after spending some time looking, it seemed like my calorie goal was too aggressive. I wanted to understand the number better and I am fine to increase this. I am not impatient or angry if I am not losing 2 lbs a week. I am just motivated and want to do it the right way.

" so stop wanting to force what you want and work at tricking everyone into relative cooperation!😉"
not sure I quite understand the underlying message here, who is everyone? and how am I tricking them?
Its no secret that weight loss that happens too quickly it can have some negative effects like gall stones, nutrient deficiencies and even and MI in some cases.... but lets not forget that being heavy already has negative effects. Losing up to 1-2 lbs a week is still within the range of what medical experts consider safe. I am not saying I want to go beyond that. Also, for every 5 lbs lost , that is equivalent to 15 lbs on your joints. I am just coming off knee surgery . I'd like to avoid future issues . I am no spring chicken so these are things I have to consider.

PAV8888 Posts: 13,786 Member

May 27

Maybe I keyed in too much to where you said "to get to my goal of 165 in 3-4 months"🤷‍♂️ Based on your stats that would require more than 2lbs a week. 🤷‍♂️

The 1-2lbs as medically generally safe is a generality just like RDA for iron in nutritional recommendations is a generality.

If you dig into the recommendations in detail you discover that the amount of iron for men or post menopausal women is lower than the single figure general recommendation.

Not that it matters in particular here because it does sound like 1-2lbs a week, especially to start, would be fine in terms of safety

But I would still consider the 1% of body weight per week or 25% of tdee deficit, whichever is slower (they were both discussed above by Ann) as limits to exceed very cautiously when considering sustained aggressive loss

MFP, sailrabbit.com are starting points based on population averages.

You're an individual. With your own reality and logging habits. And an experiment to run.

If over the next 30 days my weight level based on my weight trend app shows a downward trend of 7lbs, a pretty good result for a month, then I've achieved an 817Cal per day deficit.

I can then compare that to what my logging claims my deficit was and form a better opinion as to how I could adjust my numbers moving forward.

Some reverse calculating says you are looking at BMR and 1.55xBMR with your figure which is a multiplier used to denote "active" at some sites. MFP uses 1.6

So. To achieve 2lbs a week of loss, you need a deficit of 1000 Cal.

You can see that 2398-1000 equals just about 1400.

So there is no real change to the numbers based on your starting point and selected activity level

The tension here is that while 2lbs a week is not medically unsafe for you given your starting weight, the indication is that it would still represent a very high percentage of your tdee. Both but your tdee estimate and by your comment that you're losing slowly eating 1400 (how slowly is your slowly is unknown)

In any case, medically safe is not the same as optimum or sustainable or ideal. It's just medically safe(ish)!

It is medically safe to lose up to 14% of your blood---but you won't see me going for a 14% bloodletting by switchblade unless I'm not given an option to avoid!

During my first year of logging on MFP I lost at just under 1.5lbs a week during that first year. This represented less than 25% of my tdee on average (but more than 20%)

I've re read your initial post and I'm trying to figure out where you're at.

You mentioned that you're already eating at 1400 and that the weight is coming off

Which is great news

If your implied question is: will I still lose weight, albeit a bit slower, by increasing my food intake, the answer will depend on how long you've been eating at 1400 on average, how much weight you've lost during the time frame, and it will probably be a yes.

If your implied question is will I lose weight faster by eating more than 1400 on average because eating that has me losing too slow, the answer to that is only if you're feeling fatigued, slow, cold, unwilling to move around, falling asleep after exercise, etc and eating a bit more energizes you to get up and do more just like the Energizer Bunny

If your implied question is should I use 1400 or 1547 as my goal, my answer will always be to use the one that will keep you able to consistently adhere to your deficit for more time.

147 Cal a day may have an "opportunity cost" of losing 1.26lbs less each month, but if 1400 means you "break" after six months and 1547 that you keep going for a year guess which one will achieve stronger results. The buzzwords are adherence and sustainability

So after this huge discussion I think the real answer is stay the course because every day you're heading in the correct direction is a win.

And being able to sustainably keep losing weight, piling victory upon victory will soon have you feeling lighter.

I'm impressed that you're managing to hit the active level (equivalent to about 10,000 steps) just out of knee surgery. It's a balance between doing all you should and not overdoing things that I've failed once and hit once after a couple of minor surgeries.

Do use happy scale, or libra, or trendweight or weightgrapher to evaluate your weight trend changes over time

And if I've misunderstood, either initially or even now, pls ignore my ramblings but do take away that you still have my best wishes for success!👍

HappyDonkey75 Posts: 45 Member

May 27

@PAV8888 - that alot to digest , no pun intended. I appreciate the time you took to type up all that feedback. To give you an idea, My starting point was 212 lbs the first part of April. I am sitting at 201.9 at the moment and have been hovering at that weight for a couple of days with the 1400 Kcal , and exercising 4 times a week for 40-45 minutes alternating between strength and cardio, but also I have a farm. So I am pretty active in the evenings with outside work this time of year. Honestly I haven't felt any more tired at this level of reduced calorie than I did when I was not tracking , eating alot more sweets and way more calories, proably around 3-3500 calories a day.

For the last 1-2 years I have been stuck at the 200 lb weight. Its like my body wants to stay there and that is the part that is making me a little more determined. I want to break that. not sure if I mentioned but I worked with a nutritionist about a year ago and she set me at 1900 Kcal. I got to about 197 and then nothing more. I stalled.. and I was very compliant. No cheats , but I also wasn't excercising as much as I am now.

My goal was to be below that 200 mark at the end of the May with the way things were trending but might be setting myself up for a big let down. That would be 12 lbs in 2 months. Not sustainable for sure. Alot of that was likely water weight. I tend to build muscle easy which I know weighs more and I am not of the natural lean build anyways. So for now I will stick with the 1400 for another week or two and see how things are going, and reevaluate .

PAV8888 Posts: 13,786 Member

May 28

So you're actually one of my peops😎 needs to lose substantial amount of weight and maintain.

Lots of things happen in life. Not everyone tracks to equations. Most are close. Some are far above or below

Not sure where your 2400 a day expenditure figure comes from. But farm and active do go together

Are you eating 1400 right now? Or AIMING for 1400? What's your actual intake average over two months?

Back of napkin says 6lbs per month is 700 Cal a day effective deficit. If intake 1400, effective tdee 2100. And deficit a very high 33% of tdee

2100 to 2400 is not that far for hand grenades. Not nothing as a deviation, but not insanely out of bounds either

Potential contributing factors for apparent deviation: logging inaccuracies, wrong values, missed logging days, starting and ending weight level misinterpretation/estimation error, if a good few months into it some level of body slow down and adaptation.

Options.. keep on putting time limits.. or
Look for sustainability

Your nutritionist suggested 1900, a 500 Cal deficit out of your 2400, or between 20 to 25% deficit to achieve 1lb a week

You do realize that 1lb a week has you at 165lbs in about nine months right? And then another year to stabilize. And another year to start feeling comfortable and more competent. And maybe in 5 years you start believing you can maintain your loss with less investment?

If 1400 is not sustainable which you have stated twice or more... then weight loss success will not be found by sticking to it

Sure. You can tweek macros. What you eat. You should be doing that anyway and looking for themost satiation for the least calories.

But you're not going to drop 20/30/40lbs (and keep them dropped) by going for a sprint.

Make the choices you see yourself continuing to make for years.

Are you eating diet foods or are you changing the way you cook?

And seriously. You were 212 in the beginning of April and you will be disappointed by being 202 instead of 200?????????🤯🤯🤯🤷‍♂️

Probably disappointed enough to say internally I can't do this/it isn't worth it instead of being awesomely happy for the 10lbs you did lose? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! 🤯

The reason being that the effort was exponentially increased but the anticipated reward doesn't look like it will arrive as "promised"

I would argue to take a smaller effort to the bank! Sustainable compliance

Your goal should not be to lose weight--you control neither gravity nor your scale

Your goal is to as easily, enjoyably and sustainably as you can manage to, on each and every day, month in and month out, take in a few hundred calories less than you spend.

If you do that (2100-500=1600 as you currently count them) then your weight will decrease a lot and within a very reasonable time frame

But you only control what you eat and what you spend and that makes them your "natural" targets

Your weight trend helps you evaluate whether you achieved your targets but it's not your focus!

(who am I kidding re the focus thing, but it's worth a try!)

PS. Farm people work hard. If you're sore you're retaining water. Which is normal.

You sound to me like you're pushing hard to get to a weight goal on a timetable. It's not an approach that has ever worked for me--in fact I found MFP because my weight loss methods were unsustainable.

Timetables change on your decision. Bodies take more convincing.

Best of 🤞 luck.