Am I eating too little?

[Iwan naloseit]

I've been struggling with this whole BMR thing. Maybe one of you really really smart folks can help a girl out. I used 5 different online BMR calculators and then averaged them to get a BMR of about 1554. I am 5 feet tall and I weigh 190ish lbs. Does that mean that in order to lose 1 lbs a week I can only eat 1054 calories? I am so confused and freaking starving here.

 

[maleficent]

I'm not one of the smart ones.. but..
BMR is the calories you'd need were you to never get out of bed...

you get more for exercise and activity...

1500 calories would probably be a good starting range to begin with and give it 2 weeks and adjust from there

 

[[Focus]1]

First off, the answer to your question is yes, you are not eating anywhere near enough, and heading for disaster. Let me explain:

You are confusing BMR and RMR. It's a very common mistake. As Mal says, the first number in the BMR equation is your Resting Metabolic Rate, the number of calories your body would require if you did nothing at all. That is the 1500 number you are getting. You need to take that number and multiply it by an activity factor to get your estimated maintenance calories. In most cases, this would be a moderate level, (factor of 1.55), so your BMR is 2325 calories.

Now, for healthy, sustainable weight loss, you want to eat just 20 percent (not a fixed number, that shit is dumb), less than what you're expending BMR. So, that means try eating about 1800 calories a day. Not every day, just on average. It's actually better to "zig-zag", eating more on days you do more.

At 20% under maintenance, it will be a matter of preparedness and habit. Should be real easy, with a little motivation.

Where you are currently, at more than 50% under maintenance, you will battle starvation. And it will win. Guaranteed.

 

[allyphoe]

You are confusing BMR and RMR.

BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate
RMR = Resting Metabolic Rate
Those are so close to the same thing as to make no practical difference.

What you're calling "BMR" is really maintenance calories - the number you'd need to consume to neither gain nor lose weight, assuming a constant activity level.

I vote that we all knock it off with the acronyms, because virtually no one can keep them straight / use them appropriately, and it confuses folks like the OP. (Not that my vote is worth the pixels it's written with. )

 

[[Focus]1]

BMR = Basal Metabolic Rate
RMR = Resting Metabolic Rate

What you're calling "BMR" is really maintenance calories - the number you'd need to consume to neither gain nor lose weight, assuming a constant activity level

I vote you not contradict yourself while trying to argue with my awesomeness.

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHOM YOU FACE!?

I vote that we all knock it off with the acronyms, because virtually no one can keep them straight / use them appropriately, and it confuses folks like the OP. (Not that my vote is worth the pixels it's written with. )

I also vote you learn what words mean before trying to correct others on their use, mmk? And my vote counts for infinity. Hint: Different words have different meanings. That's kind of the whole point. Recommend you whip out a dictionary and look at the standard meanings of "resting" and "basal". And no, medical dictionaries don't count.

 

[Iwan naloseit]

yep, that video demistrates exaclty what happens when I start reading about BMR, RMR, caloric deficits, gold standards, the housing market, gas prices...know wonder I'm a fat ass who's starving. Thanks for the info, back to the reading and calculating...

 

[maleficent]

there's a stickied thread in the weight loss in he media thread that really breaks it down fairly simplisticly

Myth No. 8: To lose weight, you need to cut calories drastically.
The Theory: Eat much less; weigh much less.

The Reality: Sure, if you subsist on 1,200 calories a day, you’ll take off weight, but it won’t be for long. Consider an analysis of 31 studies of long-term diets, where the diets averaged 1,200 calories a day. The report, published last April in American Psychologist, found that within four to five years, the majority of dieters in these studies regained the weight they had lost. “Psychologically, it’s difficult for people to adhere to strict diets over a long period because they feel deprived and hungry,” says Traci Mann, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, and the lead author of the report. “Also, our bodies are brilliant at keeping us alive when we try to starve them.” Your body becomes more efficient at using the calories you consume, so you need fewer to survive. In addition, people who are put on a very-low-calorie diet (800 calories a day) have an increased risk of developing gallstones and digestive issues.

The Best Advice: Don’t starve yourself. “If you want to lose weight and keep it off forever, you need a modest calorie restriction that you simply continue and never stop,” says nutritionist Christopher Gardner. But what’s the right number of calories for you? Use this easy formula, a favorite of cardiologist Thomas Lee, editor in chief of the Harvard Heart Letter.

First find your activity level on the table below. Multiply your weight by the number indicated. (You may fall between two categories. If that’s the case, adjust the number by adding a point or so.) The result is the number of calories you need to maintain your weight. Let’s say you weigh 135 pounds and do light exercise one to three days a week. Multiply 135 by 13.5 to get, approximately, 1,800 calories. If you want to drop some pounds, try cutting out 250 calories a day, says Lee. In a year, if you make no other changes, you could be 26 pounds lighter. Exercise more and you could lose more, too.

And Your Number Is…
You Exercise: Almost never
Multiply Your Current Weight By: 12

You Exercise: Lightly, one to three days a week
Multiply Your Current Weight By: 13.5

You Exercise: Moderately, three to five days a week
Multiply Your Current Weight By: 15.5

You Exercise: Vigorously, six to seven days a week
Multiply Your Current Weight By: 17

You Exercise: Vigorously, daily, and you have a physical job
Multiply Your Current Weight By: 19

There's really no one size fits all number for all people - you really have to play with what works for yu and give it some time to work too - don't give it 2 days and give up... You're better off staying at the high end of calories so that way in a few months when you've lost weight and you need to make a calorie adjustment - you've got room to adjust...

 

[[Focus]1]

Wait, there's still something to be confused about? BMR = RMR * Activity Level. It's primary school math.

Also, I told you the answer. Eat 1800-1850 calories a day for a month, evaluate progress, adjust (or not) your calories appropriately (+/- 100/200/300). Continue ad infinitum.

If you want to get real technical about it you can break it down more precisely by doing RMR, TEE, then calculate all of your activities separately, and eat 20% less than what you burn on each individual day. But, uhm, very few people require that level of nerdosity. Which reminds me, I better go check my charts.

Seriously, though, the estimates are fairly accurate in general, so yeah, see paragraph two.

 

[Iwan naloseit]

See why I'm confused, two people, two completely seperate sets of numbers...
193 x 13.5 = 2605 - 250 = 2355
that has got to be wrong. And I'm fairley sure my calculator works okay...with that number even 1800 seems more realistic. I think I'll try 1500, I know it goes against all the "rules" and information posted by Focus (thank you by the way, it was very helpful). I know I'll gain back everything I've lost so far and probably more and that doesn't help my feelings of helplessness and defeat. I wish our bodies just did what we told them to do. Mine seems to be as stubborn as my personality.

 

[Iwan naloseit]

And thank you for that article post Mal, I'm going to have to google that source.

 

[[Focus]1]

See why I'm confused, two people, two completely seperate sets of numbers...
193 x 13.5 = 2605 - 250 = 2355
that has got to be wrong. And I'm fairley sure my calculator works okay...with that number even 1800 seems more realistic. I think I'll try 1500, I know it goes against all the "rules" and information posted by Focus (thank you by the way, it was very helpful). I know I'll gain back everything I've lost so far and probably more and that doesn't help my feelings of helplessness and defeat. I wish our bodies just did what we told them to do. Mine seems to be as stubborn as my personality.

... lol. Wow.

You do realize both formulas are giving roughly the same number? You're just forgetting to adjust "Mal's" for maintenance, or you have bad reading comprehension (which'd be my first guess, I'm sorry ).

2355 *.8 (that'd be maintenance minus 20 percent by Mal's formula) = 1884. That's 34 calories more than the number I gave you was, before I rounded it down to 1800. "Mal's" formula estimates a little on the higher side, particularly for a female (you are more body fat and less lean tissue by composition, generally speaking, due to having girl parts - which means you require less energy to sustain your metabolic processes than most males would at that same weight - but this has been factored into the bmr calculation, so the difference is slight, hence only rounding down a few points). So, I would go with mine, but do whatever you like.

Having said that, less is not more. If you think you're being original and a unique snowflake by being the "first" to disregard quality advice and spending a year learning the hard way that huge deficits do not equal optimal results (if you're lucky, and motivated), then by all means, have fun.

 

[maleficent]

And thank you for that article post Mal, I'm going to have to google that source.

the source is here:
http://weight-loss.fitness.com/weight-loss-media/19246-10-diet-myths-real-simple-magazine.html

 

[maleficent]

See why I'm confused, two people, two completely seperate sets of numbers...
193 x 13.5 = 2605 - 250 = 2355
that has got to be wrong. And I'm fairley sure my calculator works okay...with that number even 1800 seems more realistic. I think I'll try 1500, I know it goes against all the "rules" and information posted by Focus (thank you by the way, it was very helpful). I know I'll gain back everything I've lost so far and probably more and that doesn't help my feelings of helplessness and defeat. I wish our bodies just did what we told them to do. Mine seems to be as stubborn as my personality.

It can't be said often enough -there is no one size fits all number... it's a process to figure out what works best for your body... everyone comes into this weight loss adventure from a different place.. the more yo-yoing you've done in the past and the more really low calorie dieting you've done in the past -means you probably have a little more work to do in the present to geet you to the future.

1000 calories a day isn't a long term solution -sure you'll lose weight on it but it's not a lifestyle change..

gradually increase your calories... you might see a weight change... it won't be permanant -you're looking at the big picture and woring in new habits...

 

[[Focus]1]

Oh, or I'm dumb, and that formula is dumb. I didn't realize the 250 was a flat calorie reduction. So, yeah, I'm the one with poor reading comprehension. You can't comprehend what you ignore because you see it as garbage.

Anyway, did I mention Mal's formula is dumb? Seriously, use mine. For a relative untrained female carrying lots of extra body fat, those numbers are way too friggen high. To give you an idea, I exercise roughly 4 hours a day 7 days a week, weigh slightly less than you, am at 20% body fat, and I would maintain my weight at what it's telling you to eat.

But, as Mal says, don't increase it from 1000 to 1800 all at once. Try adding 200/week. I meant to say that one.

Having said that, if you don't feel like making the slow transition, it's not that big a deal. You'll probably find suddenly boosting your calories will actually cause you to lose weight, after the initial increase due to increased water/waste/etc retention.

People get way too obsessed with details with this stuff. At the beginner level, all you need to know is, "Eat less, move more." With the caveat, "But not WAAAAAAY less and WAAAAAAAAY more, respectively." Generally speaking, the body does not handle changes of any magnitude greater than 10-20% very well. Homeostatic systems don't care for sudden dips or spikes.

 

[Iwan naloseit]

Thanks folks. And my reading comprehension is just fine, better then most. Its my math skills that are always sucking. I will take your advice Focus and grandually increase my calories by 200 over the next few weeks till I reach 1800 calories. Then I'll see how I'm doing there. I'll try not to panic along the way. I think I'll be fine though since at the same time I'm going to be increasing my cardio and strength training adding the couch to 5K program and working with an experience friend in the weight room at our gym two to three nights a week. Gotta build more muscles so I can burn more calories!

 

[[Focus]1]

Thanks folks. And my reading comprehension is just fine, better then most. Its my math skills that are always sucking. I will take your advice Focus and grandually increase my calories by 200 over the next few weeks till I reach 1800 calories. Then I'll see how I'm doing there. I'll try not to panic along the way. I think I'll be fine though since at the same time I'm going to be increasing my cardio and strength training adding the couch to 5K program and working with an experience friend in the weight room at our gym two to three nights a week. Gotta build more muscles so I can burn more calories!

Yes, yes. It is definitely me who was dumb on that one. The obnoxiousness really backfired there, no? Hahaha.

Anyway, sounds like a plan. I promise you'll like the results, when you stick with it. Not if. When.

But, if you find yourself struggling to do all of that at once, remember that you're human, and that you can always drop something (I would axe the running before the cardio, and the cardio before the weight training - weight training is by far the highest priority activity when aiming to lose fat, and in terms of general health, longevity and well-being, and this is especially true for women!). That's a very ambitious plan, and there's no failure at all in doing a little less, so long as you're honest with yourself in giving as much as you can consistently give. I wish you all the best.

Oh, and remember to have fun. If you're having fun, you're doing it right.