Can anyone explain this ?

ja1986

Hey iv worked out my bmr which is 1605.11 and my tdee is 1926.13.
So does this mean I should be eating just under the bmr to lose weight or will subtracting my tdee from bmr be the amount of calories I should cut out ? Thanks for any info

Alf Veedersane

ja1986 wrote: »

Hey iv worked out my bmr which is 1605.11 and my tdee is 1926.13.
So does this mean I should be eating just under the bmr to lose weight or will subtracting my tdee from bmr be the amount of calories I should cut out ? Thanks for any info

Bmr is what your body needs to function. It's basically what you'd burn in a day lying stock still.

Your TDEE is your BMR plus the calories you burn on an average day through standard activity etc.

You need to eat less than your TDEE to lose weight so most people pitch their target between TDEE and BMR.

Smoked Tuna

The formulas are a good guideline and you can adjust your energy intake/expenditure accordingly if it transpires you are not progressing

ja1986

Thank you both so much. My fitness pal is tracking me on 1417 to eat which is obviously lower than my bmr.

Transform

Smoked Tuna wrote: »

The formulas are a good guideline and you can adjust your energy intake/expenditure accordingly if it transpires you are not progressing

This ^^^

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You need to eat less than your TDEE to lose weight so most people pitch their target between TDEE and BMR.

I hear the idea that you shouldn't eat less than your BMR. As if you function poorly below this minimum. But I don't understand the logic there. I also think that somebody completely sendantry and very active should have the same suggested minimum intake. Leanness also greatly affects possible deficit.

Yes it's the amount needed to function if you were lying in bed. But if you aren't in bed, bmr doesn't really exist as any sort of inflection point. Up and moving about, the actual minimum you need to function is maintenance calories.
If you eat less than that your body still receives the rest it needs (fat stores). I don't see why going under BMR would be any different.

A better idea for me would be looking at the most fat someone can metabolise daily. A bigger deficit than that is clearly counter productive, dialling it back 20

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

I hear the idea that you shouldn't eat less than your BMR. As if you function poorly below this minimum. But I don't understand the logic there. I also think that somebody completely sendantry and very active should have the same suggested minimum intake. Leanness also greatly affects possible deficit.

Yes it's the amount needed to function if you were lying in bed. But if you aren't in bed, bmr doesn't really exist as any sort of inflection point. Up and moving about, the actual minimum you need to function is maintenance calories.
If you eat less than that your body still receives the rest it needs (fat stores). I don't see why going under BMR would be any different.

A better idea for me would be looking at the most fat someone can metabolise daily. A bigger deficit than that is clearly counter productive, dialling it back 20

I didn't say you shouldn't go below BMR.

I just said most people pitch it between BMR and TDEE.

Brian?

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I didn't say you shouldn't go below BMR.

I just said most people pitch it between BMR and TDEE.

I'd go TDEE minue 500, that'll be below BMR in most cases.

Alf Veedersane

Brian? wrote: »

I'd go TDEE minue 500, that'll be below BMR in most cases.

Irrespective of how much weight they need to lose?

Brian?

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Irrespective of how much weight they need to lose?

Pretty much, it's a rule of thumb. +500 to gain, -500 to lose weight. There will extreme examples when someone is already pretty light and trying to lose weight, it's rare that it won't be sustainable though.

cmyk

ja1986 wrote: »

Hey iv worked out my bmr which is 1605.11 and my tdee is 1926.13.
So does this mean I should be eating just under the bmr to lose weight or will subtracting my tdee from bmr be the amount of calories I should cut out ? Thanks for any info

I tend to use the NIH bodyweight planner tool. You can play around with it and it'll spit a few different numbers depending on how quick you want to drop weight.

Alf Veedersane

Brian? wrote: »

Pretty much, it's a rule of thumb. +500 to gain, -500 to lose weight. There will extreme examples when someone is already pretty light and trying to lose weight, it's rare that it won't be sustainable though.

That's fair enough.

Just to clarify, I don't have an issue with going below BMR. As was said above, you can tweak depending on progress or lack thereof, whether or not that goes below BMR isn't likely to have an impact on the majority, depending on activity levels.

Smoked Tuna

cmyk wrote: »

I tend to use the NIH bodyweight planner tool. You can play around with it and it'll spit a few different numbers depending on how quick you want to drop weight.

This is giving me crazy results.

I'm 70kg and do a fair bit of activity outside of work so I applied an activity factor of 1.9

Its saying to drop to 65kg in 100 days I should eat 2760 calories per day, I seriously doubt that would work!

Even with an activity factor of 1.6 it recommends 2300 calories, which may achieve the result with alot of exercise but not the level of exercise they are alluding to (Walking or gardening or cycling once per week, along with a sedentary job)

Brian?

Smoked Tuna wrote: »

This is giving me crazy results.

I'm 70kg and do a fair bit of activity outside of work so I applied an activity factor of 1.9

Its saying to drop to 65kg in 100 days I should eat 2760 calories per day, I seriously doubt that would work!

Even with an activity factor of 1.6 it recommends 2300 calories, which may achieve the result with alot of exercise but not the level of exercise they are alluding to (Walking or gardening or cycling once per week, along with a sedentary job)

Are you sure you're putting in the right numbers? It was bang on for me.

I put everything in in metric unites and got Joules out. Then converted that to kcals.

It told me to have over 2k calories to lose 5kg in 2 months
Seems high

Brian?

bluewolf wrote: »

It told me to have over 2k calories to lose 5kg in 2 months
Seems high

It told me to have 2000kcals to lose too. I'm 100kg.

cmyk

"Do your results seem too high? People often underestimate how much they eat and the Body Weight Planner values are accurate for most people. If your metabolism is abnormally low or you are very sedentary then Body Weight Planner values will be too high."

When I put my own details in (or a clients) it's always been pretty accurate provided you're honest with your activity. Bear in mind if you sit for 10hrs+ and train for an hour per day I deem that 'very light' in terms of activity.

It's been said plenty of times before here, and borne out in the research that people drastically underestimate their intake and overestimate their output.

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I didn't say you shouldn't go below BMR.

I just said most people pitch it between BMR and TDEE.

I wasn't suggesting you said it.
I was referring to the fact it's mentioned on here regularly enough.

Mellor

Smoked Tuna wrote: »

This is giving me crazy results.

I'm 70kg and do a fair bit of activity outside of work so I applied an activity factor of 1.9

Its saying to drop to 65kg in 100 days I should eat 2760 calories per day, I seriously doubt that would work!

Even with an activity factor of 1.6 it recommends 2300 calories, which may achieve the result with alot of exercise but not the level of exercise they are alluding to (Walking or gardening or cycling once per week, along with a sedentary job)

I put in your stats and got 2160 with those stats and activity at 1.6

5kg in 100 days is less that 500g a week, which isn't too much of a deficit

Smoked Tuna

Brian? wrote: »

Are you sure you're putting in the right numbers? It was bang on for me.

I put everything in in metric unites and got Joules out. Then converted that to kcals.

Mellor wrote: »

I put in your stats and got 2160 with those stats and activity at 1.6

5kg in 100 days is less that 500g a week, which isn't too much of a deficit

Im getting a bit less than 2300. Perhaps it alters slightly depending on height and age, sex.

I suppose it is 0.05kg per day so perhaps it is not so far off, but the default value of 1.6 describes someone who does very light activity at school or work (mostly sitting) and moderate physical activity (such as walking or cycling) at least once a week.

I would be doing a lot more than just walking once a week.

cmyk

Smoked Tuna wrote: »

Im getting a bit less than 2300. Perhaps it alters slightly depending on height and age, sex.

Try it and see, I find it pretty accurate as it takes into account the adaptations to dieting so it's predictions are good.

Everyone seems pretty hung up on the "500kcal/1lb per week" fat loss rule but those of those of us who deal with fat loss clients (or if you've dieted before) unfortunately know it simply isn't as linear as that, especially for women.

If you hit expert mode you'll get an idea of expected weight loss too through an excel file. It'll usually show you that initial drop (water) and how it tapers back up once you hit maintenance so you know what to expect.

As mentioned by Transform further back, these are only guides, don't get too hung up on them...put your energy into good quality exercise and nutrition behaviours while keeping in mind your overall daily intake and adjust, or be honest with yourself and you'll be fine.