Question about BMR?

[Bro]

Just for reference, I'm using this calculator and these multipliers.

Right now, I'm estimating that I'm 5'6 and 135 pounds. According to this, my BMR is 1623 and I should be eating 1948 to maintain.

My goal weight is eventually to weight in at 125 pounds. With that, it says my BMR is 1561 and I should be eating 1873 to maintain.

I'm eating around 1800 calories a day. I'm sedentary at this point and don't do absolutely any exercise.

So I took 1800 / 1.2 and got 1500 out as a theoretical BMR.

According to that calculator, 1500 is the BMR to maintain 115 pounds.

Does this mean that (given enough time) eating 1800 calories a day would eventually place me even lower than my goal weight of 125? Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

[joeyb]

What you do is take that 1948 and cut 500 from it to get 1448. That will be a 3500 calorie deficit per week, or 1lb per week. When you get down to 125, you would consume 1873 Calories per day to maintain the 125. If you start working out, don't increase your multiplier, just add the number of Calories that you burn to the Calories that you consume.

[Corbab]

As you lose weight, your calorie needs change. At 125lb, you'll need less calories than you do at your current weight. If you eat your maintenance calories (around 1800 @ 125lb), your weight won't change. You'd have to eat below your calorie expenditure to continue losing weight.

[msuroo]

I think what he is saying is that he backed into 1800 as the maintenance level for a 5'6", 18 year-old male, weighing 115 lbs. (Using the calc, that would give a BMR of 1500, with a 1.2 sedentary multiplier - a maintenance level of 1800). He's wondering if he eats 1800 cals a day, is he going to (eventually) drop below his goal weight of 125 (since the maintenance level for that weight would be 1873).

The reality is that it is a little more complicated than that - the calculator is a great tool to come up with an initial baseline, but it certainly isn't an exact science. The closer you get to your goals, the more you need to adjust based on your actual experiences to get the results you are looking for.

[aj_rock]

BMR is much more complicated than what you're getting out of this. Differing BMRs base their calculations on lean mass versus total mass and what not...

Just take the first number you get and eat that. If you find weight/fat moving in the wrong direction, adjust up or down to fix it. Never use an equation giving you BMR as the be-all-end-all, because they are all just approximations.

[katscratch]

Agreed with everyone. Use it to find your starting point, give it a month, and adjust from there based on your observations.

As an example of how not accurate these can be for your individual variables, most calculations tell me as an active 5'10" female I need to eat 2400-2600kcal to gain weight. Currently I need 3000kcal/day with a boatload of fat and protein or I completely stall out, less than that and I start losing again. Having never tracked calories or macros before, though, I would have had no clue where to start at without calculating!

[Bro]

What you do is take that 1948 and cut 500 from it to get 1448. That will be a 3500 calorie deficit per week, or 1lb per week. When you get down to 125, you would consume 1873 Calories per day to maintain the 125. If you start working out, don't increase your multiplier, just add the number of Calories that you burn to the Calories that you consume.

I don't understand. Why would I need to eat less calories to lose the weight, but then be allowed to eat more calories to maintain the weight once I get to it? Is it just a matter of getting there faster? 1448 couldn't possibly be healthy though, right?

[Oz.]

I don't understand. Why would I need to eat less calories to lose the weight, but then be allowed to eat more calories to maintain the weight once I get to it? Is it just a matter of getting there faster? 1448 couldn't possibly be healthy though, right?

To lose weight, you need a calorific defecit. So if your current bmr is 1948, you need to eat below that to drop weight. Simple enough.

When you want to stop loosing weight you eat more calories, so you are no longer in a deficit and are matching your output.

Personally, I take BMR, ignore the benedicts multiplyer and log exercise as extra calories. Eg im eating a 1600 calorie diet. Yesterday i went to gym and a run, burning circa 500 cals, so i actually ate 2100 that day.

but personally, why on earth do you want to lose weight at 135? that's what 61KG you want to drop to 56KG? Thats waif like! Id be trying to put on weight and get some muscle.

Oz.

[joeyb]

I don't understand. Why would I need to eat less calories to lose the weight, but then be allowed to eat more calories to maintain the weight once I get to it? Is it just a matter of getting there faster? 1448 couldn't possibly be healthy though, right?

Assuming that the numbers the calculator gave you are correct, if you eat 1800 Calories per day, you have a deficit of approximately 150 Calories. It takes about 3500 Calories to burn 1 pound of fat. At that rate, it would take you 3.5 weeks to lose 1 pound. Let's say you lose 5 lbs and your suggested intake is now 1900. With a deficit of 100 Calories, it will take you 5 weeks to lose 1 pound. So, it depends what your goals are. Lose weight long term and eat more, or lose weight quickly? 1-2 lbs of fat loss per week is considered healthy, so most places suggest a deficit of 500 Calories per week, which will result in loss of 1 pound per week.

[andygates]

Note that while it does indeed take 3500-odd cals to toast a pound of fat, you have to be doing something to prioritize fat burning (ie, exercise) or you'll just lose mass, half of which is good lean stuff.

...which is how serial dieters end up with that skinny-fat thing going on.

[Philociraptor]

Note that while it does indeed take 3500-odd cals to toast a pound of fat, you have to be doing something to prioritize fat burning (ie, exercise) or you'll just lose mass, half of which is good lean stuff.

...which is how serial dieters end up with that skinny-fat thing going on.

Not entirely true. The past month I didn't exercise at all and 90% of the month's weight loss was fat. (using a scale and a tape measure)

[Bro]

but personally, why on earth do you want to lose weight at 135? that's what 61KG you want to drop to 56KG? Thats waif like! Id be trying to put on weight and get some muscle.

Different goals is all. I'm not trying to build strength or anything. I just want a really slim appearance (while still being healthy, mind you).

...which is how serial dieters end up with that skinny-fat thing going on.

Luckily enough I don't forsee that being too much of an issue. I used to be pretty light before with more of a deficit and still managed to show decent muscle definition if terms of what I wanted to see. Other people could probably disagree.

But basically from what you guys are saying, a diet of 1450 would still be healthy because of the -500 calorie deficit rule? Everything I've ever heard anywhere else said that cutting that low would be really bad. I think what I'll do is take the middle road and instead shoot for a 250 deficit and stick to 1700.