How many calories can I eat if BMR is 1634 to lose weight?

[bubbles65]

I would like to lose a pound a week.  So I need to exercise... (is 30 min. day enough).  I want to lose about 60 pounds.

[Heybales · Accepted solution]

BMR really doesn't matter, because you have a device telling you your TDEE on daily basis. And that will be a lot higher than BMR. Not 1600 calories worth higher since BMR is usually biggest calorie burn of the day, but still good amount.

And then the site takes a deficit off that for you to eat. Eating less then you burn = weight loss.

2 lbs weekly is reasonable at the start, until you get to 40 lbs to go.

Then take a 1 week diet break, eat whatever the Fitbit says you burn each day.

Then switch to 1.5 weekly as reasonable and sustainable.

At 20 lbs, same week break, then switch to 1 lb weekly.

At 10, same thing, switch to 1/2 lb weekly.

So how many calories you can eat totally depends on how active you are, because to lose 2 lbs, you take a daily 1000 calorie deficit.

So whatever you burn daily, with that goal, 1000 calories will be removed for eating goal.

You can eat anywhere from that low point to your daily burn and know you will be losing some amount of weight.

And you do need accurate estimate of what you burn daily. Which means logging all non-step based activity that Fitbit is underestimating - like swimming, rowing, spin/biking, elliptical, strength training.

Exercise is not for weight loss, diet is.

Exercise just increases your daily burn so you can eat more.

Exercise is for heart health and body improvements. Which are great too besides weight loss.

[bubbles65]

What do you mean that exercise is not for weight loss, what you eat is?



If I want to lose 1 pound a day?



Yesterday I walked 5400 steps. I burned 2162 calories. I ate l,011
calories. So my Dashboard said I could eat 651 more calories.



I did not. I at and exercised exactly that for 7 days. 651 X 7 = 4557
deficit. At that rate I should lose a little over 1 pound a week.



If I burned more calories the Fitbit would show that I could eat more
calories that day. That is what is confusing.



So I guess what I'm asking. is that if I do not eat the calories, I should
be able to add those calories together for the week and count on that as a
weight loss. Assuming I was accurate in what I recorded as eaten. (Which
sometimes is not the case.)

[Heybales · Accepted solution]

You must create a deficit from what you burn daily to lose weight - that is all.

Whether that daily burn includes exercise or not does NOT matter. if you have a deficit, you will lose weight.

You could do NO exercise and lose weight. But exercise does allow you to eat more and still have that deficit, so many times it makes it easier to stick to an eating plan getting to eat more.

Diet is for weight loss - done right just fat loss, done wrong muscle mass too.

Exercise is for heart health and body improvements - done right can aid fat loss, done wrong can encourage muscle mass loss.

When people confuse those 2 things, they start doing stupid things with exercise that is counter-productive to weight loss actually.

If you want to lose 1 lb a day, you would have to eat 3500 calories less than you burn each and every day.

And you better count on a big part of that being muscle mass lost, because muscle only provides 600 calories when used for energy, so easier to lose a lb of that then fat.

So to have a safe eating level and deficit amount to lose 1 lb daily - you'd need to burn in total each day 14,000 calories, and then consume 10500 calories.

Tour de France riders don't ever reach those numbers during the race.

Did you really mean 1 lb daily?

If so - you better reset your goals and expectations real fast, or you are going to be very foolish with choices, very frustrated with results, and very discouraged when you fail and repeat this again with it being much hard to lose, and much easier to gain.

I'm sure hoping you mean 1 lb weekly - which is realistic.

And you trying to make it bigger is not better.

If bigger deficit is better to lose faster - why don't you just stop eating and lose it faster?

Whatever reasons you come up with, and likely a bunch more you have no idea about - will happen eventually anyway, just takes longer.

if you have under 20 lbs to lose - 1 lb weekly is correct amount. That's 500 cal deficit.

20-40 is 1.5 weekly - 750 deficit.

Over 40 2lb can be reasonable. 1000 deficit.

Under 10 lbs 0.5 lbs is reasonable. 250 deficit.

Since Fitbit is designed to give you your best estimate of totaly daily burn, don't screw around trying to do it yourself hoping it'll work better. If you can set a higher loss goal and be reasonable - just follow the adjustments and eat your goal.

You eat less than you burn - Fitbit is telling you what you burned, your goal loss is making your eating goal be less than you burned - meet your goal.

You burn 1800 on lazy day - 500 = 1300 to eat.

You burn 2200 on active day - 500 = 1700 to eat.

Notice - your eating goal ALREADY has the deficit in it - if you selected a weight loss goal. Which you obviously did.

2162 burned - 1011 eaten - 651 should have eaten = 500 cal deficit if you'd eaten that other 651.

You already have your plan setup for 1 lb weekly. You were told to eat more to meet that plan - based on what you burned.

You burn more, you eat more. Look at other math above.

Don't make it complicated, use the tool correctly.

Some tools used wrong can kinda work, many times it doesn't work, sometimes they will hurt you used wrong.

[bubbles65]

You are right, I met only to lose one pound a WEEK. 

You seem pretty knowledgeable about weight loss.  I have been reading some material that suggests that not eating starchy carbs for your evening meal or evening snack. 

I have always thought that a calorie in whatever it is, is the same.  2000 calories consumed of any mix is the same.  The body may break them down differently.  Of course Fat calories vs lean protein and vegetables are not as healthy.  But does it really make a difference not to eat a potato or pasta for dinner?

Thanks for your help.  I have been struggling to get below this plateau I'm suck in.

[Heybales · Accepted solution]

I'd suggest some people actually would be aided to sleep eating carbs at night, get low blood sugar from over-reation of insulin and feel tired.

Hopefully go to sleep right before the hunger kicks in too.

But even there - may wake up hungrier than normal and need be, could make keeping a reasonable breakfast difficult.

The only point that advice might make sense, is if you had a good dinner and topped off all your glucose stores (very difficult to do in a diet), and then sat around and did nothing for rest of evening, and then had another big carb snack and went to bed. Not much stores to fill up, no immediate energy needs, and insulin will drop as normal and excess carbs stored as fat.

So perhaps when eating at maintenance that would be a bad idea constantly.

Though, if truly at maintenance, it just means at some other point during the day you aren't getting enough, and you burn more fat than normally would, to use up the minor evening carbs that were stored as fat.

At least good thing with storing carbs as fat - takes energy to convert them first to store them. And then you break them back out later to burn.

And the above doesn't even apply in a diet.

As long as those foods aren't preventing you from getting in needed protein levels, or your nutrients, then fine. The kicker with them is almost empty calories, taking away perhaps from other stuff you need to be eating.

But if you can fit it, and it doesn't set you up for big snacking later because of getting overly hungry ruining your goal - no problem.

Studies on meal timing for healthy individual have shown no different in regards to weight loss.

[kkjkdc]

First of all, most people trying to lose weight, who are sedentary, underestimate how much effort it takes to get where they want to be, re: wt and muscle mass, and measurements, and do it healthfully. So hang in there and have a plan.When you're doing all the math calcs one thing you may be forgetting is that fat is suspended in water, and connective tissue etc., so when you lose an actual lb. of fat, you'll be losing 2.2 lbs. of other material, mostly water. The problem I've seen in addressing the issue of getting healthier while losing, is many people don't set the bar high enough at first, to jump start their metabolism, exercise more, gain muscle, etc. in order to see results right away, which is encouraging. Things that get in the way, are blood sugar spikes causing cravings, not exercising long or hard enough, eating a reasonable number of calories, cutting by 500 calories to 1,000 calories a day, depending on how much junk food, large portions and sugary drinks/food/refined starchy foods you've been eating. Avg steps per day should be at least 10,000, to lose I'm trying to get 18,000-25,000 a day. That's a run walk for 30-45 minutes, 47 floors, cycling, climbing, jumping rope and horsebackriding register in floors, and I'm cutting out 500 superflous calories a day, things I don't need, like bread, polenta, potatoes, and eating smaller portions. I am only 5'3, so I don't need that many calories, and I've only got 10 or 15 lbs to lose, since I had shoulder surgery in November, I was unable to do all the regular activities like riding, gardening, cleaning the barn, and for the first month running. I've cut myself back to 1,200 and am seeing quick progress. The intensity of your workouts matter, but long slow distance walks are fine too for simply burning calories. Drink lots of water, stay away from juice, eat whole foods instead. To educate yourself more about the intricacies of how you're body works if you're not super into science, try any of Dr. Mark Hyman's book, the UltraMetabolism one is probably the best for understanding physiology and metabolism for the lay person, what to eat, recipes etc. Both diet soda and regular create insulin resistance, so don't consume artificially sweetened anything. I'm a retired chiropractor, and specialized in nutrition and body composition change. I helped hundreds of patients clean up their diets, and get healthier over the years. Getting your gut healthier with fermented foods and the right "good" bugs from probiotics are part of the weight loss plan. 

Dr. K 

[kkjkdc]

Yes, it really does. If you eat starch at dinner, and go sit down to watch tv, chances are it's going to turn in to a bigger waist line. Last night I had 4 oz grilled pork loin, about a cut of steamed bok choy, a large green salad o&vinegar with avo, onion and tomato, that would have been a light dinner of about 300 calories or less. This AM had 1/2 C LF cottage cheese, gluten free toast with Earth Bal, and 1/2 apple. Appx 245 calories. Lunch will be my big meal today, and light again at dinner. Could have had a bigger breakfast. 

Losing 2lbs of body fat a week means about 4 lbs total weight loss. 7,000 calories means, 500 more exercise a day, and 500 fewer calories consumed. Easiest way to think about balanced meals, is 30/30/30.  1/3 protein, 1/3 carbs (whole grain, greens, veggies), 1/3 fat (nuts, seeds, oils, fats)

You manipulate the % depending on how much energy you need- more if you are working out for long  periods of time, and less if you're sedentary. Remember low calorie greens, salads, and even tomatoes, squash etc. are carbs. Carbs aren't just cookies. You can eat a huge volume of steamed veggies and sauteed greens through out the day, and snack on raw veggies, staying full due to the volume from fiber and water. Higher fat diets, if the right kinds of fat, are proving to be more healthful than high grain/starchy diets. 

Dr. K

[Heybales]

---

@kkjkdc wrote:

When you're doing all the math calcs one thing you may be forgetting is that fat is suspended in water, and connective tissue etc., so when you lose an actual lb. of fat, you'll be losing 2.2 lbs. of other material, mostly water. 

---

Where is this information that 1 lb of fat goes away along with 2.2 lbs of other material, mostly water?

The huge improvement with fat as energy store is precisely because there is very little water involved, compared to glycogen with attached water weighing 1 lb for 500 calories stored - hence the reason the average person has maybe 1500, up to 2000 to 2500 calories if athletic and endurance trained.

But 1 lb of fat has 3500 calories about, with barely any water. I think about 85% of fat tissue is lipids, but the rest isn't water either.

Considering most obese people have more fat than LBM pounds on them, to lose fat would mean you'd lose all your LBM by your conclusion you'd lose 2.2 lbs of other. There wouldn't be enough "other, mostly water" to lose that fat.

I'm having trouble finding any references to such a thing, nor have I ever seen such a thing in any number of studies regarding fat loss.

Shoot, considering the water and "other" things would be part of LBM, there are plenty of studies that show loss of fat and NO loss of LBM, meaning there was no 2.2 lbs of other stuff lost with the fat - hence the reason I'm intrigued what that is exactly, and where the research is on it.

Thanks.

[mistymo]

You need to be eating at least 1200 calories a day regardless of what you're BMR is or how much exercise you're doing.  You have to feed your body to lose weight (fat).  When you don't take in enough calories, your body goes into starvation mode and stores everything you take in as fat AND burns lean muscle to feed your metabolism.  You want to preserve your lean muscle and burn the fat, so you have to eat.  But eat clean, lean proteins, whole grains, some fruit, and tons of vegetables.

[Heybales]

---

@mistymo wrote:

You need to be eating at least 1200 calories a day regardless of what you're BMR is or how much exercise you're doing.  You have to feed your body to lose weight (fat).  When you don't take in enough calories, your body goes into starvation mode and stores everything you take in as fat AND burns lean muscle to feed your metabolism.  You want to preserve your lean muscle and burn the fat, so you have to eat.  But eat clean, lean proteins, whole grains, some fruit, and tons of vegetables.

---

While some good advice there, you also mixed starvation mode with effects of starving. That causes the normal starvation mode myths you are repeating.

Starvation mode doesn't cause everything to be stored as fat, nor burn muscle mass as replacement to fat burn.

That would be actual starving, no or very little (200-300 calories) daily for over 3 days to start seeing some of those effects, and longer for others.

Anyone eating 800 and more is not starving though, no matter how foolish and negative the consequences, still not starving.

But to start burning protein and effecting your muscle mass (there is no "lean" muscle like a cut of beef BTW) merely takes a deficit that is too big for amount to lose and amount of activity. You could be eating 1800 daily and cause that effect, because you burn 3500 daily, don't eat enough protein, and do no resistance training with muscles.

Additional problem that makes people think they are storing more fat, is when your body eventually slows down daily burn 20-25% because of huge initial deficit, and since now burning less, any cheat meals or days really is in surplus to daily burn, so that does indeed get stored as fat.

But that is inaccuracy of the claim "I'm only eating 1200 daily and gaining weight!".

Huh, no, your goal may be 1200 and mostly followed, but you eat 3000 almost every weekend on binges and that's how you gain the fat and weight when maintenance is really only 1500.

[stormyspace]

Out of curiosity, why the 1-week break between the change in deficits? Is this to help with a metabolism boost or something? TIA!

[9v9z9f]

I'm just wondering about how much the energy burn/calories be because my numbers have been low recently, today it was 659, when usually it's higher than that but I don't know what I'm doing wrong, and how to get it up again.

[Heybales]

9v9z9f - You say usually higher than 659 - I'm guessing this is calorie burn
from extra activity during the day? Or includes exercise too?
Usually? How long have you had the Fitbit that it read higher?
Because if it's new for you, it might have been adjusting some parameters
over time to get better estimates, and while it gave a higher burn it was
worse accuracy and not true, it may have gotten better so now you are just
seeing truer picture.
You increase it by being more active, no matter the reason why it's lower.
Park farther out from stores, get up and move more often. If exercise is
included, workout harder or longer.

[9v9z9f]

To answer your question, yes it is energy burn but I'm not really sure if it's from extra activity during the day usually or if it includes exercise too, I can't remember the details about how it works, I think I might have to research it. All I know it's usually higher, like on Monday it was 1,714. But the rest of the week it's been 596 on Tuesday, 761 on Wednesday, 644 Yesterday, and today it's 376 at the moment. I have had the watch for two years now (February 2022), but I never knew it to be those numbers before, only higher numbers like Monday was. But thanks for the advice.

[Heybales]

9v9z9f - in that case it appears a change in activity since Mon continuing
isn't a realistic idea unless your routine really did change from the prior
years.

That leaves a setting change, or upgrade to how the figures are being
displayed.
Do you recall messing around with settings Mon evening?
Do you recall an update to device being done Mon/Tue? (not really an update
that require noticing it perhaps)

Because even a prior display of say total daily burn calories (TDEE) around
1700 - that seems a tad low unless you are indeed a smaller older lady
without too much extra activity.
But then if device switched to showing daily activity burn above and beyond
base BMR calories only, well now 600 to 700 seems high, though that would
be possible if BMR was 1100 or tad less.
Are you very active, and indeed a smaller older lady? (calculated BMR uses
weight & age, so...)

I'm thinking they are just displaying something different, perhaps new
default setting, and your prior view is still in there.