• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Basic Metabolic Rate - Does it figure in your diet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter graj0
  • Start Date Start Date
G

graj0

Guest
Just so we're all singing from the same song book, your Basic Metabolic Rate (BMR, as if you didn't guess) is the number of calories that you would have to consume if you were in bed, not moving, like in a coma. There is a formula to calculate our individual BMR (several in fact) based on gender, age, height and present weight. The Harris Benedict formula is popular although there are several alternatives, but generally they come up with the same number.

After being prescribed Rosiglitazone my weight became a real problem and after coming off the drug and my weight started to fall, I started to take diet very seriously, although I had never eaten things like chocolate, cake, biscuits, pizza etc etc I was fond of a couple of pints of an evening, so that went all together. I followed a proper regime and struggled, not because I was in the slightest bit hungry, but because it was too much. The theory is that you deduct 500 calories from your BMR, which amounts to 3500 calories a week and in theory, you should lose a pound maybe 2 pounds a week (it is said that 3500 calories is equivalent to 1 pound).

It was so much that I asked the organisation who did the diet if I could go 1,000 cals less than BMR and although they weren't happy, I said that if 500 less BMR wasn't working, what was the good of me paying them anything. Even 1,000 calories less than BMR didn't work. In fact nothing worked until I cut my carb intake to about 80gms a day, less than 1,000 calories a day. Although even now I'm on a plateau, so the BMR calculation is rubbish for me.

Does anyone else struggle with what is supposed to be correct dietary advice? More calorie wise than content. My theory is that although there are people that just plain overeat, there are also a large number who just don't fit into any particular category, they are not able to eat what is considered to be their BMR without gaining. My greatest fear is being taken into hospital in a coma and coming out several stones heavier because they've used the Harris Benedict formula to calculate how many calories I need.
 
80 grams of carbohydrates is a lot for somebody using a LCHF diet to reduce weight . 50 grams /day is considered the maximum for weight loss.

Maybe this would be worth a trial ?

By the way my BMR is 1440 calories, I eat 1680 calories /day and use up 240 calories in exercise [ treadmill walking]

The 1680 calories is split up according to the following,

21 grams of carbohydrates = 84 calories ie 5% of total calories/

84 grams of protein = 84x4 =336 calories ie 20% of total calories

140 grams of oils = 140x9 = 1260 calories ie 75% of total calories

ie the diet is LCHF and ketogenic. It seems to work very well for me for weight and blood glucose control.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have to be honest I haven't a clue how many calories I'm eating. I do tend to stick to low carb, with the occasional 'blip', and have slowly lost weight but I do not think my carb intake is as low as others. In addition I know that, due to my metabolism, I cannot reduce my calories too much so don't.
 
nomistheman said:
I ate 676 g carbs last week - just under 100 g Per day and lost half a kilo or roughly 1 pound in weight. So you don't necessarily have to go under 50 g carb a day. We're all different.
Click to expand...

I assume you ate something in addition to the "676" grams ? carbohydrates, ie, Proteins, fats ? after all, the OP mentioned BMR as a reference in his question. So that without other further details, your post doesnt really divulge much.
 
I laugh in the face of the BMR theory.
The eggheads who came up with it apparently live on a different planet from me.

Calorie counting seems to bear no relation to my body.
I'm a 48 yr old, overweight, fairly sedentary person. Morbidly obese with various hormonal 'stuff' going on. I won't bother to go into detail, because nowadays it even bores me!

I usually eat very low carb (less than 50g carbs a day)
Calorie intake is approx 1,800 - 2,800 depending on which side of the bed I got out of
I don't measure protein or fat, but I certainly don't skimp
Veg portions are generous, berry portions are minimal
I try to drink 3-4 litres of water, broth and herb teas a day

With all of the above, my weight stays stable - no matter the calories.

There are two things that seem to impact weight loss more than anything else:
If I drink less than 3 litres, my weightloss stalls, or I gain (water retention?)
If I get less than 8,000 steps a day weight loss will stall. Anything over 8,000 and I will sslloooowwwlllyy lose, at about 1.5 lbs/month (I think it's the exercise reducing my insulin resistance)

I wouldn't want to lose faster. Experience has taught me that if I diet fast, I rebound faster, and end up bigger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pasha said:
80 grams of carbohydrates is a lot for somebody using a LCHF diet to reduce weight . 50 grams /day is considered the maximum for weight loss.
Click to expand...
I'm not on a LCHF diet to lose weight, I'm not even on a LCHF diet, why does everyone assume that LC means HF, they are not mutually exclusive. I'd never keep my calories down if I followed the LCHF route and my stomach doesn't cope with too much fat anyway, possibly too many years of following LF regimes as advised by GP and hospital dieticians. Calories may not be the be all and end all but they are a way of comparing energy used against energy consumed, even if BMR calculations are a bit off the mark.

I'm not even using LC to lose weight, although cutting carbs without replacing with fat means lowering calories. I originally cut my carbs so that I could ditch Gliclazide and Januvia which I have done. Atorvastatin went out the window as well, so result. I want as few medications to affect my ability or otherwise of losing weight, based on the side effects of Rosiglitazone and Gliclazide in the past.
 
'Farewell to the 3,500 Calorie Rule'
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml
The calculator devised by Carson Chow and Kevin Hall is here
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-f...behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
It would be interesting to see if that gives you a different figure from the one that you have been using. If once you've done the calculation you go into advanced settings there are some graphs modelling the predicted weight change over time
There is also a link on the page to the paper describing the model describing in more detail why the 3.500 calorie rule isn't correct and that links in turn to some of the data that was used to validate the model.
 
healthy1 said:
I like how easy it to calculate calories using this calculator. I was then prompted to a website domain, ending on ..usda.gov
Sounds like sponsored by meat and dairy industries:)
So they come up with a meal plan for me to consume 3 (!) cups of milk a day.
Why do we need that much calcium?
I don't mind to have sometimes a little bit of yogurt with berries or add milk into pancake mix. But 3 cups daily! Proceed at your own risk.
Click to expand...

I am all for calcium, but I would prefer to get it from nuts, leafy greens and suchlike. Much better for me. The myth that milk is the automatic way to go seems bizarre considering how many people have intolerances to whey, or lactose, or both.
 
graj0 said:
I'm not on a LCHF diet to lose weight, I'm not even on a LCHF diet, why does everyone assume that LC means HF, they are not mutually exclusive. I'd never keep my calories down if I followed the LCHF route and my stomach doesn't cope with too much fat anyway, possibly too many years of following LF regimes as advised by GP and hospital dieticians. Calories may not be the be all and end all but they are a way of comparing energy used against energy consumed, even if BMR calculations are a bit off the mark.

I'm not even using LC to lose weight, although cutting carbs without replacing with fat means lowering calories. I originally cut my carbs so that I could ditch Gliclazide and Januvia which I have done. Atorvastatin went out the window as well, so result. I want as few medications to affect my ability or otherwise of losing weight, based on the side effects of Rosiglitazone and Gliclazide in the past.
Click to expand...

I've found the BMR works for me.
I wish I was one of the people that doesn't need to count calories, and can just cut down on carbs while eating unlimited proteins and fat.

My body is happy to burn anything, what I don't use turns to fat.
So unless I count the calories in fat, LCHF simply makes me put on pounds.

The good side is if I want to lose weight, I simply eat less.
No 'starvation mode', no need to panic unless I keep eating something in my metabolism will suddenly switch me to somehow doing the same for less, I just turn my spare tyre back into energy.
However I'm not overweight now, (I was though, I ate less, lost the weight, and again, didn't affect my metabolism), I exercise regularly, both anaerobic, and aerobic, I still don't eat what would be classed as hardcore HF, I don't add fat to anything.
I balance overeating periods with under eating.
 
SunnyExpat said:
I've found the BMR works for me.
I wish I was one of the people that doesn't need to count calories, and can just cut down on carbs while eating unlimited proteins and fat.

My body is happy to burn anything, what I don't use turns to fat.
So unless I count the calories in fat, LCHF simply makes me put on pounds.

The good side is if I want to lose weight, I simply eat less.
No 'starvation mode', no need to panic unless I keep eating something in my metabolism will suddenly switch me to somehow doing the same for less, I just turn my spare tyre back into energy.
However I'm not overweight now, (I was though, I ate less, lost the weight, and again, didn't affect my metabolism), I exercise regularly, both anaerobic, and aerobic, I still don't eat what would be classed as hardcore HF, I don't add fat to anything.
I balance overeating periods with under eating.
Click to expand...

Eating less than BMR has to be the starting point for weight loss and like you, cutting carbs and eating unlimited amounts just wouldn't work.

So long as your metabolism keeps working at the rate it is, everything is fine for weight loss, eat less lose weight. It's just that the metabolism can change and in some it will be sooner than in others. I just wish the whole diet thing was that simple.

I've been listening to Dr Jade Teta, who is saying that there are 4 ways to lose weight. 1. Eat less, Exercise more (traditional, works well to begin with). 2. Eat more, exercise less (suppose to reset metabolism, strangely it worked when I came out of hospital last Christmas. I ate more, it was christmas, I exercised less, I had a new knee, I lost 1 1/2 stone). 3. Eat more, exercise more (athletes do this all the time, they don't look so bad). 4. Eat less, exercise less.????????

I can't comment that much, I'm only repeating what this guy reckons. All I know is that the metabolism is a complex beast, whatever it's doing.
 
graj0 said:
Eating less than BMR has to be the starting point for weight loss and like you, cutting carbs and eating unlimited amounts just wouldn't work.

So long as your metabolism keeps working at the rate it is, everything is fine for weight loss, eat less lose weight. It's just that the metabolism can change and in some it will be sooner than in others. I just wish the whole diet thing was that simple.

I've been listening to Dr Jade Teta, who is saying that there are 4 ways to lose weight. 1. Eat less, Exercise more (traditional, works well to begin with). 2. Eat more, exercise less (suppose to reset metabolism, strangely it worked when I came out of hospital last Christmas. I ate more, it was christmas, I exercised less, I had a new knee, I lost 1 1/2 stone). 3. Eat more, exercise more (athletes do this all the time, they don't look so bad). 4. Eat less, exercise less.????????

I can't comment that much, I'm only repeating what this guy reckons. All I know is that the metabolism is a complex beast, whatever it's doing.
Click to expand...

Eat less, exercise more is my best one, eat even less, exercise less works too.
So long as I keep calories in less than my calculated calories out, it works. And the BMR seems to give a good enough target.
Certainly, when I eat more than my suggested figure, I do seem to put the weight back on.
 
graj0 said:
Eating less than BMR has to be the starting point for weight loss and like you, cutting carbs and eating unlimited amounts just wouldn't work.

So long as your metabolism keeps working at the rate it is, everything is fine for weight loss, eat less lose weight. It's just that the metabolism can change and in some it will be sooner than in others. I just wish the whole diet thing was that simple.

I've been listening to Dr Jade Teta, who is saying that there are 4 ways to lose weight. 1. Eat less, Exercise more (traditional, works well to begin with). 2. Eat more, exercise less (suppose to reset metabolism, strangely it worked when I came out of hospital last Christmas. I ate more, it was christmas, I exercised less, I had a new knee, I lost 1 1/2 stone). 3. Eat more, exercise more (athletes do this all the time, they don't look so bad). 4. Eat less, exercise less.????????

I can't comment that much, I'm only repeating what this guy reckons. All I know is that the metabolism is a complex beast, whatever it's doing.
Click to expand...
Sorry about this but number 2 was almost definitely not what you think. Huge and rapid weight loss is a very well known outcome of a major physical trauma, such as heart attack or major operation. It's great. It's the easiest and quickest way to lose weight, but probably not the best or healthiest way. I've done it too, and you can take advantage of it to keep the weight off, as long as you realize that there was no "reset" as such.

Back on topic, I always sit down and calculate my BMR before trying to trim down a bit, and yes, I count calories when I want to lose weight, as well as carbs, though I'm not too precise on the calories. I just generally cut back on fats and exercise more. It works for me, but I have never had a great deal to lose anyway. I tend to act fast when I see I am putting on weight.
 
healthy1 said:
I like how easy it to calculate calories using this calculator. I was then prompted to a website domain, ending on ..usda.gov
Sounds like sponsored by meat and dairy industries:)
So they come up with a meal plan for me to consume 3 (!) cups of milk a day.
Why do we need that much calcium?
I don't mind to have sometimes a little bit of yogurt with berries or add milk into pancake mix. But 3 cups daily! Proceed at your own risk.
Click to expand...
It's a US government site and what you say is rather ironic since there are some people that would suggest that their dietary guidelines are over influenced by the grain industry ;)
You don't have to use their tracker and indeed it is very difficult to use because it relies on US cup measurements and calorie counts that may not be representative of UK versions.
 
RuthW said:
. . . . . . . I tend to act fast when I see I am putting on weight.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately when I complained that I was gaining weight after being prescribed Rosiglitazone the doctor prescribed citilapram because of my anxiety. In hindsight anxiety was better than not giving a monkeys about anything. Citilapram certainly "cured" my anxiety and worse still the doctor was most insistent that I continued to take it. I did eventually ignore him completely, maybe just in time.
 
graj0 said:
Unfortunately when I complained that I was gaining weight after being prescribed Rosiglitazone the doctor prescribed citilapram because of my anxiety. In hindsight anxiety was better than not giving a monkeys about anything. Citilapram certainly "cured" my anxiety and worse still the doctor was most insistent that I continued to take it. I did eventually ignore him completely, maybe just in time.
Click to expand...
Yes, the only time in my life I've been officially overweight was when I was complaining of tiredness, my consultant told me I wasn't eating enough, and the dietician told me I could 'afford' to put on a bit of weight. Five years later I'm still not back to where I was!
 
Back
Top