Confused?
 

So I just looked up my bmr for my "goal" weight. It's about 50 more calories than I eat now.

Do thin people really eat that few calories? If I make goal but decide to lose a couple more pounds, how is that possible without going below 1200 calories?

I guess I assumed when I got to goal I would be eating a bit more calories during maintenance

Remember BMR is the basal metabolic rate, no activity whatsoever, nada, nothin. You have to figure in every day activities on top of any exercise. You definitely don't have to eat that little, I sure don't!

As LockItUp said, BMR is the amount of calories you would burn if you were sleeping all day. If you're moderately active, your total caloric requirements are about 40-50% higher than that. If your maintenance BMR is 1,300, for example, your total maintenance calories would be 1,820 to 1,950. That sounds about right for your height and goal weight.

Freelance
blog: www.englishgrammargripe.com

Yeah don't forget, BMR is what you burn being alive. If you plan on being in bed 24/7 then that's what you would have to eat.

My BMR is around 1300 calories according to calculators (I'm actually getting a bunch of tests done tomorrow so I'll know my body fat and BMR for real!) but even if I'm sedentary the calculators say I can eat 1600ish calories and maintain.

I eat 2000+ because I'm active :)

Ditto what everyone said already. :) I eat about 1800-2000 cals and maintain.

Thanks y'all!!!

Not to throw a fly in the ointment, but people who have been significantly overweight tend to maintain on fewer calories than people who were "only" 30-40 above their goal weights. CNN, and I think it was Men's Health, had a big study about it a year or so ago. The amount of time you were overweight also factored into it; basically the longer you were heavy, the fewer calories you're going to get to maintain.

I'm 5'10", work out 4 times a week, and maintain on about 1600 calories, a few more if I'm watching the carbs. Kind of sucks, but if you're eating clean then it's really quite a lot of food. I do envy people who can eat more, but having to be so strict actually has helped me maintain. I'm less loosey-goosey about the whole thing because I really have to watch it and the weight is less likely to creep up on me.

See I wonder if this is true for everyone. I was at least 100lbs heavier than I am now and was obese through childhood...yet I can eat over 2000 cals. I often wonder how much I could eat had I not been overweight.

Age and lean mass growth has helped immensely for you, I'd gather :).

Being younger is a boon, as you tend to be less metabolically resistant at younger ages than the same body ten or fifteen years down the road. But we can't change our ages - however the other point, about strength training and increasing our lean mass - that's crucial for anyone at any age. Wherever you are, building strength and flexibility will only benefit you in terms of overall morbidity, calorie burning aside!

I can maintain on 1800-2000 calories with almost no activity and no special diet. With a ketogenic diet, workouts 4-5 days a week, pregnancy burning some excess calories, and proper sleep, I can lose weight at that level and maintain at closer to 2200 calories per day. This isn't a fluke - what I eat, how active I am, my age and hormonal state all influence my burn rate.

The amount of calories any given individual maintains on varies.

If you look at the charts from whence BMR calculators are derived you can see that most people follow a fairly linear axis but there is deviation and there are outliers. Translation - some people burn more or less calories than others the same height and weight and a few burn far more or less.

The study referenced above is very interesting but you have to interpret the data correctly. The biggest part of the lowered caloric burn appears to be adaptation of movement. Less spontaneous movement and less physical movement. BMR did not drop much at all.

You can read all about it here.