[JudgeDread]

Well I guess I should wear my HRM all day to see what my BMR really is!

I have went to two different websites to calculate my BMR and one says 2000 and the other says 1504!!!! That is a HUGE difference. Granted most of us do more than just sit down ALL day, but still....that seems really low.

At 2000 calories that is 20 calories for 15 minutes of normal resting body functions. Subtract another 5 calories if you calculate the 1500....EESH!

Weird thing is, they say the more fit you are, the more calories you burn resting. But what I don't understand is that when you are an athlete your BMR drops down into the 50-60 range..and to burn more calories you need a higher heart rate.

If anyone knows much about this formula and trying to figure out what your body really needs a minimum of, I am ALL ears! (well eyes on here)

[JohnP]

You're not going to be able to figure out your BMR with your HR monitor. I'm sorry but the only way is to pay to have it tested in a lab assuming you can find one that will do it.

That said, you can estimate it and then carefully track calories over time and get a reasonable idea of what your maintience level is.

[JudgeDread]

Thanks..my other big question that google doesn't answer....

If I eat 1200 per day, and then burn about 400 with exercise is that still not enough? Or should I shoot for 1600 and then burn the 400 back down to 1200?

[freelancemomma]

Based on your stats I'd say 1,500 sounds like the more reasonable BMR figure. Perhaps the other site was giving you your ACTIVE metabolic rate (AMR), which is the total calories you're expected to burn throughout a 24-hour period (BMR + extra calories burned while doing more than resting).

If you're sedentary, AMR is approximately equal to BMR x 1.2, or 1,800 in your case. If you're moderately active, AMR is approximately equal to BMR x 1.5, or 2,250 in your case. That's the number of calories you would need to consume to maintain your weight. If you want to lose about a pound a week, subtract 500 from the figure. Of course things never work out that neatly, but it's a good starting point.

HTH Freelance

[Candeka]

Your stats are very similar to mine. After my research and experiments, I find that eating between 1300-1500 is great for weight loss for me. This is AFTER my exercise calories. For example, if I burn 300 calories during exercise, then I will be eating between around 1600-1700 calories to bring my NET calories down to 1300-1400. If you were to only eat 1200 and burn 400, your net calories would only be 800 which is way to low.

I should also add that I am not a very active person. I am a full time student so most of my day is spent sitting on my butt in lectures and then doing homework. If you are active (and not just walking slowly around the office), then you will want to consume more calories.

[JudgeDread]

Yeah I am starting to think so too, although I have lost 4 lbs in two weeks. I don't know if it will slow down if I kept up on what I am doing, or if it will slow down if I eat more....Don't get me wrong, I want to eat more..but I also want to see results fast as I have spent too much time half assing my diet before.

[Candeka]

Yeah its really weird that sometimes eating more can actually make you lose weight. But from what I have seen, most people similar to your weight eat about 1300-1600 to lose weight. I personally vary from day to day. Some days I will be fine or even have trouble eating all 1300. Other days I am just like a black whole and have to eat all of my 1500-1600, but it is still below my maintenance number so it works. Plus it helps my body not get used to a certain amount of calories. I think that's called calorie cycling.