Had my metabolism tested - interesting results and some questions
Allegi32
Posts: 302 Member
After struggling with getting any progress with my weight loss, I decided to have it tested. I went to a facility that does it with the Korr machine - supposed to be highly reliable and accurate.
Anyway, I had some pretty surprising results, but also have some questions, and I'm wondering if anyone here has any insight.
My RMR was tested at 1800, and put me at the slightly higher than average mark. That surprised me! Especially being hypothyroid!
I've been eating 1600 and not losing, which seemed odd. I'm 5'8", 233lbs., goal weight around 160. The woman who ran the test said that on the days I don't exercise, I should eat 1800 calories and on the days I do, I should eat 2100.
Here are my questions:
1) On the sheet she gave me, which has the printout from the machine, it says that maintenance calories for me is 1800-2340 and that weight loss would be at 1440-1800. But she said that I need to be eating either 1800 or 2100 to lose, depending on my exercise. I'm wondering why she would come up with different numbers than the machine suggested?
2) If my RMR is 1800 and I was eating 1600 and it comes down to calories in vs. calories out, shouldn’t I still have been losing something at that level? Even if it wasn’t the healthiest for my body, etc. shouldn’t I have been losing weight because I was burning more than I was taking in? I thought at first, well, I was slowing my metabolism down, but it was measured at 1800 so it obviously wasn’t slowing down to under the amount I was eating - if that makes sense?
Any insight?
Anyway, I had some pretty surprising results, but also have some questions, and I'm wondering if anyone here has any insight.
My RMR was tested at 1800, and put me at the slightly higher than average mark. That surprised me! Especially being hypothyroid!
I've been eating 1600 and not losing, which seemed odd. I'm 5'8", 233lbs., goal weight around 160. The woman who ran the test said that on the days I don't exercise, I should eat 1800 calories and on the days I do, I should eat 2100.
Here are my questions:
1) On the sheet she gave me, which has the printout from the machine, it says that maintenance calories for me is 1800-2340 and that weight loss would be at 1440-1800. But she said that I need to be eating either 1800 or 2100 to lose, depending on my exercise. I'm wondering why she would come up with different numbers than the machine suggested?
2) If my RMR is 1800 and I was eating 1600 and it comes down to calories in vs. calories out, shouldn’t I still have been losing something at that level? Even if it wasn’t the healthiest for my body, etc. shouldn’t I have been losing weight because I was burning more than I was taking in? I thought at first, well, I was slowing my metabolism down, but it was measured at 1800 so it obviously wasn’t slowing down to under the amount I was eating - if that makes sense?
Any insight?
2
Replies
-
How were you getting the 1600 calories eaten? At that small a difference, logging errors can easily account for not losing. Do you have a food scale? A 200 cal difference would be less than a 1/2 lb per week.
No idea why she would tell you to eat at maintenance if you want to lose weight. Sounds daft to me.19 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »How were you getting the 1600 calories eaten? At that small a difference, logging errors can easily account for not losing. Do you have a food scale? A 200 cal difference would be less than a 1/2 lb per week.
No idea why she would tell you to eat at maintenance if you want to lose weight. Sounds daft to me.
I literally weigh and measure everything that goes into your mouth. When it says 1 tablespoon of peanut butter? I weight it instead of using the tablespoon to make it more accurate. There is no way I could be more anal about measuring my food, LOL.
RMR is just if I were to lie in bed 24 hours a day. So that's just to exist. Add on lifestyle calories (like my daily activities) and exercise, and my actual calories burned is much higher. So at 1600 calories eaten, I definitely was creating more than a 200 calorie deficit.3 -
as to her recommendations - its hard to say because we don't know her qualifications or reasoning. If your TDEE is 1800-2340 depending on exercise then eating below TDEE should result in weight loss.
As to the accuracy of the machine: I have no idea. Will trust you've done your research there.
As to eating 1600 without results: how accurate was the 1600, and for how long did you eat at 1600 without weight loss. And was it no loss, or just not as much as you expected?5 -
StaciMarie1974 wrote: »as to her recommendations - its hard to say because we don't know her qualifications or reasoning. If your TDEE is 1800-2340 depending on exercise then eating below TDEE should result in weight loss.
As to the accuracy of the machine: I have no idea. Will trust you've done your research there.
As to eating 1600 without results: how accurate was the 1600, and for how long did you eat at 1600 without weight loss. And was it no loss, or just not as much as you expected?
Over the course of 1 1/2 months, I haven't lost anything.
Her claim was that I'm eating not only below my TDEE but below my RMR, and apparently that's why I wasn't losing, but that also doesn't make sense to me.
Answer above about the accuracy of my calorie intake.1 -
Maybe open your diary and some smarter than me people can have a look. But, honestly, if your numbers are correct, you would have lost a bit of weight. SO something is off either in what the machine told you or your logging.0
-
1.5 months is annoying, but if you're sure you're eating 1600 I'd say give it more time.5
-
What's your macros like? Protein/Fat/Carbs?0
-
This is probably a legit plateau IF you haven't been off on your logging and keeping calories in check (meaning you didn't splurge on say 2500 or more calories during that 6 week time).
I'd first bump the intensity of your exercise and see how that goes. Then if that doesn't work, I might try a diet break.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
I watched a BBC show comparing two besties and their metabolisms. One was underweight and the other overweight. They were both convinced the low BMI girl ate tons but just had a fast metabolism while the high BMI girl ate little but had a very low metabolism. They tested their metabolism and also secretly watched what they ingested.
Findings:
- nothing special about their metabolisms (like the OP)
- skinny girl underate and over estimated her calories in
- chunky girl overate and under estimated her calories in
Lesson - use a food scale and don't lie to myself/yourself when tracking26 -
Did you start the exercise at the same time as the calorie deficit? It was week 5 or 6 before I saw scale movement when I started exercise. If you've hit a funky spot in your menstrual cycle that could further cause scale weight issues.
I'd just cross reference your entries to make sure the calorie info is correct and wait it out a bit longer. I get the frustration though!5 -
-
Oh! And have your measurements changed? That was my biggest progress indicator at first, I lost loads of inches in that first two months. The scale did eventually catch up and average out to a little over what my deficit dictated (I was cautious with eating back exercise calories, turns out I could have eaten them all but my weight could support the slightly faster losses at the time).5
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Macro splits are irrelevant to weight loss. Important for other things but not as an explanation for not losing.
It's not irrelevant at all, you will lose weight faster with a diet that consists of 50P / 30F / 20C rather than 10P / 30F / 60C even if the calories are the same.7 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Macro splits are irrelevant to weight loss. Important for other things but not as an explanation for not losing.
It's not irrelevant at all, you will lose weight faster with a diet that consists of 50P / 30F / 20C rather than 10P / 30F / 60C even if the calories are the same.
Proof?14 -
If your RMR is 1800 then 1800 is not maintenance, even on days when you don't exercise. If you are accurately measuring calories in then you should be able to eat 1800 and lose weight. Lower than that should give you faster results.2
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Macro splits are irrelevant to weight loss. Important for other things but not as an explanation for not losing.
It's not irrelevant at all, you will lose weight faster with a diet that consists of 50P / 30F / 20C rather than 10P / 30F / 60C even if the calories are the same.
Nope.15 -
OP, I've been in this situation a few times before, with the exception of having an RMR test. I was losing at a certain calorie level, albeit slowly, and then suddenly stopped losing. I weighed every morsel that could be measured with weight and otherwise measured liquids. I used an activity tracker as well, and yet weight loss just magically and instantly stalled. Everyone on the forums was convinced that I must be eating while I'm sleeping without knowing it or lying about weighing my food.
As it turned out, I was in true plateaus. The worst of which lasted 6 months. After 2 months, I got really frustrated and was about to just plain give up. In compromise rather than give up, I gave up half the time (basically the every other day diet). I still logged everything, but was eating to satisfaction with no restrictions on alternating days. This ended up being about 10K calories on those days. On the diet days, I ate 500 calories per day max. Of course, this was a huge surplus and I should have immediately started gaining weight fast, right?! Nope, because I was in a true plateau. Day-to-day fluctuations became larger, but my weight still hovered around the same base number. After 6 weeks of that, I returned to a normal daily deficit because I figure I had proven I was in a true plateau and if I kept eating at a deficit, maybe there would be a "whoosh" some day. In fact, that is what happened. About 2 months after returning to a normal daily deficit, I finally ended up losing about 9 lbs. in a few days and it stayed off (i.e. not just normal daily fluctuations).
It might be that you are truly in a plateau. If that is the case, then keep eating at a small deficit and trust that you will eventually experience a whoosh. Since you have a pretty good idea of what your RMR is and you track your food in the most accurate method possible, then you should be able to keep at a deficit even if you don't see the loss right away.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Macro splits are irrelevant to weight loss. Important for other things but not as an explanation for not losing.
It's not irrelevant at all, you will lose weight faster with a diet that consists of 50P / 30F / 20C rather than 10P / 30F / 60C even if the calories are the same.
Nope.
Agreed- big nope!
4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »OP, I've been in this situation a few times before, with the exception of having an RMR test. I was losing at a certain calorie level, albeit slowly, and then suddenly stopped losing. I weighed every morsel that could be measured with weight and otherwise measured liquids. I used an activity tracker as well, and yet weight loss just magically and instantly stalled. Everyone on the forums was convinced that I must be eating while I'm sleeping without knowing it or lying about weighing my food.
As it turned out, I was in true plateaus. The worst of which lasted 6 months. After 2 months, I got really frustrated and was about to just plain give up. In compromise rather than give up, I gave up half the time (basically the every other day diet). I still logged everything, but was eating to satisfaction with no restrictions on alternating days. This ended up being about 10K calories on those days. On the diet days, I ate 500 calories per day max. Of course, this was a huge surplus and I should have immediately started gaining weight fast, right?! Nope, because I was in a true plateau. Day-to-day fluctuations became larger, but my weight still hovered around the same base number. After 6 weeks of that, I returned to a normal daily deficit because I figure I had proven I was in a true plateau and if I kept eating at a deficit, maybe there would be a "whoosh" some day. In fact, that is what happened. About 2 months after returning to a normal daily deficit, I finally ended up losing about 9 lbs. in a few days and it stayed off (i.e. not just normal daily fluctuations).
It might be that you are truly in a plateau. If that is the case, then keep eating at a small deficit and trust that you will eventually experience a whoosh. Since you have a pretty good idea of what your RMR is and you track your food in the most accurate method possible, then you should be able to keep at a deficit even if you don't see the loss right away.
10,000 in one day? I'm calling that nonsense. You could literally eat two gallons of ice cream and still not have eaten 10,000 calories. You could eat a restaurant meal six times and not have 10,000 calories. Even Tour de France riders who are on a mountain stage aren't consuming that many calories. It seems to me that you have just demonstrated that your problem was inaccurate calorie counting, not some "true plateau" while waiting for a "swoosh".9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Macro splits are irrelevant to weight loss. Important for other things but not as an explanation for not losing.
It's not irrelevant at all, you will lose weight faster with a diet that consists of 50P / 30F / 20C rather than 10P / 30F / 60C even if the calories are the same.
To add to this, what he's talking about is probably the Thermic effect of food. If you replaced 100g of carbs with 100g of protein, you'd increase your TDEE by 20-120 calories depending on type of carb and amino acid profile of the protein.
While this difference is small, I wouldn't go so far as to call it irrelevant.9 -
I agree it would take some intentional effort, but doable.TimothyFish wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »OP, I've been in this situation a few times before, with the exception of having an RMR test. I was losing at a certain calorie level, albeit slowly, and then suddenly stopped losing. I weighed every morsel that could be measured with weight and otherwise measured liquids. I used an activity tracker as well, and yet weight loss just magically and instantly stalled. Everyone on the forums was convinced that I must be eating while I'm sleeping without knowing it or lying about weighing my food.
As it turned out, I was in true plateaus. The worst of which lasted 6 months. After 2 months, I got really frustrated and was about to just plain give up. In compromise rather than give up, I gave up half the time (basically the every other day diet). I still logged everything, but was eating to satisfaction with no restrictions on alternating days. This ended up being about 10K calories on those days. On the diet days, I ate 500 calories per day max. Of course, this was a huge surplus and I should have immediately started gaining weight fast, right?! Nope, because I was in a true plateau. Day-to-day fluctuations became larger, but my weight still hovered around the same base number. After 6 weeks of that, I returned to a normal daily deficit because I figure I had proven I was in a true plateau and if I kept eating at a deficit, maybe there would be a "whoosh" some day. In fact, that is what happened. About 2 months after returning to a normal daily deficit, I finally ended up losing about 9 lbs. in a few days and it stayed off (i.e. not just normal daily fluctuations).
It might be that you are truly in a plateau. If that is the case, then keep eating at a small deficit and trust that you will eventually experience a whoosh. Since you have a pretty good idea of what your RMR is and you track your food in the most accurate method possible, then you should be able to keep at a deficit even if you don't see the loss right away.
10,000 in one day? I'm calling that nonsense. You could literally eat two gallons of ice cream and still not have eaten 10,000 calories. You could eat a restaurant meal six times and not have 10,000 calories. Even Tour de France riders who are on a mountain stage aren't consuming that many calories. It seems to me that you have just demonstrated that your problem was inaccurate calorie counting, not some "true plateau" while waiting for a "swoosh".
A fast food combo easily can hit 2k, throw in a second burger and you are hitting 3k
Rinse and repeat7 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Proof?
It takes significantly more energy to digest protein than carbs/fat which means calories will be burnt in the process. I think protein is somewhere around 20-30% of the content and carbs 7% fats are like 3%.
Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6476790
Also the cost of gluconeogenesis, converting Proteins to energy for use costs around 33% of the energy it provides. The body is not perfect either and will use a lot of the amino acids from the protein for repairing muscle damage which is why lifting weights + high protein % of your diet provides a very rapid weight loss since a lot of it won't even be subjected to gluconeogenesis in the first place.
Study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full
Protein is also really the only nutrient we need(along with vitamins/minerals of course) but it's not something that tastes good in general. The body loves carbs/fats since they easily gives us energy and provides a sort of high. So yes you will lose weight faster with a higher protein diet assuming the calories are the same.
8 -
You seem fairly adamant about your calorie tracking so let's assume that's not the issue. Do you take cheat days? If yes how often? How often do you eat food you did not prepare yourself (restaurants, family meals, etc)? The last thing I can suggest is to open your diary. If you eat a lot of pre-packaged foods that could be an issue even if you track them. Many foods simply lie on the label, something to the effect of 1 package (100g) = 200 calories so you just eat the whole package and log it. Thing is, if you weighed the contents of the package it's more than the 100 grams it claims to be. Other foods are simply just wrong about their calorie counts. If that too isn't the problem then a 2 week diet break (eating maintenance) might be what's needed here.MaineMom76 wrote: »
Any insight?
5 -
TimothyFish wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »OP, I've been in this situation a few times before, with the exception of having an RMR test. I was losing at a certain calorie level, albeit slowly, and then suddenly stopped losing. I weighed every morsel that could be measured with weight and otherwise measured liquids. I used an activity tracker as well, and yet weight loss just magically and instantly stalled. Everyone on the forums was convinced that I must be eating while I'm sleeping without knowing it or lying about weighing my food.
As it turned out, I was in true plateaus. The worst of which lasted 6 months. After 2 months, I got really frustrated and was about to just plain give up. In compromise rather than give up, I gave up half the time (basically the every other day diet). I still logged everything, but was eating to satisfaction with no restrictions on alternating days. This ended up being about 10K calories on those days. On the diet days, I ate 500 calories per day max. Of course, this was a huge surplus and I should have immediately started gaining weight fast, right?! Nope, because I was in a true plateau. Day-to-day fluctuations became larger, but my weight still hovered around the same base number. After 6 weeks of that, I returned to a normal daily deficit because I figure I had proven I was in a true plateau and if I kept eating at a deficit, maybe there would be a "whoosh" some day. In fact, that is what happened. About 2 months after returning to a normal daily deficit, I finally ended up losing about 9 lbs. in a few days and it stayed off (i.e. not just normal daily fluctuations).
It might be that you are truly in a plateau. If that is the case, then keep eating at a small deficit and trust that you will eventually experience a whoosh. Since you have a pretty good idea of what your RMR is and you track your food in the most accurate method possible, then you should be able to keep at a deficit even if you don't see the loss right away.
10,000 in one day? I'm calling that nonsense. You could literally eat two gallons of ice cream and still not have eaten 10,000 calories. You could eat a restaurant meal six times and not have 10,000 calories. Even Tour de France riders who are on a mountain stage aren't consuming that many calories. It seems to me that you have just demonstrated that your problem was inaccurate calorie counting, not some "true plateau" while waiting for a "swoosh".
On true cheat days, I've consumed way more than that even. It isn't as hard for some of us who have an insatiable appetite. Consider that a lot of restaurant pizzas are around 3K, more or less, just by themselves. And that is only 1 pizza. If I'm eating as much as I want, you think I'm only going to eat 1? No, I'll eat some cheese-sticks too and a cinnastix 'pizza' for dessert. There is half of the calories just for dinner.6 -
Congrats on having a higher metabolism (meaning just the base calorie burn daily) then expected for a gal your age, height, weight.
Means you may have more LBM than the average.
Of course it may be right on correct for an estimated RMR based on bodyfat %, or could even be lower than expected for that estimate.
Outside of that tested RMR figure - the other figures (TDEE, eating level) are no different than any other site starting with BMR and trying to estimate, based usually on your best guess of activity level.
But one of the first things your body does when it doesn't like the eating level to burn level and needs to start adapting - is slow you down in your daily burn, to conserve calories that the RMR functions need.
So that may have happened.
So while your RMR is better than expected, your TDEE could be much lower than expected.
Nothing like burning say 300 calories in a hard workout, and your body slows you down by 400 calories that day to compensate by moving a whole lot less.
Something to examine.
And then that logging then.
Be accurate with food logging as most have commented on, and then don't give the body a reason to keep adapting, especially since it sounds like body is under stress already.6 -
Are you married? Could you spouse be dripping butter into your mouth while you sleep?20
-
OP, six weeks is a decent time interval to assess. How are you weighing yourself? Are you using a trending app or rolling average? IMHO, determining my body weight is the least precise part of the equation. Normal fluctuations can mask a slow rate of loss. If you have TOM, a rolling average of the number of days in your cycle would be window through hormone induced fluctuation, but still not perfect.
ETA: all good points from vintagefeline, esp regarding measurements.2 -
This is a very good point. Weighing daily and logging it into something like trendweight.com could shed a lot of light on what's really happening. Many times a "stall" is really 0.5 or 0.25 lbs a week loss that is being hidden by fluctuations.OP, six weeks is a decent time interval to assess. How are you weighing yourself? Are you using a trending app or rolling average? IMHO, determining my body weight is the least precise part of the equation. Normal fluctuations can mask a slow rate of loss. If you have TOM, a rolling average of the number of days in your cycle would be window through hormone induced fluctuation, but still not perfect.
9 -
Sounds to me like you have been eating more than 1,600 calories. And she tested your RMR (1,800) so the recommendation she gave was based on a calorie deficit of your TDEE (rmr + daily activity and exercise). This is why she said "based on your exercise level".
I am going to say as someone who also has thyroid issues (hypo) that the proof is in the pudding. If you were using less energy as a result of your thyroid hormone levels that would have been reflected in this study.
if you've been staying relatively the same level of activity during this time it would seem the only variable that could be off is your intake. If you haven't lost weight in 6 weeks it seems to me you've been eating around your maintenance calories.
I saw lower your calories by a hundred every week until you start losing weight. You'll probably find that you were overeating and tracking inaccurately. You should have absolutely no issues losing weight at your current body size (even with a thyroid problem).3 -
MaineMom76 wrote: »StaciMarie1974 wrote: »as to her recommendations - its hard to say because we don't know her qualifications or reasoning. If your TDEE is 1800-2340 depending on exercise then eating below TDEE should result in weight loss.
As to the accuracy of the machine: I have no idea. Will trust you've done your research there.
As to eating 1600 without results: how accurate was the 1600, and for how long did you eat at 1600 without weight loss. And was it no loss, or just not as much as you expected?
Over the course of 1 1/2 months, I haven't lost anything.
Her claim was that I'm eating not only below my TDEE but below my RMR, and apparently that's why I wasn't losing, but that also doesn't make sense to me.
Answer above about the accuracy of my calorie intake.
Keep in mind all the numbers are guessimations at best and that CICO is just one factor in weight loss/gains. What is your current Vitamin D level? What is your current CRP (C-Reactive Protein) test results?
Some lose weight quickly and some do not when CICO's are equal. There are reasons for that but the why's are not simple to learn.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions