Very slow metabolism (clinically tested)
Replies
-
I'm late to the game, but what kind of RMR test were you given? Is it possible that the RMR was measured incorrectly? BMR testing is more precise and has more stringent requirements. Was your doctor concerned with your results?
I ask because there is typically a clear reason for such a low RMR for someone of your height, such as diabetes, thyroid issues (talk about this in a minute), COPD, etc.
You said you had your thyroid checked and it came back in normal range. Normal can be different for different people, BUT for your thyroid to slow your metabolism that significantly, the levels would have to be outside of the normal range.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'd just like to understand better what you are dealing with as the numbers truly do not make sense.
I am quite short, 5"1', and have reduced thyroid function, but it is being treated. Both of these things give me a lower RMR than average (still higher than your reported value). This means it is harder for me to lose weight than the average Joe, BUT it is far from impossible. It does require me to be active if I want to eat more than 1200 calories and still lose 1 lb/week. Quite frankly, I get a little cranky if I only have to eat 1200 a day, so I get out and do intentional exercise. This is not normal walking and cleaning the house, this is get up and boost that heart rate kind of exercise. Are there days when I don't exercise? Sure thing, but 1200 every few days is doable for me. Truth be told I upped my daily calories to 1310 and eat back no more than half of my exercise calories (calculated by Garmin HR monitor not MFP) and find that I can still lose that 1/week even at that rate.
The half exercise calories thing for me is because it works. I also don't usually count more than an extra 500 a day unless I've put in an extreme amount of work. That being said, if I eat back half and I'm still legitimately hungry, I eat a little more. I don't believe I've ever "needed" to eat more than half of my calories. No HR monitor or MFP calculation will be exact, find a ratio that works for you.
As many people have said the first place to start is accurate logging. Measure it. Log it. Eat within your goal. If you are being honest, have given it a week or 2 and aren't making progress, then adjust your calories a bit or increase your activity.
Sorry that got long, but I have used MFP successfully and I have used it poorly. I'd hate for one more person to go to extremes to lose wright when they don't need to.
Cheers!8 -
joeymattluke wrote: »I am female, 41, 5’10 weigh 286.
I have gained 60# in 2 years, while doing these various plans, efforts.
I’ve had bloodwork done every 6 months, specifically thyroid at my urgency to the doctor. My numbers come back in the “normal” range but I insisted on a referral to an endocrinologist and am waiting on that. The physiologist who did the rmr testing said that the maintenance zone was 1468-1713 calories- so to achieve the 2#per week loss that was optimal would be under that 1224, either by calorie restriction and/or exercise.
That is low for your stats. If you set your calories at 1200, you should lose 1/2 lb to a pound per week, depending on where in that range your maintenance is. That should be more sustainable, and safer, than trying to lose 2 lbs a week.2 -
nlmackey98 wrote: »I'm late to the game, but what kind of RMR test were you given? Is it possible that the RMR was measured incorrectly? BMR testing is more precise and has more stringent requirements. Was your doctor concerned with your results?
Being late to the game just means the answers are already there for you if you read the thread.RMR tested by EKG/ CO2 output at dietary clinic.10 -
What I'm about to say may seem like I'm discouraging you from losing weight, but I assure you it's the exact opposite. Have you considered your goal weight? It may be worth it to pick a goal that is in the overweight, or even obese class I range. It's generally low risk, and it's easier to maintain with your lower stats. Were you dieting or exercising when you were tested, by the way? Dieting can temporarily decrease your metabolic rate by as much as 10-20% depending on how hard you were dieting.7
-
joeymattluke wrote: »Hello, I had my metabolism checked after meeting with a nutritionist suggested it. History is that I have been steadily gaining weight after weight watchers, cross fit, Keto, etc.
I have been so frustrated that I am trying and failing at all of these methods of weight loss. The metabolism test came back at my resting metabolic rate is 1224. So, if I eat more than that I will gain. So to lose, I’m looking at under 1000 calories per day. This just doesn’t seem feasible. I’m waiting on the nutritionist to get back with me, but realistically any advice here? I’ve gained weight steadily the last 5 years, regardless of what diet, eating plan or exercise I do.
Mine's 1196 (according to the breathing thing they hooked me up to.This is the minimum number of calories needed to sustain your bodily functions--think binge-watching all of "Breaking Bad" without a break, total couch potato energy needs.
Your activity level and exercise will bring it higher. TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) is the number you need to stay under consistently to lose weight. Shaving off 500 calories a day will average 1 pound per week.
I lost almost 120 pounds and have kept it off for over five years.
Sounds like you might need to find a new "nutritionist," (try a Registered Dietician, they go through rigorous training and education; anyone can call themselves a nutritionist). If they communicated to you you can't lose weight unless you eat less than your BMR, they are really misinformed. But maybe there was a misunderstanding between the two of you.12 -
I
[/quote]lynn_glenmont wrote: »
Being late to the game just means the answers are already there for you if you read the thread.
Thank you. I must have skipped a page when I read through the thread.
5 -
psychod787 wrote: »@PAV8888
I forget I am talking to folks who have not been studying this *kitten* stuff for close to 3 years now! LOL While deficit matters in lean mass loss, which will account for a raised RMR due to increased lean mass, I think the amount of overall rmr change d/t overall deficit, when weight is accounted for is questionable. To the best of my knowledge there are two theory's of AT. ! The static model. Metabolism or really RMR drops by a certain amount at new weight that it looks like people are just on the low side of the RMR bell curve. 2. The spring model. Where RMR decreases d/t the amount of perceived energy deficit. Libel's work shows a static model, while the only Spring model research is shown in the Biggest Loser Data Set. I have some questions about the data set that Might bring some of the findings of the study into doubt.
The problem with many acronyms is a study researcher will use their own that is even outside normally used ones, for whatever reason.
Another study to consider:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
Interesting study. Actually read it a couple of years ago. My thing is, we know weight lifting/ RT helps preserve Lean mass. Does this study take into account the differences in LM preservation? Dr. Eric Ravussin is also a hero of mine btw! LOL3 -
Thank you all for your insight and advice. I truly appreciate it. I’m really at a place where other perspective is helpful (mostly). The nutritionist and I have only had 1 meeting and 1 phone call since results from the RMR. I have consulted my dr numerous times, ending with me in tears because she just wants to hand over anti depressants rather than help me problem solve. I feel there is something underlying, hence me asking for endocrinologist referral. The thyroid numbers being “normal” has been frustrating because of everything I read that says normal is not necessarily normal but getting a doctor to help is hard when all she wants to look at is the lab result only.
Honestly- I’m not looking for someone to baby me, or to act like I’m an “air fern”, just looking for advice from more experienced people. I posted for help, so thank you to those who had advice and wisdom.
😎7 -
I'm coming in late here, but who told you that losing 2 pounds a week is optimal? Whoever is telling you this, you should drop them immediately and find someone that knows what they're talking about to help you! And I didn't read every reply, but I DO hope you're weighing everything you eat? Because if not, therein lies your problem.4
-
corinasue1143 wrote: »I haven’t heard anything about weight watchers lately, but are they still doing points and free foods? Were you eating a lot of those free foods? Cause they ain’t free.
Yes they're still on that. I count here cuz zero is not free. Part of the rationale is that setting the healthy stuff at zero points will encourage members to pick those foods first.2 -
joeymattluke wrote: »And I genuinely appreciate advice! I’m still waiting on the nutritionist to give me a plan and to see an endocrinologist for specifics.
But yes, my understanding was to eat under the 1,000 to get the best result. But if that’s not correct, then great.
I average about 6,000 steps/ day and am planning to get back to cross fit after a knee injury. It’s just hard to keep motivation going when I journal and work out and don’t get results.
Are you working with a nutritionalist or a Registered Dietitian? In the US there are no standards/training required to call oneself a nutritionalalist My dog could be one.2 -
joeymattluke wrote: »The 1000 came up at the deficit of 500 calories a day to get to at least 3,500 in a week to lose 1# (based on the 3500=1# formula). Basing my activity at lightly active, hoping to have a bigger deficit than the 500/day to achieve a higher/faster loss result.
I obviously did read the report; I’m looking for advice since the nutritionist and exercise physiologist gave me this information right before the holiday week so I don’t have a plan yet. When I entered my caloric goal into the calculation part of the app here, it’s a bit daunting to see the low numbers... hence why I asked for input.
Thank you for advice... I’m hoping that I can figure this out because as I said before I was tracking for 2 months on the WW app and not being successful. I was around 1500 calories a day for eating and that was not tracking my activity - so in my mind, I assumed I should have been well within that weight loss zone == which is why I’m confused because it’s not working.
Tracking for me was by quantity / serving size. So I guess I’ll get a food scale to be even more accurate.
If you were logging 1500 tracking by serving size (and especially if you weren't tracking "free foods"), you were probably eating more than that. Even dietitians when asked to estimate their daily calories based on serving size fell short. Food scale for the win!
Most people find some combo of protein, fat, and fiber filling, so try to prioritize hitting those goals first to make sure you're getting the most bang for your buck. Also try to eliminate beverage calories as they are typically not filling - water, diet soda, black coffee with a smidge of milk, mint tea - I always have one by my side. And this thread might be super useful too - any little bit you can increase your calories out gives you a little more wiggle room:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
Preach! I cannot stress the bolded enough. The primary reason many professional are against calorie counting is due to this. Since a trained professional could not do with with accuracy and consistency, then how could a layman with no training do this?
Of course this flies in the face of the data collected from the National Weight Control Registry, whose data shows that subjects successfully losing weight and maintaining utilize some manner of calorie counting.
Let's put to bed the notion of fast, slow, broken, etc. metabolism as there is little to no evidence supporting that this exists.
PS - I know 60 lbs over 2 years seems excessive and dramatic, but look at the math behind this.
3500 kcals = 1 lb
60 lbs = 210,000 kcals
210,000 / 365 days = 575 kcals/day surplus
210,000 / 730 days - 287 kcals/day surplus
Amazing the impact small changes have over time.
287 kcals/day surplus - that's less than 3 tablespoons of peanut butter. Very easy to do.6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »joeymattluke wrote: »The 1000 came up at the deficit of 500 calories a day to get to at least 3,500 in a week to lose 1# (based on the 3500=1# formula). Basing my activity at lightly active, hoping to have a bigger deficit than the 500/day to achieve a higher/faster loss result.
I obviously did read the report; I’m looking for advice since the nutritionist and exercise physiologist gave me this information right before the holiday week so I don’t have a plan yet. When I entered my caloric goal into the calculation part of the app here, it’s a bit daunting to see the low numbers... hence why I asked for input.
Thank you for advice... I’m hoping that I can figure this out because as I said before I was tracking for 2 months on the WW app and not being successful. I was around 1500 calories a day for eating and that was not tracking my activity - so in my mind, I assumed I should have been well within that weight loss zone == which is why I’m confused because it’s not working.
Tracking for me was by quantity / serving size. So I guess I’ll get a food scale to be even more accurate.
If you were logging 1500 tracking by serving size (and especially if you weren't tracking "free foods"), you were probably eating more than that. Even dietitians when asked to estimate their daily calories based on serving size fell short. Food scale for the win!
Most people find some combo of protein, fat, and fiber filling, so try to prioritize hitting those goals first to make sure you're getting the most bang for your buck. Also try to eliminate beverage calories as they are typically not filling - water, diet soda, black coffee with a smidge of milk, mint tea - I always have one by my side. And this thread might be super useful too - any little bit you can increase your calories out gives you a little more wiggle room:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
Preach! I cannot stress the bolded enough. The primary reason many professional are against calorie counting is due to this. Since a trained professional could not do with with accuracy and consistency, then how could a layman with no training do this?
Of course this flies in the face of the data collected from the National Weight Control Registry, whose data shows that subjects successfully losing weight and maintaining utilize some manner of calorie counting.
Let's put to bed the notion of fast, slow, broken, etc. metabolism as there is little to no evidence supporting that this exists.
PS - I know 60 lbs over 2 years seems excessive and dramatic, but look at the math behind this.
3500 kcals = 1 lb
60 lbs = 210,000 kcals
210,000 / 365 days = 575 kcals/day surplus
210,000 / 730 days - 287 kcals/day surplus
Amazing the impact small changes have over time.
287 kcals/day surplus - that's less than 3 tablespoons of peanut butter. Very easy to do.
Also easy to do on zero point foods. A couple extra fruits or a really big chicken breast and extra veggies.6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »joeymattluke wrote: »And I genuinely appreciate advice! I’m still waiting on the nutritionist to give me a plan and to see an endocrinologist for specifics.
But yes, my understanding was to eat under the 1,000 to get the best result. But if that’s not correct, then great.
I average about 6,000 steps/ day and am planning to get back to cross fit after a knee injury. It’s just hard to keep motivation going when I journal and work out and don’t get results.
Are you working with a nutritionalist or a Registered Dietitian? In the US there are no standards/training required to call oneself a nutritionalalist My dog could be one.
Your dog could also give as much solid advice as some nutritionists out there, or at least nothing harmful. The things some say is just plain scary. There are some that know their stuff but it is very hit and miss.3 -
Run, don't walk to an endocrinologist and get a COMPLETE blood work up on your thyroid and pituitary gland's functions. Start with this as a medical condition, not a weight loss issue. Don't even focus on calories to solve this, you need to see a good endo and after that, and possible medication to regulate your thyroid, then consider MFP again. Well wishes on this journey!8
-
nlmackey98 wrote: »Ilynn_glenmont wrote: »
Being late to the game just means the answers are already there for you if you read the thread.
Thank you. I must have skipped a page when I read through the thread.
[/quote]
Thanks for taking it in the spirit intended. Tone is so hard on the Internet. Sigh.10 -
bosque1234 wrote: »Run, don't walk to an endocrinologist and get a COMPLETE blood work up on your thyroid and pituitary gland's functions. Start with this as a medical condition, not a weight loss issue. Don't even focus on calories to solve this, you need to see a good endo and after that, and possible medication to regulate your thyroid, then consider MFP again. Well wishes on this journey!
Careful there. Being hypothyroid reduced energy needs by a max of 4-5%, once. There's also some research that suggests that various health conditions, and extreme dieting might result in a lowering of energy needs of a similar amount if we don't take reduction of energy needs due to less body mass into account. I've not found any data on whether reduction can be reversed, or stacks up at subsequent events. But to me it doesn't seem logical as our bodies need a certain amount of energy for survival. Once you got this reduction there might not be more as the body. Actually, I saw some study on energy expenditure of just running all organs including chemical reactions, etc.. and it was very close to 1200kcal/day. Ask yourself why the human body would endanger it's survival by reducing energy expenditure.
With regards to thyroid: lots of the weightgain is actually due to feeling miserable and moving less, fidgetting less, being more tired. This all results in a reduction of energy needs, but not from BMR, but from TDEE. Also, increase in water weight gain, and more hunger.14 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »@PAV8888
I forget I am talking to folks who have not been studying this *kitten* stuff for close to 3 years now! LOL While deficit matters in lean mass loss, which will account for a raised RMR due to increased lean mass, I think the amount of overall rmr change d/t overall deficit, when weight is accounted for is questionable. To the best of my knowledge there are two theory's of AT. ! The static model. Metabolism or really RMR drops by a certain amount at new weight that it looks like people are just on the low side of the RMR bell curve. 2. The spring model. Where RMR decreases d/t the amount of perceived energy deficit. Libel's work shows a static model, while the only Spring model research is shown in the Biggest Loser Data Set. I have some questions about the data set that Might bring some of the findings of the study into doubt.
The problem with many acronyms is a study researcher will use their own that is even outside normally used ones, for whatever reason.
Another study to consider:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
Interesting study. Actually read it a couple of years ago. My thing is, we know weight lifting/ RT helps preserve Lean mass. Does this study take into account the differences in LM preservation? Dr. Eric Ravussin is also a hero of mine btw! LOL
They did measure for BF%.
That's how they came up with the overall TDEE lowering an expected amount purely due to the weight and LM loss, and what appeared to be extra lowering not accounted for by that.
The quick figures I gave there were the extra beyond expected.
Which also has been asked of OP - if she had already been dieting hard for a chunk of time. Didn't take more than 3 months in study to suppress RMR a decent amount.2 -
OP - For years I blamed my weight gain (or lack of loss) on having undiagnosed thyroid issues or on having "screwed up" my metabolism with prior eating disorders. There is a large history of thyroid issues in my family and I went to doctor after doctor being re-tested. I finally found this site and learned about using a food scale to accurately assess my calories. I had told myself for years that I was "only" eating 1200 calories. HA! I had been lying to myself in some regards and just uneducated on how to accurately track in others. I would suggest giving it a try with accurate logging (log everything that goes in your mouth, food scale, accurate database entries, etc) for 6-8 weeks and see how you get on. If after that time you are not able to lose then maybe go to the endocrinologist.16
-
bosque1234 wrote: »Run, don't walk to an endocrinologist and get a COMPLETE blood work up on your thyroid and pituitary gland's functions. Start with this as a medical condition, not a weight loss issue. Don't even focus on calories to solve this, you need to see a good endo and after that, and possible medication to regulate your thyroid, then consider MFP again. Well wishes on this journey!
Careful there. Being hypothyroid reduced energy needs by a max of 4-5%, once. There's also some research that suggests that various health conditions, and extreme dieting might result in a lowering of energy needs of a similar amount if we don't take reduction of energy needs due to less body mass into account. I've not found any data on whether reduction can be reversed, or stacks up at subsequent events. But to me it doesn't seem logical as our bodies need a certain amount of energy for survival. Once you got this reduction there might not be more as the body. Actually, I saw some study on energy expenditure of just running all organs including chemical reactions, etc.. and it was very close to 1200kcal/day. Ask yourself why the human body would endanger it's survival by reducing energy expenditure.
With regards to thyroid: lots of the weightgain is actually due to feeling miserable and moving less, fidgetting less, being more tired. This all results in a reduction of energy needs, but not from BMR, but from TDEE. Also, increase in water weight gain, and more hunger.
Read the study I referenced above - you can recover - and it can lower more than merely the loss of body mass.
Body has many functions as part of the BMR (replacing proteins - so growing of hair, nails, skin, rebuilding of muscle, ect) that can be done less frequently if less food available.
The organ usage is mainly true - though some of the biggest calorie burners can slow down in their activities - liver.
But ditto's to the potential 4-5% reduction in RMR not being a given.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions