Help keep losing muscle and gaining fat slow metabolism
Replies
-
OP
How was anyone supposed to assume you meant food scale? There are many different calibrated scales. My calibrated scale is for body weight.
Plus, no one needs a calibrated food scale, you got ripped off. My food scale was $20 at Walmart and measures a nickle at 5 grams each and every time.
That said, @heybales just gave you some fantastic info.
And the only one fighting with people here is YOU. The rest of us are just trying to help troubleshoot.13 -
Based on the numbers presented...
Try lifting exclusively and progressively. Eat your 1416 calories and exercise up to 124 calories. For me, that's about 20-30 min of lifting, pushing, pulling, hinging, etc.
Better still, get a second opinion and continue talking to your healthcare team for clarity about all this instead of the interwebs. Kudos on you for coming back to update though.
Folks are just trying to help based on information you provided (which may or may not be accurate)8 -
How in the world were we supposed to get out of your rantings that you "weigh your food on a food scale" when you didn't say this?
Obviously, you are the one that wants to argue, and obviously a bunch of internet strangers who have been at this longer than you can't help you. Obviously you know better than anyone what is going on. Good luck in figuring out what is going on.9 -
To clarify im in australia very different product here very different doctors and help here. The rmr test was expensive and calibrated regularly. I had to travel hours to get to one. They do not have these in gyms here. Australia has limited options. This rmr test is state of the art machinery for nsw it was the only clinic to do it.
As for my rer yes i purely burnt carbs because at the time i was doing 16:8 fast and my body did not like fasting longer than 14 hours and my liver would go into overdrive and secrete glucose to compensate. The lumen device has corrected that and im nomally between a 0.7 to .8 now.
I used to do so much cardio and weights but my cortisol was so high i was told i was stressing my body. I love cardio and weights i hate slow boring time consuming wasting precious time cardio like walking on a treadmill i get bored and lose no weight. Plus im limited for time.
I burn a pathetic 130 cals for 30 mins of met 10 for my body. So a met level of say 4-6 i burn about 45 cals for 30 mins. I would have to walk for 2 hours to get anything substantial. I need the cals to help with the deficit i hate eating below 1300 cals i used to eat 1580 on deficit and 1998 on maintenance now i just gain so fast on those figures. I am a firm advocate of not starving yourself. But 1259 is such a low amount.i do it but if i eat more i gain. When i eat less i lose but i struggle with nutrient sacrifice.2 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »I have a calibrated scale paid for from a nutritionist. My calories are 1259 cals on workout days. 1000 on weekends as i do nothing but care for my child. Tues and wed depends on intensity of spin/rpm class at home. I have increased these cals and gained weight (i do not want to gain muscle right now my goal is fat loss i have bern a gym junkie for 4 years can only gain muscle on a surplus)
Be aware that fast gain or loss is merely water weight - fat is not fast either direction.
You may have some screwed up mitochondria - that's what Gregg Lemond ended up with the effect of after his gunshot injury and lead absorption, prevented him from being at the top of his potential game and retiring from pro-cycling.
In his case didn't effect daily level of living - well I haven't checked in lately maybe it is as he got older.
So that may change some carb related stuff, and fat related for that matter.
But storage of glycogen, not seen that related - and that's probably why you can have some fast charges - glycogen stores with attached water in muscles - that is probably still happening.
If you really have had some metabolic adapting, then your current path of attempting to eat at maintenance and getting the best full-body lifting workout is the solution.
You may be able to test eating 100 extra calories daily for a month.
It would take 35 days of that to slowly put on 1 lb of fat - if you actually ate above maintenance.
So know that any faster weight is NOT fat, but water.
But you may find your body willing to speed up in many ways that increases your RMR and TDEE in general.
BTW - with numbers these far off average - don't waste money on daily activity tracker unless you only want to monitor steps or HR - other info on burning calories is useless for you.10 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »To clarify im in australia very different product here very different doctors and help here. The rmr test was expensive and calibrated regularly. I had to travel hours to get to one. They do not have these in gyms here. Australia has limited options. This rmr test is state of the art machinery for nsw it was the only clinic to do it.
As for my rer yes i purely burnt carbs because at the time i was doing 16:8 fast and my body did not like fasting longer than 14 hours and my liver would go into overdrive and secrete glucose to compensate. The lumen device has corrected that and im nomally between a 0.7 to .8 now.
I used to do so much cardio and weights but my cortisol was so high i was told i was stressing my body. I love cardio and weights i hate slow boring time consuming wasting precious time cardio like walking on a treadmill i get bored and lose no weight. Plus im limited for time.
I burn a pathetic 130 cals for 30 mins of met 10 for my body. So a met level of say 4-6 i burn about 45 cals for 30 mins. I would have to walk for 2 hours to get anything substantial. I need the cals to help with the deficit i hate eating below 1300 cals i used to eat 1580 on deficit and 1998 on maintenance now i just gain so fast on those figures. I am a firm advocate of not starving yourself. But 1259 is such a low amount.i do it but if i eat more i gain. When i eat less i lose but i struggle with nutrient sacrifice.
No way you are purely burning carbs - if so that is a medical issue and should have been noticed.
Inability to burn fat.
Lumen can be interesting, but it really has to be treated like RMR test - not valid for what body is burning unless body has had no food for 4-6 hrs, and no workout recovery in prior 24 hrs.
If those things occurred the RER is merely reflecting other reasons for increased CO2 expelled.
BTW, liver should be secreting glucose most of the time - that's what it's supposed to do as blood sugar is used by the brain and a few elsewhere - liver releases more to compensate.
Only after meals is that not needed - so not sure why it releasing during a fast would be viewed as messed up.
That's great it's helped you reach a better fat burning level - which frankly points out again that should be shown on your RMR test but it's not.
Something is wrong there - either they don't happen to report that figure, or messed up test.
If not reported - why not and what was your figures.10 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »To clarify im in australia very different product here very different doctors and help here. The rmr test was expensive and calibrated regularly. I had to travel hours to get to one. They do not have these in gyms here. Australia has limited options. This rmr test is state of the art machinery for nsw it was the only clinic to do it.
As for my rer yes i purely burnt carbs because at the time i was doing 16:8 fast and my body did not like fasting longer than 14 hours and my liver would go into overdrive and secrete glucose to compensate. The lumen device has corrected that and im nomally between a 0.7 to .8 now.
I used to do so much cardio and weights but my cortisol was so high i was told i was stressing my body. I love cardio and weights i hate slow boring time consuming wasting precious time cardio like walking on a treadmill i get bored and lose no weight. Plus im limited for time.
I burn a pathetic 130 cals for 30 mins of met 10 for my body. So a met level of say 4-6 i burn about 45 cals for 30 mins. I would have to walk for 2 hours to get anything substantial. I need the cals to help with the deficit i hate eating below 1300 cals i used to eat 1580 on deficit and 1998 on maintenance now i just gain so fast on those figures. I am a firm advocate of not starving yourself. But 1259 is such a low amount.i do it but if i eat more i gain. When i eat less i lose but i struggle with nutrient sacrifice.
Please don't take this as being argumentative, I'm truly trying to understand, just struggling a little bit mentally because your situation seems so different from the norm. In that light, regarding the bolded:
I'm wondering whether that might be misleading, in your case. METS are a valid research-based method of estimating exercise calories, but they aren't perfect. In particular, I'm confused by the possible difference between a physics-oriented answer, and an exercise-science kind of answer. Here's what I mean:
In physics terms, it takes X amount of energy to do a certain amount of work. (Force and movement/distance are the variables, (W = F * d).) That equates to the energy requirement to do that work, which for human movement is usually measured in calories (kCal, actually). That's a direct equated thing, not an estimation (though the actual quantification of F & d can be complicated, especially with human body mechanics!). IMU, and I'm a pure amateur, the physics equation is hard and fast, in the sense that you can't somehow get the same work done with less energy ("efficiency" is not a counter-example AFAIK).
METS are a sort of convenience for estimating calories. They rely on the idea that during most activities, we're moving our body around, so that makes body weight a variable (part of the force requirement, IMU). However, some activities use more body movement than others, so that variable is of greater or lesser importance in different activities. Using RMR in there is sort of a proxy for body size (but it has some limitations in itself). What you get out of the METS approach is very much an approximation/estimate of exercise calories, IMU, scaled to body size, on average.
What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure that if one has an outlier RMR, one can assume that calorie estimates based on METS are reasonable, because the relationship of RMR to body size is out of whack, and it's body size that matters in the physics sense, mostly. Bottom line, I'm not sure it's a correct assumption that you'd burn fewer calories doing the same work (in the physics sense) as someone the same size, but a higher RMR. In a case like yours, METS may be less useful, less accurate.
However, I don't think there's a good way to run an n = 1 experiment to figure this out in a practical way. Since exercise is a pretty small component of TDEE for most of us, the amount of exercise a person would have to do to try to figure this out on one's own would be prohibitive, I think.
I do hear what you're saying about your time limitations, and the fact that steady-state/slow cardio bores the (bleep) out of you, and I'm sympathetic. Bottom line, though, if I'm right - and I'm not aggressively asserting that I am - I'm thinking you may burn more calories from any given activity (exercise or NEAT-type stuff) than the METS method of estimating the calories might imply.
I think heybales has some very insightful observations going in his post, and I think he's trying to engage in a sincere way with you. (I'm hearing you as very frustrated - understandably - right now, so I say that partly because I hope you won't throw out some good posts cognitively because of lumping feelings about the overall thread all together . . . which would be sort of a natural human thing to do.)
I noticed you mentioned high cortisol levels in the past. Do you have any indication of where your cortisol level has been sitting more recently? If that's still high, there could be some subtle things going on there, possibly conspiring (metaphorically speaking) with the adaptive thermogenesis heybales mentioned.8 -
I’m not arguing against the results of your test. All I asked was how many calories you have been eating and if you weigh your food. I did not see you answer this question anywhere. If that test is correct then you have no room for error when it comes to logging your food.
Some people do need to eat low calorie to lose weight. I’m one of them. I’m short and maintain at 1400-1450 when sedentary. Keep in mind sedentary for me is 3000-4000 steps a day. If I lay in bed all day which I have done when sick, I maintain around 1100-1200 a day. I have no room for error so I understand frustration with this. This is why accurate logging is so vital.
Until we know how many calories you have been eating and what your weight loss goals are, then it is hard to help you. You may be one of those people who need to eat 1200 a day to lose and will lose very slowly. The only way to do this is very accurate logging using a food scale, IMO.10 -
There are mistakes that people commonly make that cause them to not lose weight that we might be able to spot if you change your Diary Sharing settings to Public: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
9 -
musicfan68 wrote: »Most of us have been here for years, and through that experience, we find that there is almost always something off with counting calories, or calorie burn. That is why we are skeptical, and you are so argumentative that that raises flags for people as well. We aren't trying to argue just to argue with you. Again, most of us have been at this for a long time and see new people come on with issues such as yours and it is usually something simple like not measuring your food, or a miscalculation of some sort. For what it's worth, my BMR is about 1275, if I'm not moving at all, that would be my maintenance, but I move, so I get a few hundred more calories depending on my activity, so your numbers don't seem that strange to me. According to the image you uploaded, your maintenance is up to 1292, which is at rest.
FWIW, I've been here for years, too I think she's making a much better case here that she's an actual outlier than any other I've seen here before.
She's my height, and I find it difficult to believe that someone who lifts and apparently has for a while is 40% fat at 136. That would give her barely over 80 lb of lean mass, which seems unlikely. I don't lift consistently or particularly heavy and have a hard time gaining muscle even when I do, and if anything I have a small build (tiny wrists, look better around 20 BMI, narrow hips), and I was over 90 lb lean mass at 125 (my weight when I had a Dexa, and all other measures have consistently made me think that's likely correct).
The RMR is from a blow into a tube thing that IS NOT Dexa and I don't think it has anything like the same accuracy (and even Dexa can be off for some). I'm quite skeptical about it, especially since I know there are ways it can be screwed up (some have rules about eating before hand, if it's not on correctly, etc.). I did one too (it was tossed into the cost of my Dexa package), and they told me mine was under the expected by some percentage too, which I figured was because I'd lost weight recently and was still working on it, and yet in reality my results seem more like what the calculator claims than the low metabolism result.
The big thing, though, is the 40% BF -- if that's so, it should be pretty apparent based on physique, not something one just discovers through a test.14 -
You have spent a lot of time and money to get results, I get that.
I did too. So did most people here before we stopped making life harder for ourselves. Once I accepted the advice from the community here, weighed my food with a food scale, ate a reasonable deficit, became more active, and accepted that I wasn’t a freak of nature, I started seeing results. When I got inpatient I used a weight trending app to keep me calm and stay the course. And btw, if I walked on a treadmill for 30 min, I burn 130 calories too. No one is making you do 30 min only and with little intensity. There’s other activities with higher calorie burns. If not, hey it’s an extra 130 you get. Just need to make satiating food choices.
Let me be clear, your clean diet doesn’t matter and macros don’t determine weight loss. Eating in a deficit is what is needed for weight loss. And if it makes you feel better, my bmr is 1350. But my TDEE can be 2500 if I want it to by being active and getting in a workout. Or it can be 1700 by moving most of the day without exercise. Point being, you can eat more if you move more. You’re not stuck. You’re not in a hopeless situation. Try to look at this as a relief that there’s something you can do to change your situation. And it’s mostly just getting out of your own way.
ETA- your paperwork doesn’t look unusual to me. It just appears that you’re not very active, apart from weight lifting, which doesn’t have a very high calorie burn. With your goals, I would likely reconsider your activity choices to get a higher calorie burn to eat more.
Like @nooshi713 said, maybe you might have to accept the calorie range you have or get more cardio/activity in. She and I both have your range and it’s absolutely doable. And just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you.20 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »I burn a pathetic 130 cals for 30 mins of met 10 for my body. So a met level of say 4-6 i burn about 45 cals for 30 mins. I would have to walk for 2 hours to get anything substantial. I need the cals to help with the deficit i hate eating below 1300 cals i used to eat 1580 on deficit and 1998 on maintenance now i just gain so fast on those figures. I am a firm advocate of not starving yourself. But 1259 is such a low amount.i do it but if i eat more i gain. When i eat less i lose but i struggle with nutrient sacrifice.
How do you know that? Where do those numbers come from, and what kind of exercise is this? A lot of exercises don't depend on how much energy your body provides, but on for example your weight over a distance, watt, etc. These are all thing you influence, not how much energy your body burns.
If what you say was true and you burn very little energy when working out then this basically means you don't have enough energy to work out properly. After all, the cals you burn is the energy your body uses to fuel your workouts. You can't drive a VW Up with it's fairly low petrol usage and small engine and expect it to go wild like a Porsche because the engine is not made for it, and because it uses too little petrol to get that performance.
TO, you throw a lot of numbers at us, but don't answer many questions we have. You just lash out. Either you want us to help you, and then we need more information, or you just want to vent. If it's the latter than you should have told us. Saves us lots of typing.14 -
When you are doing spin class, does it give you your total watts for the session?BlueDesire89 wrote: »Tues and wed depends on intensity of spin/rpm class at home.
3 -
OP, metabolism can be determined by many factors. Gender, age, genetics. The world renowned, Mayo Clinic, here in Rochester MN, says that slow metabolism is indeed a real thing, but extremely rare. Since you have had tests done by professionals, perhaps it would be best to have a meeting with them to determine, what, if anything, can be done. I understand the hope of finding someone here that has, or is, going through the same thing, but it doesn’t appear that’s going to happen. Sometimes it’s hard to hear answers that seem critical, but, for the most part, people are just trying to help. Good luck.8
-
Can I just state that lard does not lift weights? If you can lift more than many of the men at your gym, you are not a walking sack of lard. I haven’t seen any evidence that these specific machines and the paperwork they generate have any connection to reality. There are a lot of quacks out there. One thing that leaps out from the paperwork is the number for physician supervised weight loss, which is clearly a preset 1000 having nothing to do with you. Also, as pointed out by others, resting metabolic rate is not the amount of calories you need daily, it’s a theoretical number you would need if you were on total bed rest.
Your heart rate is quite slow for someone who does little cardio. What does your endocrinologist say about this?
Also, given that you are a healthy BMI, why are you seeking to lose weight?10 -
There are a lot of people in the healthy BMI range that are overfat and with the health implications that goes along with that, generally unfit too.
Overweight is not the specific issue when one is - it's the being overfat that is.
Hence the reason BMI is not always a great individual indicator of health. Statistically yes perhaps.
OP did do plenty of cardio though as mentioned in one of her posts. That is much easier to maintain the benefits by keeping active, and the low HR that goes along with it. Besides 2 sessions weekly of cardio she mentioned still doing will help greatly.
DEXA and indirect calorimeter are the gold standards of testing - very real connection to reality.
Unless there is evidence of a screwup.7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Can I just state that lard does not lift weights? If you can lift more than many of the men at your gym, you are not a walking sack of lard. I haven’t seen any evidence that these specific machines and the paperwork they generate have any connection to reality. There are a lot of quacks out there. One thing that leaps out from the paperwork is the number for physician supervised weight loss, which is clearly a preset 1000 having nothing to do with you. Also, as pointed out by others, resting metabolic rate is not the amount of calories you need daily, it’s a theoretical number you would need if you were on total bed rest.
Your heart rate is quite slow for someone who does little cardio. What does your endocrinologist say about this?
Also, given that you are a healthy BMI, why are you seeking to lose weight?
If you look at the weights that OP says they are lifting, most men lift heavier than that. I lift a lot heavier than the OP and I don’t particularly think I lift very heavy.
That said, the tub of lard comment probably stems more from poor body image than what the OP looks like in reality.
5 -
There are a lot of people in the healthy BMI range that are overfat and with the health implications that goes along with that, generally unfit too.
Overweight is not the specific issue when one is - it's the being overfat that is.
Hence the reason BMI is not always a great individual indicator of health. Statistically yes perhaps.
OP did do plenty of cardio though as mentioned in one of her posts. That is much easier to maintain the benefits by keeping active, and the low HR that goes along with it. Besides 2 sessions weekly of cardio she mentioned still doing will help greatly.
DEXA and indirect calorimeter are the gold standards of testing - very real connection to reality.
Unless there is evidence of a screwup.
Yes, but the paperwork states OP wants to be 121 lbs. That is weight loss, not fat loss.
Under 60 heart rate is bradycardia which is normal in endurance athletes, not so much for casual cardio doers.
I had missed seeing the post with the specific weights. I agree that isn’t what I would call lifting heavy - particularly the leg press. But it does indicate OP has some muscle somewhere.3 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »I have a calibrated scale paid for from a nutritionist.
If you are in the US realize anyone with absolutely no training can call themselves a nutritionist. A Registered Dietitian actually has a college degree in the field and has passed licensing exams.
Some people use the terms interchangeably but they are not the same thing.9 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »BlueDesire89 wrote: »I have a calibrated scale paid for from a nutritionist.
If you are in the US realize anyone with absolutely no training can call themselves a nutritionist. A Registered Dietitian actually has a college degree in the field and has passed licensing exams.
Some people use the terms interchangeably but they are not the same thing.
She stated in one of her later posts that she's in Australia.0 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »My workout is too long to write up but targets legs/glutes, back, shoulders, chest, triceps, biceps (not in that order) approx 2 exercise types for each muscle group 3 sets of 8-10 for most 3 sets of 10-15 for others. Eg lat pulldown 35 kgs last rep hard but in good form. Incline chest press dumbbells 12kgs each. Bicep curl ezy barbell 15kgs, leg press 76kgs etc. i make sure my last 2 reps are fatigued if i can do more i up my weights.
Nothing wrong with the weights you are using if an appropriate load for you but as someone that has had gym memberships for 40+ years those are not heavier weights than 30% of the men in the gyms I've been in.8 -
I'm not going to argue with it. I will note a few things that raise reasonable questions.BlueDesire89 wrote: »Argue with this clinical test where i had to breath into a machine. Lots of requirements before test could be performed.
The caloric ranges for loss, maintain, and even require medical supervision all overlap. In fact your entire loss range is within your maintain range. Then again, the loss range is all of seven calories with the top and bottom numbers included in the range ... too small to accurately measure with the inherent errors in labeling, weighing, and variations in caloric density.
Human bodies don't burn just one source of fuel which makes the 100% from carbs rather interesting.
Your VO2 also caught my eye. Absolute VO2 uptake is normally measured in liters per minute while yours is in milliliters per minute, and well below one liter.
4 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »BlueDesire89 wrote: »I have a calibrated scale paid for from a nutritionist.
If you are in the US realize anyone with absolutely no training can call themselves a nutritionist. A Registered Dietitian actually has a college degree in the field and has passed licensing exams.
Some people use the terms interchangeably but they are not the same thing.
She stated in one of her later posts that she's in Australia.
Got it. Apparently nutritionist doesn't assure any qualifications in Australia either.
"A nutritionist may be a tertiary qualified nutrition professional that has the expertise to provide a range of evidence based nutrition services related to nutrition, public health nutrition, policy and research, and community health. It’s important to note that the term ‘nutritionist’ is not regulated. Therefore, this title may be used by dietitians, nutrition scientists and nutrition graduates – and also those with very limited qualifications in nutrition"
https://dietitiansaustralia.org.au/what-dietitans-do/dietitian-or-nutritionist/6 -
surely those calculations are based on 'at rest', more about and you will have a higher TDEE.0
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »BlueDesire89 wrote: »I have a calibrated scale paid for from a nutritionist.
If you are in the US realize anyone with absolutely no training can call themselves a nutritionist. A Registered Dietitian actually has a college degree in the field and has passed licensing exams.
Some people use the terms interchangeably but they are not the same thing.
This is a bit of a myth. While it may be true in some states, other states require specific education or licensing. In my state, for example, you have to have a masters or doctorate in certain fields related to nutrition and supervised experience. You also need to apply for a license. So the best advice in the US would be to research the qualifications for your specific state to understand exactly what one needs to be a nutritionist, as you may or may not be getting the level of education, experience, and licensing that one would expect.
(But it does seem that in Australia, where OP is, some skepticism is absolutely called for).3 -
surely those calculations are based on 'at rest', more about and you will have a higher TDEE.
Measurements, not calculations - and correct.
Unless you mean the extra calories above RMR, that's 20% for NEAT, and 10% for TEF. Exercise not estimated. Those are calculations.
@brian - at rest is given as mL - that's actually correct. You are thinking of VO2max test where absolute is given as L/min and more commonly mL/kg/min.4 -
surely those calculations are based on 'at rest', more about and you will have a higher TDEE.
Measurements, not calculations - and correct.
Unless you mean the extra calories above RMR, that's 20% for NEAT, and 10% for TEF. Exercise not estimated. Those are calculations.
@brian - at rest is given as mL - that's actually correct. You are thinking of VO2max test where absolute is given as L/min and more commonly mL/kg/min.
Measurements doesn't mean correct, accurate, precise measurements. Her VO2 numbers are well below those of 81 senior citizen women tested in the below linked study. None of us can know if she was breathing normally or if the test equipment resulted in a change from normal ... which then skewed the test. I know my first time with indirect calorimeter was off from subsequent tests.
Then there is the rest of what I mentioned which you didn't initially object to.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19713012/1 -
brianpperkins131 wrote: »surely those calculations are based on 'at rest', more about and you will have a higher TDEE.
Measurements, not calculations - and correct.
Unless you mean the extra calories above RMR, that's 20% for NEAT, and 10% for TEF. Exercise not estimated. Those are calculations.
@brian - at rest is given as mL - that's actually correct. You are thinking of VO2max test where absolute is given as L/min and more commonly mL/kg/min.
Measurements doesn't mean correct, accurate, precise measurements. Her VO2 numbers are well below those of 81 senior citizen women tested in the below linked study. None of us can know if she was breathing normally or if the test equipment resulted in a change from normal ... which then skewed the test. I know my first time with indirect calorimeter was off from subsequent tests.
Then there is the rest of what I mentioned which you didn't initially object to.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19713012/
Don't object, valid points many have made for calorie ranges.
I commented early on how low that reading is as red flag to possible issue to call them about.
By the time you've spent 28 min under the hood though, breathing should be back to normal and avg measurement should be good.
Mine was face mask and back to normal after a minute, proceeding a VO2max test.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Also, given that you are a healthy BMI, why are you seeking to lose weight?
OP says the DEXA says she is 40% body fat. I am quite skeptical about that given her height (same as mine) and weight and reported exercise, but that would be good reason to want to lose. (I would try to check that with other estimates like waist and some other body fat test, as 40% just seems unlikely even though DEXA is normally the gold standard, and makes me think there may be some error here.)
Beyond that, I'm around her weight (136) at the moment (after some covid gain), and am seeking to lose, since just being in the high end of BMI doesn't mean I'm the right weight for me, or the weight where I think I look best or am healthiest. Sure, that weight at a lowish BF% (for a woman of my age) would be fine, but that would require a significant increase in muscle, and what I want at the moment is to lose fat (and same with OP, from what she's said). I don't see why trying to lose within the "healthy BMI" range is inherently questionable.8 -
In case anyone else needed the conversion from metric:
161 cm = 5' 3"
61.3kgs = 135 pounds
And here's a visual for 40% BF for women:
https://www.builtlean.com/body-fat-percentage-men-women/
10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions