Help keep losing muscle and gaining fat slow metabolism
Options
Replies
-
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
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions