RMR Test Results- Very Very Surprised

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Hello Scotty. Lots of emotions in here, and I'll tell you a couple things I've learned if you will hear them, through experience and degrees, no I'm not going to go into any competition, or prove anything to you, I don't need you to believe me or not, I'm just trying to help and if you cant hear me, hey, I tried. First off you will lose muscle mass with any quick diet, period. No known exceptions. Now, it may not be a huge amount, and you probably wont even notice because more motor units are recruited to push or pull the same weight to make up for the loss, but you will lose some. Muscle mass is much harder to replace than weight is to lose, so it is generally better to lose slower.

Now, reading your posts, the bigger issue for you may be proving to yourself what you are capable of. Yes its fun to lose fast sometimes, and sometimes its easier mentally to restrict hard for a week or two and then not have to restrict much later, just know you WILL lose muscle doing this is all I'm saying, and at 50 its harder to put back on than it was in your 20s or 30s or 40s.

An anecdotal example, I did this myself in fact for one week, I was going through the very last finals in grad school and then had a break and so I had time and wanted to lose weight. I didnt like starving then either, so I monitored my calories and limited but did not set up a big deficit, however I trained hard hard hard, weight trained every day to prevent muscle loss, AND did 1-2hrs of elliptical AND swam or hiked daily, hours of exercise per day to get the deficit up. I ended up losing 10lbs in one week. But, afterwards I was exhausted. My lifts did decrease later for a while, after initially seeing no decrease to mild gain, until I re-built my muscle I'd lost, and I ended up over compensating and gaining all the weight back not long after. No, definitely not the best way to go, but I proved to myself I could do it, and it was fun to try once. Now I'm losing slowly, not even the loss you show on your ticker in a year. But, I'm not losing strength, and I'm hardly working at it. Much better way to go in my opinion. But, of course do what you want. Just know you can think what you want, but the cost will still be some muscle. For me, that's not a price I'll pay now. Off to enjoy my full chicken dinner with potatos, vegetables and beer. You can check my profile, I'm maintaining close to all my lifts I note (except bench, so hard to maintain without a good spotter). Choose wisely and have fun

Thats okay. You biology, processses, metabolism, and mine are probably different. You know your body and will do what works for you. I will do what works for me. I just dont get the immature venom when you present a different viewpoint that just might work for some........... ah the internet

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Well, I lift all the weights, eat all the foodz, n look hawwtt!!! I do what I want!!! :drinker: :smokin:

I agree. You are hot....

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Hitting the gym for 33 years, knows more than all of us fools.... and is a self-proclaimed fattie.

You should post less and read more. I hit the gym for 33 years, stayed in good shape, then got injured, packed on weight through not be able to go to gym, was able to return to gym, got back in shape. So see, it has a happy ending after all.....

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Hitting the gym for 33 years, knows more than all of us fools.... and is a self-proclaimed fattie.

And if this is all about eating nothing but water and air to lose 50lbs, what has being laid up with an injury got to do with it?

Asked and answered above.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

i would be curious as to how you can direct your body to burn 100% fat and not reach for other sources of energy….fat burning is not a perfect process and there is always going to be additional energy (i.e. muslce) that is burned in the process….

I said the loss in LBM in obese people was insignificant. And could be largely offset through bodybuilding. Yeah, there is some loss in LBM, but not enough to forego aggressive caloric restriction. It seems just an excuse by people who want to minimize their caloric deficit so they can eat more.

jonnythan

Hitting the gym for 33 years, knows more than all of us fools.... and is a self-proclaimed fattie.

You should post less and read more. I hit the gym for 33 years, stayed in good shape, then got injured, packed on weight through not be able to go to gym, was able to return to gym, got back in shape. So see, it has a happy ending after all.....

I know plenty of people who don't go to the gym and aren't fat. Why did not going to the gym make you fat, especially when you tell us it's not necessary to keep lean mass?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Wow, you're not paying for anything?? I wish I had a free gym and a free personal trainer.

I stick by a post I made a few pages back. Show me some good progress pictures where you don't look like crap for undereating and I will shut my mouth.

Show me a progress pic where you look half as good as any of the shirtless dudes in this thread who are telling you you're doing it wrong, and I will eat my damn hat.

Besides, I never claimed I was as lean as the 20 somethings here. I still have a way to go. And consider myself a fattie

been lifting and/or dieting since the 80's and is still a self proclaimed "fattie" yet, claims to know more than the rest of people who have had success and claims to be doing it better than them..

interesting thread...

Asked and answered earlier. You guys need to start paying attention rather than focusing on personal attacks.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Background:

SW 11/01/2013 265lbs
12/31/2013 220lbs
CW 02/09/2014 217lbs


Dropped 40 plus in a couple of months. Stagnated/increased for a few weeks in January. Started working with a Body Builder/Nutrionalist 2 weeks ago. Started carb/calorie cycling and upping both. Weight loss resumed. After doing some research and reading here, I was concerned about slowed metabolism or metabolic damage. In order to lose the weight in the first couple of months, I was well below 1200 calories. Most days I was 700-900 calories and some days zero calories when I fasted, frequently. My estimated RMR was anywhere from 1800-2000 depending on the calculator used. So I had some pretty aggressive deficits and became concerned with a metabolic slowdown. Decided to get an RMR test to get more accurate RMR/BMR and TDEE numbers so I could re-assess and try to get off another 10-20lbs. Test came back today and I was expecting the bad news. I was shocked:


RMR was about 2300!


That is about 10%-25% HIGHER than the estimates. Chest and biceps are up and waist is down. So LBM is way up and fat is way down. I was gonna up the calories today to celebrate and take the weight off slower. Screw that! I am so jacked and pumped I am going to do a 36 hour fast and squeeze off a few more pounds and restrict calories this week to get off as much as possible. I find that whenever I fast, I set a new lower weight baseline that makes it easier to take the weight down. Another week of sacrifice aint no biggie. I can do another week of a couple grilled chicken caesar salads and water per day. Next week the Bodybuilder will come up with new higher numbers to cycle up the calories and carbs. I'm gonna guess he'll want to take up the low end and high end UP by 100-200 calories per day. Light at the end of the tunnel. Goal weight is in the single digits.

Ever thought of NOT starving yourself and get the weight off slowly - it will have taken more than a few weeks to put the weight on so is gonna take more than that to get the weight off. Your methods are not really appropriate for sustained weight loss...unless you plan on eating this way for the rest of your life...

You get it off fast and you keep it off. I will return to a normal eating cycle as I have undergone no underlying metabolic damage. The deficit will be temporary.

jonnythan

Maybe you could remind us, or tell us what page it's on. Clearly several of us missed it.

zyxst

How did I miss this thread? In for laters.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

OP - was it tested by breathing into a device thingy? If so, they're not great. I had this done (before I found MFP and the error of my ways) before starting a protein sparing VLCD diet. Was seemingly around the 1400 mark before I starved myself for months for the end test result to be in the region of 1900?!? So, without any resistance training I seemingly had a massive improvement - even though my *kitten* turned to a saggy grannyish mess as opposed to what I've got now from squats etc.

I'm with the others who are telling you not to drop calories more - if it is an accurate RMR reading, you surely want to keep it good and high (by preserving as much LBM as possible)?

It seems from this one study that the Bodygem is reasonable accurate and consistent http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16837422

My results tell me different. Granted, that is only me.

I had great weight loss results, don't get me wrong, and looked great in clothes. The diet I did is nothing like the OP is suggesting btw (think he only wants to do a few days fasting).

I obviously can't compete with an actual study, but from knowing what I know now, there is no way I gained enough muscle to justify a 500 cal jump (I would say I probably lost muscle) just by meal frequency with NO resistance training.

Just throwing my experience out there as it is something else to consider.

ETA: not even sure if it was a Bodygem that was used, but it does sound familiar.

Well, the Bodygem is considered quite accurate. There is a study posted that answers that question. AS for me, my metabolism was 20% higher than most males the clinician that I saw at the hospital typically meets with. And since I am 50 years old and weigh 217 that should not be the case. Heavier, younger, obese people would typically have a higher RMR than I. True, I never knew for a fact what my pre diet RMR was, so I can only surmise. But it is intriguing that after a 52 pound weight loss, it would be at that level. As a non scientists it would point to a significant loss in weight, a gain in LBM, and a possible gain or no impact to RMR. Not what most "experts" would predict or are saying here. But its all anecdotal anyway, but interesting nonetheless. For me anyways............

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

2011- I was 280lbs. Yes, heavy, typical strongman/fat guy look. I was lifting real heavy. Squatting mid 600's, benching mid 400's with a best of 500, deadlift in the upper 500's.

Fast forward to today. Bodyweight under 210lbs. My bench is barely 250 and my squat is 370x2 and my deadlift might be 405 if I really tried. Where did the strength go? I wasn't supposed to lose any muscle mass right?

If, in theory, that as a fat guy, I wouldn't lose muscle mass while on a diet, then I should be able to lift what I did when I was 280lbs right? After all, fat doesn't make you strong.

The only explanation I have is that I LOST A LOT OF MUSCLE MASS during my initial weight loss, which was 50lbs in around 6-7 months.

I said that the loss in LBM would be insignificant. Think about it. If someone is obese, the last thing they need to fear is a small loss to muscle mass/LBM when you have heart problems, coronary disease, diabetes, gaut, liver, kidney, and joint pain to worry about. A little bit of muscle loss to an obese person should not be some sort of deal breaker to an aggressive diet IMO.

AS for you, you would be very different than the typical fattie here. You were throwing down some serious poundages and were probably a competitive powerlifter. You were an athlete. You may have been 285, but you were thick, and had significantly less body fat. So I could see you losing muscle mass as your body composition went to a more leaner physique. Happens to a lot of retired NFL lineman. And there is a difference between strength loss versus muscle loss where muscle size may not correlate to strength ie bodybuilders versus powerlifters.

BTW the 2 BB pictures are of Dorain Yates in offseason versus contest shape. In the first picture he is 285-300 pounds and has huge mass. The second picture is at contest shape around 255. Notice the loss in muscle mass in the chest, biceps, and quads from #1 to #2. Yet, in #2 he is shredded, grainy, and striated. Thats was the issue he dealt with in BFI, mass muscle mass/loss, and body weight. But that is not the typical fattie. Not even close. That is the type of athlete that needs to be concerned about weight loss versus muscle loss. Not some 300 pounder who cant walk across the street to hop in a cab. Or needs a scooter to get around the grocery store. Its a ridiculous argument to make concerning an average Joe. And that is why I posted those pictures. Which you and a few others got it...............

_Terrapin_

Well, you are 8 pounds away from goal weight according to ticker. Are you raising your calories to a 10% calorie deficit? Or you are just raising them to a higher but still too aggressive deficit?

No. The Body builder does not want an immediate and drastic caloric increase. He wants to reset them gradually each week. I am alternating 1300/1700 right now. Probably 1400/1800 per day next week. That still gives me a good deficit where I can hit my goal weight fairly fast and maybe set a new goal of 199. 209 is a big milestone for me, so I am leary of bringing up the calories too quick or all at once. I can be more patient shooting for 199.

Understandable that you don't want to bring them up too quickly. 1800 is still going to be more than a pound a week loss. Still very aggressive. This is a body builder who is making these recommendations and he hasn't been concerned about loss of LBM, with a rate of 4 pounds a week loss?

Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts.

Studies on this, please.

Sure. Several people asked for a study and went so far as to say they would change their mind if one existed. I'll never understand why people here need a study, when there is an an entire professional bodybuilding subculture for 50+ years with apple evidence to support this view. Here is the study and an abstract conclusion:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3387402/

Objective:
Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).

An important objective during weight loss is to maximize the loss of body fat while minimizing the loss of metabolically active fat free mass. Limited studies of modest weight loss suggest that adding exercise to a weight loss program may help spare FFM (19–21). In the present study, we found that individuals undergoing rapid and massive weight loss through a combination of diet restriction and vigorous physical activity preserved much of their FFM, with less than 18% of the total weight loss coming from the fat-free compartment. We suspect that the relative preservation of FFM was due to the maintenance or possible increase of skeletal muscle tissue during the vigorous exercise program (31). Thus, we showed that a substantial loss of FFM is not an obligatory consequence of massive weight loss.

okay?

So they are losing roughly a 1/5 of pound of muscle per pound pound of weight loss; if you are comfortable losing one pound of FFM(LBM) to a total of 5 pounds of BW have at it. Best of luck, and remember, at later ages, trying to gain muscle mass back is difficult then when younger.

cmriverside

would be very different than the typical fattie here.

scottYBRIDGEWATER,

Please tone down your language. Really, you don't need to resort to name-calling. That's so rude.

There are a lot of people here (and most of the people replying to this thread are) who are in shape, or at a healthy weight.

Stop assuming you are talking to only overweight people. Even those who may be overweight probably don't want to be called "fatties".


This is why you'll continue to have negative discourse here.

scottYBRIDGEWATER

In because I am finding the discussion interesting and hoping someone will post a study to back up the op's side of the discussion. Esp since several studies have been posted against it

In for basically the same reason, but would like to note that all of the refusal to post studies because of "garbage" research and anecdotal evidence is infuriating.

Spending your days combing through pubmed looking for research that may or may not exist to back up your position so that you can win at arguments on the internet is a really pathetic use of your free time.

Most of the stuff people use anyway is of very questionable use for backing up their argument.

If you need research to prove that big deficit cutting doesn't melt away the muscles, then don't do it. Just realize a lot of people that have spent a lot of time building their muscles don't believe that big deficit cutting melts away the muscles.

One doesn't research to prove they're right.

One does research to become right.

And research is comprised of more than just clinical studies and papers. Researchers in various disciplines go out into the field (anthropology) to observe and analyze various cultures and subgroups outside a double blind controlled study. It is just a scientific and relevant as a clinical trial. There is a significant subgroup of people within the BB community that know what they are talking about beyond "broscience".

scottYBRIDGEWATER

Here's some anectodal evidence based on my own weight loss. IF, as the O/P suggest, that you don't lose muscle mass unless you are already lean when you start to cut....

I don't think anyone is suggesting that muscle mass *can't* be lost during significant weight loss. That is indisputable.

The question is, does it *have* to be lost. Or at least lost in significant amounts.

I'm currently down about 80 pounds from peak weight, and have tracked LBM all the way down. I have averaged 2 lbs/week all the way down (very consistent, no plateau lasting longer than ~1 week. My LBM this morning is within 3 pounds of where it was when I started.

I am now within 25 pounds of my ultimate goal, too, so I crossed the commonly accepted "2 lbs/week is too fast!" threshold some time ago. I don't accept that threshold, choosing instead to base my target deficit based on the best estimates I can find for metabolization rates of adipose fat.

+1

MoreBean13

Why exactly did you post this thread? Just to bait people into arguing with you and then be rude and insulting?

You don't want help, you're outright rude to people who challenge your ideas, you didn't frame it in a way to be helpful to others. How about using the blogging feature of this site when you just feel like announcing your plans to the world?

scottYBRIDGEWATER

At least for myself, I'm ready to change the way Ithink about this stuff with the presence of valid studies. Dismissing research as a waste of time isn't helping anyone here.

snikkins, problem is, this has been discussed ad nauseum here. People usually come to their own conclusions based on their own research. So you are encouraged to do your own research and not wait for people to post it here for you.

Here is a good thread about "starvation mode" with the most recent research studies linked in the thread.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

I've actually read this, and I guess the problem is that I don't fully understand what exactly is being argued. Oh well. That's on me.

A "study" is nothing more than an well-organized collection of related anecdotes.

From what I can tell, you're basically asking other people to do your legwork for you, and then criticizing them when they don't. That doesn't really strike me as a...constructive position to take.

I don't really think I'm criticizing someone for not doing the legwork for me; I don't think it's fair to not want to post the research and then call the entire thing bunk as the reason. My apologies if it came across this way. I'm also not sure that that's my understanding of how scientific studies are, i.e. a well-organized collection of related anecdotes, just based on generally a study controls for many more things than an anecdote. But again, if this is my misunderstanding, again on me.

ETA: For example, in this particular case, the OP is arguing that based on his experience his RMR didn't go down at all while dieting at a large deficit but there if I recall correctly, he didn't get it done before he started dieting. In this case, the anecdote doesn't really tell us anything beyond he has a high RMR now. Maybe it was higher before; maybe not. This is something that a scientific study would try to control for, I would hope. But again, new to this and trying to understand exactly what I should be expecting from studies done on nutrition.

I really was not arguing that. I merely stated that I was very very surprised to see that my RMR was significantly higher than I anticipated. And higher than the online calculators were estimating. But I never did have a pre diet RMR test so I can only surmise based on what I know about my body. The studies and experts would maintain that my metabolism would slow. Maybe I was much higher than normal? I tend to doubt given the way I packed on the pounds during my injury. Maybe it was the same, but weightlifting reduced the slow down? Or maybe it increased? I think people were more obsessed about the LBM studies. Not metabolism studies.Maybe not............

geebusuk

So they are losing roughly a 1/5 of pound of muscle per pound pound of weight loss; if you are comfortable losing one pound of FFM(LBM) to a total of 5 pounds of BW have at it. Best of luck, and remember, at later ages, trying to gain muscle mass back is difficult then when younger.

Yes, that sounds higher LBM loss that I'd be wanting - if the OP is experiencing the same, he's losing 1lb of muscle every 9 days or so?
I would REALLY like to see a study which does usefully show what is being claimed, so I've got a good basis for working out similar for myself and others that may ask me.
However, when studies show the opposite, it DOES seem to be 'broscience'.

Unfortunately in this sort of system there are a huge number of variables and I've no doubt some do 'get lucky'. Hell, some of it is no doubt just genetics too. But that's why I'd like a decent scientific study, so I can see if those cases are common or not, for a start.

jonnythan

In because I am finding the discussion interesting and hoping someone will post a study to back up the op's side of the discussion. Esp since several studies have been posted against it

In for basically the same reason, but would like to note that all of the refusal to post studies because of "garbage" research and anecdotal evidence is infuriating.

Spending your days combing through pubmed looking for research that may or may not exist to back up your position so that you can win at arguments on the internet is a really pathetic use of your free time.

Most of the stuff people use anyway is of very questionable use for backing up their argument.

If you need research to prove that big deficit cutting doesn't melt away the muscles, then don't do it. Just realize a lot of people that have spent a lot of time building their muscles don't believe that big deficit cutting melts away the muscles.

One doesn't research to prove they're right.

One does research to become right.

And research is comprised of more than just clinical studies and papers. Researchers in various disciplines go out into the field (anthropology) to observe and analyze various cultures and subgroups outside a double blind controlled study. It is just a scientific and relevant as a clinical trial. There is a significant subgroup of people within the BB community that know what they are talking about beyond "broscience".

Dude you're MFP's new king of broscience. Rejecting scientific studies and relying instead on what some bodybuilders do or said is practically the definition of broscience.

I ask again: how come you gained weight while injured? Is it because you ate too much or because you couldn't go to the gym?