RMR Test Results- Very Very Surprised

Lunira

It was a pleasant surprise to wake up this morning and find my usual thoughts as I surf these forums written so eloquently by someone else. Bravo, OP.

aliencheesecake

The. BEST.

waldo56

No. Here is the thing about losing LBM, that he explained to me. Yes, if you are Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman, or Phil Heath, you have to worry about balancing weight loss versus LBM when you are cutting for Mr Olympia. But guess what? I aint them. I and 99% of the people on this site are not elite athletes with a 3-10% body fat. I and most people here have significant stores of body fat in spite of my weight loss. You will burn fat before you burn muscle if you have fat stores. I may write more in depth about this. It is one of the mantras that people on this site get wrong. Most of us are too fat to burn muscle in any significant amounts.

Yep.

Likewise they are backwards about deficits and metabolism loss too. Time in a deficit is a stronger variable than magnitude of deficit for metabolism decline for a given amount of weight loss. Most people are going to losing a relatively fixed quantity, therefore magnitude and duration are inversely related. The advice to lose slow to preserve metabolism is the worst advice possible. If you have lose 8 lbs, spending 16 weeks in a consistent deficit will kill your metabolism far more than doing it in 3 weeks will, especially if you consider the 13 weeks at maintenance you'd get going faster.

Loss of muscle mass, if you have the basics of strength training and adequate protein intake down, does not become a significant factor until you are well into the single digits of BF% (for males, mid teens for females). People design their whole program around the fear of an effect that does not apply to them.

auddii

Not even sure why I'm jumping into this, but a good review article about free fat mass/total weight loss ratios in 26 studies that have been done:

Int J Obes (Lond). 2007 May;31(5):743-50. Epub 2006 Oct 31.
Changes in fat-free mass during significant weight loss: a systematic review.
Chaston TB, Dixon JB, O'Brien PE.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17075583

Basically, you will lose muscle mass while losing weight, but how much is impacted by your level of calorie deficit (more extreme leads to more muscle loss) and exercise can help to preserve muscle mass.

aliencheesecake

Likewise they are backwards about deficits and metabolism loss too. Time in a deficit is a stronger variable than magnitude of deficit for metabolism decline for a given amount of weight loss. Most people are going to losing a relatively fixed quantity, therefore magnitude and duration are inversely related. The advice to lose slow to preserve metabolism is the worst advice possible. If you have lose 8 lbs, spending 16 weeks in a consistent deficit will kill your metabolism far more than doing it in 3 weeks will, especially if you consider the 13 weeks at maintenance you'd get going faster.

Just curious, but do you have a reputable source for this? I just read something (can't remember where) that said there was little evidence to support the "lose slower to keep it off" theory. I'm honestly asking...

3laine75

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.

waldo56

I say this, I have personally tested "common" wisdom about deficit size, metabolism, and cardio.

And like the OP I came to the conclusion that BBer wisdom (muscle loss is insignificant until well into the single digits) is in fact correct, that muscle mass loss is not significant no matter how big your deficit, even while moderately lean (I've never gotten deep into the single digits). (again, assuming regular strength training and adequate protein intake, it is well established that these things matter for muscle mass preservation).

I measure my metabolism via reverse engineering CI/CO data with the scale, and came to the conclusion after several different cuts that metabolism always drops when in a deficit, the magnitude of deficit really doen't have an impact on the slope. The slope will sharpen the leaner you are. By and large the variables that affect metabolism loss the most are time in a deficit and leanness. Size of deficit and quantity of cardio seems to have zero impact above and beyond that.

Through trial and error I figured out to cut as fast as possible when cutting, doing as much easy cardio as is reasonably possible. Cut fast, get it over with and get out of a deficit.

For people that need to lose more, cutting super hard with frequent longer diet breaks (2 weeks+) is preferable to straight linear cutting at a lower rate. If you're going to lose 8 lbs in 2 months, doing it in two 2 week bursts at 2 lb/wk with two 2 week diet breaks is far better than 8 weeks at 1 lb/wk with no breaks.

Iron_Feline

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

Cranquistador

Balancing Weight Loss versus LBM. This is a problem NOBODY here has....................

I know this has no relevance but I think that is hideous! Fair play to have that level of dedication but I think that is awful! lol

so is your comment

jonnythan

Balancing Weight Loss versus LBM. This is a problem NOBODY here has....................

I know this has no relevance but I think that is hideous! Fair play to have that level of dedication but I think that is awful! lol

I imagine that there are plenty of people who think your body type is hideous. Thankfully they have the sense not to say so.

waldo56

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

Among the group that gains and loses weight regularly (and neurotically keeps copious amounts of data), a group that would likewise have the variables of strength training and adequate protein intake well taken care of, there is much less belief that big deficits lead to muscle loss. PSMF cutting is very popular.

If those studies don't include strength training and adequate protein intake (0.8g/lb LBM+) for everybody, they can pretty much be disregarded. In the field of diet and fitness, especially fat loss/muscle gain, science more or less formalizes things that were long ago figured out in practice. And there is a TON of garbage research.

waldo56

Let me point out a contrary point to one of the common visualizations.

It is oft said as you lose weight eventually your fat stores become small enough that they can't support a big deficit, and that muscle will be "eaten" to make up the deficit. Aka a fat mobilization issue.

The "fat burning zone" of low intensity cardio is a very real effect. The body preferentially uses its least potent fuel, saving the good stuff for when it is needed. You can walk for hours and hours, burn tons of calories, and yet end up burning very little of your stored glycogen, even when lean. Or when ultra low carb dieting (so there is definitely very little glyocgen contribution), you are still plenty capable of doing copious amounts of low intensity exercise (ultra low carb is a viable approach to ultramarathon running). When doing so your body is burning fat as a fuel and doing so at a much higher rate that would be expected at rest. Going for a walk when lean doesn't cause your muscles to shrink away, that's just silly.

In other words, even when lean the body is more than capable of mobilizing the fat to supply any size deficit you may need. If it can do so when exercising, it can do so at rest.

The idea that smaller fat stores means that your deficit must be smaller is incorrect, fat mobilization does not become and issue until you are very, very lean.

bcattoes

Still doing it wrong. :ohwell:

I fail to see the logic in this response. He is getting the results he wants and by all information given is not suffering any negative heatlh affects. What is wrong?

snikkins

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.

danimalkeys

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.

danimalkeys

also- if someone is using Platz as an example, then you need to be on the same supplemental cocktail that he was on.... cause that isn't natural gains.

waldo56

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.

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.

Mr_Knight

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.

deksgrl

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.

The OP reportedly has been losing at a rate of more than 4 pounds per week.