Low BMR?

silentKayak

Hi - looking to hear from anyone who knows that their BMR is substantially lower than it "should" be according to the numbers but has still had success.

I've been doing counting/tracking for 4 weeks with no success, basically losing and regaining the same 3 lbs over and over. So that means at my current level (eating 1400-1500 cal/day), I'm maintaining. I eat a good variety of healthy and nutritious foods (vegetables, limited fruit, lean meat, one egg per day, fat-and-sugar-free dairy), but have to choose very carefully in order to not get overwhelmed with hunger. I either have entire days of salad/stirfry or else basically eat very little all day if I know dinner is going to be big. As long as I'm at home (not travelling), I can maintain that. I think I could find an extra 200 calories/day to cut out (if I totally gave up alcohol, which I use as my 'treat' at the end of the day if I have calories left over). After that, it would be challenging to maintain long-term. I need a program I can live with, no matter what else is going on in my life.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has successfully maintained a diet of 1200 cal OR LESS long-term, and anyone who KNOWS that their BMR is, say, 30% below the typical numbers reported here but has still lost weight and maintained the loss.

Not interested in hearing from anyone whose immediate assumption is that I'm not tracking everything I eat, or who will accuse me of lying. You're welcome to your opinions, and please keep them to yourself. My diary is open to friends so please feel free to introduce yourself, add me, and take a look.

Z

SueInAz

I'm about 5'3" and I typically consume around 1200 calories per day but I don't know about my BMR. I have been losing, slowly but steadily.

You didn't say anything about exercise. Have you looked into incorporating it, if you already do not, to give yourself some extra calories to play with? I don't always eat mine back but if I'm having a hungry day, or just feel like a treat between dinner and bedtime, it's useful to have them available.

Cher1e1n2

i'm 5'9 and currently 178. I maintain about 180-185 when i don't diet.. but when I do cal restriction doesn't work unless I stay way under my BMR. I went to the Dr about it years ago as I was restricting my diet to 1800 and brisk walking 7 1/2 miles a day and wouldn't drop below 180 after 6 months(I was conditioning a dog for a show and was very dedicated). I requested my prolactin level be checked and it was extremely high. Basically, my body has the metabolism of a pregnant person altho my kids are now in high school. I use low carb diets with extremely good results.. until I started nursing school last year I was 155-160 on a maintenance diet.. also cushings syndrome makes it very hard to lose weight if you have a high stress lifestyle without exercise to balance it.

i'm currently under 1200 cal for the first time so i'll let you know how it goes..

silentKayak

Thanks, Sue. I can't sustain an exercise program at this point in my life. I work very long hours at a desk job and am not willing to give up family time to go to the gym in the evenings. I do fun active family stuff on the weekends, but it's not part of my weight loss program. I also have an injury that has led to inactivity (walking or running is really hard) which is one of the sources of my weight gain over the last few years.

The last time I made a serious stab at weight loss I did go to the gym - 3 times a week like clockwork for cardio and strength training. It makes me hungry, though, so from a CICO standpoint, it's a wash. After 8 months I had neither gained nor lost (though there were of course other benefits). Given the choice between the time/energy/pain/money to go to the gym and starvation, I'd rather starve (that is, in an economic experiement, I would NEVER "buy" food with an equivalent amount of exercise).

So the weight needs to come off with diet, since it's the one thing I can have total control over. I just have no idea how you sustain the kind of calorie level I've come to understand I'd need.

Kalikel

I know that if I ate 1500 calories a day, I'd have to spend like half the day exercising, lol. I know I must be lower than most people because they can actually eat like 1200, do no exercise and lose. I cannot.

I just eat fewer calories than others and I swim.

Eating fewer calories doesn't mean eating less. I eat more food and probably more often. I just eat low-cal stuff.

Swimming is much easier exercise in that you never feel hot and sweaty and it's low-impact on joints and everything - it doesn't seem like work because it's not that hard. it's the best exercise, though. I don't think there is anything that burns more calories and it also provides resistance. You get simultaneous cardio and resistance. If you're outside, you breathe fresh air, too, which I personally believe is a huge help that nobody in the medical or fitness communities has latched on to yet...but I could, of course, be wrong about that.

If I tried to eat low amounts of junk food and stand on a machine in a room, I'd have given up. But what works for me may not work for you.

Everyone is different and has to walk their own path. Good luck on yours!

shadow2soul

Mines not. If you haven't already, then you might want to consider getting checked for things like hypothyroidism (a few women in my family have this) or PCOS or any other issues that affect metabolism. If none of those are the case, than you might just have a slightly lower than normal BMR. All the calculators and stuff are just averages anyway.

Maybe try dropping your calorie intake a bit. You could either try cutting 100 calories for a 1300-1400 range or try 10% for a 1260 - 1350 range.

Laurenloveswaffles

Are you weighing/measuring everything that you consume? I can probably bet that you are consuming more than you think.

WalkingAlong

I think most of us with low burn numbers have no room for daily alcohol, not if we expect to lose while remaining sedentary. There's not much room for anything with empty calories. It's not forever.

And, in my opinion, if we require fewer calories, we're really not any more deprived than others who require more calories, at the same deficit level.

I don't think my BMR is well below average, it's just low due to my age, gender, height and weight. Just FWIW.

murphy612

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

Laurenloveswaffles

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

I think you're a bit confused. There is no way you could have gained at 1400 unless you were eating more than you think you were. This happens by not measuring/weighing everything that you're consuming. You can also gain strength on a deficit. You will gain muscle mass eating a calorie surplus so that's why you are gaining weight, granted some of it will be fat.

SueInAz

Are you weighing/measuring everything that you consume? I can probably bet that you are consuming more than you think.

Did you not read all of the OP's post? She's tracking accurately. Be sensitive to the fact that not everyone can eat a lot and lose weight, especially if exercise isn't an option. My BMR is about 1500 if the standard calculation actually fits me and that calculation is really just a good guess. I can't eat 1400 calories and lose weight at anything more than a snail's pace.

OP, there's no need to exercise to lose weight. I started losing a couple of years ago doing nothing more than adding in a few walk breaks at work and watching calories.

I think one reason 1200 doesn't bother me is I'm a small person. I don't have huge calorie needs. I'm not always hungry. I eat treats and actually do have to watch how much I eat of them because I don't have a lot of wiggle room for high calorie foods. I keep most meals around 200-300 calories mostly by avoiding high carb "filler" foods like white rice, potatoes and bread. For example:

Breakfast this morning was a peanut butter low sugar protein bar, 210 calories. Lunch was almost exactly 300 calories: 1/3 pound hamburger patty with a slice of cheddar cheese, a cup of shredded iceberg lettuce, 3 tomato slices and a couple of pickles, no bun.(I didn't pack a lunch and that's my staple from the company cafeteria when I don't). I'll have an ounce of almonds or beef jerky as a snack in a few hours (that's what's in my desk). Dinner most nights is composed of about 4 ounces of a lean protein with a salad and a steamed vegetable. Snack after dinner is often a popsicle.

Other days breakfast will be 8 ounces of nonfat, plain Greek yogurt with some frozen raspberries (I buy them on sale and freeze) with either a little Splenda or some agave syrup. Lunch is often a large tin of tuna (5.6 ounces after draining) with some light Miracle Whip and diced cucumber, some olives or pickles and a string cheese. Sometimes I'll skip the cucumber and use celery sticks to scoop the tuna.

I think the trick for me is to not go longer than a few waking hours without eating a small snack. Since I find that I lose faster and more consistently when I limit carbs those snacks are usually string cheese, nuts, sugar-free popsicles, celery with peanut or almond butter, olives, pickles, etc.

I hope that helps.

Laurenloveswaffles

Are you weighing/measuring everything that you consume? I can probably bet that you are consuming more than you think.

Did you not read all of the OP's post? She's tracking accurately.

Yes I did read all of it. And I asked because people who log "accurately" don't really log as accurately as they think. And that can be an indication as to why they are not losing weight.

andibenoit

Curious.... Did you have your BMR tested or figured it out through trial and error on consumption?

TeaBea

Are you weighing/measuring everything that you consume? I can probably bet that you are consuming more than you think.

This was my thought too. I wouldn't "know" that my BMR is lower.....because I wasn't losing weight. The truest way to "know" that kind of thing would be medical tests....but whatever.

Some people need to see the scale move each and every week to feel like they are losing. It could be a really long plateau....had a 5 week long plateau once (Grrrr).

Everyone is not different ......a small percentage of people are different. They're called norms for a reason.

murphy612

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

I think you're a bit confused. There is no way you could have gained at 1400 unless you were eating more than you think you were. This happens by not measuring/weighing everything that you're consuming. You can also gain strength on a deficit. You will gain muscle mass eating a calorie surplus so that's why you are gaining weight, granted some of it will be fat.

I'm not confused :-) I've been doing this for a very long time, but I appreciate your comment. I didn't gain strength on a deficit and I did gain fat at 1400-1600. At 1400-1600 I gained strength, probably a little muscle, but also fat because my measurements increased. I have a lower than average RMR, sorry.

Laurenloveswaffles

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

I think you're a bit confused. There is no way you could have gained at 1400 unless you were eating more than you think you were. This happens by not measuring/weighing everything that you're consuming. You can also gain strength on a deficit. You will gain muscle mass eating a calorie surplus so that's why you are gaining weight, granted some of it will be fat.

I'm not confused :-) I've been doing this for a very long time, but I appreciate your comment. I didn't gain strength on a deficit and I did gain fat at 1400-1600. At 1400-1600 I gained strength, probably a little muscle, but also fat because my measurements increased. I have a lower than average RMR, sorry.

.

deansdad101

Hi - looking to hear from anyone who knows that their BMR is substantially lower than it "should" be according to the numbers but has still had success.
(snip)
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has successfully maintained a diet of 1200 cal OR LESS long-term, and anyone who KNOWS that their BMR is, say, 30% below the typical numbers reported here but has still lost weight and maintained the loss.

Not interested in hearing from anyone whose immediate assumption is that I'm not tracking everything I eat, or who will accuse me of lying. You're welcome to your opinions, and please keep them to yourself. My diary is open to friends so please feel free to introduce yourself, add me, and take a look.

Z

Zarc;

Second question first, if you'll allow me:

I completely understand your frustrations with "...anyone whose immediate assumption is....".
There is ENTIRELY too much of that on many of these boards and indeed in the "diet" community in general.
"It's all your own fault, you're cheating, you don't have willpower....etc, etc, etc"

Way too many ideologues locked into "My way is the (only) RIGHT WAY", dogma (which is never based on any actual "science").

It is what it is, it stinks, and it turns off many, so you are certainly not alone.

One need only ask a couple simple questions to recognize that the "gospel" contains more holes than it produces results.

Why, if what you (generic "you") are advocating as the "only" way - does the "common wisdom" version have a lower long term success rate than does quitting tobacco "cold turkey"?

Why, if it's so great do other methods produce MUCH better results for some (significant) proportion of the population?

Why can't you provide ANY basic "science" upon which the whole low cal / low fat, USDA food pyramid, counting calories song and dance - was based when it was originally dictated?

And, Why, if it's the holy grail, have the levels of obesity, diabetes, and related maladies skyrocketed in the 40+ years since it was introduced?

Why, why, why?

Now back to question one:

Both my bride and I began our (latest) quest for the holy grail of weight loss and maintenance using the "common wisdom" (and basic philosopy of this, and many other diet and fitness "trackers").
.
We BOTH set (and pretty religiously adhered to) Total Daily Cals In goals in the 900 - 1100 range for about 5 months. Our ONLY "exercise" (beyond normal daily activities) consisted of 30 - 45 minute walks 3 - 5 times a week. No cardio, no pumping iron, nothing (not because it isn't a good idea for "fitness" purposes, it is, but because of schedules that didn't permit it and a growing body of evidence that exercise, per se, has very little effect on weight loss).

We didn't make any adjustments for "exercise cals burned", but we did count (and track) cals in as closely as possible and logged both cals in and body weight, daily.

My B achieved her goal (~25# weight reduction), and while I haven't reached goal yet, did lose ~35#.

We're both still alive, quite healthy, made significant strides in BMI and Body Fat reduction numbers and violated just about every possible pearl of "common wisdom" embodied in the "just eat less and exercise more" dogma.

We've recently switched to a program centered more along the lines of Lo Carb, Hi Fat, Moderate Protein and BALANCED macro intake percentages.

NO - it's NOT the "Dr. A" plan, per se - it's one based on current science, current research, and outcomes more focused on the long term overall Health benefits - not just cal counting, and one on which neither of us ever feels "hungry", "starved", or "I just gotta have that (fill in the blank with whatever one craves)".

We don't drink 87 gallons of water, have water bottles permanently attached to our hips - if we're thirsty, we drink, if we're not, we don't. Likewise with food - while we do "track" food calories and "try" to stick to whatever goal we've set it's more important that we meet our macro goals and now, a month or so in, the calorie "semi-goal" is almost never a limiting factor.
Much like the H20 scenario above, we eat when we're hungry, not 6 times a day (or whatever), not within 15 minutes of awakening, and not before x:xx pm or so many hours before going to bed - when we feel like it.

It's what we believe is "best" for us (after having done considerable research into the various methods), and maybe more importantly, it's what we believe we will be able to sustain, long term.
Our primary goal is to NOT be one of the 95% who can't.

Is it "right" for you (or anyone else)?

That's not for us to say - only YOU can make the determination and only if you (the generic "you") exposes themselves to ALL the available information, research, and options and then applies what they have learned to their own, individual circumstances and goals.

If you are interested in looking into methods other than "counting calories / cals in cals out" (we do still track cals in, but for reasons other than primary weight loss), feel free to post back and I'd be happy to offer some links to get you started.

The journey isn't an easy one but it's one well worth the effort - best of luck on your achieving your goals (regardless of "how" you get there).

levicrouch

tl:dr, Use TDEE to determine you caloric needs and take alternate measurements to measure progress aside from a scale to determine if you are losing pounds of fat, which most people would prefer to lose.

I recommend using TDEE to calculate you daily caloric needs so you get an 'even-keel' calories in. Net calorie methods are fine enough but, when you exercise, it can cause fluctuation in how many calories you consume each day. Which for some can make it difficult to plan out your meals for the day.

Additionally, while it is the simplest and easiest way to track progress, the scale is an inherently ambiguous measurement. Most folks would say "I lost x pounds this week, therefore my diet is working" Conversely, "I gained x pounds, therefore my diet is not working"

The problem with tracking progress with *only* a scale is that there is no consideration of what that weight is composed of. Each of us has lean mass (minerals\water) and fat (fat\stored energy). The scale only measures the sum of fat and lean mass.

So, to more accurately track progress one should take into account other measurements\methods.

For myself, I track body fat with a skin fold caliper and use a body tape measure. Over time i can see that my scale weight may stay the same\go up\go down, but what truly matters (to me) is that over time, I am losing pounds of fat and have the data to prove it.

WalkingAlong

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

I think you're a bit confused. There is no way you could have gained at 1400 unless you were eating more than you think you were. This happens by not measuring/weighing everything that you're consuming. You can also gain strength on a deficit. You will gain muscle mass eating a calorie surplus so that's why you are gaining weight, granted some of it will be fat.

I'm not confused :-) I've been doing this for a very long time, but I appreciate your comment. I didn't gain strength on a deficit and I did gain fat at 1400-1600. At 1400-1600 I gained strength, probably a little muscle, but also fat because my measurements increased. I have a lower than average RMR, sorry.

Well, I think you are because RMR is really called your BMR (basal metabolic rate if you need to google it to double check). Your BMR is what you would burn if you were in a coma all day long. So there is literally no way you could gain on 1400 (because you said this is your "RMR", really BMR) unless you stayed in bed all day long not moving an inch. You didn't gain strength because you were not lifting to gain strength. I recommend doing some research in order to learn how to gain strength.

By the way, you do not have a lower than average BMR. Mine is 1,387

ETA: if you *were* gaining on 1400, then you were eating more than you think.

There is an RMR (resting met. rate) and it's very applicable here. The labs estimate that, not BMR. They're similar.

I've seen studies that found that some people had lab-measured RMRs over 20% less than the estimators. So if your estimate is 1500 from a formula online you could be burning more like 1200.

Also, what your BMR estimate is really tells nothing about how far off the averages hers is. The averages are specific to each of our age, height, weight and gender.

Kalikel

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

I think you're a bit confused. There is no way you could have gained at 1400 unless you were eating more than you think you were. This happens by not measuring/weighing everything that you're consuming. You can also gain strength on a deficit. You will gain muscle mass eating a calorie surplus so that's why you are gaining weight, granted some of it will be fat.

I'm not confused :-) I've been doing this for a very long time, but I appreciate your comment. I didn't gain strength on a deficit and I did gain fat at 1400-1600. At 1400-1600 I gained strength, probably a little muscle, but also fat because my measurements increased. I have a lower than average RMR, sorry.

.

*and she deleted it, so this makes no sense now, lol*

Since the OP specifically asked you, in advance, not to post what you posted AND other people reminded you of that, it would appear to the casual observer that you're saying these things just because you cannot stop yourself.

Do try a little harder. Put some effort in. Be as good at it as you are at weight loss.

rosebette

It might be helpful to know you age, height, and weight. I'm a smaller older woman (55 and 5'1.5", 120 lbs.). My BMR is around 1100. My TDEE (which is your metabolism with activity) would be 1350 if sedentary and 1510 if lightly active (which I am). Those numbers are fairly low -- not lower than "normal", but just low numbers because they are based on my age and height. I've been netting around 1200 (eating back exercise calories) for around 6 months and have been trying to net closer to 1100 for the past 3 weeks or so. I've been at a plateau for about 2 months. There are probably a couple of reasons for the plateau -- one is that I am at a normal BMI for my height, so pretty close to my "goal weight" so it would be harder to lose. Secondly, even 1100-1200 is not a huge deficit for me, so I'm not going to see the losses that someone my height who is 175 lbs. would see if she ate the same number of calories. The other thing is at that low a deficit, there isn't that big a margin for error in tracking -- an error of as little as 100-200 a day could mean not losing a 1/2 a lb, or even a small gain. If this situation describes your stats in any way, it might be the reason for what you are experiencing.

Re: exercise -- I do exercise -- a lot, and I teach at a large campus so even without exercise, I'm on my feet a lot and do a lot of walking. I "eat back" my exercise calories, but if I don't do "formal" exercise or only take a walk, I don't -- so, some days I am at the bare 1200. If you don't exercise, you really have to stick to that lower calorie limit or you won't see any progess. That being said, if I don't have time for the gym, I do a 30 minute walk, which is better than nothing. My husband has a job similar to yours, and sitting all day, which took a tremendous toll on his health -- whenever he can, he takes a 15-30 minute walk every day. He actually did lose a few lbs. doing that (he is heavy) and his blood sugar dropped. It was a very small change that didn't take a huge amount of time, but it made a significant difference.

By the way, if you want to see what 1200 looks like, my diary is open. I tend to eat small meals and snacks often.

lavaughan69

Hi, I've been on a 1200-1400 calorie diet for 17 months now and currently in maintenance mode essentially. Like you, I wanted to create a diet that I could live with and a lifestyle I could maintain in the long term,. I focused all my efforts towards counting and measuring and really sticking to the 1200 calories, but what I'd do was more of a 5/2 approach in the beginning to allow for the amount I liked to drink on weekends. So basically I'd pick two days a week where I would only have 600 cals so that I had an extra 1200 to play with. That buys a lot of drinks...and a few chicken wings;-)

As for exercise, I hate it, and I didn't want to start something that ultimately I knew I'd quit anyways. What I chose to do was walk on my lunch hours for a 1/2 hour three days a week. That's it. I've just recently started a walk/jog program three days a week to do a 5k with a friend, but I'm not really enjoying it, so once it's over I'm going back to my walking.

SueInAz

Are you weighing/measuring everything that you consume? I can probably bet that you are consuming more than you think.

Did you not read all of the OP's post? She's tracking accurately.

Yes I did read all of it. And I asked because people who log "accurately" don't really log as accurately as they think. And that can be an indication as to why they are not losing weight.

Obviously, you did not because she specifically asked for no posts asking if she was accurately tracking. Since she obviously knew those posts would be forthcoming when she posted one should respect that she knows what she's doing. Posting regardless is just you having difficulty keeping your opinion to yourself. It makes these forums an uglier place when one can't ask for, and receive, that type of respect.

silentKayak

Thanks, to all the helpful commenters here!

I am 44, 5'5", 240 lbs. Calculators say my BMR should be 2000-2100, but I can't see how that's right. If that were accurate I should have dropped a meaningful amount of weight after 4 weeks on 1450 cal/day. At 240 lbs, it is a mystery to me how I'm NOT losing weight on my current eating plan but ....

- I've never been able to lose weight on a diet except for strict ketogenic ones, which I can't sustain for more than a year at a time. I get bored with the food AND don't see results, and give up.
- For the last few years (since starting this full-time desk job) I've gained about 1 lb/month on what was previously my maintenance level of eating.
- I've "restricted" calories my whole life (I haven't had sugar soda in years, and have gradually cut out all kinds of empty calories), but continue to gain weight.
- My metabolism is clearly changing with age, as I'm eating far less than I ever did but gaining weight faster.
- I eat a variety of healthy foods, but portions are (clearly) larger than they need to be to maintain my weight.
- I hate exercise. I get that other people find it energizing; I find it exhausting. If I do a morning workout, it pretty well destroys my day at work. It makes me hungry, sleepy, and grouchy, not necessarily in that order.
- My family (husband, kids) eat what I eat (same meals, same portions), and they are all slim. They exercise more, but they also eat more snacks and desserts AND I weigh more than them.
- My mother struggled in exactly the same ways her whole life. I have her body shape/type.

These are clues that tell me that I simply have a low metabolism/low energy. You can't make a Jack Russell Terrier out of a Basset Hound

So in my opinion, I need to find the right number (is it 1400? 1200? 1000?) If I can stay below that number on average, my weight should start to shift. Once I know my budget, I should be able to find the right foods to fit it. IF I can find foods I can eat and not be hungry, I may have a solution.

That's the plan, anyway! Just looking for others in the same boat who've managed to take the weight off and keep it off.

As for "you're not measuring right" - again, I'll repeat. I am 240 lbs. Do we really think that if I track my steak salad as containing 4 oz instead of 3 oz of sirloin ... that THIS is the reason I haven't lost weight while cutting my intake in half last month? But also - I'm a data person, and I make my own food almost all of the time. The measurements are as correct as they can be. A 12 oz sirloin chopped into slices and divided equally onto 4 plates is ... 3 oz. I track every bite (though I missed a day when I was on a hiking trail out of cell phone reach).

Mr_Knight

...and anyone who KNOWS that their BMR is, say, 30% below the typical numbers reported here but has still lost weight and maintained the loss.

BMR variance follows a typical distribution. 96% of people will be within 15% of the expected BMR. To get to 30% variance, you're basically looking at 4-5 sigma, which is extremely rare (1 in 3.5 million).

Your challenge almost certainly lies elsewhere.

yarwell

my resting metabolic rate measured at 16% below predicted, but I was dieting at the time which tends to reduce RMR below prediction.

About 70% of people fall within 10% of the predicted BMR and 30% outside that band. A lot of the data used to derive the prediction was skinny people and not 240 lb ladies, so the accuracy is less good for heavy people.

Have you had thyroid and blood glucose levels checked out ?

Mr_Knight

I am 44, 5'5", 240 lbs. Calculators say my BMR should be 2000-2100, but I can't see how that's right.

And sure enough, there's your problem. At that level of body fat, you're looking at a BMR in the range of 1300-1400.

If you're going to use a calculator, use one that accounts for your body composition.

rosebette

I might suggest a check up for any hormonal or other issues that are causing your inability to lose weight. At 240 lbs., eating at 1200 is way below what would maintain that weight. Also, since your mother is heavy, whether there is a genetic condition (Thyroid, PCOS or some other condition?).

I also wouldn't underestimate the capacity of a desk job and travel to contribute to weight gain. Some studies say "sitting is the new smoking." My husband is heavy, probably around 275 at 6 feet; he doesn't eat that much more than I do, but he didn't lose anything until he started moving every day. He put 18 lbs on in a month of travel and desk work at a site. Sitting constantly does some real damage to the metabolism.

itsbasschick

my bodyfat was just over 40% on may 1, which is 25% over the 30.5% body fat online calcs and some devices came up with for my weight and height. i did great at 1200 calories per day for a while, losing weight at a steady pace. as i added weight training to my daily regime, however, i started needing to eat more calories on intense workout days, however, so i suspect my body fat is down and therefore BMR is up.

arcsnack

You are great. I feel your pain and wish I had recommendations to share.

In terms of our circumstances, I feel like I'm your twin - thus I'm battling very similarly to the way you are. 1200 cal or less 40 carb or less. I've been strict for 7 weeks and haven't lost a pound yet. I feel the same way when people swear we aren't reporting accurately because it is impossible to be sub 1200 calories a day for 7 weeks and to not have lost a pound. I'm recording with the utmost honesty so the only thing I can determine is at 45 years old, the CICO thing just isn't working for me.

I could go on and on about the number of things I've tried...symptoms....doctors advice...all related to being a person like you with very low energy and what seems to be a very low metabolism naturally. I'll keep reading and trying hoping to find something that alters the playing field. I'm wishing you the best of luck with that as well.

Thanks for the post. It helps me to feel like I'm not alone when there are so many people out there that are posting success. Maybe it will be our turn soon!

silentKayak

Thanks. I had my thyroid checked several years ago and there was no evidence of a problem. I don't have symptoms of PCOS. In any event, none of that would matter. I'm not really looking for reasons I haven't yet lost weight, but for a long-term solution I can live with.

I feel confident that there is a number of calories below which I need to eat to lose weight, even if I can't (OK, won't) build weight-loss-focused exercise into my life. I just need to figure out the number. Once I have my budget, I'm pretty sure I can work within it. I mentioned I'm a data person

Mr Knight - you really can't know what % of people are 30% below the stated "average" BMR unless you know the standard deviation of the distribution. You're confusing the standard deviation (sigma) with the standard error of the sample mean (sigma / sqrt(n)). Just as an example: if the average house price in my area is $600,000, it's not a "1 in 3.5 million chance" that a particular house will be priced 30% below or above that. Sorry to be picky here, but bad statistics makes my head hurt

You also don't know my body composition. I have quite a bit of lean muscle in addition to the fat (I used to lift weights a LOT and I build muscle easily). But as I said, the calculators clearly aren't accurate. I clearly need to find somewhere in my area to have my RMR measured. But what I do know is that at the levels I'm eating, I get these annoying warnings from MFP to "eat more". Yeah, like that's ever worked for me.