slow metabolism

ddiestler

So, I had a test done that proved I have a slow metabolism. My resting BMR is 1250 and with the little bit of walking I do in a day bumped it up to 1500. With that said, realistically I can only lose about 1 pound a week. UGH! I'm not able to create a 500 calorie deficit from food.

I eat 1200 cals a day and exercise 5 days a week. I do elliptical and running. I burn between 350-500 calories per workout depending on what I do.

I drink 6-9 glasses of water a day as well

The problem is, My damn scale still isn't moving.. any suggestions?

I am making huge improvement on working out but the scale reflects a different story. I'm feeling very frustrated..

Thanks for any advice.

Dawn

cramernh

What about the foods you are eating? You havent mentioned anything about that...

cramernh

Actually, I noticed your diary was available... Im sorry but you eat ALOT of prepackaged foods, and the sodium and high glycemic foods are not helping you at all....

Have you ever thought about making your meals from real foods, fresh foods? Cooked from scratch?

fininski

Agreed on the above...also, if you are repeating the same exercises your body will get used to them and they wont be as effective and as such your metabolism will plateau because it doesnt need to work hard to keep up with the workout as its well oiled to it!

Shake up the exercise and eat fresh home cooked food

servilia

I agree with the previous poster, you need to eat more whole and fresh foods. Cut down on the processed food and the restaurant visits. I would also work on upping your protein intake.

adrian_indy

Try eating every few hours in small meals. A lot of people swear up and down that it stimulates metabolism, many say it does nothing but curb appetite. Regardless, maybe give it a try. And maybe add some weight lifting to your exercise routine.

LeanMeanFitnessMachine

Spicy foods have been scientifically proven to give your metabolism a boost! Try eating more peppers (red, jalepeno, and banana peppers are my fave), medium-hot salsa, and mesquite and cayenne seasonings are great for giving chicken and steak a spicy boost too.

Studies have also suggested (not proven, but it def has worked for me) that eating 5-6 SMALL meals a day, rather than three meals a day revvs up your metabolism because it keeps it active all day instead of speeding it up and slowing back down 3 times. It makes sense. Just like the engine in your car functions better when you keep it running at a steady pace rather than a constant fast slow, fast slow pace.

I hope that all made sense & good luck!

koosdel

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

I suggest a weight lifting routine, followed by moderate cardio, and patience. It will happen.

lmelangley

It's going to say odd, but try bumping up your calories for a week or so. Nothing drastic - just around 1300 a day. I hit a plateau earlier this year and discovered that I need more than 1200 calories to lose anything.

And, don't be so hard on one pound a week. You want weight loss that's sustainable and healthy - one pound a week is good.

MisdemeanorM

Plus, if you can afford it, have your metabolism rechecked down the road. If you exercise consistently (and haven't been before) you could get a higher result later. I noticed my metabolism slowed in the 6 weeks I was off for back surgery, but it picked back up again when I was active.

Elizabeth_C34

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

I suggest a weight lifting routine, followed by moderate cardio, and patience. It will happen.

THIS.

How often you eat has nothing to do with your rate of caloric burn throughout the day:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399092

lmelangley

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

I suggest a weight lifting routine, followed by moderate cardio, and patience. It will happen.

That isn't necessarily true. My sister recently had some GI testing that showed her gastro-intestinal motility is really, really slow. The longer food stays in your GI tract, the more is absorbed into your body. It doesn't mean weight loss is impossible, it just means it might be slower for one person than another. You're right, though, that patience is key. For all of us.

RonSwanson66

Spicy foods have been scientifically proven to give your metabolism a boost!

The effect on metabolism is trivial, and spicy food has also been shown to stimulate appetite

Studies have also suggested (not proven, but it def has worked for me) that eating 5-6 SMALL meals a day, rather than three meals a day revvs up your metabolism because it keeps it active all day instead of speeding it up and slowing back down 3 times.

False. If you're going to use the phrase "Studies show", you best be prepared to back it up with said studies.

Meal frequency and energy balance
France Bellislea1, Regina McDevitta2 and Andrew M. Prenticea2

a1 Inserm U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, 1 place du Parvis Notre-Dame, 75181 Pans Cedex 04, France

a2 MRC Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2DH, France

Abstract

Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a ‘nibbling’ meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=879792

RonSwanson66

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

Nothing else? Really?

I guess all those thyroid hormones aren't doing anything.

koosdel

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

I suggest a weight lifting routine, followed by moderate cardio, and patience. It will happen.

That isn't necessarily true. My sister recently had some GI testing that showed her gastro-intestinal motility is really, really slow. The longer food stays in your GI tract, the more is absorbed into your body. It doesn't mean weight loss is impossible, it just means it might be slower for one person than another. You're right, though, that patience is key. For all of us.

Nope. It's always true.

Simple human physiology- muscle requires energy, more muscle requires more energy.

A condition that affects muscle development can indirectly effect metabolism, but the fact remains that metabolism is directly related to muscle mass.

servilia

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

I suggest a weight lifting routine, followed by moderate cardio, and patience. It will happen.

That isn't necessarily true. My sister recently had some GI testing that showed her gastro-intestinal motility is really, really slow. The longer food stays in your GI tract, the more is absorbed into your body. It doesn't mean weight loss is impossible, it just means it might be slower for one person than another. You're right, though, that patience is key. For all of us.

Nope. It's always true.

Simple human physiology- muscle requires energy, more muscle requires more energy.

A condition that affects muscle development can indirectly effect metabolism, but the fact remains that metabolism is directly related to muscle mass.

I don't think anyone argued that muscle mass is unrelated to metabolism. However in your first post you stated that muscle mass is the ONLY thing that affects metabolism which is not true for all people all the time.

RonSwanson66

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

I suggest a weight lifting routine, followed by moderate cardio, and patience. It will happen.

That isn't necessarily true. My sister recently had some GI testing that showed her gastro-intestinal motility is really, really slow. The longer food stays in your GI tract, the more is absorbed into your body. It doesn't mean weight loss is impossible, it just means it might be slower for one person than another. You're right, though, that patience is key. For all of us.

Nope. It's always true.

Simple human physiology- muscle requires energy, more muscle requires more energy.

A condition that affects muscle development can indirectly effect metabolism, but the fact remains that metabolism is directly related to muscle mass.

Not really:

http://weightology.net/?p=192

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9688626

LisaKyle11

you can also focus on getting your metabolism moving faster by gaining muscle. use the muscles you have... the more muscle you have and preserve, the faster your resting metabolism will be. start slow and just gradually increase your workouts.

b1gfr0g

As someone previously mentioned, the high glycemic index foods are probably contributing greatly to your lack of weight loss. If your metabolism is slow your body doesn't remove insulin quickly. I believe it's called insulin resistance. High glycemic index foods cause your body to produce more insulin. I'm in a similar boat.

Google for the web sites that will show you the glycemic index of foods. Most processed foods are probably going to do that to you. Google search and see what you can find. For example, rice is a high glycemic food. I happen to like rice but I'm not eating any right now as I'm trying to lose weight. Here's a good web site to start at:
http://www.glycemicindex.com/

Google and read about insulin resistance. Ask your doctor about it and about lower glycemic foods. You can lose the weight. If your metabolism is really slow then your diet becomes even more critical.
http://www.womentowomen.com/insulinresistance/whatisinsulinresistance.aspx?id=1&campaignno=insulinresistance&adgroup=ag1insulinresistance&keywords=what+is+insulin+resistance&gclid=COPPvoWd1awCFYqA5QodPVNPrQ

Hang in there and don't give up!!

neanderthin

Personally I find it hard to believe that all the movement over the course of the day only represents 250 calories.

RonSwanson66

As someone previously mentioned, the high glycemic index foods are probably contributing greatly to your lack of weight loss. If your metabolism is slow your body doesn't remove insulin quickly. I believe it's called insulin resistance. High glycemic index foods cause your body to produce more insulin. I'm in a similar boat.

Google for the web sites that will show you the glycemic index of foods. Most processed foods are probably going to do that to you. Google search and see what you can find. For example, rice is a high glycemic food. I happen to like rice but I'm not eating any right now as I'm trying to lose weight. Here's a good web site to start at:
http://www.glycemicindex.com/

Google and read about insulin resistance. Ask your doctor about it and about lower glycemic foods. You can lose the weight. If your metabolism is really slow then your diet becomes even more critical.
http://www.womentowomen.com/insulinresistance/whatisinsulinresistance.aspx?id=1&campaignno=insulinresistance&adgroup=ag1insulinresistance&keywords=what+is+insulin+resistance&gclid=COPPvoWd1awCFYqA5QodPVNPrQ

Hang in there and don't give up!!

GI is irrelevant (unless you're diabetic)

http://alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

AmandaM15

Try eating clean. Ditch the prepackaged foods with lots of ingredients, they usually have way too much sodium and sugars. Go with lean proteins and complex carbs (like veggies, fruits and whole grains) at every meal. Try eating six small meals through out the day. Have small amounts of healthy fats like olive oil, raw almonds and avocado. After a few weeks you'll feel so much better and I'm sure the scale will start moving down again.

heybales

I eat 1200 cals a day and exercise 5 days a week. I do elliptical and running. I burn between 350-500 calories per workout depending on what I do.

As others have said, weight lifting.

And include intervals in your cardio. Anything can be made into intervals, no matter what level of intensity you are currently at.

And is your calorie estimate of exercise based on heart rate, or time or distance only, is weight even included? That estimate could be way off. Based on age, sex, weight, and heart rate is much closer to correct. You may be way off on estimate otherwise.

Anyway, studies regarding sprints and weight lifting, and fat burn benefit from both since more muscle can't help but help.
These 2 together are great, because you make more muscle, and then use it in intervals. Great combo effect.

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html
After a 5 week conditioning period on a recumbent cycle, The High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) group perform sprints while the Endurance Training (ET) group performed a more traditional aerobic protocol, throughout the remaining 15 weeks. Both groups progressed in intensity. At the conclusion of the study, the HIIT group lost over 3 times as much subcutaneous fat as the ET group despite expending less than half as many calories. For every calorie expended during HIIT, there was a nine fold loss of subcutaneous body fat, as compared to the ET group.

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WT&End.html
Wayne Westcott, Ph.D. conducted a study in which 72 over weight individuals participated in an eight week exercise program. The participants were placed in two groups. The first group performed 30 minutes of endurance exercise on a stationary cycle. The second group performed only 15 minutes of exercise on the stationary cycle plus an additional 15 minutes on weight resistant exercises. At the conclusion of the study, the "endurance only" group lost a total of 3.5 lbs.; 3 lbs. of which was fat and a half pound was muscle loss. On the other hand, the "endurance and weight resistive" group lost 8 lbs. with an actual fat loss of 10 lbs. and an increase of 2 lbs. of lean body weight.

asyouseefit

^^^Great info! Thank you mbales!

RonSwanson66

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html
After a 5 week conditioning period on a recumbent cycle, The High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) group perform sprints while the Endurance Training (ET) group performed a more traditional aerobic protocol, throughout the remaining 15 weeks. Both groups progressed in intensity. At the conclusion of the study, the HIIT group lost over 3 times as much subcutaneous fat as the ET group despite expending less than half as many calories. For every calorie expended during HIIT, there was a nine fold loss of subcutaneous body fat, as compared to the ET group.

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WT&End.html
Wayne Westcott, Ph.D. conducted a study in which 72 over weight individuals participated in an eight week exercise program. The participants were placed in two groups. The first group performed 30 minutes of endurance exercise on a stationary cycle. The second group performed only 15 minutes of exercise on the stationary cycle plus an additional 15 minutes on weight resistant exercises. At the conclusion of the study, the "endurance only" group lost a total of 3.5 lbs.; 3 lbs. of which was fat and a half pound was muscle loss. On the other hand, the "endurance and weight resistive" group lost 8 lbs. with an actual fat loss of 10 lbs. and an increase of 2 lbs. of lean body weight.

Please link to the primary sources or these articles. As far as I can find, they never made it past peer review.

rileysowner

Try eating every few hours in small meals. A lot of people swear up and down that it stimulates metabolism, many say it does nothing but curb appetite. Regardless, maybe give it a try. And maybe add some weight lifting to your exercise routine.

Eating every few hours for some people may help feel full, but there are tons of research papers that show the net effect over the day on metabolism is that it makes no difference at all.

I would say eat food prepared by yourself, and change up your exercise. Some sort of strength training either using body weight or weighted exercises would be good. Once you get the exercise form down you can look at more metabolically demanding ways to do them.

Also, what are you using to calculate your exercise calories. I find the numbers for exercise here on MFP and on many exercise machines is a little high. Not a big deal if you are running a 1000 calorie deficit, but more of a problem when you are running a 500 calorie one.

Lastly, how carefully are you measuring your food. BTW trusting that the portion size for pre-packaged foods is always correct might be a mistake. At least under the laws of Canada, and probably other places, they are required to have at least as much as they claim on the package. To make sure of that many, probably most, manufacturers add a little extra. It is called an overage, and is meant to avoid lawsuits for not having as much product as they say on the label. Not a big deal overall, but when you are counting calories a 20-30% overage would mean 20-30% more calories. That is the other reason making your own food is much better, you can measure precisely.

LabRat529

You do not have to eat clean to lose weight. If you want to eat clean, awesome, but if eating pre-packaged meals makes your life easier and helps you stick to your diet, then that's what you should do.

The most important thing is finding a lifestyle you can stick with. I personally could never make the 'eat clean' work. So please don't feel like you have to drastically change your eating habits. The more complicated and difficult you make your diet, the less likely you will be to stay with it. Keep it simple That's my diet strategy.

I personally like the weight lifting/strength training suggestions to get your metabolism going. I'd honestly focus on repairing that metabolism before I worried too much about losing weight.

Good luck.

cecilia0909

I agree with a lot of what others have said. I am not an expert on diet or exercise but I have read a lot on the topic and from what I have seen work for other people I would suggest more weight training exercises and it wouldn't hurt to look at eating less processed foods

koosdel

You do not have to eat clean to lose weight. If you want to eat clean, awesome, but if eating pre-packaged meals makes your life easier and helps you stick to your diet, then that's what you should do.

The most important thing is finding a lifestyle you can stick with. I personally could never make the 'eat clean' work. So please don't feel like you have to drastically change your eating habits. The more complicated and difficult you make your diet, the less likely you will be to stay with it. Keep it simple That's my diet strategy.

I personally like the weight lifting/strength training suggestions to get your metabolism going. I'd honestly focus on repairing that metabolism before I worried too much about losing weight.

Good luck.

To expand on this,

The calorie deficit determine how much you lose, the macros determine what you lose. Somewhat.

bellawares

Your rate of metabolism is controlled by the amount of muscle mass you have. Nothing else..

I suggest a weight lifting routine, followed by moderate cardio, and patience. It will happen.

I totally agree with this. I am hypothyroid and have a very slow metabolism. I burn less calories per workout then you do and I was able to lose 71 lbs. It has taken me a year of changing my diet to mostly plant based and adding strength training 2 to 3 times a week. I also have upped my protein intake at the suggestion of my trainer and I was able to increase my rate of burn.

Dietary changes and strength training have been key for me.

Acg67

As someone previously mentioned, the high glycemic index foods are probably contributing greatly to your lack of weight loss. If your metabolism is slow your body doesn't remove insulin quickly. I believe it's called insulin resistance. High glycemic index foods cause your body to produce more insulin. I'm in a similar boat.

Google for the web sites that will show you the glycemic index of foods. Most processed foods are probably going to do that to you. Google search and see what you can find. For example, rice is a high glycemic food. I happen to like rice but I'm not eating any right now as I'm trying to lose weight. Here's a good web site to start at:
http://www.glycemicindex.com/

Google and read about insulin resistance. Ask your doctor about it and about lower glycemic foods. You can lose the weight. If your metabolism is really slow then your diet becomes even more critical.
http://www.womentowomen.com/insulinresistance/whatisinsulinresistance.aspx?id=1&campaignno=insulinresistance&adgroup=ag1insulinresistance&keywords=what+is+insulin+resistance&gclid=COPPvoWd1awCFYqA5QodPVNPrQ

Hang in there and don't give up!!

besides the fact that GI is mostly irrelevant to the avg person

An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.

Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.

No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

CONCLUSION:

This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.