Got my RMR tested. Now what?

morningrunner

I'm hoping some more experienced members can help me interpret my results. My RMR is 1498. I know this is slightly different from BMR so I'm not sure how it would figure into the typical calculations.

I was given a print-out that says my weight loss zone is 1200-1498, but given that I run 25ish miles a week, spin, lift, and do yoga, I feel like this might not be right. And when I first started MFP I was basically eating that and seeing no results (September through October). The print-out also says that my maintenance zone is 1498 - 1945. I really don't understand that considering the bar graph on the same page says my Total Energy Output each day is 2132.

So, should I be trying to NET my RMR each day? Or should I really be trying to eat 1500 without regard to how much I exercise?

Thanks in advance!

morningrunner

Bump?
Can someone please offer some insight? I'm more confused than ever now. Complicating the matter further, the man administering the test (a cycling coach) also said that I should be eating 1500 per day, regardless of exercise. That seems to fly in the face of the general consensus of MFP. And I feel like I don't know much, but know that on days that I run longer and burn upwards of 1,000 calories, netting 500 for the day doesn't seem right.

heybales

Oh man, no one answered!
And this is interesting.

So RMR is indeed over your BMR by some amount.
The difference between being awake, and asleep. Digesting food eaten, to using the food energy to repair the body. Fidgeting and lying still, ect.

It's generally not much over the BMR, but it would help nail a tad closer what true BMR must be.
So if estimated BMR from calcs has you way above or below that, it either means your metabolism is doing worse or better than expected.

I could see if you ate at your RMR, and tried to eat back all exercise calories decently estimated, that would keep you safe.
If you did not, you would just be underfeeding your BMR still.

So that is one way, goal set at current RMR, hope that is not artificially lowered because of already suppressed metabolism, and for sure eat back all exercise calories.

You are in the group already for the other method I'd suggest.

heybales

Found the Cunningham formula.
RMR = 500 + (22 * LBM)

Now, since I don't know your LBM, this is actually an interesting way of doing this.

1498 = 500 + (22 * LBM)

LBM for that RMR would be 45.4 KG, or 100.1 lbs.

And BMR for that LBM of 100.1 would be Katch-McArdle formula:
BMR = 370 + (21.6 * 45.4)
BMR = 1351

So the question is, is your Lean Body Mass 100.1 lbs? If more than that, then you have the metabolism of someone much smaller - which means it is slower than it could potentially be.
If that is about correct LBM, and other BMR calc's are close to 1351, then metabolism is OK.
If your LBM is much smaller, then great, it's running high.

Of course, it must be taken into consideration that the Katch-McArdle BMR formula, and the Cunningham RMR formula, is based on studies of people already at healthy weight.
Both will underestimate if you are very muscular at healthy weight, or carrying extra fat than at healthy weight.

Take away, this can be semi-useful to know if your real BMR based on real RMR test is way off of expected.

AntWrig

It's pretty obvious that your RMR is going to be different than your BMR. Your BMR is going to be a more accurate measurement.

The easiest way is to add a activity multipler to your RMR and adjust from there.

Activity Factor Category Definition
1.2 Sedentary Little or no exercise and desk job
1.375 Lightly Active Light exercise or sports 1-3 days a week
1.55 Moderately Active Moderate exercise or sports 3-5 days a week
1.725 Very Active Hard exercise or sports 6-7 days a week4
1.9 Extremely Active Hard daily exercise or sports and physical jo

ElPumaMex

Maybe this Excel spreadsheet would be useful to you:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/491087-my-gift-excel-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-cut-build-and-ma

morningrunner

Thanks so much for the responses, guys.

@heybales - According the machine that did my testing, my RMR is "above average" so I can't claim that I have a damaged metabolism. My LBM is ~105 so using your equation, my BMR would be 1498 - 100 calories less than my RMR.

Here's some solid data from last month if you care to help me interpret :
January 1st - 31st:
Average eaten per day = 1867
Average exercise per day = 350
Average NET (eaten minus exercise) = roughly 1500 - which is my RMR and right where I was aiming.
I gained and lost the same 2 pounds over the course of that month. The same 2 pounds I've been battling for over a year now.

In the past 2 weeks I've been attempting the new method you proposed (eating for the weight you want to become). Based on my activity level and the spreadsheet you posted, that's about 2000 calories per day. Since then I've gained 2 pounds. And that's above my normal fluctuations. I'm very frustrated and confused right now.

heybales

Thanks so much for the responses, guys.

@heybales - According the machine that did my testing, my RMR is "above average" so I can't claim that I have a damaged metabolism. My LBM is ~105 so using your equation, my BMR would be 1498 - 100 calories less than my RMR.

Here's some solid data from last month if you care to help me interpret :
January 1st - 31st:
Average eaten per day = 1867
Average exercise per day = 350
Average NET (eaten minus exercise) = roughly 1500 - which is my RMR and right where I was aiming.
I gained and lost the same 2 pounds over the course of that month. The same 2 pounds I've been battling for over a year now.

In the past 2 weeks I've been attempting the new method you proposed (eating for the weight you want to become). Based on my activity level and the spreadsheet you posted, that's about 2000 calories per day. Since then I've gained 2 pounds. And that's above my normal fluctuations. I'm very frustrated and confused right now.

That's great to know you were already eating at a great level to protect your BMR from lowering. Good job.
But actually those figures are below what is an estimated healthy BMR (1498), and even that BMR estimate is below what it would normally be since you are not at healthy weight. So probably approaching 1600 for just BMR.

So that BMR figure is going to be underestimated by any formula based on studies, but you seem to be at level that is really close anyway.

So what is the workout type and frequency, and how is the 350 calories estimated that you used to eat back?

I think you got the right idea with a tad more calories. You may be floating between full and lowered glucose stores which means good water weight, and stressed muscles and repaired muscles which holds water too.

The weekly avg method, if your workout frequency has rest days, will give you some spike days. And if different levels of workouts, will also provide calorie zig-zag. Both things that have shown to have success with many people.

So curious about workout routine.

morningrunner

Heybales - my workout routine is about 25-30 miles per week, usually 1 or 2 strength training sessions and 1 spin or bike ride. I usually have one complete rest day a week. I'm basing my running burn off of 100 calories per mile.

I would like to know about the glucose store issue. I seem to retain water like crazy and I also can't consume any sort of GU, shot block, etc, because it causes me to have major sugar crashes. In fact, before I run I have to be either completely fasted or have a high fat (read: peanut butter) snack an hour before or I experience a sugar type crash. I've been to several doctors and no one has been able to figure this out either.

I really want to do the weekly average method. I just really wish I knew some numbers that would actually work.

heybales

Heybales - my workout routine is about 25-30 miles per week, usually 1 or 2 strength training sessions and 1 spin or bike ride. I usually have one complete rest day a week. I'm basing my running burn off of 100 calories per mile.

I would like to know about the glucose store issue. I seem to retain water like crazy and I also can't consume any sort of GU, shot block, etc, because it causes me to have major sugar crashes. In fact, before I run I have to be either completely fasted or have a high fat (read: peanut butter) snack an hour before or I experience a sugar type crash. I've been to several doctors and no one has been able to figure this out either.

I really want to do the weekly average method. I just really wish I knew some numbers that would actually work.

That is a very good routine, and I wouldn't be surprised if well above 350, depending on the actual time of those things.

So the glucose storage thing normally comes up if eating low cal in first place, and not feeding the workout, bad combo.
You could in theory still get there with 6 days a week, just depending on the intensity and length of those workouts, and your diet.

So your liver has about 400-450 calories worth of glucose stores, muscles about 1500 more, depending on aerobic fitness, training, muscle mass, ect. The muscles stores are ONLY for muscle use, they cannot be put into the bloodstream for raising blood sugar when the body needs it, like for feeding the brain. It is also secondary energy to the stores in the liver.

So liver first, if it runs low and more needed for muscle activity, muscle stores used, liver for feeding brain still. If that runs low, muscle must be broken down for amino acids to convert to blood glucose for feeding the brain. Muscles still get their stores.

You know how many carbs your diets provides.

Each gram of carbs/glucose (4 calories), has 2.7 g of water with it. 1500 cal of storage in muscles with the water weight is 3 lbs.

So if a combo of diet low in carbs either because of low calorie or just eating low carb, and exercise at levels that is burning mainly carbs, you can easily lower your liver stores, and start lowering your muscle stores. And if liver stores low enough, muscle breakdown.
So besides the water you sweat out, that glucose and water stores, and potentially muscle breakdown (lb of muscle provides 600 cal of energy if tapped for that) - all causes weight loss.

And if diet doesn't top you off each day, you slowly lose through the week. Then your rest day, potentially a chance to top off, depending on diet. Weight goes back up. Muscle repair has been ongoing all week if eating protein, and if muscles get a chance to do that by having recovery time.

As to how much you really burn, at rest, not moving much, about 30% of energy needs by carbs. So think RMR 1600 would be 480 cal of carbs a day used there. And that is about what the brain needs daily.
Now how many hrs at 40% carbs, 50% carbs, 60 min intense workout at 70% carbs.
Those all add up.

And diet of 1900 cal with 60% carbs is 1140. Almost half just from resting metabolism so probably good 500 to top off the muscle stores. But after 5 days, that is a lost battle.

And if you have a sugar low like that, it must be because your insulin response is a tad strong, shooting it too low. That also means that during that time, you are in fat storage mode, so actual carb usage until that evens out is much higher, further lowering stores.

Bad but not unusual combo.
I'm thinking you are not really in a deficit, because even with those other difficulties, if in a deficit, you will lose. Those other things just affect what is really being lost, just water weight as extra amounts that fools you, muscle breakdown, carbs from food before fat burning, ect.
Some more efficient than others.

You might try eating every meal or snack with some protein and good fat, and eat those before the carbs.

Pre-workout, I'd be curious if a Zone or Balance bar hit your bloodstream that bad as a GU.

Hit me up in the group or email if you want me to confirm your weekly routine. Use the topic for these figures can't be right in the group to tell me the info I'll need to confirm.

jenluvsushi

Bump.....I'm getting my RMR tested soon. Can't wait to solve this mystery as well!

momma_mimi

I just had my RMR tested and bf composition done using a BODPOD as well. I am a small gal trying to drop some bf from the moderately lean to lean catagory. Supposedly, I need to consume more calories and am trying to navigate and meal plan better-through increasing calories in a healthy way-using this information. Sigh, it's so tedious. :P

heybales

I just had my RMR tested and bf composition done using a BODPOD as well. I am a small gal trying to drop some bf from the moderately lean to lean catagory. Supposedly, I need to consume more calories and am trying to navigate and meal plan better-through increasing calories in a healthy way-using this information. Sigh, it's so tedious. :P

Was there a test with a face mask, or just the Bodpod?

If only Bodpod, that means they based a Cunningham calculation for RMR, not an actual RMR test.

Which is still great, gives a basis for starting at, though if undereating for awhile, your BMR/RMR could be slowed down.

If you want to tweak MFP better with the bodyfat% knowledge, try this spreadsheet on the MFP Tweak tab, referenced in this topic with explanation.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/677905-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-calc-macro-calc-hrm

If they actually did indirect calorimetry and Bodpod both, that would be very interesting to see how the RMR per test compared to the Bodpod calc based on LBM.
Without sharing actual figures if you don't want to, how close where they in calories?

mcarter99

Bump?
Can someone please offer some insight? I'm more confused than ever now. Complicating the matter further, the man administering the test (a cycling coach) also said that I should be eating 1500 per day, regardless of exercise. That seems to fly in the face of the general consensus of MFP. And I feel like I don't know much, but know that on days that I run longer and burn upwards of 1,000 calories, netting 500 for the day doesn't seem right.

I would listen to the person who does this professionally. The 'general consensus of MFP' is often wrong, if you ask me. The whole 'netting' thing makes little sense.

I read that RMR and BMR aren't technically the same thing but since BMR tests would require you to spend many hours in a lab, they estimate RMR instead, and the terms are used pretty much interchangeably.

yarwell

I'm thinking you are not really in a deficit

So eat less ?

redmapleleaf

Bump?
Can someone please offer some insight? I'm more confused than ever now. Complicating the matter further, the man administering the test (a cycling coach) also said that I should be eating 1500 per day, regardless of exercise. That seems to fly in the face of the general consensus of MFP. And I feel like I don't know much, but know that on days that I run longer and burn upwards of 1,000 calories, netting 500 for the day doesn't seem right.

I would listen to the person who does this professionally. The 'general consensus of MFP' is often wrong, if you ask me. The whole 'netting' thing makes little sense.

I read that RMR and BMR aren't technically the same thing but since BMR tests would require you to spend many hours in a lab, they estimate RMR instead, and the terms are used pretty much interchangeably.

I agree with everything said here. I had my RMR tested as well and mine didn't come out with ranges likes yours did. My guy did the test, then plugged in my RMR then he manipulated the formula on the computer program and told me a calorie number on what to eat. Also since I had my training zones tested he was able to tell me what training zones to work in. Did you happen to get the New Leaf testing done because they have a website where you can log in and look at your results again.

easfahl

BUMP for a look-see later.

CarrieStL

bump

CarrieStL

I just had my body composition done via DEXA scan and my RMR tested via Indirect Calorimetry after an overnight fast and 24 hours no exercise. My actual RMR is 400-500 HIGHER than the calculations on the internet/MFP. When all else fails- get tested. Make sure it is an a reputable place. Period. I got mine done in the Department of Kinesiology and Health Education Human Performance Lab at a local university.

heybales

I just had my body composition done via DEXA scan and my RMR tested via Indirect Calorimetry after an overnight fast and 24 hours no exercise. My actual RMR is 400-500 HIGHER than the calculations on the internet/MFP. When all else fails- get tested. Make sure it is an a reputable place. Period. I got mine done in the Department of Kinesiology and Health Education Human Performance Lab at a local university.

Now, what is interesting, if it is correct based on your measured LBM. Because that's excellent value, unless you are comparing RMR to BMR values, and it should be 150-250 more than calculated BMR based on bodyfat%.

So take the measured LBM from test and convert to kg, and get your best calculated BMR (not RMR):
(21.6*LBM)+370 = Katch BMR.

Now, what would calculated RMR be for that LBM?
(22*LBM)+500 = Cunningham RMR.

So now that is where you find out if your RMR tested higher or lower than expected, compared to the Cunningham RMR.

Oh, if you measured higher RMR than calculated, for sure use the BMR based on that higher value for any calculations.

But if it's lower, decide if it's within the 5% of expected variance, if it is, then use it instead of the the higher calculated BMR.
But, if it's lower than 5%, than you may have suppressed metabolism still, don't use it, use calculated BMR which is higher.

How do you get the BMR based on that tested RMR value?

Convert tested RMR to corresponding Katch BMR:
(RMR - 500) * 0.981+370 = adjusted Katch BMR.

So for any calculations you do or adjustments, that's the BMR figure to use.

CarrieStL

I just used the basic online calculators, not sure which method. Regardless, they stated far below my actual RMR. I have been undereating and overtraining big time. Explains my 6 month plateau. *sigh*

husseycd

I know that this is a somewhat older thread, but since some people do use the search function I thought I'd chime in with my experience.

I just got my RMR tested and it was 1580. If I use the formulas heybales listed earlier, with 106.3 lb (48.2kg) of lean body mass, my calculated RMR is 1560. So the test matches the calculations and makes me feel pretty confident with the numbers.

My lean body mass, btw, was calculated by two different methods. Calipers and a body fat scale.

avskk

I just used those formulas to calculate my RMR and -- using two different variants for LBM, since I only know roughly what my BFP is -- it told me my RMR is well over 3000kcals daily. That sounds absolutely outrageous to me. I eat ~1500 and workout several times per week (burning anywhere from 200 to 500 each time). I eat back some exercise cals, sometimes, but not all of them and not always. If my RMR were really so high, surely I'd be shedding weight like crazy?

heybales

I just used those formulas to calculate my RMR and -- using two different variants for LBM, since I only know roughly what my BFP is -- it told me my RMR is well over 3000kcals daily. That sounds absolutely outrageous to me. I eat ~1500 and workout several times per week (burning anywhere from 200 to 500 each time). I eat back some exercise cals, sometimes, but not all of them and not always. If my RMR were really so high, surely I'd be shedding weight like crazy?

Did you convert to metric in the formulas?

And even when you do that with correct numbers, there is a different from what your metabolism could be, and where it's actually at based on under-eating forcing it slower or medical issues.

avskk

I didn't convert to metric, for lo! I am stupid. Once I did, everything came out right on target (BMR 1660, RMR 1820). Perhaps I should consider whether enough of my total mass is brain cells or whether I should try to up that somehow.

Thanks!

heybales

I didn't convert to metric, for lo! I am stupid. Once I did, everything came out right on target (BMR 1660, RMR 1820). Perhaps I should consider whether enough of my total mass is brain cells or whether I should try to up that somehow.

Thanks!

So if you were sleeping all day long, your body would like to burn 1660 calories on cellular maintenance and basic functions of life.
If you were awake and resting non-moving all day, it would like to potentially spend 1820 calories all day.

And you are eating how much in total daily?

And how much does your exercise take right off the top purely for mechanical movement? Which does not include actually making improvements the exercise might possibly give you.

Your daily burn would of course be much higher than both those values, because it's unlikely you sleep nor sit and rest all day long.

If course, those are all potential values, not what you are actually dealing with. You can suppress your metabolism.

If you are not seeing a deficit cause weight loss, than those potential metabolism levels are not actually what you are dealing with.

Nor would a FitBit, which is using age, weight, height based BMR, be aware of a lowered metabolism, so it also could appear to be showing a deficit for what is possible, but not what has happened in reality.

avskk

Oh, I think I wasn't clear: I am definitely seeing weight loss and I'm happy with how it's going. I was just confused by that insane 3000+ RMR (caused by not converting to metric) that I got to begin with, because those numbers would cause a much larger weight loss than what I'm having. Now that I've converted and gotten the right numbers, everything's right on track. Thank you for all your help!

heybales

Oh, I think I wasn't clear: I am definitely seeing weight loss and I'm happy with how it's going. I was just confused by that insane 3000+ RMR (caused by not converting to metric) that I got to begin with, because those numbers would cause a much larger weight loss than what I'm having. Now that I've converted and gotten the right numbers, everything's right on track. Thank you for all your help!

Oh good, because that is a great RMR figure there, hate to lose it.