Professional BMR and am I on the right track?

lambertj

I don't think i run the risk of starvation mode in my situation due to a cheat day of earned exercise calories - and i agree, i think it's way over used on this site. People's weight doesn't go down week to week and they jump on the old "starvation mode" bandwagon, sometime you just have to keep chugging along and the weight finally moves.

stroutman81

What's more is the fact that starvation mode... or better phrased adaptive thermogenesis... is going to happen when anyone loses weight. Or more precisely... when they lose fat. Lose it fast or slow... it doesn't matter. It happens. It's definitely more pronounced in some than others. But the point is, there's no point in fretting over it because there's not much you can do about it.

You can work to preserve muscle, but even that's not as influential as many people make it out to be. You can offset the adaptation with exercise, which is one of the primary reasons why exercise is very important to long term maintenance of losses.

psuLemon

What's more is the fact that starvation mode... or better phrased adaptive thermogenesis... is going to happen when anyone loses weight. Or more precisely... when they lose fat. Lose it fast or slow... it doesn't matter. It happens. It's definitely more pronounced in some than others. But the point is, there's no point in fretting over it because there's not much you can do about it.

You can work to preserve muscle, but even that's not as influential as many people make it out to be. You can offset the adaptation with exercise, which is one of the primary reasons why exercise is very important to long term maintenance of losses.

See I would put more emphasis on maintain lean muscle mass than what you have. I have seen and worked with people on here that have been on VLCD and lost up to 50% of their lean muscle mass and now have a hard time losing weight since they cut their BMR by 30% (roughly 300 calories). Where as, a person like myself has been cutting body fat fairly easy by eating 2800-3000 calories a day. This would mean a person would have to workout another 30+ minutes to maintain at certain levels or decrease fuel consumption. I agree living a active life is important but not always easy when children and work is involved.

heybales

I don't think i run the risk of starvation mode in my situation due to a cheat day of earned exercise calories - and i agree, i think it's way over used on this site. People's weight doesn't go down week to week and they jump on the old "starvation mode" bandwagon, sometime you just have to keep chugging along and the weight finally moves.

That is not correct either.

You can lose weight eating below your BMR, as commented muscle mass will be used, your metabolism just slows down in general, and even with exercise the body will be weak in other areas.

It is exactly that point of not losing weight any more that you should NOT keep chugging along. Because at that point your system as already lowered your real BMR to below your energy intake, chugging along won't improve anything.

What I'd bet usually happens is "chugging along" means the person thinks they have to eat less or exercise even more to kick start it. And indeed, for a bit, you will be below your new lower BMR, until your body adjusts down again.

But that downward spiral can only be followed for so long before you have caused real problems.

The actual solution at the point of the stall is to re-evaluate what you have been doing to your body. Slowly get your calories back up to a healthy level above what a healthy BMR would be, and accept the fact you did it wrong and will gain a bit of weight until your body knows it is receiving what it needs.
And then start again safely this time.

Shoot, I remember reading years ago in Triathlon magazines the stories of those starting out. They'd be eating 2500 calories and thought that was enough. But sadly they were doing 3000 worth of calorie burn the whole day. And they wondered why they stalled, or on a bing day gained such weight, or had to break their workouts into so many small workouts because they couldn't handle the big ones anymore.
And these were knowledgeable folks for the most part, you'd think. and they got into that mode.
How many days of net 0 calories are worse can you have pounding your body and not having problems. Ugh.

stroutman81

What's more is the fact that starvation mode... or better phrased adaptive thermogenesis... is going to happen when anyone loses weight. Or more precisely... when they lose fat. Lose it fast or slow... it doesn't matter. It happens. It's definitely more pronounced in some than others. But the point is, there's no point in fretting over it because there's not much you can do about it.

You can work to preserve muscle, but even that's not as influential as many people make it out to be. You can offset the adaptation with exercise, which is one of the primary reasons why exercise is very important to long term maintenance of losses.

See I would put more emphasis on maintain lean muscle mass than what you have. I have seen and worked with people on here that have been on VLCD and lost up to 50% of their lean muscle mass and now have a hard time losing weight since they cut their BMR by 30% (roughly 300 calories). Where as, a person like myself has been cutting body fat fairly easy by eating 2800-3000 calories a day. This would mean a person would have to workout another 30+ minutes to maintain at certain levels or decrease fuel consumption. I agree living a active life is important but not always easy when children and work is involved.

If you read around the forum, I'm all about maintaining muscle mass. But as far as metabolic rate goes... there's A LOT more at play than the amount of muscle tissue. You can't attribute the drops in BMR that you're referencing solely to the loss in muscle. We know the energetic cost of maintaining muscle, and it's not very high on a relative scale. Which is what I'm referring to above when I said most people overhype the role muscle plays in metabolic rate.

I mean the research puts the energy cost of 1 lb of muscle at 6 or so calories. Oh... and 2 cals per pound of fat..... yet you don't see people running around trying to preserve their fat stores so their metabolisms stay elevated, haah.

In addition, most of the research is pointing out the reductions in total energy expenditure in response to hypocaloric eating and fat loss stem primarily from drops in non-exercise activity thermogenesis. And even beyond that, there are going to be drops in BMR that happen irrespective of tissue loss. Meaning you could have complete muscle retention and still see adaptive thermogenesis due to variables such as Leptin, thyroid, etc.

But again... definitely not trying to argue that preserving muscle isn't important. I'm the last person you'll find doing that around here. But my wording had purpose in my previous post.

psuLemon

What's more is the fact that starvation mode... or better phrased adaptive thermogenesis... is going to happen when anyone loses weight. Or more precisely... when they lose fat. Lose it fast or slow... it doesn't matter. It happens. It's definitely more pronounced in some than others. But the point is, there's no point in fretting over it because there's not much you can do about it.

You can work to preserve muscle, but even that's not as influential as many people make it out to be. You can offset the adaptation with exercise, which is one of the primary reasons why exercise is very important to long term maintenance of losses.

See I would put more emphasis on maintain lean muscle mass than what you have. I have seen and worked with people on here that have been on VLCD and lost up to 50% of their lean muscle mass and now have a hard time losing weight since they cut their BMR by 30% (roughly 300 calories). Where as, a person like myself has been cutting body fat fairly easy by eating 2800-3000 calories a day. This would mean a person would have to workout another 30+ minutes to maintain at certain levels or decrease fuel consumption. I agree living a active life is important but not always easy when children and work is involved.

If you read around the forum, I'm all about maintaining muscle mass. But as far as metabolic rate goes... there's A LOT more at play than the amount of muscle tissue. You can't attribute the drops in BMR that you're referencing solely to the loss in muscle. We know the energetic cost of maintaining muscle, and it's not very high on a relative scale. Which is what I'm referring to above when I said most people overhype the role muscle plays in metabolic rate.

I mean the research puts the energy cost of 1 lb of muscle at 6 or so calories. Oh... and 2 cals per pound of fat..... yet you don't see people running around trying to preserve their fat stores so their metabolisms stay elevated, haah.

In addition, most of the research is pointing out the reductions in total energy expenditure in response to hypocaloric eating and fat loss stem primarily from drops in non-exercise activity thermogenesis. And even beyond that, there are going to be drops in BMR that happen irrespective of tissue loss. Meaning you could have complete muscle retention and still see adaptive thermogenesis due to variables such as Leptin, thyroid, etc.

But again... definitely not trying to argue that preserving muscle isn't important. I'm the last person you'll find doing that around here. But my wording had purpose in my previous post.

Makes complete sense and I see we are on the same page.