Got the metabolic testing results. EVERYTHING is different.

graysmom2005

So I finally coughed up some money and got some metabolic testing done. After months of busting my *kitten* and no results I needed answers! My RMR is a little above 1600. So just laying in bed all day I'd burn 1600.

The trainer/dietician said that on rest days I should eat 1700, moderate days when I teach once for example do 1900 and big days like Thursday when I teach 3 times do 2200 but not more. Also I need to fit in some lower intensity workouts because with my other test it showed when I was in my two lower zones I burned 77% fat. The higher zones that I'm normally in teaching spin I'm burning mostly carbs. Hence no fat loss even with 1000 calorie a day burns.

What is REALLY different is I don't do net. So If my 1600 is my RMR and I burn 1000 calories teaching two classes one day, the MOST I'm to eat is 2200 which would have me net 1200. 400 calories UNDER my base. This goes against most of what I've been told here at MFP. I'll try it though for a few weeks, add some low intensity stuff...add even MORE protein....and see where I land.

_Kitten_Kate

So, what did the metabolic testing consist of? What did you do? .... and if you don't mind me askin...what was the cost?... what kind of Dr did you see?

MB_Positif

So excited for you to have gotten all of this information!! I hope you start seeing results soon!

DL121004

Also I need to fit in some lower intensity workouts because with my other test it showed when I was in my two lower zones I burned 77% fat. The higher zones that I'm normally in teaching spin I'm burning mostly carbs. Hence no fat loss even with 1000 calorie a day burns.

This is a common misunderstanding; in fact, I was prompted to write a blog post about just this issue.

You may be interested in it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/DL121004/view/heart-rate-monitors-zone-training-and-fat-burn-216961

What is REALLY different is I don't do net. So If my 1600 is my RMR and I burn 1000 calories teaching two classes one day, the MOST I'm to eat is 2200 which would have me net 1200. 400 calories UNDER my base.

Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

rides4sanity

Hubby has been trying to talk me into getting tested, he says I'm working way to hard not to see much in the way of results. My story is very similar to yours, I teach an ab class & spin class Monday (lift in between), spin again on Friday and have another heavy cardio day with running & bootcamp on Thursday, plus at least another two lift days. How do you go about getting tested and is it expensive?

psuLemon

When you use this method, start to track your body fat. I still think you will lose more muscle than fat. Also, is the trainer a certified nutritionist or dietician?

lauehorn

So, what did the metabolic testing consist of? What did you do? .... and if you don't mind me askin...what was the cost?... what kind of Dr did you see?

This. I'm interested to know what exactly the testing consists of and those details, if you would not mind sharing.

myboysmomx2

Bump. Thanks!

easfahl

Yep, also curious what is involved with the RMR testing.

ladyraven68

What calories were you on before the testing?

spareparts79

Bump, curious what this test consists of and cost.

manasunshine

bump.
intrested in knowing more about the RMR testing

gsager

Thanks for the info but I'm doing great on MFP......guess I'm one of the lucky ones. Best of luck to you. Hope that you see some progress.

CrazyDaisysMommy

It must feel great to have some answers! I've seen you post a few times, and your frustration is understandable.

msiamjan

I just did testing today too. It was spendy-$180. It was done by a certified exercise physiologist--not sure what that is, through my HMO. Showed that I'm fit and fat. My VO2 was in the "superior" category for my age, but my body fat % was 38%, which was not even on the chart . My BMR was 1379. She set up some training targets for training in various HR zones. She also gave a suggested weight range to shoot for, that surprised me a bit. It was 130-152 (I'm 5'2"). I had been shooting for 135, and thought that was on the high end of where I should be. I entered the VO2 into my HRM, and it now has my calorie burn higher, so that was good to see---I think.

amysj303

I am also curious about the details!

woodstockmom

bump

ATT949

When you use this method, start to track your body fat. I still think you will lose more muscle than fat. Also, is the trainer a certified nutritionist or dietician?

I do not understand why you're implying that the OP will lose muscle if she doesn't eat "all of her calories".

My understanding, and with some help from thinking through how the body works, is that muscle mass is lost through atrophy. It's only in the late stages of "starvation mode" (the real one) that the body has digested all of the adipose fat that, at that point it, will consume muscle mass. This occurs at the very end stage of starvation and is, unless the human starts to eat, followed by death.

A couple of points:

It makes no sense for the body to consume muscle when there's adipose fat (males have about 5% essential fat, women 10 to 12%). The body stores fat for the express reason of creating a reserve. Why would the body not consume the adipose fat (something that goes on all the time) in favor of consuming muscle?

It's very hard to measure muscle mass. Yes, there are consumer-level instruments that measure body fat, lean body mass, etc. but lean body mass is not the same as muscle mass. My little Omron body fat meter measures body fat so I can back into a lean body mass number but I cant get to a muscle mass reading.

Have you worked with instrumentation and a subject audience where you have tracked that data? If so, could you share those results with us?

If not, it would be great if someone could post medically-based links on the correlation between weight loss, loss of loss of lean body mass and loss of muscle mass.

abigailhutch

Bump....I too would like to know more about this testing!

sleepy184

I too would love to know whats invovled. It sounds just what I need.

greasygriddle_wechnage

bump

psuLemon

So I finally coughed up some money and got some metabolic testing done. After months of busting my *kitten* and no results I needed answers! My RMR is a little above 1600. So just laying in bed all day I'd burn 1600.

The trainer/dietician said that on rest days I should eat 1700, moderate days when I teach once for example do 1900 and big days like Thursday when I teach 3 times do 2200 but not more. Also I need to fit in some lower intensity workouts because with my other test it showed when I was in my two lower zones I burned 77% fat. The higher zones that I'm normally in teaching spin I'm burning mostly carbs. Hence no fat loss even with 1000 calorie a day burns.

What is REALLY different is I don't do net. So If my 1600 is my RMR and I burn 1000 calories teaching two classes one day, the MOST I'm to eat is 2200 which would have me net 1200. 400 calories UNDER my base. This goes against most of what I've been told here at MFP. I'll try it though for a few weeks, add some low intensity stuff...add even MORE protein....and see where I land.

This isn't making sense to me. So you're going to eat 2,200 and your RMR is 1700... You burn about 1000 calories on some days. So you will eat 2,200 calories. What about your daily activity, just seems like you're counting calories based off "RMR" + "calories burned" what about daily activity calories?

Also, Even if you burn a lot of sugar, the sugar has to be replaced, how does it get replaced, where does the energy come from to replace the sugar? from the fat. So it doesn't matter if you burn mostly sugar.

This is where I was leading with it as well. I believe in her last thread, the math showed 2400-2600 ish calories based on her teaching several classes (body pump and stuff like that).

ATT949

As DL121004 has posted, the idea of "fat burning" is a subject of disagreement. I have a Polar HRM that focuses on "fat burning" and Garmin Training Center (I use it with my Garmin 305) recently added "fat burning". My reading, which I did last year, indicates that it's a toss up so, for me, the most important thing is calorie burning, regardless of the source.

One of my concerns about the "fat burning"mantra is that it's prone to be promoted simply because of its marketing appeal. I suspect that people are far more attracted to a device that holds out promise of "fat burning" compared to a device that talks about "burning calories".

Personally, I disregard "fat burning" — when I was losing weight, I didn't care whether it was fat or glucose burning. And, during my loss phases, I lost an average of 0.78 pounds per day.

cruiseking

So let me understand this: If run a 7 minute mile, long enough to burn 1000 calories, I may lose less fat, than if I walked a 12 minute mile, long enough to burn 1000 calories? To me that seems like saying 3+3+3 is more than 7+2.

blessmy5

Bump! Interested also.

Rae6503

Have you considered getting a BMF?

chardondave

So I finally coughed up some money and got some metabolic testing done. After months of busting my *kitten* and no results I needed answers! My RMR is a little above 1600. So just laying in bed all day I'd burn 1600.

The trainer/dietician said that on rest days I should eat 1700, moderate days when I teach once for example do 1900 and big days like Thursday when I teach 3 times do 2200 but not more. Also I need to fit in some lower intensity workouts because with my other test it showed when I was in my two lower zones I burned 77% fat. The higher zones that I'm normally in teaching spin I'm burning mostly carbs. Hence no fat loss even with 1000 calorie a day burns.

What is REALLY different is I don't do net. So If my 1600 is my RMR and I burn 1000 calories teaching two classes one day, the MOST I'm to eat is 2200 which would have me net 1200. 400 calories UNDER my base. This goes against most of what I've been told here at MFP. I'll try it though for a few weeks, add some low intensity stuff...add even MORE protein....and see where I land.

This isn't making sense to me. So you're going to eat 2,200 and your RMR is 1700... You burn about 1000 calories on some days. So you will eat 2,200 calories. What about your daily activity, just seems like you're counting calories based off "RMR" + "calories burned" what about daily activity calories?

Also, Even if you burn a lot of sugar, the sugar has to be replaced, how does it get replaced, where does the energy come from to replace the sugar? from the fat. So it doesn't matter if you burn mostly sugar.

Im assuming the numbers the OP is using are based off of the Harris Benedict equation. So if RMR is 1600 on a sedentary day, 1600 x 1.2 = 1920. 1920 burned-1700 consumed = 220 deficit for that day.

graysmom2005

This lower intensity is on TOP of my high intensity. That's important too and I didn't believe in zones before either...but if I just go by math, with the amount I'm burning, weight should be falling off. It's not. I also lost weight when recovering from a stress fracture and had to lower my intensity spinning....so for ME it could be true.

DL121004

My understanding, and with some help from thinking through how the body works, is that muscle mass is lost through atrophy. It's only in the late stages of "starvation mode" (the real one) that the body has digested all of the adipose fat that, at that point it, will consume muscle mass. This occurs at the very end stage of starvation and is, unless the human starts to eat, followed by death.

A couple of points:

It makes no sense for the body to consume muscle when there's adipose fat (males have about 5% essential fat, women 10 to 12%). The body stores fat for the express reason of creating a reserve. Why would the body not consume the adipose fat (something that goes on all the time) in favor of consuming muscle?

But the body will, unless actively resisted, lose a combination of both fat and lean mass.

It's a somewhat complicated issue, but true. IIRC, diets where you are consuming at least your BMR will tend to lose more fat than lean while consuming less than BMR your lean % will go up and fat % go down. But you lose both.

Think of it this way. It takes muscle (lean mass) to transport an excess of body weight around effectively; much less when when weighing less. Also, take a 300 pound person who is 30% body fat. If you went to 210 pounds, a 100% fat loss would mean *no* body fat -- i.e., you'd be dead. The body has regulatory processes where it balances out lean and fat mass.

Captain_Tightpants

My question is the same as Pu's - where's the basic daily activity multiplier?

If you're as active as you sound, your multiplier is going to be x1.5 or even as high as x1.8.

1600 x 1.5 = 2400 maintenance.

Knock off 500 a day for 1lb a week loss and you should be somewhere around 1900 BEFORE exercise cals.

DL121004

My question is the same as Pu's - where's the basic daily activity multiplier?

If you're as active as you sound, your multiplier is going to be x1.5 or even as high as x1.8.

1600 x 1.5 = 2400 maintenance.

Knock off 500 a day for 1lb a week loss and you should be somewhere around 1900 BEFORE exercise cals.

I almost hate to bring this up, but... {breathes in...}

That's not quite true. An activity multiplier of 1.8 (actually 1.725) has built in 6-7 days per week of intense exercise.