Got the metabolic testing results. EVERYTHING is different.

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.

the2aces

In regards to everyone who asked what the BMR test consisted of, I don't know exactly how it's calculated but I do know that all I did was breath into a tube for about 3 minutes. Done!

msiamjan

I had to run on the treadmill, with a mask on, that was hooked to a machine reading gases. I also was wearing a HRM. I ran at various intesity levels, up to the point when I was unable to go more. That part took around 15 minutes. The whole session ran an hour.

lauehorn

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.

This. The multiplier INCLUDES the exercise and daily activities. The alternative is to use a base multiplier of 1.2/1.3 to cover daily activity and then log intentional exercise separately. So, if 1700 is her base, add a few hundred for daily burn (x1.2), to get 2000 for maintenance, and then add exercise.

Depending on what she has to lose, I recommend cutting a % off the total rather than just arbitrarily slashing 500-1000 calories. For many, cutting a fixed number for loss results in cutting too many calories. In general, cutting 15 - 25% of the total daily requirement is where you want to be for solid and long term weight loss. Start at the higher % if you have a lot to lose and then transition downwards to no more than 15% as you near your goal (less than 20 lbs). This ensures your body has what it needs to function and helps preserve lean muscle mass, which is ultimately important to how you look, how your clothes fit, and most importantly being able to maintain the lifestyle change because you aren't deprived.

graysmom2005

I had to run on the treadmill, with a mask on, that was hooked to a machine reading gases. I also was wearing a HRM. I ran at various intesity levels, up to the point when I was unable to go more. That part took around 15 minutes. The whole session ran an hour.

^^^^ this. I laid in a recliner with a HRM and oxygen mask on. 15 minutes. Then I wore the mask on a bike and he kept upping the watts/rpms. We got my exercise metabolic rate from that.

lauehorn

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.

How did you find one of these doctors or places to do this? I wouldn't even know where to begin searching.

lauehorn

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.

Actually, your body doesn't save lean muscle mass for last. Lean muscle uses more energy than fat, which is why your body will convert muscle to energy sooner than fat - in order to preserve energy. That's how starvation mode works. That's also why many recommend slow weight loss over time in order to keep the body from using lean muscle mass instead of fat.

amerrill1

bump

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.

How did you find one of these doctors or places to do this? I wouldn't even know where to begin searching.

My HMO has a health promotion division that does various things like this. But, I also did an internet search on fitness testing, and found several commercial outfits, and their pricing was comparable--some were better.

sheila0321

I too had this testing. 1570 a day here. I was told to eat that many calories and only half of my exercise calories using my HRM. No great weight drop here. I spin 3 days a week. 5 days cardio and 3 days weight train. ( on a normal week when my family nor myself has the stomach bug, or head cold going around) Interesting.

Dave198lbs

You can burn more calories, be safer, and better, improve fat burning enzymes, by working out at a lower intensity.

this old myth has been debunked on several fronts by several studies. The truth is, lower intensity is easier which is the main reason some people hang onto this justification to not really bust out a hard workout.

If your fitness level is a beginner or otherwise, there is nothing wrong with low intensity. But know the real reason and dont fool yourself by relying on this outdated myth....it isnt more beneficial to not work harder.