Got the metabolic testing results. EVERYTHING is different.

graysmom2005

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.

This isn't an issue of lean mass and fat — my question has to do with loss of muscle mass.

I understand that lean mass is lost - between 1/15/11 and 8/5/11, I lost 62 pounds of fat and 15 pounds of LBM, 5 of which was water. I lost lotsa inches, too so add in a couple of pounds of skin lost so that's only 8 pounds of muscle mass for 62 pounds down.

What I'd love to find is a medically sourced document that provides detail about this. Per my other posting, if the body creates adipose fat for the sole purpose of being able to access that fat when caloric intake drops, why would it disregard all of that energy rich fat (which exists for no other purpose) and go after muscle which, I'd assume, is harder to break down and takes longer to break down. As they say in the South, "That jess don't set right."

I sincerely appreciate your feedback.

Sorry, I just saw your post and I will see if I can find a creditable source that backs that. I know from your experience you didn't lose too much lean muscle mass during your weight loss (which is awesome) but I have seen many others on this board that have lost 30% of their weight from lean muscle mass (all being women). i can tell you, I have tracked my body fat as well as having a professional track my body fat over the course of my weight loss. I lost 20 lbs and 0 from lean muscle mass. Now, I will note, this is evaluating body fat from body fat calipers so it may not be as advance as the machines you were hooked up to, so I am sure there is some margin of error. I, also, might not be a great case as I did not have a substantial amount of weight to lose or body fat and it may be more apparent in those that are categorized as morbidly obese.


I will note, that threw several of these threads by the OP, i have and still will suggest 2400 calories based on the math. If you teach classes for 6-8 hours you will burn a ton of calories, even though you may not be full participating. And correct me if I am wrong Graysmom, but you are also working out after your classes? Between these two, it's probably very easy to say you are burning 1000 calories a day. And large deficits can cause an issues as noted by the info posted from bodyrecomposition.com from another user.

Now, where it's great to have a HRM and RMR testing, it still leaves the most important thing out of the equation; TDEE. I think it would be a worthwhile investment to get bodymedia/fitbit to estimate your TDEE. You may be surprised that it's possible you are burning well over 3000 calories a day, which will back that 1600/2200 won't be enough calories.

I mean, you may be right! I don't know. All I know is I was trying to eat back my calories, which not even doing all of them could result in 2300-2500 calorie days many days...and I either stayed the same weight or gained. I've messed around with the calories over and over and over again and nothing has really worked. So for a few weeks I'll add tons of protein, add some lower intensity, and keep the calories around 1700-2200. If it doesn't work...I'll see if netting 1607 works...but that would be thousands and thousands of calories.

CallmeSbo

bump

fitmommy02

I was curious, since a few weeks have passed have you seen a difference in your weight? Thanks for sharing!

RAFValentina

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.

Douglas, you're all over it like a rash... You're so right... I just got stronger in such a huge deficit and lost body fat, not muscle!

Also...interested which doctor the OP saw, how much it cost and was it worth it...i.e. are you seeing results as a result of knowing how much to eat!?

DiannaMoorer

Have you had some good results yet?

heybales

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.

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.

Wrong physiology actually, undereating for your workout level easily can start burning muscle for fuel - no matter how much fat you got left.

You are referring to starvation mode and body's response if no exercise.

You probably heard of the "wall" recreational marathoners hit.

That is the wall of glucose stores having been used up, and muscle breakdown is occurring, there is a shift. Glucose is burned with the fat, ratio depends on the intensity. Fat has been burned the whole time, and continues to be burned.
Fat burning zone is great for endurance, because you can get 50-60% of energy from carbs, rest from fat.

You have limited carb stores, when the liver's 400-450 are gone, and muscles need more, the muscle stores of 1500-2000 are tapped. At this point however, the brain still needs glucose, and muscle stores can NOT be put into the bloodstream for that purpose.
Muscle will be broken down.

When the muscle glucose stores are depleted and more is needed to keep burning fat for a workout, then muscle is broken down to convert to glucose. Fat does not convert to glucose.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how much fat you got left.
That is the wall reached when you go at too high intensity for your training level. If you do it right, you hit no wall.

This exact same effect CAN be hit after several days of intense exercise. Your daily diet can't provide enough carbs to make up for your workout, let alone all other daily activity taking some carbs.

Eat 1200, 50% carbs - 600 cal of carbs.

Spin class intense burn of 1000 cal, 70% carb burn - 700 cal of carbs.
You went through the liver stores, you went into the muscle stores, and some muscle is broken down during/after the workout for brain function glucose needs.

Your daily eating of 600 leaves the stores in general 100 short, but because that 600 tops off liver first, the muscle second, it really got left out.

Do that routine several days in a row, with all other daily activity using some glucose for energy. Shoot, even at rest, about 30% is glucose.

You lose weight because 1 gram glucose holds 2.7 gram water with it, as the week goes on. Finally with no stores, muscle is broken down, real good weight loss then, but now less muscle to hold glucose - gets worse the next week.

Oh yeah, this can get ugly if you eat very small and exercise very intense.

All this info is in any basic physiology book, online articles, ect. Just the way the body operates.
Different ratios of carbs/fat usage for energy needs depending on intensity, and limited stores of carbs, and what is broken down to provide more when depleted.

heybales

I had some testing done last year and the only info I got from the "vendor" was my BMR.

They gave you a BMR figure?

Did they have you sleep for several hours with equipment on?

If not, they estimated BMR from hopefully RMR, at least better chance of accuracy.
Would have been nice for them to also give you the RMR figure, then you can do the math your self to back into possible BMR and to know if it is above or below expected healthy range.

The Cunningham Formula (RMR):
RMR = 500 + (22 x LBM)
, where LBM is the lean body mass in kg

So you can back into a LBM that would match up with your RMR. If you really know your LBM, this tells you if your RMR is within range of healthy estimate, or been suppressed by undereating.

And of course, with LBM, can use:
The Katch-McArdle Formula (BMR):
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)
, where LBM is the lean body mass in kg.

Again, backing into what BMR would be based on estimated LBM.

heybales

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.

So that means you have the RMR of a person with 50 kg of LBM, and that person would have a BMR of about 1450.
If your LBM is actually higher than that, your RMR is below what it could be, of a much smaller person - bummer.

So you are literally at the happy state with classes that you could eat at maintenance for non-exercise activities, and allow your exercise to create the deficit then.

Except you probably burn more than 7000 in a week, so you probably need to eat more each day so the deficit isn't so great.

Why not do that instead of trying to figure out a deficit and safe eat back amount?

That would mean setting MFP Diet/Fitness profile to Maintain weight, activity level for what the non-exercise day is.

And then enter workout calories, but don't take the credits to eat back.
MFP will still show you "in 5 weeks ..."

And on days the green Net daily goal is more than 1000 in the clear, you eat that much extra back.

Any rest day is a make up day.

grandmamere

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.

What is VO2?

heybales

What is VO2?

Amount of oxygen your body can make use of during exercise, usually VO2max is given, with HR at that point.

Training can improve this number, which means if VO2max goes up, you can workout at same HR you did last year, and it is easier on your system, and more fat burning then previously, but also less calorie burn.

You can self test to decent estimate.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

rileysowner

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.

That is simply not true. Oh yes, percentage wise a lower intensity workout will take more energy from fat, that is a physiological truth for everyone, not just you. The thing is, those low intensity workouts burn very little calories. Were your high intensity workouts take less energy from fat while working out percentage wise, but they burn a lot more calories, and because of that still burn more fat than the low intensity workouts. Also, even if your energy is not being taken from fat while working at high intensity, it still creates and energy deficit (and an large one at that). The energy to replace that has to come from somewhere after you are done working out, guess where your body gets it when you are eating at a calorie deficit? I hope you guessed your fat, because that is what your fat is there for, it is the surplus energy you have taken in which is then used by the body when it doesn't have enough.

This is an ongoing process all the time in your body. When you eat the excess calories that are not needed right there and then are stored either as glycogen in your liver and muscles or as fat. Then between meals those energy stores are used. When glycogen (carbs) are depleted your body switches over to using fat preserving the remaining glycogen for the vital functions that absolutely require it.

In short my point is stick to your high intensity workouts. You will burn more and that is better for weight loss.

rileysowner

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.

You're forgetting about the risks of high intensity training(replying to your blog). Increased risk of injury, increased risk of over training, which can lead to depression and emotional issues. Lack of energy due to glycogen depletion, more hungry (so you want to eat more) etc... I made a topic " how to hack exercise calories". You can burn more calories, be safer, and better, improve fat burning enzymes, by working out at a lower intensity. I'll agree with the minute per minute, high intensity burns more calories.

Of course long duration lower intensity exercise carries the very real danger of repetitive stress injuries as well. When I walked my dog 3-5 hours a day I eventually started to have problems with this. Sure it was great exercise, but the repetitive stress injuries due to the required duration are just as much of a danger as possible injuries from high intensity training. The thing is, most people have 30 minutes to and hour to workout, they don't have 5 hours. If I person is careful to do proper warm-up and cool-down, and to make sure they are doing the exercise correctly allowing for enough rest between exercise sessions, there is no reason high intensity needs to be any more dangerous. In fact low intensity has the inherent risk that because of the low intensity people will not realize the potential for injury and will ignore the warning signs.

rileysowner

Well you are right. We can argue back and forth, but the FACT is, I've been killing myself with my workouts and spending most of them in my highest zones. And I haven't lost any weight really in a couple of YEARS. With many days having 1000 calorie deficits. So obviously for my body something isn't working. It just isn't. If it was PURELY calories in/out I would be fighting to keep weight on. So I'll try this and see. I can't lie. I've been hungry by the end of the night, but one of my xmas pounds has already come off. Only time will tell!

This is at least a part of the issue. Looking at your ticker you don't have much to lose, that means a 1000 calorie deficit is simply way too big. From what I see even 500 might be too big, but it is much more reasonable than 1000. 250 a day would probably be better.

heybales

When glycogen (carbs) are depleted your body switches over to using fat preserving the remaining glycogen for the vital functions that absolutely require it.

That is absolutely false.

You burn varying ratios of fat and carbs all day long, more fat at lower intensities, more carbs at higher level, until you anaerobic and 100% carbs.
You can NOT burn 100% fat.

Best you'll get is 70-80% if your training has focused on that, and that is ONLY at sleep level.

Even the ill-named "fat-burning zone" is closer to 40-50% fat burning if you are lucky with the 50%. And lowers from there as intensity goes up.

Glucose will be almost wiped out and glucagon will signal for the body to increase blood sugar level when they start dipping low, if nothing else available, muscle will be broken down.

Fat can NOT be converted to glucose.