I had my RMR Tested.... here is what it said.

_Kitten_Kate

So, I googled RMR testing. And found a place close by that does it. Cost $40. I went in, she explained it to me, clipped my nose and a breathed in and out of my mouth thru this tube for about 10 mins.
The results are:
Well, First... I am 37, female, 5'10 and 240.

My RMR is 1757. They estimate I burn 525 in daily activity and 183 in exercise. With a total daily energy output of 2465.
For me to maintain my current weight it suggests I eat 1757-2282 cals.
The Weight loss zone is 1407-1757
And medically supervised wt loss below 1407.

The results are only slightly less than what the various formulas on line gave me. (range of 1690-1890)

A side note... medical manufacturer that makes the machine is Korr.(just in case it was important to you)
Other info given.
Measured REE 7.35kJoule/day(1757)
Predicted REE 7.75 (1852 kcal/day)
EST TEE 9.55 (2282 kcal/day)
VO2 254ml/min
FeO2 15.96% expired oxygen

(est TEE=1.30xREE)

She also said I should be eating more carbs to lose wt. I have been between 25-40%... she says I should eat about
50-60%. ... that's the only way I will lose fat.

**Can someone please explain this to me?
I thought that carbs not burned turns to fat.. and thus you burn fat for energy if there is not reserved of carbs.
What am I missing?

Her Macro suggestion is 15-20% Protein, 55-60% Carb and 25-30% Fat.

So, I need to decrease my cals a bit and increase carbs....whole grains. And she also said increase fiber to 25g.

Why is it that EVERY person or place gives such varied information... and nothing is working for me!!!!

Please share thoughts, suggestions, ....and if you look at my diary... look at days previous to last week... because last week I didn't really give a crap.LOL

heybales

As this was likely a tech using a tool, their recommendations beyond the ability to use the tool and give the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Like nutrition rec's.

Also be aware, that outside the RMR, anything added on to that are estimates, unless they had the machine hooked up to you all day long. So measured REE (RMR) is 1757, but predicted is 1852 for age/height/weight. So that just means you may have slightly less LBM than expected, or metabolism is slightly slower. Bodyfat% analysis would answer that question.

I do find it curious how they could estimate your TDEE as 2465 in one breath, and in the next say to maintain weight eat 1757-2282.

If that came out of someone's mouth, I'd say thank you very much, I'll take my stats now, and be on my way. Because to say that means they didn't understand some basic concept. TDEE is what maintains weight. Ugh. And everything else they say outside the actual stats is very suspect and just spouting who knows what.
Because that also means they don't understand the implications of eating below your RMR on constant basis, when you can see there is a spread of 750 about between suggested TDEE and your RMR already, which would be weight loss all by itself.

Oh, your RMR should be above the BMR estimates that are given, RMR includes other metabolism functions above what BMR does.

Now, you also have a BMF, excellent time to see how much you can trust it.

Now time to compare from the BMF stats what you just got measured.

Find in your BMF stats, perhaps during this exact time, or similar sitting down doing nothing time (not sleep though), the top section for calories burned per minute. Pick a period of 15-30 min of same activity, perhaps you watched TV or read a book last night for that long.
What was that total calorie burn, and for how many minutes?
Total cal's / period minutes * 1440 (minutes in day) = BMF estimate of RMR.

What was BMF estimate?

Now do the same thing with stretch of sleeping time with all values at lowest levels, now what is BMF BMR estimate?

If you can trust your BMF now, or by multiplier know how much it is off, at least for daily non-exercise activity, or perhaps including all walking related things - then you should simply be able to subtract 500-750 daily, or NET at RMR level or above.

So the BMF site is useful for this, because you can just put in your goals you want to take say 750 off daily burn, and it will adjust it each day.
Another friend on the list heard about an interesting method to use with MFP.
Look at several days, and using that calorie burn area, look at your burn before midnight, and see what point in the evening you have about that many deficit calories that you are normally going to burn.

So say your deficit is 750. You look at calories burned section, and start at midnight, stretch the slider backwards until it says 750 burned. So perhaps you reach 7 pm on avg each day, and you don't normally do any exercise after that point either.
So at 7pm each day, you see what BMF says your calorie burn that day is so far - that's what you eat that day.
That will normally float around the same number probably, but takes into account doing big mountain walk, longer walking dogs, ect.
And then more intense workouts with HRM used for calorie burn (leave the BMF off-body), you eat those back to maintain your 750 deficit.

Or to keep it simple.
MFP BMR is 1854 estimate (obviously higher than true, as is known effect)
Set MFP to Activity level Lightly Active, with 1.35 multiplier, this sets to 2503, close to estimate, and sets base for math.
Set weight loss goal to 1 1/2 lbs weekly, so with 750 off, brings daily goal down to 1753 or about.

Or right to RMR.

So that is your NET goal. Eat back exercise calories where avg HR was over 120.

heybales

Well, First... I am 37, female, 5'10 and 240.

A side note... medical manufacturer that makes the machine is Korr.(just in case it was important to you)
Other info given.
Measured REE 7.35kJoule/day(1757)
Predicted REE 7.75 (1852 kcal/day)
EST TEE 9.55 (2282 kcal/day)
VO2 254ml/min
FeO2 15.96% expired oxygen

Too bad they didn't tell you the VCO2 value to match the VO2 value. This would have provided the stats required to tell you what percentage of fat and carbs you burn at rest. Which would give a nice indication of aerobic capacity.
You should really call them back and ask about that, the matching VCO2 value to the VO2 value during the test, the machine must have it probably.
I guess since air is 21% oxygen, and your expired air still had 16%, only needing 5% might be meaningful, not sure how though. Since nitrogen stays the same, the 5% is the CO2, but without a volume measure, not enough stats.

Anyway, interesting backtracking that can be done from the RMR of 1757, using body composition.
So Cunningham formula for RMR using body comp -

RMR = 500 + (22 * LBM kg)
1757 = 500 + (22 * LBM kg)
LBM kg = 57.14, or 126 lbs.

So, a person with LBM of 126 lbs is expected to have that RMR. If you have more, your RMR is lower, if you have less, your RMR is higher, than expected.

Now on to Katch BMR using body comp -

BMR = 370 + (21.6 * LBM kg)
BMR = 370 + (21.6 * 57.14)
BMR = 1604

So indeed below the Mifflin BMR estimate of 1854, which is of course going to be inflated outside healthy weight.

But it is also the BMR of someone with 126 lbs LBM. And the energy requirements for supporting LBM are pretty accurate.

Just tidbits.

_Kitten_Kate

Heybales....
All the stuff I posted came off the print out from the machine. She didn't tell me anything other than that I should eat more carbs...Which makes no sense to me. ??


She also did a BF% with one of the things you hold in front of you... it's 39.7%.
(about the same as the fat2fitradio... body measurement BF%...39.3%.)

So... RMR is higher than BMR?.... So should we assume that my BMR is ....what? 1400? 1500?... And maybe eating 1600-1700 would be the spot for me?

I haven't worn the BMF lately.

But previous... 29 mins=53 cals....=1.83x1440=2635 cals... that's sitting.
Sleeping=24mins=31 cals=1.3x1440=1872 cals
So? what is that...1% difference? ...or less?

Its all so overwhelming for my head....

So, if I eat 1700ish... I eat back exercise cals only if HR is over 120?

_Kitten_Kate

Well, First... I am 37, female, 5'10 and 240.

A side note... medical manufacturer that makes the machine is Korr.(just in case it was important to you)
Other info given.
Measured REE 7.35kJoule/day(1757)
Predicted REE 7.75 (1852 kcal/day)
EST TEE 9.55 (2282 kcal/day)
VO2 254ml/min
FeO2 15.96% expired oxygen

Too bad they didn't tell you the VCO2 value to match the VO2 value. This would have provided the stats required to tell you what percentage of fat and carbs you burn at rest. Which would give a nice indication of aerobic capacity.
You should really call them back and ask about that, the matching VCO2 value to the VO2 value during the test, the machine must have it probably.
I guess since air is 21% oxygen, and your expired air still had 16%, only needing 5% might be meaningful, not sure how though. Since nitrogen stays the same, the 5% is the CO2, but without a volume measure, not enough stats.

Anyway, interesting backtracking that can be done from the RMR of 1757, using body composition.
So Cunningham formula for RMR using body comp -

RMR = 500 + (22 * LBM kg)
1757 = 500 + (22 * LBM kg)
LBM kg = 57.14, or 126 lbs.

So, a person with LBM of 126 lbs is expected to have that RMR. If you have more, your RMR is lower, if you have less, your RMR is higher, than expected.

Now on to Katch BMR using body comp -

BMR = 370 + (21.6 * LBM kg)
BMR = 370 + (21.6 * 57.14)
BMR = 1604

So indeed below the Mifflin BMR estimate of 1854, which is of course going to be inflated outside healthy weight.

But it is also the BMR of someone with 126 lbs LBM. And the energy requirements for supporting LBM are pretty accurate.

Just tidbits.

The printout did give volume info...not sure if it is what you are looking for. The lady didn't have much info for me really.
here is the rest...
Minute Volume 6.67 liters/min
Tidal Volume 629ml
Respiratory rate 10.9 breaths/min

heybales

She also did a BF% with one of the things you hold in front of you... it's 39.7%.
(about the same as the fat2fitradio... body measurement BF%...39.3%.)

So... RMR is higher than BMR?.... So should we assume that my BMR is ....what? 1400? 1500?... And maybe eating 1600-1700 would be the spot for me?

I haven't worn the BMF lately.

But previous... 29 mins=53 cals....=1.83x1440=2635 cals... that's sitting.
Sleeping=24mins=31 cals=1.3x1440=1872 cals
So? what is that...1% difference? ...or less?

Its all so overwhelming for my head....

So, if I eat 1700ish... I eat back exercise cals only if HR is over 120?

So BMR I mentioned above, 1604 by body composition based on RMR.
By purely body comp if you trust that 39.7% BF, it could be 1788. (pretty close to BMF 1872 while sleeping).
So RMR is 153 above BMR. Safety zone to keep.

And if that BF% is to be trusted, then you have LBM of 145 lbs. Excellent.
But estimated LBM from RMR is 126, so you have much better potential than RMR indicates. Which also means it's lower metabolism than expected. (your BF% would have to be 47.5 to be 126 LBM, and that bodyfat device isn't off by that much).

Since you were eating higher for a week or so now, we won't chalk it up to slower metabolism from under-eating, just slower in general.

I'd say follow advice in my post above as to setting up MFP - that way it lowers goal automatically as you log lower weight.
And NET'ing there would protect your BMR being slightly better hopefully someday.
And don't eat back walking with HR below 120 avg.

So if you have no success with more than a 1000 deficit (BMF said sitting at 2635 - net goal 1753), than something is very wrong. Scale is broken, food weighing scale is broken, HRM estimate of calorie burn is horribly off to overcome not only a 1000 cal deficit, but also the workout calories, someone sneaking olive oil into everything you eat, ect.

So there are several reasons why that above goal should have some impact.
You are starting at a safe lower level, and your deficit is above that, everything from your measured RMR and up that is non-intense-exercise activity, so at least 1000 or more.

_Kitten_Kate

Ok.. All sounds peachy.
Just want to clarify...

So, you think my RMR is slightly lower than the test said because of the body fat % ... did I understand that correctly? OR based on the BF% with LBM of 145... it is higher... didn't quite catch all that.
Also...
Are you saying I should set my MFP goals to 1 1/2lb lose per week... which puts the cals at 1750.... And NOT eat back exercise cals?...
OR set it around 1500(2lbs per week) and eat back exercise cals?(essentially the same... kinda?)

CallMeCupcakeDammit

Yours told you to eat more carbs? Mine told me to eat less! I told her I had my macros set to 40/30/30, and she told me that was good for the average person, but I should aim for 130 g per day, 35-40 g per meal, and 15-20 g per snack. I have yet to meet that, though. Except maybe today. We'll see how dinner pans out after I log it. My RMR is 2002. I wish I had the printout with me, I just took it out of my purse over the weekend.

secretlobster

Carbs don't have much to do with weight loss but I wouldn't ever tell someone to INCREASE their carbohydrate intake unless they ate zero vegetables.

It sounds like you want to NET closer to 1400-1500 calories in order to lose weight

heybales

So, you think my RMR is slightly lower than the test said because of the body fat % ... did I understand that correctly? OR based on the BF% with LBM of 145... it is higher... didn't quite catch all that.
Also...
Are you saying I should set my MFP goals to 1 1/2lb lose per week... which puts the cals at 1750.... And NOT eat back exercise cals?...
OR set it around 1500(2lbs per week) and eat back exercise cals?(essentially the same... kinda?)

Your measured RMR was 1757. I trust that.
Your calculated RMR based on body composition (bodyfat), (if you trust that 39.7% measurement), is 1963. I trust that.

The studies based on body comp are pretty small margin of error, it just takes so much energy to supply to cells, mostly to LBM cells, not much variance. And that is actually underestimated when there are more fat cells that also receive energy.

So yes, it would appear you either have a metabolism 200 cal less per hr than expected, or you are actually suppressed. I would tend towards the latter, but willing to leave it up in the air for now, because ...

Even if suppressed, you should still have a almost 1000 cal deficit NETting around 1750, because your BMF said just sitting would burn 2600 daily. Your TDEE is probably upwards of 3000 easily.

The MFP settings have nothing to do with exercise, so as normal, if using their method, you eat true exercise back.
So yes to setting up Lightly Active, 1.5 loss weekly, AND eat back exercise calories.
The tweak to that I suggested, walking with HR below 120 is mainly burning fat, so no need to refeed fat burned. You do need the carbs though.
So if you are still doing 125 g of carbs daily, follow the advice of the Paleo and Primal sites where they admit more carbs if doing more cardio is required.
Or if you do walking for 4hrs or more below 120, still a lot of carbs burned.

_Kitten_Kate

So, you think my RMR is slightly lower than the test said because of the body fat % ... did I understand that correctly? OR based on the BF% with LBM of 145... it is higher... didn't quite catch all that.
Also...
Are you saying I should set my MFP goals to 1 1/2lb lose per week... which puts the cals at 1750.... And NOT eat back exercise cals?...
OR set it around 1500(2lbs per week) and eat back exercise cals?(essentially the same... kinda?)

Your measured RMR was 1757. I trust that.
Your calculated RMR based on body composition (bodyfat), (if you trust that 39.7% measurement), is 1963. I trust that.

The studies based on body comp are pretty small margin of error, it just takes so much energy to supply to cells, mostly to LBM cells, not much variance. And that is actually underestimated when there are more fat cells that also receive energy.

So yes, it would appear you either have a metabolism 200 cal less per hr than expected, or you are actually suppressed. I would tend towards the latter, but willing to leave it up in the air for now, because ...

Even if suppressed, you should still have a almost 1000 cal deficit NETting around 1750, because your BMF said just sitting would burn 2600 daily. Your TDEE is probably upwards of 3000 easily.

The MFP settings have nothing to do with exercise, so as normal, if using their method, you eat true exercise back.
So yes to setting up Lightly Active, 1.5 loss weekly, AND eat back exercise calories.
The tweak to that I suggested, walking with HR below 120 is mainly burning fat, so no need to refeed fat burned. You do need the carbs though.
So if you are still doing 125 g of carbs daily, follow the advice of the Paleo and Primal sites where they admit more carbs if doing more cardio is required.
Or if you do walking for 4hrs or more below 120, still a lot of carbs burned.

heybales,

Thanks for all the info. I am not totally following the Primal deal... but I am eating that way for the most part... though I have peanutbutter occasionally... and I have a few other things that are deemed NOT primal and an abomination. LOL
I had my carbs at 25%... and I wasn't worried if I went over... not that big of a deal to me.
But you think I should NET 1750? or that's just eating..and net around 1500?
I just enjoy the way I feel not having them for the most part....though I do get low energy some times.

And I have days where I completely go off the grid with Low carb and eat whatever I want. Like tonight and the yummy baked potato!

I think I am going to split the difference and try to hit at around 1500-1600 cals. Keeping it lower carb ...except for high cardio days.


@ rachmox..... yes... the woman said eat 55-60% Carbs! Crazy! I know... even her lil college intern said..."you'll have more energy"...

CallMeCupcakeDammit

I'm giving my body a little time to adjust to the increase in calories (she wants me to eat between 1850-1900), but if I don't see a difference I'll try harder to lower my carbs and see if that changes anything. I don't eat much meat, so I get a lot of my protein from nuts and beans. I'm still trying to digest what heybales wrote!

heybales

But you think I should NET 1750? or that's just eating..and net around 1500?
I just enjoy the way I feel not having them for the most part....though I do get low energy some times.

And I have days where I completely go off the grid with Low carb and eat whatever I want. Like tonight and the yummy baked potato!

I think I am going to split the difference and try to hit at around 1500-1600 cals. Keeping it lower carb ...except for high cardio days.

I somehow knew you wouldn't want to truly follow the numbers even when you saw them and what they tested to.

Because I've said 2 times, the MFP net goal is set to 1750 or abouts, and you eat back exercise calories.

But that scares you and you really don't want to try it.

I know you've had many weeks of plateau and trying different things. Have you ever stuck to one level for more than 2 wks? Honestly stuck to it.

It literally can take that long or longer.

So really think about those numbers again.
Your resting metabolism, if you laid around perhaps reading or vegging in front of the TV - upwards of 1750 being burned to accomplish the work of being awake right now. No other activity.

And you want to feed your body less than that?

And when you add on daily activity you actually are great at doing, even your BMF said you would burn upwards of 2700 just sitting all day. Add on all your work, and walking dogs, cooking, cleaning, ect. You have to be around 3000.

In your effort to somehow make a potential over a 1000 deficit even bigger - you are only going to shoot yourself in the metabolism, and make it actually worse.

Understand not doing the Primal or Paleo totally. They are really setup not to be diets that require watching cal's, just a new way of eating which normally just causes folks to cut cal's because of not being hungry.

temp666777

"She also said I should be eating more carbs to lose wt"

She's a complete idiot. She's just a minimum wage employee, repeating something from her guide sheet - like a McDonalds worker who has a formula for what to say.

If you are interested in the science of carbohydrates, you'll have to read books:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Without-Bread-Low-Carbohydrate-Diet/dp/0658001701

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Programming-Strength-Training-Rippetoe/dp/0982522703

Hope it helps!

_Kitten_Kate

But you think I should NET 1750? or that's just eating..and net around 1500?
I just enjoy the way I feel not having them for the most part....though I do get low energy some times.

And I have days where I completely go off the grid with Low carb and eat whatever I want. Like tonight and the yummy baked potato!

I think I am going to split the difference and try to hit at around 1500-1600 cals. Keeping it lower carb ...except for high cardio days.

I somehow knew you wouldn't want to truly follow the numbers even when you saw them and what they tested to.

Because I've said 2 times, the MFP net goal is set to 1750 or abouts, and you eat back exercise calories.

But that scares you and you really don't want to try it.

I know you've had many weeks of plateau and trying different things. Have you ever stuck to one level for more than 2 wks? Honestly stuck to it.

It literally can take that long or longer.

So really think about those numbers again.
Your resting metabolism, if you laid around perhaps reading or vegging in front of the TV - upwards of 1750 being burned to accomplish the work of being awake right now. No other activity.

And you want to feed your body less than that?

And when you add on daily activity you actually are great at doing, even your BMF said you would burn upwards of 2700 just sitting all day. Add on all your work, and walking dogs, cooking, cleaning, ect. You have to be around 3000.

In your effort to somehow make a potential over a 1000 deficit even bigger - you are only going to shoot yourself in the metabolism, and make it actually worse.

Understand not doing the Primal or Paleo totally. They are really setup not to be diets that require watching cal's, just a new way of eating which normally just causes folks to cut cal's because of not being hungry.

I have followed each change for at least 4 weeks or more.
I am totally fine with eating 1750. I much prefer it over 1500 the "trainer" guy had me eating. Which I could never seem to hit... Always over.
I just wanted to clarify with you. There were so many # thrown at me. Just wanted to make sure I processed everything correctly.
It is terrifying to trust anyone's opinion. No offense. But .. Everyone thinks they are right.
And I'm no where near being as educated or capable of understanding what you know.
So don't lose patience or faith with me. I'll get it.
Thank you for your kindness and time spelling it all out for me.

heybales

I have followed each change for at least 4 weeks or more.
I am totally fine with eating 1750. I much prefer it over 1500 the "trainer" guy had me eating. Which I could never seem to hit... Always over.
I just wanted to clarify with you. There were so many # thrown at me. Just wanted to make sure I processed everything correctly.
It is terrifying to trust anyone's opinion. No offense. But .. Everyone thinks they are right.
And I'm no where near being as educated or capable of understanding what you know.
So don't lose patience or faith with me. I'll get it.
Thank you for your kindness and time spelling it all out for me.

4 weeks, excellent.

I'm glad the suggestion didn't scare you off, but I know you've seen higher suggestions in those groups for eating over 2000 and eating more to lose more, and didn't know how you'd react totally, but had a feeling since this has been so difficult.
And the idea of more just doesn't click with many initially.

And while it might seem less should for sure work, if you look at where you've been so far, it should have already worked, because you have already been eating less than previous, therefore a deficit, unless you have been eating at maintenance all this time somehow.

And this test result proves you are not eating at maintenance. And metabolism is only potentially a little suppressed.
So long as you can maintain a deficit that has you ending up netting at that 1750, then you should be fine.
And measurements are first thing to track, weight second.

pukekolive

My understanding is that macro % for fat and protein has guidelines depending on what working out you are doing (i.e. weight-training requires the person to have a higher protein need) and that carbs should take up the remaining number of calories left over - for most people in the range of 45-65% of daily calorie intake

sleepytexan

Many times when people say "nothing works for me", these are people who expect immediate results.

Nothing is going to give you immediate results.

There are many different methods to lose weight, but none of them will work if you don't give them enough time.

If you made the time and effort to visit this woman and get this information, why not use it instead of coming on here and asking for people's opinions on how to change it before you start?

Just try it for 3 months, then reevaluate.

If you take a recipe and change all the ingredients, you can't get the result in the picture.

blessings.

_Kitten_Kate

Many times when people say "nothing works for me", these are people who expect immediate results.

Nothing is going to give you immediate results.

There are many different methods to lose weight, but none of them will work if you don't give them enough time.

If you made the time and effort to visit this woman and get this information, why not use it instead of coming on here and asking for people's opinions on how to change it before you start?

Just try it for 3 months, then reevaluate.

If you take a recipe and change all the ingredients, you can't get the result in the picture.

blessings.

FYI... I have been her since Jan... and have tried slight variations to get a more substantial result every 4-6 weeks. I haven't made major changes. Always remaining low-ish carbs higher protein.

I was looking for information on how the body processes carbs... if those that arent' burned truly are stored....

No matter what I have tweaked... I still lose the same amount.. about 3 lbs a month.
and no I don't expect immediate results.
Thanks for the snarky note.

sleepytexan

Many times when people say "nothing works for me", these are people who expect immediate results.

Nothing is going to give you immediate results.

There are many different methods to lose weight, but none of them will work if you don't give them enough time.

If you made the time and effort to visit this woman and get this information, why not use it instead of coming on here and asking for people's opinions on how to change it before you start?

Just try it for 3 months, then reevaluate.

If you take a recipe and change all the ingredients, you can't get the result in the picture.

blessings.

FYI... I have been her since Jan... and have tried slight variations to get a more substantial result every 4-6 weeks. I haven't made major changes. Always remaining low-ish carbs higher protein.

I was looking for information on how the body processes carbs... if those that arent' burned truly are stored....

No matter what I have tweaked... I still lose the same amount.. about 3 lbs a month.
and no I don't expect immediate results.
Thanks for the snarky note.

No snark intended, but you have to admit, you went to a professional for advice, you haven't tried it yet, but you're asking for ways to change it. That's what you said; I just pointed it out to you.

Honestly, sometimes 6 weeks is not enough time. Take what you will. 3 months is a good shot -- I read in your profile that you had been on as little as 900 calories. You said people should feel free to critique or give advice, You posted this topic -- seemingly asking for opinions.

Sorry if you didn't like mine, but I bothered to post here to help; not to snark.

Anyway, if you're losing 3 lbs/month, you're still losing, so then *something* is working, right?

blessings.

_Kitten_Kate

Many times when people say "nothing works for me", these are people who expect immediate results.

Nothing is going to give you immediate results.

There are many different methods to lose weight, but none of them will work if you don't give them enough time.

If you made the time and effort to visit this woman and get this information, why not use it instead of coming on here and asking for people's opinions on how to change it before you start?

Just try it for 3 months, then reevaluate.

If you take a recipe and change all the ingredients, you can't get the result in the picture.

blessings.

FYI... I have been her since Jan... and have tried slight variations to get a more substantial result every 4-6 weeks. I haven't made major changes. Always remaining low-ish carbs higher protein.

I was looking for information on how the body processes carbs... if those that arent' burned truly are stored....

No matter what I have tweaked... I still lose the same amount.. about 3 lbs a month.
and no I don't expect immediate results.
Thanks for the snarky note.

No snark intended, but you have to admit, you went to a professional for advice, you haven't tried it yet, but you're asking for ways to change it. That's what you said; I just pointed it out to you.

Honestly, sometimes 6 weeks is not enough time. Take what you will. 3 months is a good shot -- I read in your profile that you had been on as little as 900 calories. You said people should feel free to critique or give advice, You posted this topic -- seemingly asking for opinions.

Sorry if you didn't like mine, but I bothered to post here to help; not to snark.

Anyway, if you're losing 3 lbs/month, you're still losing, so then *something* is working, right?

blessings.

Actually I was asking for the validity of it. I don't know for certain what her profession was.... She worked at a gym for the elderly... ? So, I am not quite sure. Yes I question everything... especially from those who can't seem to give me valid information to back what they are saying.
And I am using what she gave me.... what I paid for. The RMR #.
But I have found out since that ... since she tested my BF% as well there are things from the test that should have coincided with each other... which she didn't go over.

But thankfully... a helpful person here was able to fill in those things that were left out.
I do appreciate you input. I just felt it was a lil snarky... Mainly because I have been pretty diligent about what I eat and how I eat.. etc.
I was asking to change what she said. I was asking for validation like I said... and funny... no one could really give me any.
But I am using the RMR I got to tweak my diet and see what happens.
Thanks.