I Had My BMR Tested - It's 1032 Calories
Replies
-
Bump. Will reply later0
-
Bump... Been reading more and more info on this subject. Thanks!0
-
Very interesting to read, thanks!0
-
I had my RMR tested a month ago and got this as a result:
Your calculated RMR based on the last 20 minutes of your 40 minute measurement period is 2088 kcal/day. If we compare this to widely used predictive energy expenditure formulas such as Harris Benedict or Schofield, your RMR is a little higher than the values you would get from these population based formulas. For example if we work out your estimated energy expenditure using Harris Benedict we get a value of 1766 kcal/day, however as with all predictive equations there is a margin of error, whilst some studies have found it to be accurate in 45 – 80% of healthy non-obese individuals, others studies have found that HB over-estimates by 6 – 15%. If we use Schofield your estimated BMR/RMR would be 1748.15 kcal/day, however Schofield carries a Standard Error range, for your age group it is 167, this means we can add or subtract 167 to the calculated value. In your case, since you are lean and physically active, if we add 167 this would give an estimated RMR of 1915 kcal/day which is a little lower than your RMR measured by indirect calorimetry. I am only giving you these predictive values to give you an idea of the kind of range you could expect, the most important value is the one we measured yesterday i.e. an estimated RMR of 2088 kcal/day
my stats at the time of testing: 5"9', 76.1kg, 15.2% bodyfat (bodpod after RMR test), intermittent fasting since 4 months (leangains 8/16h)0 -
sigh...
A test such as this measures oxygen consumption. If your BMR really is that low, eating less (or even slightly more) is a bad idea. If it's a true measure of your metabolism.. you need to figure out how to raise your metabolism. How to do that? Eat more and exercise more. If your bmr is truly this low, you have hormonal issues that are only going to get worse if you don't start eating more. Sadly.. all these threads with people eating 1000 calories a day or less is what causes this.
Sounds to me like the doc understood the basics of taking a bmr reading but is failing hard as a nutritionist.. which is quite typical.
Increase your TDEE by adding a lot more exercise.. allowing you to eat a lot more calories and get retested in a year. All of your health markers will have improved and you'll be able to eat a lot more while having a lot more energy.
If you walk on a treadmill an hour a day, that's another 600 calories to consume. If you brush your teeth, walk around, shop and function like a normal human being, that's several more hundred calories a day, putting your daily energy requirement at over 2000 and making your deficit to lose weight just slightly under that.
The OP already said she used to eat many more calories and work out a lot and couldn't lose anything, if that hadn't pushed her metabolism up then why would doing so now suddenly be different,
Anyhow, it is now irrelevant as she is at maintenance, having reached her goal by the looks of it.
It seemed her doctor did a fine job as she reached her desired weight partly due to his testing.0 -
Dont forget that BMR is: Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) is the minimum amount of energy required for the functioning of vital organs, such as the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, muscles and digestive organs.
This is what they would give you if you were in a coma to survive. This does not account for even simply moving around while awake, or food digestion. That is why it is also important to know your TDEE.
This site tells you more about the test.
http://www.mun.ca/hkr/ahs/BMR.php
Yes it is good to know what your BMR is, but you need to take in more than that in order for your body to function normally.
Exactly. Weight loss is not BMR - 20%, it is TDEE - 20%.
Isn't the TDEE calculation based on what the BMR would be? If so, if the BMR were too high, then so will be the TDEE....0 -
Stop it with this reading what she actually said. Everyone would rather read what they wanted her to say so they can tell her she's wrong ;-)sigh...
A test such as this measures oxygen consumption. If your BMR really is that low, eating less (or even slightly more) is a bad idea. If it's a true measure of your metabolism.. you need to figure out how to raise your metabolism. How to do that? Eat more and exercise more. If your bmr is truly this low, you have hormonal issues that are only going to get worse if you don't start eating more. Sadly.. all these threads with people eating 1000 calories a day or less is what causes this.
Sounds to me like the doc understood the basics of taking a bmr reading but is failing hard as a nutritionist.. which is quite typical.
Increase your TDEE by adding a lot more exercise.. allowing you to eat a lot more calories and get retested in a year. All of your health markers will have improved and you'll be able to eat a lot more while having a lot more energy.
If you walk on a treadmill an hour a day, that's another 600 calories to consume. If you brush your teeth, walk around, shop and function like a normal human being, that's several more hundred calories a day, putting your daily energy requirement at over 2000 and making your deficit to lose weight just slightly under that.
The OP already said she used to eat many more calories and work out a lot and couldn't lose anything, if that hadn't pushed her metabolism up then why would doing so now suddenly be different,
Anyhow, it is now irrelevant as she is at maintenance, having reached her goal by the looks of it.
It seemed her doctor did a fine job as she reached her desired weight partly due to his testing.0 -
Stop it with this reading what she actually said. Everyone would rather read what they wanted her to say so they can tell her she's wrong ;-)sigh...
A test such as this measures oxygen consumption. If your BMR really is that low, eating less (or even slightly more) is a bad idea. If it's a true measure of your metabolism.. you need to figure out how to raise your metabolism. How to do that? Eat more and exercise more. If your bmr is truly this low, you have hormonal issues that are only going to get worse if you don't start eating more. Sadly.. all these threads with people eating 1000 calories a day or less is what causes this.
Sounds to me like the doc understood the basics of taking a bmr reading but is failing hard as a nutritionist.. which is quite typical.
Increase your TDEE by adding a lot more exercise.. allowing you to eat a lot more calories and get retested in a year. All of your health markers will have improved and you'll be able to eat a lot more while having a lot more energy.
If you walk on a treadmill an hour a day, that's another 600 calories to consume. If you brush your teeth, walk around, shop and function like a normal human being, that's several more hundred calories a day, putting your daily energy requirement at over 2000 and making your deficit to lose weight just slightly under that.
The OP already said she used to eat many more calories and work out a lot and couldn't lose anything, if that hadn't pushed her metabolism up then why would doing so now suddenly be different,
Anyhow, it is now irrelevant as she is at maintenance, having reached her goal by the looks of it.
It seemed her doctor did a fine job as she reached her desired weight partly due to his testing.
I know Fatdoob, I just can't help it though :laugh: - such a good thread this, even if it is a few months old, glad somebody resurrected it, I would have missed it otherwise!0 -
Stop it with this reading what she actually said. Everyone would rather read what they wanted her to say so they can tell her she's wrong ;-)sigh...
A test such as this measures oxygen consumption. If your BMR really is that low, eating less (or even slightly more) is a bad idea. If it's a true measure of your metabolism.. you need to figure out how to raise your metabolism. How to do that? Eat more and exercise more. If your bmr is truly this low, you have hormonal issues that are only going to get worse if you don't start eating more. Sadly.. all these threads with people eating 1000 calories a day or less is what causes this.
Sounds to me like the doc understood the basics of taking a bmr reading but is failing hard as a nutritionist.. which is quite typical.
Increase your TDEE by adding a lot more exercise.. allowing you to eat a lot more calories and get retested in a year. All of your health markers will have improved and you'll be able to eat a lot more while having a lot more energy.
If you walk on a treadmill an hour a day, that's another 600 calories to consume. If you brush your teeth, walk around, shop and function like a normal human being, that's several more hundred calories a day, putting your daily energy requirement at over 2000 and making your deficit to lose weight just slightly under that.
The OP already said she used to eat many more calories and work out a lot and couldn't lose anything, if that hadn't pushed her metabolism up then why would doing so now suddenly be different,
Anyhow, it is now irrelevant as she is at maintenance, having reached her goal by the looks of it.
It seemed her doctor did a fine job as she reached her desired weight partly due to his testing.
I know Fatdoob, I just can't help it though :laugh: - such a good thread this, even if it is a few months old, glad somebody resurrected it, I would have missed it otherwise!
Keep in mind the OP also has medical conditions and if you google some of the medications it has been linked to lowering the metabolism. At the very least, it's very skewed data.0 -
Stop it with this reading what she actually said. Everyone would rather read what they wanted her to say so they can tell her she's wrong ;-)sigh...
A test such as this measures oxygen consumption. If your BMR really is that low, eating less (or even slightly more) is a bad idea. If it's a true measure of your metabolism.. you need to figure out how to raise your metabolism. How to do that? Eat more and exercise more. If your bmr is truly this low, you have hormonal issues that are only going to get worse if you don't start eating more. Sadly.. all these threads with people eating 1000 calories a day or less is what causes this.
Sounds to me like the doc understood the basics of taking a bmr reading but is failing hard as a nutritionist.. which is quite typical.
Increase your TDEE by adding a lot more exercise.. allowing you to eat a lot more calories and get retested in a year. All of your health markers will have improved and you'll be able to eat a lot more while having a lot more energy.
If you walk on a treadmill an hour a day, that's another 600 calories to consume. If you brush your teeth, walk around, shop and function like a normal human being, that's several more hundred calories a day, putting your daily energy requirement at over 2000 and making your deficit to lose weight just slightly under that.
The OP already said she used to eat many more calories and work out a lot and couldn't lose anything, if that hadn't pushed her metabolism up then why would doing so now suddenly be different,
Anyhow, it is now irrelevant as she is at maintenance, having reached her goal by the looks of it.
It seemed her doctor did a fine job as she reached her desired weight partly due to his testing.
I know Fatdoob, I just can't help it though :laugh: - such a good thread this, even if it is a few months old, glad somebody resurrected it, I would have missed it otherwise!
Keep in mind the OP also has medical conditions and if you google some of the medications it has been linked to lowering the metabolism. At the very least, it's very skewed data.
Ahh you reminded me.......
Her medication was said to push her metabolism faster? This actually means her reading was faster than it would have been had she not been on it, therefore, if she had not been on the medication her metabolism would have been slower resulting in an even lower BMR......... is this right?0 -
I did a "metabolism reset" last year and followed online calculators as well as Bodybugg numbers. As a result I gained 20 lbs and almost 2 clothing sizes. I started cutting and came to the conclusion that my TDEE is between 1700-1800. I stuck with the whole thing for 10 months and started getting depressed before I decided to stop and go against the flow. I'm not sure about my BMR but those calculators should be taken only as a guidance. Instead of having 25 lbs to lose, I now have about 45 lbs to lose and about 15% bodyfat. I'm still kicking myself for going with it for so long.0
-
Stop it with this reading what she actually said. Everyone would rather read what they wanted her to say so they can tell her she's wrong ;-)sigh...
A test such as this measures oxygen consumption. If your BMR really is that low, eating less (or even slightly more) is a bad idea. If it's a true measure of your metabolism.. you need to figure out how to raise your metabolism. How to do that? Eat more and exercise more. If your bmr is truly this low, you have hormonal issues that are only going to get worse if you don't start eating more. Sadly.. all these threads with people eating 1000 calories a day or less is what causes this.
Sounds to me like the doc understood the basics of taking a bmr reading but is failing hard as a nutritionist.. which is quite typical.
Increase your TDEE by adding a lot more exercise.. allowing you to eat a lot more calories and get retested in a year. All of your health markers will have improved and you'll be able to eat a lot more while having a lot more energy.
If you walk on a treadmill an hour a day, that's another 600 calories to consume. If you brush your teeth, walk around, shop and function like a normal human being, that's several more hundred calories a day, putting your daily energy requirement at over 2000 and making your deficit to lose weight just slightly under that.
The OP already said she used to eat many more calories and work out a lot and couldn't lose anything, if that hadn't pushed her metabolism up then why would doing so now suddenly be different,
Anyhow, it is now irrelevant as she is at maintenance, having reached her goal by the looks of it.
It seemed her doctor did a fine job as she reached her desired weight partly due to his testing.
I know Fatdoob, I just can't help it though :laugh: - such a good thread this, even if it is a few months old, glad somebody resurrected it, I would have missed it otherwise!
Keep in mind the OP also has medical conditions and if you google some of the medications it has been linked to lowering the metabolism. At the very least, it's very skewed data.
Ahh you reminded me.......
Her medication was said to push her metabolism faster? This actually means her reading was faster than it would have been had she not been on it, therefore, if she had not been on the medication her metabolism would have been slower resulting in an even lower BMR......... is this right?
Just ignore my comment. I relooking at links between her medication and aderall can increase her metabolism but her condition has been linked to slightly slower metabolism, so it's probably offset. More than likely, we would have to look back at how she ate. It's hard to compare sometimes because we usually get part of the story. In the end, I do laugh at how fast people jump on these post when their metabolism are slower than expected but there are several that have shown their metabolism at or higher than the online calculators and the get little attention. Heck, if I can find it, there was a girl who was test at like 1000 for her BMR because she under ate for 6 months or a year and after 6 months she ate at maintenance and increase weight training and it went back to 1500-1600. It just goes to show how adaptive the RMR is.
Also, keep in mind, this is an RMR not BMR test. BMR test take much longer than 15-20 minutes.0 -
The thing that worries me about posts like this is the responses like "wow, thanks for this post", you do realise that some people reading this are at their wits end wondering why 1200 isn't helping them to lose weight and after seeing this could drop their calories lower?
Like you said this is what works for you, but probably not for the majority. I can't understand why you would feel the need to broadcast this to generally impressionable people? It's not like you need to justify what works for you, just get on and do it.
ETA: I think the majority of the MFP population would know what works and what doesn't, but maybe not everyone, didn't mean to offend!
I disagree.
I think the original post is a very helpful post. It just reinforces for me that the calculators are not 100% correct--they are based on averages (and probably bell curves and all that trigonometry that I once learned and now have forgotten). The point is, some of us are in the top or bottom 2%!of the population, and thus the calculators will be substantially off for us. For me, this helps to explain why I started GAINIING at net 1350 cals (exercising 200 -300 cals and eating them back put me eating about 1550-1650 cals). Eating more to weigh less has resulted in a 12 pound re-gain now!
So the question now is, why is my metabolism suppressed? Do I just naturally have a slow metabolism, is it because I am very aerobically fit, or have I suppressed it by eating well under my TDEE for too long? That is what I am investigating now, by tracking, eating, and watching for changes. No more easy answers! Good news is it seems to be stabilizing at a little higher than before, so maybe I can soon start eating at the correct deficit.
THANK YOU OP FOR POSTING!! This helps me know I am not crazy.0 -
I did a "metabolism reset" last year and followed online calculators as well as Bodybugg numbers. As a result I gained 20 lbs and almost 2 clothing sizes. I started cutting and came to the conclusion that my TDEE is between 1700-1800. I stuck with the whole thing for 10 months and started getting depressed before I decided to stop and go against the flow. I'm not sure about my BMR but those calculators should be taken only as a guidance. Instead of having 25 lbs to lose, I now have about 45 lbs to lose and about 15% bodyfat. I'm still kicking myself for going with it for so long.
My greatest fear!
I see all the "I'm resetting" posts, but I rarely see the posts where these people celebrate their resets by losing. I'm skeptical.
Thanks for speaking up.0 -
This makes a lot of sense. When I started reading all the stuff about TDEE -20% and needing to eat more (or else!!) I freaked out and upped my calories. Well I've since then hit a plateau. . Lol
Eta: I upped my calories according to an online tdee calculator.0 -
Not bashing the technician but I highly doubt he had any business giving BMR advice. I'd consult a dietician about it.0
-
Hey all! I just wanted to share a response I gave to a personal message I recieved from someone about this topic. Having a 'slow' metabolism isn't necessarily a bad thing!!!!
No problem. Yes, it's a shame that people think that can eat so much and get away with it. As the saying goes, 'you can't have your cake and eat it to.'
From a longevity standpoint, the less you eat the longer you live. So those few 'lucky' individuals who can eat significant amounts of food and still lose weight due to a fast metabolism, they don't realize that the faster your metabolism, the faster you age.
Being able to eat a lot and not gain a pound is a sign that you're on the fast track to the grave. An extreme example of this would be people with wasting syndromes like advanced stage AIDS or those going through chemotherapy; they can eat 3000+ calories a day and still lose a good percentage of their weight each day because they are on their death bed.
Another good example is celebrities. I was fortunate enough to actually go see the golden globe awards my senior year of high school and I was pretty shocked. Actors and actresses may look pretty average on tv or the big screen, but in person they look unbelievably thin and hungry. The camera truly adds 10+ pounds, so it should come as no surprise that celebrities nearly starve themselves for their career, and yet, they look phenomenal late into their 80's. Most people assume its because they can afford expense anti aging treatments or that its simply a Hollywood stage effect, but in fact, it's because they eat very little.
When you eat less food your body experiences a degree of hibernation, much like a bear hibernating through the winter. Thanks to a survival mechanism, when the body senses that food is scarce it slows down nearly every process to keep you alive (including reproduction, which is why some women lose their periods when extremely isocaloric) until there is more food available again. That also explains why when people go on a starvation diet and then resume normal eating they gain back all the weight, and then some; their body is fighting for their survival.
Losing weight is one thing, but looking haggard, drawn out, and 20+ years older than you actually are is another. People with slower metabolisms who keep their weight in check age better and live significantly longer; and that's a FACT.
The only down side I find to having a sluggish metabolism is the fact that I have to keep my eating in check, but at the same time it's a good thing as well. Knowing that I'm predisposed to gaining weight if left unchecked, I'm extremely vigilant about keeping a food diary, and therefore, more on top of any changes occurring in my body. I will never be one of those people who wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say, 'what happened?' I'm always one step ahead of the game and am less likely to be one of those people who simply 'let themselves go' thanks to that nagging little voice in my head that keeps reminding me I have a slow metabolism.
So if I had to choose between having a fast metabolism and a sluggish one, I would choose the sluggish one, hands down. That way, when I'm 80, I can still run the Boston marathon in a sports bra looking sexy, while those 'lucky' few with the fast metabolisms can roll along beside me in their wheelchairs looking like their waiting at deaths door
0 -
Yeah, a trainer at my gym told me he sees a lot of women thinking their BMRs are around 1400 because they used an online calculator, but really they're between 1000 and 1200 and they end up overeating. He estimated mine to be 1100 based on my height and weight. I appreciate seeing some evidence suggesting this is true.
Mine was 1105 when tested a couple of years ago. Which makes sedentary for me 1326.0 -
Very Interesting....0
-
I did a "metabolism reset" last year and followed online calculators as well as Bodybugg numbers. As a result I gained 20 lbs and almost 2 clothing sizes. I started cutting and came to the conclusion that my TDEE is between 1700-1800. I stuck with the whole thing for 10 months and started getting depressed before I decided to stop and go against the flow. I'm not sure about my BMR but those calculators should be taken only as a guidance. Instead of having 25 lbs to lose, I now have about 45 lbs to lose and about 15% bodyfat. I'm still kicking myself for going with it for so long.
My greatest fear!
I see all the "I'm resetting" posts, but I rarely see the posts where these people celebrate their resets by losing. I'm skeptical.
Thanks for speaking up.
I guess people are afraid to speak up. Some do. Some just quietly leave. People in general tend to point with fingers claiming that we "did it wrong". It's a great group and I'm friends with many members. It also works for many many people but we are all individuals with some type of history. I've been on LCD on and off since I was probably 11 years old. I read (and heard in a video) that it can take just as long for your metabolism to reset. Sorry but I don't have 19 years to "fix" my metabolism and try to get to a healthier body weight and bf%. I need to lose the fat like yesterday. I wish I could say that my gain came from some muscle gain in the last months but it didn't unfortunately. i really wanted the program to work for me.0 -
I've had terrible struggles losing the weight I gained while pregnant with my 2 kids. I'm talking losing half or less of what I'm "supposed" to based on my calorie deficits - assuming the online calculators are correct.. And not just over the course of a couple of weeks, I'm talking over the course of a year. I assumed that something was metabolically wrong. I had my thyroid tested and received normal results. I then had my RMR tested (which I know is slightly different from BMR). I was told that it was 1960 at 218lbs and 5'5.5", which is between 150 and 250 calories/day over what the online calculators give me and listed as "above average." My jaw almost hit the floor.
So, while I've tried upping calories in the past, it's usually been from, like, 1360 to 1500 or something. I'm going to give 1750 a whirl, I just got done with week 1 (which I don't really count since I ate a bunch of junk the week before I started and put on several pounds so I had quite a bit of water to lose). We'll see how it goes. Maybe I'll even go up to BMR.
Anyway, moral of the story is, just because you're not losing don't assume that your BMR/RMR is way lower than you think. If you're that concerned, go get it tested.0 -
bump0
-
Hey all! I just wanted to share a response I gave to a personal message I recieved from someone about this topic. Having a 'slow' metabolism isn't necessarily a bad thing!!!!
No problem. Yes, it's a shame that people think that can eat so much and get away with it. As the saying goes, 'you can't have your cake and eat it to.'
From a longevity standpoint, the less you eat the longer you live. So those few 'lucky' individuals who can eat significant amounts of food and still lose weight due to a fast metabolism, they don't realize that the faster your metabolism, the faster you age.
Being able to eat a lot and not gain a pound is a sign that you're on the fast track to the grave. An extreme example of this would be people with wasting syndromes like advanced stage AIDS or those going through chemotherapy; they can eat 3000+ calories a day and still lose a good percentage of their weight each day because they are on their death bed.
Another good example is celebrities. I was fortunate enough to actually go see the golden globe awards my senior year of high school and I was pretty shocked. Actors and actresses may look pretty average on tv or the big screen, but in person they look unbelievably thin and hungry. The camera truly adds 10+ pounds, so it should come as no surprise that celebrities nearly starve themselves for their career, and yet, they look phenomenal late into their 80's. Most people assume its because they can afford expense anti aging treatments or that its simply a Hollywood stage effect, but in fact, it's because they eat very little.
When you eat less food your body experiences a degree of hibernation, much like a bear hibernating through the winter. Thanks to a survival mechanism, when the body senses that food is scarce it slows down nearly every process to keep you alive (including reproduction, which is why some women lose their periods when extremely isocaloric) until there is more food available again. That also explains why when people go on a starvation diet and then resume normal eating they gain back all the weight, and then some; their body is fighting for their survival.
Losing weight is one thing, but looking haggard, drawn out, and 20+ years older than you actually are is another. People with slower metabolisms who keep their weight in check age better and live significantly longer; and that's a FACT.
The only down side I find to having a sluggish metabolism is the fact that I have to keep my eating in check, but at the same time it's a good thing as well. Knowing that I'm predisposed to gaining weight if left unchecked, I'm extremely vigilant about keeping a food diary, and therefore, more on top of any changes occurring in my body. I will never be one of those people who wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say, 'what happened?' I'm always one step ahead of the game and am less likely to be one of those people who simply 'let themselves go' thanks to that nagging little voice in my head that keeps reminding me I have a slow metabolism.
So if I had to choose between having a fast metabolism and a sluggish one, I would choose the sluggish one, hands down. That way, when I'm 80, I can still run the Boston marathon in a sports bra looking sexy, while those 'lucky' few with the fast metabolisms can roll along beside me in their wheelchairs looking like their waiting at deaths door
and THIS ^ deserves a thread of its own, because it is bloody interesting to say the least!!!
I like the way you write OP, seriously intriguing subjects!! :flowerforyou:0 -
very good read indeed, we gotta keep reminding folks that online calculators are just estimates.
be diligent at calorie tracking for a couple of months in order to have your own data, then extrapolate your own TDEE from your own data, then adjust accordingly0 -
Hey all! I just wanted to share a response I gave to a personal message I recieved from someone about this topic. Having a 'slow' metabolism isn't necessarily a bad thing!!!!
No problem. Yes, it's a shame that people think that can eat so much and get away with it. As the saying goes, 'you can't have your cake and eat it to.'
From a longevity standpoint, the less you eat the longer you live. So those few 'lucky' individuals who can eat significant amounts of food and still lose weight due to a fast metabolism, they don't realize that the faster your metabolism, the faster you age.
Being able to eat a lot and not gain a pound is a sign that you're on the fast track to the grave. An extreme example of this would be people with wasting syndromes like advanced stage AIDS or those going through chemotherapy; they can eat 3000+ calories a day and still lose a good percentage of their weight each day because they are on their death bed.
Another good example is celebrities. I was fortunate enough to actually go see the golden globe awards my senior year of high school and I was pretty shocked. Actors and actresses may look pretty average on tv or the big screen, but in person they look unbelievably thin and hungry. The camera truly adds 10+ pounds, so it should come as no surprise that celebrities nearly starve themselves for their career, and yet, they look phenomenal late into their 80's. Most people assume its because they can afford expense anti aging treatments or that its simply a Hollywood stage effect, but in fact, it's because they eat very little.
When you eat less food your body experiences a degree of hibernation, much like a bear hibernating through the winter. Thanks to a survival mechanism, when the body senses that food is scarce it slows down nearly every process to keep you alive (including reproduction, which is why some women lose their periods when extremely isocaloric) until there is more food available again. That also explains why when people go on a starvation diet and then resume normal eating they gain back all the weight, and then some; their body is fighting for their survival.
Losing weight is one thing, but looking haggard, drawn out, and 20+ years older than you actually are is another. People with slower metabolisms who keep their weight in check age better and live significantly longer; and that's a FACT.
The only down side I find to having a sluggish metabolism is the fact that I have to keep my eating in check, but at the same time it's a good thing as well. Knowing that I'm predisposed to gaining weight if left unchecked, I'm extremely vigilant about keeping a food diary, and therefore, more on top of any changes occurring in my body. I will never be one of those people who wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say, 'what happened?' I'm always one step ahead of the game and am less likely to be one of those people who simply 'let themselves go' thanks to that nagging little voice in my head that keeps reminding me I have a slow metabolism.
So if I had to choose between having a fast metabolism and a sluggish one, I would choose the sluggish one, hands down. That way, when I'm 80, I can still run the Boston marathon in a sports bra looking sexy, while those 'lucky' few with the fast metabolisms can roll along beside me in their wheelchairs looking like their waiting at deaths door
Wow, there are so many generalizations in this it's not funny.
There is a huge difference between having a fast metabolism vs having a huge TDEE. Many people can eat 3000+ calories because they burn a lot of calories, not because their metabolic rate is extremely fast. Also, there is absolutely NO way you can compare an actor or actress to a normal personal. Many of them drink, do drugs or abuse their bodies in ways many of us would never dream of.... Charlie Sheen is a great example. Additionally, you can't compare a person with an illness to a healthy person. When your sick, your bodies metabolism increases naturally to fight the infection. Then you add in complication with medications that have a huge list of side effects.
Now, I have seen some of the data on a possible link between living longer and a slower metabolism but even with that data, it's suggest a possible link. I can bet you will see a study out there to suggest opposite. Just look at the fight if eggs are good or bad.... keeping in mind that genetics play a huge role in life spam.0 -
BUMP for the inevitable debate!
Yup. I'm expecting this.
Here are my predictions:
1. The tests where in accurate (even though they were take multiple times in a university hospital).
2. I am a freak of nature (yes I have narcolepsy, but I was told, MORE THAN ONCE, that my BMR is what was expected).
3. "Me, my mom, dad, brother, sister's boyfriend, and the neighbor's dog all lost weight by eating more." - The usual battery of anecdotal evidence.
I'm going to say it has something to do with the Narcolepsy. REM sleep is the deep/ calm sleep right? If you toss and turn a lot it would be higher right??
The suggestions to get a HRM..... The HRM goes by averages so it would probably be high in your case too.0 -
BUMP for the inevitable debate!
Yup. I'm expecting this.
Here are my predictions:
1. The tests where in accurate (even though they were take multiple times in a university hospital).
2. I am a freak of nature (yes I have narcolepsy, but I was told, MORE THAN ONCE, that my BMR is what was expected).
3. "Me, my mom, dad, brother, sister's boyfriend, and the neighbor's dog all lost weight by eating more." - The usual battery of anecdotal evidence.
I'm going to say it has something to do with the Narcolepsy. REM sleep is the deep/ calm sleep right? If you toss and turn a lot it would be higher right??
The suggestions to get a HRM..... The HRM goes by averages so it would probably be high in your case too.
HRMs do not work accurately if worn all day or at night during sleep, they are meant for cardio workouts, even the HRM manufacturers will say the same.0 -
This makes a lot of sense. When I started reading all the stuff about TDEE -20% and needing to eat more (or else!!) I freaked out and upped my calories. Well I've since then hit a plateau. . Lol
Eta: I upped my calories according to an online tdee calculator.
What are you going to do, are you going too lower the cals now?0 -
Very interesting info...0
-
Very interesting info...
I have lost and gained 5 pounds 6-8 months ago consuming 1500-1700 for a 40 yo 5’1 previous weight 110 fairly active. Finally, I decided to gain knowledge on metabolism and learned that I should not be eating more than 1050 calories to lose a pound a week. I did an experiment 2 months ago with my calories and dipped down 900-1000 calories fluctuating several days, some semi-fasting no more than 1200, creating my 3500 deficit a week. My results, I am now 104 lbs and have lost 3 lbs for the month of May and 3 lbs for the month of June. I joined this website to lose 10 lbs I gained over a year and a half. I finally figure out my deficit, AFTER a year in MFP. These couple months, I have been successful and I am happy to see results of someone who has REAL KNOWLEDGE of BMR Tested. You rock!! I thank you very much CATindeeHAT!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions