I Had My BMR Tested - It's 1032 Calories

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.

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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!

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!

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

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

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.