Low BMR?

i'm 5'9 and currently 178. I maintain about 180-185 when i don't diet.. but when I do cal restriction doesn't work unless I stay way under my BMR. I went to the Dr about it years ago as I was restricting my diet to 1800 and brisk walking 7 1/2 miles a day and wouldn't drop below 180 after 6 months(I was conditioning a dog for a show and was very dedicated). I requested my prolactin level be checked and it was extremely high. Basically, my body has the metabolism of a pregnant person altho my kids are now in high school. I use low carb diets with extremely good results.. until I started nursing school last year I was 155-160 on a maintenance diet.. also cushings syndrome makes it very hard to lose weight if you have a high stress lifestyle without exercise to balance it.

i'm currently under 1200 cal for the first time so i'll let you know how it goes..

I know that if I ate 1500 calories a day, I'd have to spend like half the day exercising, lol. I know I must be lower than most people because they can actually eat like 1200, do no exercise and lose. I cannot.

I just eat fewer calories than others and I swim.

Eating fewer calories doesn't mean eating less. I eat more food and probably more often. I just eat low-cal stuff.

Swimming is much easier exercise in that you never feel hot and sweaty and it's low-impact on joints and everything - it doesn't seem like work because it's not that hard. it's the best exercise, though. I don't think there is anything that burns more calories and it also provides resistance. You get simultaneous cardio and resistance. If you're outside, you breathe fresh air, too, which I personally believe is a huge help that nobody in the medical or fitness communities has latched on to yet...but I could, of course, be wrong about that.

If I tried to eat low amounts of junk food and stand on a machine in a room, I'd have given up. But what works for me may not work for you.

Everyone is different and has to walk their own path. Good luck on yours!

Are you weighing/measuring everything that you consume? I can probably bet that you are consuming more than you think.

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

Are you weighing/measuring everything that you consume? I can probably bet that you are consuming more than you think.

Did you not read all of the OP's post? She's tracking accurately. Be sensitive to the fact that not everyone can eat a lot and lose weight, especially if exercise isn't an option. My BMR is about 1500 if the standard calculation actually fits me and that calculation is really just a good guess. I can't eat 1400 calories and lose weight at anything more than a snail's pace.

OP, there's no need to exercise to lose weight. I started losing a couple of years ago doing nothing more than adding in a few walk breaks at work and watching calories.

I think one reason 1200 doesn't bother me is I'm a small person. I don't have huge calorie needs. I'm not always hungry. I eat treats and actually do have to watch how much I eat of them because I don't have a lot of wiggle room for high calorie foods. I keep most meals around 200-300 calories mostly by avoiding high carb "filler" foods like white rice, potatoes and bread. For example:

Breakfast this morning was a peanut butter low sugar protein bar, 210 calories. Lunch was almost exactly 300 calories: 1/3 pound hamburger patty with a slice of cheddar cheese, a cup of shredded iceberg lettuce, 3 tomato slices and a couple of pickles, no bun.(I didn't pack a lunch and that's my staple from the company cafeteria when I don't). I'll have an ounce of almonds or beef jerky as a snack in a few hours (that's what's in my desk). Dinner most nights is composed of about 4 ounces of a lean protein with a salad and a steamed vegetable. Snack after dinner is often a popsicle.

Other days breakfast will be 8 ounces of nonfat, plain Greek yogurt with some frozen raspberries (I buy them on sale and freeze) with either a little Splenda or some agave syrup. Lunch is often a large tin of tuna (5.6 ounces after draining) with some light Miracle Whip and diced cucumber, some olives or pickles and a string cheese. Sometimes I'll skip the cucumber and use celery sticks to scoop the tuna.

I think the trick for me is to not go longer than a few waking hours without eating a small snack. Since I find that I lose faster and more consistently when I limit carbs those snacks are usually string cheese, nuts, sugar-free popsicles, celery with peanut or almond butter, olives, pickles, etc.

I hope that helps.

Curious.... Did you have your BMR tested or figured it out through trial and error on consumption?

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

I think you're a bit confused. There is no way you could have gained at 1400 unless you were eating more than you think you were. This happens by not measuring/weighing everything that you're consuming. You can also gain strength on a deficit. You will gain muscle mass eating a calorie surplus so that's why you are gaining weight, granted some of it will be fat.

I'm not confused :-) I've been doing this for a very long time, but I appreciate your comment. I didn't gain strength on a deficit and I did gain fat at 1400-1600. At 1400-1600 I gained strength, probably a little muscle, but also fat because my measurements increased. I have a lower than average RMR, sorry.

Hi - looking to hear from anyone who knows that their BMR is substantially lower than it "should" be according to the numbers but has still had success.
(snip)
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has successfully maintained a diet of 1200 cal OR LESS long-term, and anyone who KNOWS that their BMR is, say, 30% below the typical numbers reported here but has still lost weight and maintained the loss.

Not interested in hearing from anyone whose immediate assumption is that I'm not tracking everything I eat, or who will accuse me of lying. You're welcome to your opinions, and please keep them to yourself. My diary is open to friends so please feel free to introduce yourself, add me, and take a look.

Z

Zarc;

Second question first, if you'll allow me:

I completely understand your frustrations with "...anyone whose immediate assumption is....".
There is ENTIRELY too much of that on many of these boards and indeed in the "diet" community in general.
"It's all your own fault, you're cheating, you don't have willpower....etc, etc, etc"

Way too many ideologues locked into "My way is the (only) RIGHT WAY", dogma (which is never based on any actual "science").

It is what it is, it stinks, and it turns off many, so you are certainly not alone.

One need only ask a couple simple questions to recognize that the "gospel" contains more holes than it produces results.

Why, if what you (generic "you") are advocating as the "only" way - does the "common wisdom" version have a lower long term success rate than does quitting tobacco "cold turkey"?

Why, if it's so great do other methods produce MUCH better results for some (significant) proportion of the population?

Why can't you provide ANY basic "science" upon which the whole low cal / low fat, USDA food pyramid, counting calories song and dance - was based when it was originally dictated?

And, Why, if it's the holy grail, have the levels of obesity, diabetes, and related maladies skyrocketed in the 40+ years since it was introduced?

Why, why, why?

Now back to question one:

Both my bride and I began our (latest) quest for the holy grail of weight loss and maintenance using the "common wisdom" (and basic philosopy of this, and many other diet and fitness "trackers").
.
We BOTH set (and pretty religiously adhered to) Total Daily Cals In goals in the 900 - 1100 range for about 5 months. Our ONLY "exercise" (beyond normal daily activities) consisted of 30 - 45 minute walks 3 - 5 times a week. No cardio, no pumping iron, nothing (not because it isn't a good idea for "fitness" purposes, it is, but because of schedules that didn't permit it and a growing body of evidence that exercise, per se, has very little effect on weight loss).

We didn't make any adjustments for "exercise cals burned", but we did count (and track) cals in as closely as possible and logged both cals in and body weight, daily.

My B achieved her goal (~25# weight reduction), and while I haven't reached goal yet, did lose ~35#.

We're both still alive, quite healthy, made significant strides in BMI and Body Fat reduction numbers and violated just about every possible pearl of "common wisdom" embodied in the "just eat less and exercise more" dogma.

We've recently switched to a program centered more along the lines of Lo Carb, Hi Fat, Moderate Protein and BALANCED macro intake percentages.

NO - it's NOT the "Dr. A" plan, per se - it's one based on current science, current research, and outcomes more focused on the long term overall Health benefits - not just cal counting, and one on which neither of us ever feels "hungry", "starved", or "I just gotta have that (fill in the blank with whatever one craves)".

We don't drink 87 gallons of water, have water bottles permanently attached to our hips - if we're thirsty, we drink, if we're not, we don't. Likewise with food - while we do "track" food calories and "try" to stick to whatever goal we've set it's more important that we meet our macro goals and now, a month or so in, the calorie "semi-goal" is almost never a limiting factor.
Much like the H20 scenario above, we eat when we're hungry, not 6 times a day (or whatever), not within 15 minutes of awakening, and not before x:xx pm or so many hours before going to bed - when we feel like it.

It's what we believe is "best" for us (after having done considerable research into the various methods), and maybe more importantly, it's what we believe we will be able to sustain, long term.
Our primary goal is to NOT be one of the 95% who can't.

Is it "right" for you (or anyone else)?

That's not for us to say - only YOU can make the determination and only if you (the generic "you") exposes themselves to ALL the available information, research, and options and then applies what they have learned to their own, individual circumstances and goals.

If you are interested in looking into methods other than "counting calories / cals in cals out" (we do still track cals in, but for reasons other than primary weight loss), feel free to post back and I'd be happy to offer some links to get you started.

The journey isn't an easy one but it's one well worth the effort - best of luck on your achieving your goals (regardless of "how" you get there).

While I was working with a dietitian/nutritionist I had my resting metabolic rate tested and it was 1400. I stayed on a 1200 calorie diet with 3 days of exercise for a long time and averaged 1 pound a week. Anytime I've increased my calories I've either maintained or gained. The ONLY time I've lost weight is at 1200. It's not unhealthy, I ate very well and I weighed and measured everything. I did however notice I wasn't getting stronger (not weaker ) (I lift weights) and that bothered me so I increased my calories for that reason. I did get a lot stronger but staying at a higher calorie I still gain weight.

I think you're a bit confused. There is no way you could have gained at 1400 unless you were eating more than you think you were. This happens by not measuring/weighing everything that you're consuming. You can also gain strength on a deficit. You will gain muscle mass eating a calorie surplus so that's why you are gaining weight, granted some of it will be fat.

I'm not confused :-) I've been doing this for a very long time, but I appreciate your comment. I didn't gain strength on a deficit and I did gain fat at 1400-1600. At 1400-1600 I gained strength, probably a little muscle, but also fat because my measurements increased. I have a lower than average RMR, sorry.

Well, I think you are because RMR is really called your BMR (basal metabolic rate if you need to google it to double check). Your BMR is what you would burn if you were in a coma all day long. So there is literally no way you could gain on 1400 (because you said this is your "RMR", really BMR) unless you stayed in bed all day long not moving an inch. You didn't gain strength because you were not lifting to gain strength. I recommend doing some research in order to learn how to gain strength.

By the way, you do not have a lower than average BMR. Mine is 1,387

ETA: if you *were* gaining on 1400, then you were eating more than you think.

There is an RMR (resting met. rate) and it's very applicable here. The labs estimate that, not BMR. They're similar.

I've seen studies that found that some people had lab-measured RMRs over 20% less than the estimators. So if your estimate is 1500 from a formula online you could be burning more like 1200.

Also, what your BMR estimate is really tells nothing about how far off the averages hers is. The averages are specific to each of our age, height, weight and gender.

It might be helpful to know you age, height, and weight. I'm a smaller older woman (55 and 5'1.5", 120 lbs.). My BMR is around 1100. My TDEE (which is your metabolism with activity) would be 1350 if sedentary and 1510 if lightly active (which I am). Those numbers are fairly low -- not lower than "normal", but just low numbers because they are based on my age and height. I've been netting around 1200 (eating back exercise calories) for around 6 months and have been trying to net closer to 1100 for the past 3 weeks or so. I've been at a plateau for about 2 months. There are probably a couple of reasons for the plateau -- one is that I am at a normal BMI for my height, so pretty close to my "goal weight" so it would be harder to lose. Secondly, even 1100-1200 is not a huge deficit for me, so I'm not going to see the losses that someone my height who is 175 lbs. would see if she ate the same number of calories. The other thing is at that low a deficit, there isn't that big a margin for error in tracking -- an error of as little as 100-200 a day could mean not losing a 1/2 a lb, or even a small gain. If this situation describes your stats in any way, it might be the reason for what you are experiencing.

Re: exercise -- I do exercise -- a lot, and I teach at a large campus so even without exercise, I'm on my feet a lot and do a lot of walking. I "eat back" my exercise calories, but if I don't do "formal" exercise or only take a walk, I don't -- so, some days I am at the bare 1200. If you don't exercise, you really have to stick to that lower calorie limit or you won't see any progess. That being said, if I don't have time for the gym, I do a 30 minute walk, which is better than nothing. My husband has a job similar to yours, and sitting all day, which took a tremendous toll on his health -- whenever he can, he takes a 15-30 minute walk every day. He actually did lose a few lbs. doing that (he is heavy) and his blood sugar dropped. It was a very small change that didn't take a huge amount of time, but it made a significant difference.

By the way, if you want to see what 1200 looks like, my diary is open. I tend to eat small meals and snacks often.