Low BMR?

It really doesn't matter what your BMR is or really even how accurately you log, as long as you're fairly consistent in your mis-estimating. If you're logging 1400 and not losing, you need to eat less.

The issue comes from people thinking the starvation mode and undereating messages apply to all of us and to all our estimates. In either case you fall into, under-estimating or under-burning, you're not going to hurt anything at 1200.

Mr Knight - you really can't know what % of people are 30% below the stated "average" BMR unless you know the standard deviation of the distribution.

Good. Because I *do* know the standard deviation. It's well known, you can look it up in the literature, and that's what I based the numbers on.

Sorry to be picky here, but bad statistics makes my head hurt

You're not being picky, you're being wrong. :happy: It's ok, I can handle it.

You also don't know my body composition.

Yes, I do. You have very high body fat percentage at that weight/height. No two ways about it. At that high level, being within 10 percentage points doesn't matter much.

There's no reason to be confused - the number you need is 1300-1400. This is also consistent with your claimed food intake, whcih is great, because we don't have to assume any violation of the laws of physics. That's always a plus.

Now go forth and be successful - good luck!

If you can buy a few weights/resistance bands and do even 20 minutes a day of strength training at home you can probably gain a couple pounds of lean muscle. You'll look leaner and you can fairly easily raise your BMR by a couple hundred calories to give yourself more wiggle room for food. Or you could do some bodyweight exercises from a workout video like Jillian michaels body shred (i think the video is available on youtube).

I read thru all these posts and as most chronic dieters already know, everyone is a little different. No one plan will work for every person. No two plans are alike...and more importantly no two resources seem to say the same things.. a few examples would be the calories and protein in a 4 ounce serving of chicken breast skinned and raw. look it up...the calorie variances are there. Also the calories in cooking oils... some resources say this isn't significantly absorbed, some say lower temp oils absorb more and some say it varies by type. Also body calculators.. My best friend in HS and I are the same height and age. At 160 I have noticeably chiseled arms and legs, she looks watery at that weight..

Also subtracting for exercise is a slippery slope.. it should be more starting at a set # of cal and watching your measurements... lots of measurements... bicep, forearm, thigh, calf, waist at smallest and at navel, and hips...neck.. all of them and monitoring how the exercise you do increases the amount of chg you SEE.. muscles learn to compensate.. and exercise counters don't know how your body metabolizes.. or what it's metabolizes. Proteins and fats have to be converted for energy so the yield is less for the ATP in the cells themselves.

I think this thread offered great questions and for some of the questions the answers have to be questions like how are you calculating your data? what factors do you control? what kind of calories are you consuming? what resources do you use?

I have a caveman metabolism, but I found a diet that works for me when I follow it.. The first step has already been taken for all of us, we are here!

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.

the last week in january i began a 1200-1300 calorie diet to lose 20-ish pounds, and based on my projected BMR/RMR numbers i was expecting to lose 1 - 2 pounds a week. but the weight was barely moving, and so i decided that i'd try dropping to 1000 - 1100 cals/day - then the pounds finally started coming off, albeit still at a snail's pace.

a couple months ago i decided to have my BMR tested, and the results were that my BMR is under the lowest 30th percentile for women of my age/weight, and that with a lightly active lifestyle i should aim for 1000 - 1075 calories/day for weight loss. i felt so validated - on the one hand it's kind of sad to hear you really do have a sluggish metabolism, but it exactly meshed with my experience and confirmed the problem wasn't that i was just eating more than i thought.

so yes, it's possible - it was at a rate of only about 2.85 lbs/month, but i managed to lose 23 lbs and get to 18% body fat (bod pod tested). but i did find exercise to be critical - the losing stalled if i couldn't make it to yoga class or for a long walk for a few days.

(by the way, you mentioned in another post that you had had your thyroid tested, but typical thyroid testing doesn't necessarily identify all thyroid issues - some people produce thyroid hormones so their blood panels are fine, but the body isn't able to convert and uptake them to to do their jobs. adrenal fatigue is another culprit in slow metabolism and low energy - and the low energy you mention does make me wonder whether something might be going on. might be work checking out, especially if you also have a low body temperature, are cold all the time, have brittle hair, dry skin, moodiness, difficulty concentrating, muscle aches - well, there are bunches of symptoms, actually.)

Some of the BMR estimates have large populations of Italian conscripts from the 30s and similar population groups, they didn't have any 240 lb women so the straight line drawn through that population is horribly extrapolated to where some people are today.

240 lb = 140 lb with a 100 lb fat suit on, not an extra 100 lb of metabolic furnace pro rata with the Italian conscripts.

1386 ± 254 kcal/day for obese women in http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/37/4/595.full.pdf

During weight loss and calorie restriction the RMR reduces by several percent as well http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673689901335

I do think it's possible. You should follow the advice about tracking and double-check your methods. But if you feel that's all good, experiment with ~5-10% cal reductions until you find a number where you're averaging a healthy weekly loss.

Experimentation really is a catch-all. If you're not logging accurately, even after your best efforts, you're reducing the amount of calories you're *actually* eating, which will generate losses. If you really do have some slight variation that's outside the range of what the usual calculators have you at, then you'll have reduced intake into the range that's right for you, which will generate losses. The big key is to be consistent, and give it time to work. Don't go overboard and slash a ton at once. Just go little by little, and see what happens with a week or two to judge. The cool thing is that once you know your number, it should change in a predictable way as you lose fat. You won't be "guessing" anymore.

As for "you're not measuring right" - again, I'll repeat. I am 240 lbs. Do we really think that if I track my steak salad as containing 4 oz instead of 3 oz of sirloin ... that THIS is the reason I haven't lost weight while cutting my intake in half last month?But also - I'm a data person, and I make my own food almost all of the time. The measurements are as correct as they can be. A 12 oz sirloin chopped into slices and divided equally onto 4 plates is ... 3 oz. I track every bite (though I missed a day when I was on a hiking trail out of cell phone reach).

Yes, it could be. Unless you're using a digital scale to measure that the steak was exactly 12 ounces, then cutting it in 4 portions and eating those 4 portions over the course of the following days all by yourself.

Otherwise you're just guesstimating. And 100 calories here, 50 calories there will add up and will result in the dreaded "you're eating more than you think."

I know you don't want to hear that. But it's just something to consider. Apologize if I missed it, but do you use a digital scale? If so, disregard my comment. :flowerforyou:

Its hard to really help much without seeing your stats and diary, the only data you have available is a 7lb loss left to go? If you are close to your ideal weight, it becomes more and more difficult to lose those last pounds, your margin of error gets smaller and smaller and this may be the biggest issue. I would work on lifting weights, great for your health in any case, plus it will help to change your body composition, and maybe throw the balance towards weight loss.

You may want to re-consider dismissing people who go to the most likely answer first though. Its purely good logic to assume someone is not recording/measuring correctly, since when this is studied, everyone, including nutritionists, who's job it is to accurately track, have been found to under estimate! Many studies have shown this, and I find it even in myself (I have no reason to lie to myself, but I'm constantly finding myself forgetting a small portion of this or that later, who knows what I don't catch...). I myself should always lose faster according to my numbers, and if I never caught myself forgetting to log this or that, "low metabolism" would be an easy explanation for it, and the one I'd jump to if I didn't think I had any other possible errors. But I happen to know I accidentally forget things, since I am retrospective and re-check things for errors in my mind, I find I actually just eat more than I log. Sometimes in going what I ate for today, I remember a food and...oh wait...that was yesterday and ....nope, not in my diary! In fact, I may have a HIGHER than average metabolism if anything...

The important point is not to feel bad about possibly being wrong, just figure out what you can do to compensate for an error. Whether you want to call it "low metabolism" or "oops I screwed up logging again", it doesn't matter...if you compensate for it, you lose...so add some more exercise to the equation, walk up stairs more, add a few walks per week, etc and eventually you will balance out wherever your error is coming from. I purposefully decrease my calorie burns here and there when I exercise. This compensates for my errors nicely at times. Whether it be the same error every other person has, or maybe you are an extremely rare case who accurately logs everything and has a low metabolism, it doesn't matter, you know there *is* an error, so just compensate for the error!

I really feel your pain because I can't seem to budge but I also am really close to my goal weight. If you don't want to miss family time then take family time to the pool or to the park and you can interval run for say 15 minutes? HIIT exercise are meant tto target zones for those that do not have time. There is no one on earth that has so little time for excercse-situp, pushups crunches then mix it up buy a timer and build up your stats. You sound to me to be more stocky than musckly so jump roping or turbo intervals out at the park can really boost your heart rate and a personal trainer/colleague has told us in class that your heart is the number one muscle to work to burn fat-if your rate rate isn't not up for a long enough times then your not doing much to lose weight...

I know you will probably think I'm attacking you but I'm not: if your personal trainer told you you can't burn fat if your heart rate isn't high enough, and HIIT is "meant to target zones for those who do not have time", he's not a very good personal trainer, sorry Maybe that's why you aren't losing, bad advice from your trainer.

Have you tried changing your macros? That could help you stay satiated longer and fuel your body more effectively. Not sure what your diary looks like, but you can tweak your protein/fat/carb ratios and up the protein and/or fat a little. And make sure you're getting enough fiber--at least 25 grams/day. That can help with your hunger issues too.

As can staying hydrated. Sometimes thirst masquerades as hunger. I go through at least 3 32oz bottles/day. Two are green tea, one is a protein shake for my workouts.

My BMR/RMR are low, due to my hypothyroidism. I was tested before it went kaput and then did it again after, just for jollies. Not a shocker for me. I'm 5'3 and about 128 (now--I was about 200). I am extremely active and love working out. I also have a standing desk at work which helps my back immensely (it gets cranky). Any movement you can fit in would help. Walking stairs on a break, using a printer far from your desk or parking your car farther from your office. Tiny tweaks can make a difference. You could try a pedometer and challenge yourself to get some steps.

I do much better with a higher amount of protein. I make really careful choices about my foods (for the most part). I buy low carb/high protein/high fiber bread, I eat veggies and beans, eggs and egg whites. And protein powder. And dark chocolate (sweetened with stevia) and peanut butter. I'm not perfect, by any means, but my food choices work for me. It did take me a while to figure out.

Hang in there--you'll get it!

I really feel your pain because I can't seem to budge but I also am really close to my goal weight. If you don't want to miss family time then take family time to the pool or to the park and you can interval run for say 15 minutes? HIIT exercise are meant tto target zones for those that do not have time. There is no one on earth that has so little time for excercse-situp, pushups crunches then mix it up buy a timer and build up your stats. You sound to me to be more stocky than musckly so jump roping or turbo intervals out at the park can really boost your heart rate and a personal trainer/colleague has told us in class that your heart is the number one muscle to work to burn fat-if your rate rate isn't not up for a long enough times then your not doing much to lose weight...

I know you will probably think I'm attacking you but I'm not: if your personal trainer told you you can't burn fat if your heart rate isn't high enough, and HIIT is "meant to target zones for those who do not have time", he's not a very good personal trainer, sorry Maybe that's why you aren't losing, bad advice from your trainer.

He (personal trainer) was the one who said the quote about the heart rate and he meant that its a good way to lose weight/ strengthen your heart which is a muscle which can aid in weight loss . I didn't mean to post it as a written in stone kind of thing… to be in your heart rate zone-i can't explain it is why it seems off. I was the one who suggest hiit but hiit is a very good way to lose weight or focus on areas when you have no time. Thank you for mentioning you weren't attacking me i can never tell when someoe isn't when they aren't obvious about being nice…but there is some truth to what I said and its the reason why suggested it. And OP sorry if you already tried HIIT but if your consisted then you should succeed just go to suzzannalight.com or bodyrockt.v. You do need to time your reps-to make sure your improving-w/improvemets comes weight loss/body change. People make it so complicated. Don't eat so much and workout is really the only way to lose weight. I mean healthy eating and enough physical exertion why does it get so hard (rhetorical)….Kids have high metabolism ( well these days some of them LOL-ACTUALLY KIND OF VERY SAD) but look at what they do too. They do have high energy and high metabolism but they also love to be active and love being outside and they don't focus on eating-parents have to sometimes force them almost to eat because playing seems more important…and well for the fat kids well they don't like to play outside but watch tv or play video games and eat all day-idk I may way out of line here and my advice seems lame but other than health reasons its not complicated and when you eat organic food or better foods and become more active whether its hiit or what have you then it wards of disease too its hand in hand