Please be careful with calorie deficits. I had my RMR tested & was shocked how my body responded.

girlnamedanne
girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
So I learned a lot at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas yesterday (it's a wellness clinic, and part of it focuses on eating disorders and nutrition).

My RMR (based on carbon dioxide and oxygen testing plus all the body composition) said this: For a girl my age (34)/weight(139)/activity(light active)/exercise(4-6 hours a week)/composition(100lbs of muscle) I should have an RMR 1400 + activity 460 + exercise 200 = calories needed to maintain 2060.

BUT because I have been restrictive with my calories (1000-1400) for the last 4 years, my actual RMR is 830. Which is why I am maintaining my weight at 1400 calories a day and gaining if I go up to 1600-1800. According to all these tests, genetically my lowest healthy weight at my lowest healthy body fat (20%---it's currently 25%---my max is 33%) is 128/130. Underweight for me is 122. Overweight for me is 154.

So because my metabolism is so slow because of my restricting I have to increase up to 2k over the next 2.5 months to get it back to normal. I can increase exercise a little to help offset it but scientifically I must gain weight in order to increase my RMR to normal. Eventually it will stop and I'll be able to lose at 1800-2000 calories again.

Here's the thing: Even though I weigh 138-140 lbs, my body over time internally is paying the consequence similar to if I were 100lbs and clinically anorexic.

This makes me really upset at the messages the mainstream says about calorie deficits. If I would have known even a slight deficit of eating 1400-1500 calories a day would ruin my metabolism in the LONG RUN, I would have never been so strict with my diet.

Wowsa. The more you know...

Here's a great video about low calorie diets, metabolic damage (what I have) and why people gain weight even though they think they're still in a deficit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw3kfRkqVWU

Feel free to add me if this resonates with you.
«1

Replies

  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    edited November 2014
    This sounds like an old article I used to post all the time. It does not years and years though to get this. Sometimes the decrease in calorie intake is not the right answer.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    "This makes me really upset at the messages the mainstream says about calorie deficits. If I would have known even a slight deficit of eating 1400-1500 calories a day would ruin my metabolism in the LONG RUN, I would have never been so strict with my diet."

    Well, I would have to disagree that this is a typical result. I too have had my RMR tested, year over year, and did not have issues like yours. It seems like your body reacted poorly, but I don't think that is the typical response (unless I'm just special?). I have been restricting to a NET of 1460 (while very obese) to now around 1230 (20 lbs. overweight) for the last 3.5 years. My metabolism continues to test about 10% over the estimates.

    So, with everything else, it's very individual. Do you have a comparison to what your RMR was prior to your restriction?
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Wow, four years averaging 1200 calories and 138-140lbs. How tall are you?

    I don't think those centers advertise it but those tests aren't always definitive, or done correctly.

    I've read that when you stop dieting, your calorie burn goes right back to normal.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063433?dopt=Abstract
    CONCLUSIONS:
    "Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight."
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    When you're 122 lbs and keeping 1000 or less (at my lowest), it does in fact have that. The Cooper clinic is pretty much the most respected clinic on this...it's not just one of those random RMR tests. It was a day long intensive test, fasting, resting, no activity, full body composition, history of eating and exercise.

    Everyone has a different opinion on this and studies contradict. All I know is my body, my results, and my math. Metabolism just doesn't snap back for most people. And I have no genetic predisposed low MR or any other issues that would cause it. My body was starving itself over 4 years (at 1000-1400 calories) so it learned that it couldn't metabolize less than 800-900 calories a day (add in activity and exercise to 800-900 and you get 1400). I need to retrain my body to know it can survive off 1800-2000 calories a day.
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    I'm 5'6" btw.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Well that sucks for you. I'd do the test again though, I know someone else here had a test done and ended up with crazy results, but once she took it again, it was more normal.
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    I had it done three times within my time at Cooper. It was the same. And it makes sense as if I eat 1600 calories from 1400, I gain weight.
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    edited November 2014
    Wow, you guys are super NOT encouraging. I'm probably just going to be deleting this. Not worth the downers. MyFitnessEveryoneKnowsBetterUnPals
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    Since they have yet to finish learning everything there is to know, it seems rather silly to dig your heels in on either side of this argument, especially if you're going to say (and let me use my best Thomas Dolby voice here), "It's Science!"

    If you're going to be dogmatic about your ideas and approach, it's best to wait until the subject is settled.

    Everyone is different and will react different physically and emotionally to different approaches.
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    girlnamedanne wrote: »
    When you're 122 lbs and keeping 1000 or less (at my lowest), it does in fact have that. The Cooper clinic is pretty much the most respected clinic on this...it's not just one of those random RMR tests. It was a day long intensive test, fasting, resting, no activity, full body composition, history of eating and exercise.

    Everyone has a different opinion on this and studies contradict. All I know is my body, my results, and my math. Metabolism just doesn't snap back for most people. And I have no genetic predisposed low MR or any other issues that would cause it. My body was starving itself over 4 years (at 1000-1400 calories) so it learned that it couldn't metabolize less than 800-900 calories a day (add in activity and exercise to 800-900 and you get 1400). I need to retrain my body to know it can survive off 1800-2000 calories a day.

    Your body wasn't starving itself, you did this to your body. You were carrying a deficit that was far too high for your weight and activity level. This is why people on MFP give a suggested weight loss per week depending on how much you have to lose. If you don't increase your calories and decrease your weekly weight loss goal, this is what can happen.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    girlnamedanne wrote: »
    Wow, you guys are super NOT encouraging. I'm probably just going to be deleting this. Not worth the downers. MyFitnessEveryoneKnowsBetterUnPals

    I see you're new here.

  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    I'm out. I was sharing information and experience. I didn't expect to be annihilated. "Hmm, that's interesting" is a more gracious reply. Peace.
  • maxit
    maxit Posts: 880 Member
    This video series is excellent. For new viewers, at about 10 min in, the summary of the science commences. Well worth your while.
  • bellaa_x0
    bellaa_x0 Posts: 1,062 Member
    out of curiosity, were you required to fast before the test? i had my RMR tested multiple times and had to fast beforehand.. additionally, as someone already mentioned, the first test had odd results, but when i was re-tested it was more in line with what one would expect.
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    bellaa_x0 wrote: »
    out of curiosity, were you required to fast before the test? i had my RMR tested multiple times and had to fast beforehand.. additionally, as someone already mentioned, the first test had odd results, but when i was re-tested it was more in line with what one would expect.

    Yes, I fasted for 12 hours and was tested with limited activity (walking down the hall from my room to the clinic) shortly after waking up.

    I've had this test 3 times.

    The math adds up to my behavior.

  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    girlnamedanne wrote: »
    I'm out. I was sharing information and experience. I didn't expect to be annihilated. "Hmm, that's interesting" is a more gracious reply. Peace.

    if you think this is annihilation I wish you the best of luck in internet land.

    You're welcome here as is everyone else- but it is the a world full of people and opinions and a lot of knowledge.

    sorry you're feeling put out- but carrying a heavy calorie deficit is bad for you- which is why it's not suggested. I mean- sucks to find out the hard way- but on the upside- you can return to "normal" These things are reversible.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    What is the argument here that a really low calorie deficit as part of your diet will slow down RMR if kept for long duration?
  • nbkp2ge
    nbkp2ge Posts: 39 Member
    I can't view the video on here...can someone give me the link plse?
  • meganjcallaghan
    meganjcallaghan Posts: 949 Member
    So is this specifically to do with intake? Or is it actually about the deficit? What I mean is, If I need 2000 to maintain, I burn 1500 in exercise and eat 3000 calories....is the important part that I've eaten 3000 calories, so my body is getting buttloads of food/nutrients? Or is the important part that with exercise I've still got a 500 cal deficit and am only netting 1500?
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    edited November 2014
    nbkp2ge wrote: »
    I can't view the video on here...can someone give me the link plse?

    Quote this copy and paste URL

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw3kfRkqVWU
  • simplydelish2
    simplydelish2 Posts: 726 Member
    I think the issue that most aren't understanding is that when you have a prolonged period (as in years) eating at a larger deficit - that becomes the norm for the body. This becomes more and more true the older you get. We don't all metabolize calories the same way either. Tests for one person aren't going to have the same results as the test for another - even at the same height, weight, age, and calorie restriction.

    Personally I love your post and totally understand. Due to dieting almost my entire life - above a 1400 calorie diet and I gain too.

    20757594.png
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    What is the argument here that a really low calorie deficit as part of your diet will slow down RMR if kept for long duration?

    long duration, yes. mine is years.
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    simplydelish2 wrote: »
    I think the issue that most aren't understanding is that when you have a prolonged period (as in years) eating at a larger deficit - that becomes the norm for the body. This becomes more and more true the older you get. We don't all metabolize calories the same way either. Tests for one person aren't going to have the same results as the test for another - even at the same height, weight, age, and calorie restriction.

    Personally I love your post and totally understand. Due to dieting almost my entire life - above a 1400 calorie diet and I gain too.

    20757594.png

    precisely. thank you.
  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    meganjcallaghan wrote: »
    So is this specifically to do with intake? Or is it actually about the deficit? What I mean is, If I need 2000 to maintain, I burn 1500 in exercise and eat 3000 calories....is the important part that I've eaten 3000 calories, so my body is getting buttloads of food/nutrients? Or is the important part that with exercise I've still got a 500 cal deficit and am only netting 1500?

    it's with food intake.
  • Hadley_SM
    Hadley_SM Posts: 43 Member
    Bump to read later, thanks!
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    Weight gain after an initial calorie bump can also be caused by your body replenishing its glycogen stores. Just wanted to put this in here because a lot of people will stop eating at a deficit and suddenly the scale goes up five pounds in a couple of weeks and they think they're gaining on eating a normal amount. It's not fat, it's glycogen energy storage.
  • sseqwnp
    sseqwnp Posts: 327 Member
    girlnamedanne wrote: »
    simplydelish2 wrote: »
    I think the issue that most aren't understanding is that when you have a prolonged period (as in years) eating at a larger deficit - that becomes the norm for the body. This becomes more and more true the older you get. We don't all metabolize calories the same way either. Tests for one person aren't going to have the same results as the test for another - even at the same height, weight, age, and calorie restriction.

    Personally I love your post and totally understand. Due to dieting almost my entire life - above a 1400 calorie diet and I gain too.

    20757594.png

    precisely. thank you.

    Ahh. So you *are* just looking for people to agree with you.

    And, if you consider "have you double checked your data and results?" as "getting annhilated" you're going to HATE the forums here.

    Please link me to the inevitable "mean people" thread you'll create.
  • luluinca
    luluinca Posts: 2,899 Member
    I personally found your post interesting and useful. I damaged my metabolism due to a year long illness and it's taken me a couple of years to get back to a normal calorie intake. I had to work at it by slowly adding calories and my weight loss slowed several times over the last year.

    I seem to be doing fine now as I'm still losing about 1/2 pound every week averaging about 1600 calories/day, working out pretty hard 4 to 5 times per week. At 5'7", still 176 pounds and age 64 I think that's about normal.

  • girlnamedanne
    girlnamedanne Posts: 22 Member
    sseqwnp wrote: »
    girlnamedanne wrote: »
    simplydelish2 wrote: »
    I think the issue that most aren't understanding is that when you have a prolonged period (as in years) eating at a larger deficit - that becomes the norm for the body. This becomes more and more true the older you get. We don't all metabolize calories the same way either. Tests for one person aren't going to have the same results as the test for another - even at the same height, weight, age, and calorie restriction.

    Personally I love your post and totally understand. Due to dieting almost my entire life - above a 1400 calorie diet and I gain too.

    20757594.png

    precisely. thank you.

    Please link me to the inevitable "mean people" thread you'll create.

    That's a terrible presumption. After this, I'm not making any freaking threads. The private messages I'm getting are actually encouraging...and they're pretty much from people who have burned out on forums because they don't like arguing with sarcastic, presumptuous people.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories