Slow Metabolism?

sounds to me you'e working out too much… getting fit isn't losing weight. The body could struggle as you do both too aggressively.

I'm about your height, 5'1", but older (57) and lighter (120 lbs.). I wear a Fitbit Charge HR, which actually measures by burn all day based on heart rate. I'd say my inactive metabolism is at 1200 or even lower (some days as little as 1050 to 1100) so eating that much with no activity would give me 0 weight loss. Yesterday, I did 10,000 steps, typical for my daily walking, which got me around 200+ calories and then pilates, so maybe another 100. By the end of the day I got less than 1600 calories. So, to lose weight, I'd actually have to eat 1200, not "net" 1200 because the deficit I can have to lose is very small (since you need to eat 500 calories less than you burn to lose 1 lb. a week). The estimates MFP gives me for the amount of exercise I do is actually much higher than the "burn" the Fibit calculates based on my heartrate and effort. For instance, MFP way overestimates the burn riding on a stationary bike. So, if you're "netting" 1200 and eating back exercise calories based on MFP estimates you might actually be eating more than you are burning. I'd eat back only have 1/2 to 2/3 of the MFP exercise calories and see what happens.

jdubsms wrote: »

Thank y'all so much for the insight. I never thought about weighing food. I weigh 166lbs and I'm 5 feet tall. -like a rolly polly. I want to get down to 150. Anything below 150 would be a miracle. My calories are net; I take into consideration the exercise I do. I looked at my weekly nutrients and I am very low on carbs. I've been meeting/exceeding my protein intake. Just trying to find out where I'm going wrong.

No, anything below 150 would not be a miracle. I used to think the same thing, and I now weigh much less than my "miracle weight" and am in a healthy BMI. You can do this!

rosebette wrote: »

I'm about your height, 5'1", but older (57) and lighter (120 lbs.). I wear a Fitbit Charge HR, which actually measures by burn all day based on heart rate. I'd say my inactive metabolism is at 1200 or even lower (some days as little as 1050 to 1100) so eating that much with no activity would give me 0 weight loss. Yesterday, I did 10,000 steps, typical for my daily walking, which got me around 200+ calories and then pilates, so maybe another 100. By the end of the day I got less than 1600 calories. So, to lose weight, I'd actually have to eat 1200, not "net" 1200 because the deficit I can have to lose is very small (since you need to eat 500 calories less than you burn to lose 1 lb. a week). The estimates MFP gives me for the amount of exercise I do is actually much higher than the "burn" the Fibit calculates based on my heartrate and effort. For instance, MFP way overestimates the burn riding on a stationary bike. So, if you're "netting" 1200 and eating back exercise calories based on MFP estimates you might actually be eating more than you are burning. I'd eat back only have 1/2 to 2/3 of the MFP exercise calories and see what happens.

So what settings did you use on your fitbit to determine your resting and working out HR? I mean, if you have a fairly slow heart rate in general then the fitbit can only conclude you have a very low 'metabolism', whatever it means by that. HR simply cannot be correlated to calorie burn if your heart rate deviates a bit away from the mid point. I read somewhere that only about 40% of all people sit anywhere near that mid point. How high your heart rate goes is partly influenced by genetics. Some people have a very high maximum heart rate, some a very low one. it has nothing to do with how fit or unfit you are or how many calories you burn. It's just a fact, like having naturally red hair vs. blond hair. If you are unfit and you more around though, your heart rate will go further up, at least for a moment than when you are fitter. Do you burn more calories? No, you don't. Furthermore, some medical problems, like hypothyreodism can lower the heartrate somewhat. If you're on betablockers your heartrate might stay low as well.

Imagine this: my maximum heart rate is very high, around 210. if I sit on the sofa it might just be around 50-60 as I'm fairly fit. Fitbit will assume I'm burning very few calories, based on the low HR. If I get up and run to the supermarket around the corner my heartrate might go up to 170 and fitbit will assume I just did something extraordinarily difficult and overestimate the calorie burn big time while it was just a very light, easy jog for me.

Oh, some other numbers: I wore my HR sensor for a few nights as I wanted to know what my minimum HR for running is. After 9 hours of measuring I got around 300kcal out of it. Over 24 hours that would be less than 900 calories. Honestly, no. My base metabolic rate is not below 900. I just have a very low resting heart rate.

xvolution wrote: »

I have to agree with the full thyroid panel if you're doing everything right and either at a plateau or actually gaining weight. I plan on getting one myself at my next doctor's visit, since even though I'm keeping calories down I'm actually gaining weight [yes, I'm weighing all my food and even keeping my calories below my current bmr]. The only things I can think of is hypothyroidism or iodine deficiency [I'm on a dairy and sodium restrictive diet, both of which are the main sources of iodine].

I snooped your diary and doesn't look like you weigh everything. You use cups, weigh in ounces and a lot of your entries are exactly the same. You also have generic entries, are those your recipe built recipes? If you really do use a food scale, my apologies.

If you are not losing you could eat just cut another 100 off your current daily intake, see that helps you a little.

Six pounds is awesome. Be patient.

Weigh everything and log honestly. Results will follow in their own time.

OP, I had a peek at your diary. It looks like you are using generic entries and not weighing your food. Also, how are you calculating your calorie burns? 260 calories for 19 minutes of pilates seems really high to me.

If you are eating your exercise calories back, and not weighing and using accurate entries, you are very likely underestimating your calories in and overestimating your calories out, resulting in slower weight loss.

That being said, 6 pounds in 8 weeks is great

rosebette wrote: »

I'm about your height, 5'1", but older (57) and lighter (120 lbs.). I wear a Fitbit Charge HR, which actually measures by burn all day based on heart rate. I'd say my inactive metabolism is at 1200 or even lower (some days as little as 1050 to 1100) so eating that much with no activity would give me 0 weight loss. Yesterday, I did 10,000 steps, typical for my daily walking, which got me around 200+ calories and then pilates, so maybe another 100. By the end of the day I got less than 1600 calories. So, to lose weight, I'd actually have to eat 1200, not "net" 1200 because the deficit I can have to lose is very small (since you need to eat 500 calories less than you burn to lose 1 lb. a week). The estimates MFP gives me for the amount of exercise I do is actually much higher than the "burn" the Fibit calculates based on my heartrate and effort. For instance, MFP way overestimates the burn riding on a stationary bike. So, if you're "netting" 1200 and eating back exercise calories based on MFP estimates you might actually be eating more than you are burning. I'd eat back only have 1/2 to 2/3 of the MFP exercise calories and see what happens.

Yes to this! You can link your MFP account to your Fitbit account and it will bring over your daily calories consumed and factor in how many calories you have burned to tell you if you are within your daily deficit goal or not. I personally find that more accurate than what MFP tells me I can still eat at the end of the day. For example, yesterday I ended up with a deficit of 580 calories (whoops) which put me more than my goal of 500 per day. MFP told me that I could still eat another 262 calories which would have put me at less than my deficit goal.

I_Will_End_You wrote: »

3bambi3 wrote: »

OP, I had a peek at your diary. It looks like you are using generic entries and not weighing your food. Also, how are you calculating your calorie burns? 260 calories for 19 minutes of pilates seems really high to me.

If you are eating your exercise calories back, and not weighing and using accurate entries, you are very likely underestimating your calories in and overestimating your calories out, resulting in slower weight loss.

That being said, 6 pounds in 8 weeks is great

260 calories for 19 minutes of pilates sounds virtually impossible.

Ya, I weigh more than the OP and the system is telling me I'd get 68 calories for 19 minutes of pilates.