Metabolic testing - YAY!!

2»

Replies

  • Sublog
    Sublog Posts: 1,296 Member
    What kind of test was done to predict this RMR? Some sort of mask? What else was involved?

    Yes - a mask, a reclining chair, dark and quiet for about 20 minutes. Measures oxygen in and out and CO2. Everything you want to know is here:
    http://www.newleaffitness.com/NewLeaf/NL_metabolism.html

    Then they put you on a treadmill to measure your efficiency and determine your zones for fat burn, cardio, and your threshold level, where you're burning all carbs and no fat. There's more, but that's the basics.

    Fat burning zone is a myth.

    This place sounds fishy. I was reading, and they want you to come back after 8-12 weeks to run the tests again?

    Metabolically speaking, you can't make enough body compositional changes in 8-12 weeks without anabolics to have an effect of BMR/RMR. Muscle mass only uses 6 calories per lb, while fat uses 2. Even with a + 1-4 lb muscle increase in 8-12 weeks (anymore is unlikely, especially at a caloric deficit) and a loss of fat of 5lbs only offers a net 14 more calories per day (using high end estimates)

    Sure, you body becomes more cardiovascularly healthy, and improved performance during your workouts will result in longer EPOC and more calories burned. But overall resting metabolism will be largely unchanged.

    I just don't understand how measuring o2 intake and co2 output can accurately gauge your metabolism?
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    What kind of test was done to predict this RMR? Some sort of mask? What else was involved?

    Yes - a mask, a reclining chair, dark and quiet for about 20 minutes. Measures oxygen in and out and CO2. Everything you want to know is here:
    http://www.newleaffitness.com/NewLeaf/NL_metabolism.html

    Then they put you on a treadmill to measure your efficiency and determine your zones for fat burn, cardio, and your threshold level, where you're burning all carbs and no fat. There's more, but that's the basics.

    Fat burning zone is a myth.

    This place sounds fishy. I was reading, and they want you to come back after 8-12 weeks to run the tests again?

    Metabolically speaking, you can't make enough body compositional changes in 8-12 weeks without anabolics to have an effect of BMR/RMR. Muscle mass only uses 6 calories per lb, while fat uses 2. Even with a + 1-4 lb muscle increase in 8-12 weeks (anymore is unlikely, especially at a caloric deficit) and a loss of fat of 5lbs only offers a net 14 more calories per day (using high end estimates)

    Sure, you body becomes more cardiovascularly healthy, and improved performance during your workouts will result in longer EPOC and more calories burned. But overall resting metabolism will be largely unchanged.

    I just don't understand how measuring o2 intake and co2 output can accurately gauge your metabolism?

    Not to mention I can't see how a 20-30 minute evaluation would be accurate even if it did work the way they say.
  • aj_rock
    aj_rock Posts: 390 Member
    The fat burning 'zone' isn't a myth persay, it's just been taken way out of context by people that want to feel important.

    Essentially, yes there is an optimal HR to encourage fat loss, but it is neither located in the fat burning 'zone' nor going to make you drop weight at a significantly faster rate.

    I know I haven't backed this statement up: anyone that wants to know more, just tell me.
  • emmaleigh47
    emmaleigh47 Posts: 1,670 Member
    I still say its a scheme ... by placing someone on such a dangerous low calorie diet they will experience significant weight loss in the short term ... thus leading them to recommend the program or come back for more, or get re-evaluated etc.

    Hmmm ...
  • JeremiahStone
    JeremiahStone Posts: 682 Member
    Bumpity bump
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    I still say its a scheme ... by placing someone on such a dangerous low calorie diet they will experience significant weight loss in the short term ... thus leading them to recommend the program or come back for more, or get re-evaluated etc.

    Hmmm ...

    I have to concur.
  • zookeepersuzy
    zookeepersuzy Posts: 111
    I still say its a scheme ... by placing someone on such a dangerous low calorie diet they will experience significant weight loss in the short term ... thus leading them to recommend the program or come back for more, or get re-evaluated etc.

    I also took this test and I was told to my rmr was 1532 so they don't always just give someone a low number. I increased my daily goal after the test and I have not gained any weight.

    The treadmill part of the test is to measure the VO2 max. This was actually more helpful to me because it gave me heart rate zones for training. I had tried to calculate my max HR before to use with my garmin and it was WAY off. Now that I have ranges for each zone 1-5, I feel like I'm working out harder than before because I was scared to get my HR that high before the test (b/c other websites told me that my max was what this test said is high zone 1)

    The test did not give me a "fat burning zone" but it says how many calories per minute that I burn in each zone and out of those calories it calculated how many of the calories burned were from fat or carbohydrate. I can upload my workout data from my garmin to see how much time is spent in each zone and then I can calculate how many calories I burned during my workout. This is helpful because MFP and other websites seem to over estimate how many cal are burned during exercise. MFP says 60 mins spinning = 606 cal & my calculations say I burned 369 in my last class.
  • jon_brady
    jon_brady Posts: 46 Member
    I am going to agree with the sceptics on this one because of the extremely low calories. I put your info into the formula I have for RMR and it came out around 1600/day. I would also ask the place that tested you how often their machine is maintained and calibrated. Absolutely run your results by your doctor.
  • RagtimeLady
    RagtimeLady Posts: 172 Member

    The test did not give me a "fat burning zone" but it says how many calories per minute that I burn in each zone and out of those calories it calculated how many of the calories burned were from fat or carbohydrate.

    That's what I meant.
  • shamr0ck
    shamr0ck Posts: 296 Member
    My body weight and body fat were very similar when i did the two tests, about 8 months apart (early 2010, then Dec 2010). I wanted to start exercising, joined the gym, did the initial fitness testing, blah blah, but didn't follow through. I didn't actually start my workout program until February of this year, and the doctor tested me in December 2010.

    I'm actually very curious to see how my numbers have changed now. I'm going to get a DEXA body composition reading done next month, and redo the metabolism testing with my doctor to see where i'm at.

    I'm also hypothyroid, due to having it out a couple of years ago (thyroid cancer). Because of that fact, combined with taking forever to lose weight, i was surprised to see the testing show me on the high normal side of metabolic burn.

    Ok so what were your numbers, RMR and BMR wise? Also what were your stats at the time of testing?

    I'll have to dig out the older sheet, but i've got the one from my doc handy because i just made a copy for my trainer at the gym.

    Stats were very similar, though - i bounced around within an 8 pound range for 5+ years, so i know the weight didn't change, and if anything, the fat percentage would have gone up due to relative inactivity.

    My height is 5'4", weight in December was 203lbs (would have been no more than 210 at the previous test), fat percentage was 41%. Ugh. :( BMR is listed as 1686.

    As i said, i don't have the other sheet handy atm, but i know it was in the low 1200 range, as i was shocked at the difference and had discussed it with my doc at the time of the second test.

    I'm hoping that the numbers are much improved now, given that my weight is down to 167, and my scale claims 34% bodyfat. Trainer using calipers got a smaller number (26%), of which i am distrustful. Hence wanting the DEXA for the most accurate reading.
  • RagtimeLady
    RagtimeLady Posts: 172 Member
    I think we're having a misunderstanding of terms here. Yeah, I got a low number (1093) for RMR. RMR was taken after an 8-hour fast, reclining in a comfy chair with lights off and no sound and I was verrrrrry relaxed. That number would be close to BMR, but that can only be taken, from what I understand, just after waking.

    What they called RMR + Lifestyle, figuring normal daily physical activity excluding exercise, came out to 1536. I think that's what some of you are referring to as RMR. Actually, I think the 1536 number is a little high, because other than the time I am exercising, I am and have been a very sedentary individual.

    Just so we're all on the same page here.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories