Wow (RMR results)
rckeeper22
Posts: 103 Member
I've been on a big "track the fitness!" kick, and decided to have my RMR (resting metabolic rate) measured to get a better sense of my nutritional needs, versus just using an online calculator.
Going by IIFYM calculators, my maintenance calories were around 2,150.
According to this test, my RMR is 2,110 calories- and to just maintain, I should be eating 2,466 per day! With an additional 466 added on days that I exercise, given an activity level of about 8 hrs/week of exercise.
I think it may have over-estimated calories burned during exercise, but even then- wow, I guess I'm going to have to up my eating game! I'll try shooting for the 2500 range and see what happens, but it was pretty interesting to find all that out. (For reference I don't have specific weight goals now- I cut a little to lean out, and am now focused on improving physical performance and body comp more so than any scale measurements. I'd actually like to avoid looking at the scale at all).
Has anyone else done an RMR/BMR test? Did you feel like the results were accurate?
Edit: Fixed some typos - and that's why I shouldn't type on my phone.
Going by IIFYM calculators, my maintenance calories were around 2,150.
According to this test, my RMR is 2,110 calories- and to just maintain, I should be eating 2,466 per day! With an additional 466 added on days that I exercise, given an activity level of about 8 hrs/week of exercise.
I think it may have over-estimated calories burned during exercise, but even then- wow, I guess I'm going to have to up my eating game! I'll try shooting for the 2500 range and see what happens, but it was pretty interesting to find all that out. (For reference I don't have specific weight goals now- I cut a little to lean out, and am now focused on improving physical performance and body comp more so than any scale measurements. I'd actually like to avoid looking at the scale at all).
Has anyone else done an RMR/BMR test? Did you feel like the results were accurate?
Edit: Fixed some typos - and that's why I shouldn't type on my phone.
0
Replies
-
No, but I've been tracking food and activity and exercise on MFP for eleven years and even though MFP sets me at 1500 to maintain, I eat around 2300 and have maintained for years at that.
2 -
Wow, 1,500 does seem pretty low for maintenance. Good to know. I used a few different IIFYM calculators and averaged the results to get the 2,150.0
-
It's actually pretty cool that you were able to come up with a number online that was close to your actual RMR. A couple hundred calories one way or the other falls into the errors of logging range.
I did the same thing, lots of online researching and then meticulous logging.1 -
How was your RMR measured?0
-
I guess you're right - it is fairly close. I think the additional 466 for workout calories (for a total of around 2,900/day) is what blew my mind a little - especially since 2,150 was supposed to be accounting for my activity levels already.
Definitely a lot to research out there . . . and I agree, I enjoy logging and having a better idea of what I'm eating. Though, I need to find the balance between logging accurately can, and not getting stressed out when I feel like I can't capture things as accurately (eating out, etc). Sounds like you've developed a great habit - 11 years is impressive!0 -
I had mine measured and it also came back close to 400 calories higher than I anticipated. It doesn't do me a lot of good however, because I don't accurately track. So it's better for me to go off of my 'inaccurate' logging than the RMR number.1
-
What amount were you eating and what were your results over time?1
-
What amount were you eating and what were your results over time?
I've always been fairly lean, but decided I wanted to see what losing 5-7 lbs would do to bring out the tone a bit more (in conjunction with working out). So, I ate at around 1700 cal/day for somewhere around a week and half, saw progress, and increased to around 2,150. I dropped the 7 lbs in about 2 weeks (which tells me most of it was water weight anyways). I guess I've been eating at around 2,150 for 2-3 weeks now. I did notice my energy levels starting to decrease (particularly during workouts) when I was at the 1700/day levels, which is why I didn't go too long at that range.
Now, I'm trying to ignore the scale- I never paid it much attention before this most recent experiment to see if I could lean out slightly more. I did, and now I'm trying to find that sweet spot to fuel for optimal performance vice for a particular weight.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »How was your RMR measured?
OP - this is an important question.
There's measurement methods and estimation methods......0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »How was your RMR measured?
OP - this is an important question.
There's measurement methods and estimation methods......
I didn't see it before, thanks for highlighting it.
The nutritionist at our gym had me put on a nose clip and breathe into a mouthpiece for around 10 minutes. She also asked me some basic questions about sleep and activity levels, along with height/weight. I'm not sure what the machine itself was called, but the print-out she gave me has the name "BodyGem" on it.
Edit: She also had me fast (no food or coffee) prior to taking the test; I took it at 9:00 am in the morning, so no breakfast.0 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »How was your RMR measured?
OP - this is an important question.
There's measurement methods and estimation methods......
I didn't see it before, thanks for highlighting it.
The nutritionist at our gym had me put on a nose clip and breathe into a mouthpiece for around 10 minutes. She also asked me some basic questions about sleep and activity levels, along with height/weight. I'm not sure what the machine itself was called, but the print-out she gave me has the name "BodyGem" on it.
Edit: She also had me fast (no food or coffee) prior to taking the test; I took it at 9:00 am in the morning, so no breakfast.
That's good news then. It's analysing your breath to measure rate of oxygen use.
Happy eating!
2 -
-
rckeeper22 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »How was your RMR measured?
OP - this is an important question.
There's measurement methods and estimation methods......
I didn't see it before, thanks for highlighting it.
The nutritionist at our gym had me put on a nose clip and breathe into a mouthpiece for around 10 minutes. She also asked me some basic questions about sleep and activity levels, along with height/weight. I'm not sure what the machine itself was called, but the print-out she gave me has the name "BodyGem" on it.
Edit: She also had me fast (no food or coffee) prior to taking the test; I took it at 9:00 am in the morning, so no breakfast.
That's what I was looking for. Breath analysis is far more accurate than the electrical machines (where you basically just grip a metal handle).2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »rckeeper22 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »How was your RMR measured?
OP - this is an important question.
There's measurement methods and estimation methods......
I didn't see it before, thanks for highlighting it.
The nutritionist at our gym had me put on a nose clip and breathe into a mouthpiece for around 10 minutes. She also asked me some basic questions about sleep and activity levels, along with height/weight. I'm not sure what the machine itself was called, but the print-out she gave me has the name "BodyGem" on it.
Edit: She also had me fast (no food or coffee) prior to taking the test; I took it at 9:00 am in the morning, so no breakfast.
That's what I was looking for. Breath analysis is far more accurate than the electrical machines (where you basically just grip a metal handle).
True, but I wonder what the error rate is on these machines. I know that the hood method (indirect calorimetry), which this seems to be a portable version of, is considered to have a fairly large rate of error (can't remember exactly offhand but it's not as accurate as a metabolic chamber). This is just my academic curiosity, it's obviously a great idea to get this type of check rather than a guess or estimation calculations based on body composition etc.
Edit: ok Google works well, the company claims that it is accurate within 1-3% of the metabolic gold standard. Of course, this is advertising copy but even if it was off 5-10% that's still good enough for a person to base their diary on.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
True, but I wonder what the error rate is on these machines. I know that the hood method (indirect calorimetry), which this seems to be a portable version of, is considered to have a fairly large rate of error (can't remember exactly offhand but it's not as accurate as a metabolic chamber). This is just my academic curiosity, it's obviously a great idea to get this type of check rather than a guess or estimation calculations based on body composition etc.
I agree; I was curious as well. That's why I'm proceeding with caution, increasing my caloric intake moderately to see how it pans out. I think it makes sense that eating a bit more would help fuel my body more effectively, which this test confirmed - I'm just not sure how *much* more is appropriate for that sweet spot.0 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
True, but I wonder what the error rate is on these machines. I know that the hood method (indirect calorimetry), which this seems to be a portable version of, is considered to have a fairly large rate of error (can't remember exactly offhand but it's not as accurate as a metabolic chamber). This is just my academic curiosity, it's obviously a great idea to get this type of check rather than a guess or estimation calculations based on body composition etc.
I agree; I was curious as well. That's why I'm proceeding with caution, increasing my caloric intake moderately to see how it pans out. I think it makes sense that eating a bit more would help fuel my body more effectively, which this test confirmed - I'm just not sure how *much* more is appropriate for that sweet spot.
I added in the edit above, the company claims 1-3% off of the gold standard, which, of course, has it's own rate of error. However, this will still be a good number to use for your logging and you can adjust slightly as you go along.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »rckeeper22 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »How was your RMR measured?
OP - this is an important question.
There's measurement methods and estimation methods......
I didn't see it before, thanks for highlighting it.
The nutritionist at our gym had me put on a nose clip and breathe into a mouthpiece for around 10 minutes. She also asked me some basic questions about sleep and activity levels, along with height/weight. I'm not sure what the machine itself was called, but the print-out she gave me has the name "BodyGem" on it.
Edit: She also had me fast (no food or coffee) prior to taking the test; I took it at 9:00 am in the morning, so no breakfast.
That's what I was looking for. Breath analysis is far more accurate than the electrical machines (where you basically just grip a metal handle).
True, but I wonder what the error rate is on these machines. I know that the hood method (indirect calorimetry), which this seems to be a portable version of, is considered to have a fairly large rate of error (can't remember exactly offhand but it's not as accurate as a metabolic chamber). This is just my academic curiosity, it's obviously a great idea to get this type of check rather than a guess or estimation calculations based on body composition etc.
Edit: ok Google works well, the company claims that it is accurate within 1-3% of the metabolic gold standard. Of course, this is advertising copy but even if it was off 5-10% that's still good enough for a person to base their diary on.
nice! they offer these at one of the locations of the college i work for, i'm going to go get it done and see what i find out.
edit: typo2 -
Update: I started making more of an effort to eat around the 2,300-2,400 calorie range, and increased my carbs (I didn't make a very strong effort to hit them previously), and I've definitely noticed an improvement in my energy levels. I'm feeling more stamina on my runs in particular. I'm hoping it will also help me get stronger on a few key lifts by providing the right amount of fuel for my muscles, but it's too early to tell in that realm.
I haven't stepped on the scale, but I'm plenty happy with what I see in the mirror, and for me, that plus performance improvements means it was definitely the right choice to increase those numbers.2 -
@rckeeper22 i found the same - i had my RMR done a few years ago, it came back at around 1500cal a day doing nothing; and then I started working with the folks at Eat to Perform. For the last year i have averaged 2500cal a day - peaking at 3000 during triathlon season) with 350-400g carbs and maintaining weight - my energy has been insane1
-
@deannalfisher That's awesome. It's funny, I thought of myself as relatively well-informed and unafraid of calories. Then, I started tracking more - and while the benefits of being more aware of my diet were great, I also noticed how easy it was to fall into the trap of being afraid of the calorie numbers going up - even though I'd never worried about them before.
The RMR data definitely helped make me feel more secure in what you noted as well - you have to eat for performance and fuel your body appropriately, especially if you're physically active. Otherwise everything (energy levels, performance, etc) gets short-changed.2 -
I got my RMR measured at Lifetime Fitness a few years ago. My RMR was around 1500 (if i remember correctly) so they had put me on a 1800-2100 calorie eating plan. I am currently trying to stick to 1800 calories, which is what MFP actually has for me to lose 1 lb per week.
Yay for having a high RMR, must be all that muscle!1 -
@abarriere Hah, thanks! That's what I'm going to tell myself at least. ;-) Might get a lean body mass test just to find out while I'm on this "measure ALL the things!" kick.
How are you feeling around 1800 calories? Good energy level etc?0 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »@abarriere Hah, thanks! That's what I'm going to tell myself at least. ;-) Might get a lean body mass test just to find out while I'm on this "measure ALL the things!" kick.
How are you feeling around 1800 calories? Good energy level etc?
If you are planning on getting a body composition test I would recommend a DEXA scan.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »If you are planning on getting a body composition test I would recommend a DEXA scan.
I've heard that's the best option, but what's the cost look like? I can get caliper/skin fold measurements for free at my gym, and while I know that's not nearly as accurate, I'm wondering if it might be good enough to give me an idea - especially for free, hah.0 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »If you are planning on getting a body composition test I would recommend a DEXA scan.
I've heard that's the best option, but what's the cost look like? I can get caliper/skin fold measurements for free at my gym, and while I know that's not nearly as accurate, I'm wondering if it might be good enough to give me an idea - especially for free, hah.
A skin fold can be quite accurate if done properly, and by a person who is well trained. Ask about what type they use and the qualifications of the person performing the test. There are more than one type of skin fold test so it could be more or less accurate based on the method and the person performing the test. Yes, it should be a good enough indication and free is good. DEXA is more accurate in general but will likely be around $100+ per scan. You can look in your area, most are listed as bone density scans in the phone book or internet search.
0 -
Surprisingly my insurance company covered mine. I guess the Dr. filed it under a bone density scan.0
-
rckeeper22 wrote: »@abarriere Hah, thanks! That's what I'm going to tell myself at least. ;-) Might get a lean body mass test just to find out while I'm on this "measure ALL the things!" kick.
How are you feeling around 1800 calories? Good energy level etc?
It's too early to tell, I just started back to counting calories this week. I did the Whole 30 for like 20 days and then was like nope. So I am back to an eat what you want but keep in your calories mindset. Whole 30 did help get me to up the veggies, so it wasn't a total waste of time. My energy right now is great.
I am going to try to do around 1800 during the week and 2100 on the weekends to allow for wine. I am working out 4-5 days a week, but haven't eaten back those calories, was thinking of using some of the workout calories on the weekend to allow the 2100. Not sure if that's sustainable yet or not or if that will tempt me to go overboard. Time will tell!
You may have already said this, but how tall are you?
0 -
mom23mangos wrote: »Surprisingly my insurance company covered mine. I guess the Dr. filed it under a bone density scan.
That's a bonus, guess it's all in the classification.0 -
rckeeper22 wrote: »I've been on a big "track the fitness!" kick, and decided to have my RMR (resting metabolic rate) measured to get a better sense of my nutritional needs, versus just using an online calculator.
Going by IIFYM calculators, my maintenance calories were around 2,150.
According to this test, my RMR is 2,110 calories- and to just maintain, I should be eating 2,466 per day! With an additional 466 added on days that I exercise, given an activity level of about 8 hrs/week of exercise.
I think it may have over-estimated calories burned during exercise, but even then- wow, I guess I'm going to have to up my eating game! I'll try shooting for the 2500 range and see what happens, but it was pretty interesting to find all that out. (For reference I don't have specific weight goals now- I cut a little to lean out, and am now focused on improving physical performance and body comp more so than any scale measurements. I'd actually like to avoid looking at the scale at all).
Has anyone else done an RMR/BMR test? Did you feel like the results were accurate?
Edit: Fixed some typos - and that's why I shouldn't type on my phone.
Yes, I had it done when my dietitian requested it, after I started freaking out at her about how nope nope nope I can't possibly need the calories she thought. It was 30 percent higher than expected by the BodPod (I had BodPod testing done, and then the RMR), 20 percent higher than my Apple Watch calculates, 16 percent higher than what MFP calculates, and 16 percent higher than IIFYM. Which I guess shouldn't be a surprise, considering neither the Watch nor MFP consider LBM.
I was surprised in the moment, but then on a whim, calculated my calorie needs based on what it said, and deducting a deficit from that. Once my thyroid meds got straightened out, I have now indeed been losing at the expected rate. I'm glad I decided that MFP was not an accurate tool in that regard (I use TDEE instead of NEAT) and just manually set my own goal.
FWIW, IIFYM is off on my TDEE, though -- their calculator says 1868, but the reality is in the ballpark of 2275. Even if I take the lower TDEE that I get through my Watch (which is what I use for my planning, since 2275 to me still sounds crazy high), I get 2070. So an 18 percent difference from IIFYM to the activity factor calculation, and 10 percent on the Watch. Which may seem like a small percentage, but we're talking about 200-400 calories!3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
A skin fold can be quite accurate if done properly, and by a person who is well trained. Ask about what type they use and the qualifications of the person performing the test. There are more than one type of skin fold test so it could be more or less accurate based on the method and the person performing the test. Yes, it should be a good enough indication and free is good. DEXA is more accurate in general but will likely be around $100+ per scan. You can look in your area, most are listed as bone density scans in the phone book or internet search.
Great info to have - I appreciate the detailed, thought-out answers you've been offering. Since I'm fairly happy with where I'm at, and am looking to find LBM more out of curiosity than to use it as a means to develop a goal, I think I'll give the caliper method a shot.
@mom23mangos: That's great your insurance covered it. I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to get really serious about drilling down these numbers. It tends to be a pretty big pain to work with my health system, unfortunately.
@abarriere: I've been hearing a lot about Whole30 recently - it must be pretty popular. Your plan sounds reasonable to me - I think it helps to make moderate allowances like you described. I do more weight-based than cardio-based workouts, so I try to calculate my overall numbers based on average activity levels vice eating back calories expended each day. What's your workout 'flavor' of choice?
Also, I'm 5'8.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions