Very slow metabolism (clinically tested)
Options
Replies
-
joeymattluke wrote: »I am female, 41, 5’10 weigh 286.
I have gained 60# in 2 years, while doing these various plans, efforts.
I’ve had bloodwork done every 6 months, specifically thyroid at my urgency to the doctor. My numbers come back in the “normal” range but I insisted on a referral to an endocrinologist and am waiting on that. The physiologist who did the rmr testing said that the maintenance zone was 1468-1713 calories- so to achieve the 2#per week loss that was optimal would be under that 1224, either by calorie restriction and/or exercise.
One thing you didn't mention, do you weigh/log all food you intake? You can exercise up a storm every day and if you eat more than you burn, you're going to gain weight. Judging portion sizes simply doesn't work, even if you use measuring cups. You also can't trust labels on pre-packaged foods, they can be off by up to 20%.
If I were you I'd shoot for 1200 cals/day, then add back in accurate exercise burns. Then it'll probably still require patience. Weigh in once a week at the most, and look at your trend over 3-6 months to make any determinations. You'll have to judge what you feel is accurate for exercise calories burned, but MFP's default database is pretty good for most exercises. Also, if you're logging a ton of calories with weight training you're probably logging too many. Cross-Fit and Circuit Training calories are notoriously over-estimated. I'll generally cut those in half from what the databases or apps tell me.
Just some food for thought.8 -
Don't overcomplicate things. I would start with the MFP recommended percentages, then tweak those as you go along and learn what works for you. Definitely get a food scale and weigh and log all your foods, including the WW 'free' foods. And lastly, please don't let your test results mess with your head. For example, I have low thyroid, and many people will want to use that to say they can't lose weight. Yet there are many, many people on MFP with low thyroid who can, and do lose weight. It may be a bit slower, but it can be done. NOTE: The slower your ability to lose weight, the more you need to use that food scale!2
-
I was journaling in the weight watchers app and now via MFP.
I wear a Fitbit, so when doing cross fit, I was just selecting one of the work our programs. However I didn’t add that activity into my daily input/output so I was not relying on that per se ... just kinda hoping it was extra in that calculation.
I’m going to try 1200 and upping the activity.
Thanks for your input.4 -
joeymattluke wrote: »The 1000 came up at the deficit of 500 calories a day to get to at least 3,500 in a week to lose 1# (based on the 3500=1# formula). Basing my activity at lightly active, hoping to have a bigger deficit than the 500/day to achieve a higher/faster loss result.
I obviously did read the report; I’m looking for advice since the nutritionist and exercise physiologist gave me this information right before the holiday week so I don’t have a plan yet. When I entered my caloric goal into the calculation part of the app here, it’s a bit daunting to see the low numbers... hence why I asked for input.
Thank you for advice... I’m hoping that I can figure this out because as I said before I was tracking for 2 months on the WW app and not being successful. I was around 1500 calories a day for eating and that was not tracking my activity - so in my mind, I assumed I should have been well within that weight loss zone == which is why I’m confused because it’s not working.
Tracking for me was by quantity / serving size. So I guess I’ll get a food scale to be even more accurate.
If you were logging 1500 tracking by serving size (and especially if you weren't tracking "free foods"), you were probably eating more than that. Even dietitians when asked to estimate their daily calories based on serving size fell short. Food scale for the win!
Most people find some combo of protein, fat, and fiber filling, so try to prioritize hitting those goals first to make sure you're getting the most bang for your buck. Also try to eliminate beverage calories as they are typically not filling - water, diet soda, black coffee with a smidge of milk, mint tea - I always have one by my side. And this thread might be super useful too - any little bit you can increase your calories out gives you a little more wiggle room:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
Preach! I cannot stress the bolded enough. The primary reason many professional are against calorie counting is due to this. Since a trained professional could not do with with accuracy and consistency, then how could a layman with no training do this?
Of course this flies in the face of the data collected from the National Weight Control Registry, whose data shows that subjects successfully losing weight and maintaining utilize some manner of calorie counting.
Let's put to bed the notion of fast, slow, broken, etc. metabolism as there is little to no evidence supporting that this exists.
PS - I know 60 lbs over 2 years seems excessive and dramatic, but look at the math behind this.
3500 kcals = 1 lb
60 lbs = 210,000 kcals
210,000 / 365 days = 575 kcals/day surplus
210,000 / 730 days - 287 kcals/day surplus
Amazing the impact small changes have over time.19 -
I can definitely relate to this. I have a degenerative disease, and as a part of a very complex set of health issues, my metabolism slowed dramatically over the last several years. I had been under the care of an endocrinologist who specialized in weight loss for about 9 months, when I was finally sent to have my RMR tested (at a medical facility, not a gym). Mine is 1138. I am 50 years old, 5'7" and "around" 155lb.
Joeymattluke, the ONLY way I have been successful losing is to track every single morsel that goes in my mouth. I weigh and measure everything. It has to happen, because I just don't have the wiggle room that other people do. I empathize with your plight - I really, really do!
And I echo what others have said - it is probably most realistic to make your weekly weight loss goal lower. I also want to put a plug in for eating a nutrient dense diet - which would pretty naturally control your carbs. It is HARD to get all your nutrition in when you have so few calories to play with. So it makes it even more important to make your food choices count in terms of lean protein, vitamins, antioxidants, etc.
The most important words of encouragement I would give you, though, are - Don't give up! And I would encourage you to look for a couple of other people who have similar issues who could function as accountability and support for you. MFP is an awesome site with loads of ideas and support, but you might really benefit from a really small nuclear group of folks who face the same issue of low metabolic rate.16 -
It seems to me that you are trying to convince us (and perhaps your medical team) that you are a true metabolic anomaly that gains weight while living like an air fern. I noticed that you pick and choose which posts you respond to; you seem to be ignoring the questions and comments that come from posters whose input is not what you want to hear.
It is very likely that you are consuming more calories than you think you are. Period. End of story.
The only way to know for sure is to get a digital scale and weigh every solid food (including single bites, tastes, spoon licks and "zero point" foods) and weigh or measure every single liquid that contains any calories at all. Do this for 6-8 weeks and be as brutally honest with yourself as you can. Come back and post the results.
While you are in this discovery stage, be aware that increased exercise equals increased water retention. If I were you, I would not increase exercise at all and focus strictly on precisely weight everything single thing you consume for the next two months. After that, you can add in exercise.26 -
joeymattluke wrote: »Hello, I had my metabolism checked after meeting with a nutritionist suggested it. History is that I have been steadily gaining weight after weight watchers, cross fit, Keto, etc.
I have been so frustrated that I am trying and failing at all of these methods of weight loss. The metabolism test came back at my resting metabolic rate is 1224. So, if I eat more than that I will gain. So to lose, I’m looking at under 1000 calories per day. This just doesn’t seem feasible. I’m waiting on the nutritionist to get back with me, but realistically any advice here? I’ve gained weight steadily the last 5 years, regardless of what diet, eating plan or exercise I do.
Your RMR/BMR is the calories you burn just being alive. It isn't your maintenance calories. I trust you are not in a coma and doing other things during the day...those things burn calories.
My RMR is around 1800 calories...but I eat 2800-3000 to maintain because I burn calories throughout the day going about my day to day hum drum and then exercise on the regular.6 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »joeymattluke wrote: »The 1000 came up at the deficit of 500 calories a day to get to at least 3,500 in a week to lose 1# (based on the 3500=1# formula). Basing my activity at lightly active, hoping to have a bigger deficit than the 500/day to achieve a higher/faster loss result.
I obviously did read the report; I’m looking for advice since the nutritionist and exercise physiologist gave me this information right before the holiday week so I don’t have a plan yet. When I entered my caloric goal into the calculation part of the app here, it’s a bit daunting to see the low numbers... hence why I asked for input.
Thank you for advice... I’m hoping that I can figure this out because as I said before I was tracking for 2 months on the WW app and not being successful. I was around 1500 calories a day for eating and that was not tracking my activity - so in my mind, I assumed I should have been well within that weight loss zone == which is why I’m confused because it’s not working.
Tracking for me was by quantity / serving size. So I guess I’ll get a food scale to be even more accurate.
My guess is you'll get a bit of a shock once you realise the difference between a serving and what you have been eating (it's a bittersweet moment like woohoo I've been eating more than I think, I can lose weight vs oh my god how small are these servings!)
This is a great illustration of the difference between guessing serving sizes and weighing them.
Good photo and example, one of the reasons I Highly limit my Calorie dense foods! With PB being 200 or so cals for 30 or so grams, a little over cost a lot! If you go over a few grams on some fresh strawberries, the damage is not nearly as bad!joeymattluke wrote: »The 1000 came up at the deficit of 500 calories a day to get to at least 3,500 in a week to lose 1# (based on the 3500=1# formula). Basing my activity at lightly active, hoping to have a bigger deficit than the 500/day to achieve a higher/faster loss result.
I obviously did read the report; I’m looking for advice since the nutritionist and exercise physiologist gave me this information right before the holiday week so I don’t have a plan yet. When I entered my caloric goal into the calculation part of the app here, it’s a bit daunting to see the low numbers... hence why I asked for input.
Thank you for advice... I’m hoping that I can figure this out because as I said before I was tracking for 2 months on the WW app and not being successful. I was around 1500 calories a day for eating and that was not tracking my activity - so in my mind, I assumed I should have been well within that weight loss zone == which is why I’m confused because it’s not working.
Tracking for me was by quantity / serving size. So I guess I’ll get a food scale to be even more accurate.
If you were logging 1500 tracking by serving size (and especially if you weren't tracking "free foods"), you were probably eating more than that. Even dietitians when asked to estimate their daily calories based on serving size fell short. Food scale for the win!
Most people find some combo of protein, fat, and fiber filling, so try to prioritize hitting those goals first to make sure you're getting the most bang for your buck. Also try to eliminate beverage calories as they are typically not filling - water, diet soda, black coffee with a smidge of milk, mint tea - I always have one by my side. And this thread might be super useful too - any little bit you can increase your calories out gives you a little more wiggle room:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
Preach! I cannot stress the bolded enough. The primary reason many professional are against calorie counting is due to this. Since a trained professional could not do with with accuracy and consistency, then how could a layman with no training do this?
Of course this flies in the face of the data collected from the National Weight Control Registry, whose data shows that subjects successfully losing weight and maintaining utilize some manner of calorie counting.
Let's put to bed the notion of fast, slow, broken, etc. metabolism as there is little to no evidence supporting that this exists.
PS - I know 60 lbs over 2 years seems excessive and dramatic, but look at the math behind this.
3500 kcals = 1 lb
60 lbs = 210,000 kcals
210,000 / 365 days = 575 kcals/day surplus
210,000 / 730 days - 287 kcals/day surplus
Amazing the impact small changes have over time.
I would argue that there is enough evidence for strong AT after weight loss. Also the argument of a body mass settling range is sufficient. The BL data set is small, but is one of the few studies that studied such dynamic weight loss. Though, as I have noticed, the participants RMR appeared lower, but TDEE came out predicted by Kevin Halls model. Strange? AT aside, we do know the biggest driver in weight regain is not RMR, but TDEE and EI. The body can only slow EO so much, though, most studies agree that EI is how the body gets you. There is a coordinated attack by the brain and body to return you to your old weight. Its shown in animals and humans. While "returning to old ways" does have an impact. I think the EI response to weight loss is the largest contributor. We can look at studies of post weight loss folks. They have noticed certain raised hormones that are drivers of hunger and appetite. Scans of their brains show that areas light up more in response to food ques. While your math is good, we know TDEE raises with weight gain about 60-110cals per 10lbs.8 -
joeymattluke wrote: »Yep, the zero foods... I was monitoring those more the last couple weeks ... I figured that must be part of it, but I still tracked those ...
Is a lower carb approach the best in a general
Opinion? Not keto or anything that drastic, but generally speaking? So choose hard boiled egg over granola bar? My mind is cluttered with what is right / wrong these days!
😐
For weight loss, it doesn't matter at all. A calorie is a calorie.
If there are underlying health issues that are causing your low RMR, lower carb can potentially be beneficial in treating that, depending on the issue. PCOS is one common cause of low RMR in women and low carb/low GL foods can be beneficial in treating it. I would try to follow up with your doctor to see if you can get a root cause. That may help you with a more specific treatment plan.5 -
So to lose half a pound a week, you can eat at 1463, plus any realistic exercise calories?
Sounds doable doesnt it?9 -
So to lose half a pound a week, you can eat at 1463, plus any realistic exercise calories?
Sounds doable doesnt it?
I am by farrr no expert, but set a calorie target, stick to it for a month, weigh yourself qweek at the same time, place, scales, after bathroom and same garments. See if you are trending up, down, same. Get a trending app. I use libra, but there are several out there on the web for free.3 -
Study by Kevin Hall on EI do to weight loss.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108589/2 -
@texasredreb -
I’m a new user / poster. I haven’t been able to figure out how to reply to individual posts- so my ignorance in technology is my issue, not me replying to only the advice I like. I’m replying at the bottom of the thread I see, simply put. So I don’t mean to sound unappreciative or input, i am literally trying to figure out how it all works.
I’m pretty sure I have admitted how the low calorie number was contrived and it’s been helpful to have such gracious people explain it to me.
My sincere frustration has prompted my tests and reaching out for help. Sorry if it comes off as anything other than curious and seeking advice. I’m not a medical abnormality, I’m confused and seeking help. I’m appreciative of ideas and suggestions, and felt I relayed that in some of my replies, even if they didn’t show up to a specific question since I haven’t quite figured that out yet.21 -
It took you 2 years to put on 60lbs. If you change your weight loss goal to "lose 1lb per week," you could potentially lose 52lbs in a year (half the amount of time it took to gain the weight).17
-
psychod787 wrote: »I would argue that there is enough evidence for strong AT after weight loss. Also the argument of a body mass settling range is sufficient. The BL data set is small, but is one of the few studies that studied such dynamic weight loss. Though, as I have noticed, the participants RMR appeared lower, but TDEE came out predicted by Kevin Halls model. Strange? AT aside, we do know the biggest driver in weight regain is not RMR, but TDEE and EI. The body can only slow EO so much, though, most studies agree that EI is how the body gets you. There is a coordinated attack by the brain and body to return you to your old weight. Its shown in animals and humans. While "returning to old ways" does have an impact. I think the EI response to weight loss is the largest contributor. We can look at studies of post weight loss folks. They have noticed certain raised hormones that are drivers of hunger and appetite. Scans of their brains show that areas light up more in response to food ques. While your math is good, we know TDEE raises with weight gain about 60-110cals per 10lbs.
I was going to send you a PM but MFP keeps **kitten** eating it!!!
It would be helpful if the first time you're using abbreviations you break them down for us if they are not 100% used every day!
Kevin Hall's BWP = Kevin Hall's Body Weight Planner
AT = Adaptive Thermogenesis
BL data set?
EI and EO?
Make it easy!
Just like the OP: no need to be trying to make life harder!
Everyone wants to aim for 2lbs a week and get it done fast, right? Aiming for 1lb a week you can easily get to a good 50 lb loss in a year. It sure as heck ain't minor and you're likely to become even more active as you're doing that.
Personally I think it is more realistic to consider things the opposite way.
As an obese person creating a 25% deficit from your Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) is probably as much as you should be trying to do.
Whether this leads to 1lb or 3/4lbs or 2lbs... it doesn't really matter.
It is relatively sustainable BECAUSE it is not too hard for most. I actually STILL found it a bit much and went a tiny bit slower than that since, when you get down to it, consistently complying with a smaller deficit ALWAYS wins over trying to create a larger deficit and failing to comply!
A 25% deficit while obese (reducing to 20% when no longer substantially overweight) creates relatively small adaptations. It conserves lean mass. It doesn't create massive and fast weight loss increasing risks for kidney stones and leaving you behaviourally and mentally too far behind your body changes. And yet it still leads to (substantial) weight loss when actually applied (consistently) over a long enough period of time.
Work within your realistic personal constraints instead of looking at what is theoretically optimal!12 -
@PAV8888
I forget I am talking to folks who have not been studying this *kitten* stuff for close to 3 years now! LOL While deficit matters in lean mass loss, which will account for a raised RMR due to increased lean mass, I think the amount of overall rmr change d/t overall deficit, when weight is accounted for is questionable. To the best of my knowledge there are two theory's of AT. ! The static model. Metabolism or really RMR drops by a certain amount at new weight that it looks like people are just on the low side of the RMR bell curve. 2. The spring model. Where RMR decreases d/t the amount of perceived energy deficit. Libel's work shows a static model, while the only Spring model research is shown in the Biggest Loser Data Set. I have some questions about the data set that Might bring some of the findings of the study into doubt.5 -
With all due respect
I'm not sure an in depth discussion of multiple studies using lots of jargon is really helpful to OP at this moment when she is just trying to get all this info straight in her head so she can make a plan. First she needs to lay down a few weeks of super accurate logging, and then if it seems she really is losing much slower than would be expected, a more in depth discussion might be in order. It's possible she isn't even dealing with much if any adaptation anyway.
You guys are confusing me, and I started out thinking I knew what I was talking about
OP, order a $15-$20 food scale from Amazon or Walmart that is digital, has a tare function, and has a flat plate, not a bowl. Read the links we've scattered here in your thread, which are all also in the "Most Helpful Posts" thread pinned to the top of the forum. Log super accurately for a few weeks, monitor your weight trend, and let us know what happens
34 -
joeymattluke wrote: »Actual report
ETA - answered.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »@PAV8888
I forget I am talking to folks who have not been studying this *kitten* stuff for close to 3 years now! LOL While deficit matters in lean mass loss, which will account for a raised RMR due to increased lean mass, I think the amount of overall rmr change d/t overall deficit, when weight is accounted for is questionable. To the best of my knowledge there are two theory's of AT. ! The static model. Metabolism or really RMR drops by a certain amount at new weight that it looks like people are just on the low side of the RMR bell curve. 2. The spring model. Where RMR decreases d/t the amount of perceived energy deficit. Libel's work shows a static model, while the only Spring model research is shown in the Biggest Loser Data Set. I have some questions about the data set that Might bring some of the findings of the study into doubt.
The problem with many acronyms is a study researcher will use their own that is even outside normally used ones, for whatever reason.
Another study to consider:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/reduced-metabolism-tdee-beyond-expected-from-weight-loss-616251
5 -
I agree with @kimny72. Keeping it simple is the best approach. OP, I would advise either seeing a real nutrition expert like a RD or even better learning to trust yourself again.
As I mentioned get a handle on logging accurately so you can make informed decisions about your intake. You don't need any experts to do this you just need to educate yourself a little on weighing your food and using the MFP database and give it about 6 weeks to test the results. I would not overthink the calorie amount and I wouldn't adjust it during the course of the 6 weeks unless you are feeling fatigued. I think you should just use the MFP calorie goal, eat a consistent portion of your exercise calories, and then see what happens.
One of the traps we can fall into is thinking we are wasting time if we don't lose exactly x number of pounds a week. If we aren't careful it keeps us from making any progress even if it is a little less than we hoped.
I think having reliable numbers is extremely liberating because it takes the guesswork out of the equation. Part of my overall results package for extensive testing was an estimate for how many calories I should eat. It was off by about 150. I knew because I know my numbers very well.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions