Low Muscle Mass due to weight loss- What SUPPLEMENTS can I take to aid in my fitness routine?
Options
Replies
-
zebasschick wrote: »Azdak - slow metabolism... wouldn't that usually (not always) mean low thyroid? and that would be something the doctor would treat as well as informing the patient, no?
I’m not sure I understand the question. I did mention low thyroid in my comment as one defined “slow metabolism” condition that a doctor would treat.
Are you saying that you consider most claims of “metabolic damage” to be as a result of low thyroid?
In my mind (purely subjective of course) I define “metabolic damage” as used in a weight loss context as meaning some type of undefined “slowing” of resting metabolism caused by very low caloric intake or what is called “yo-yo dieting”.
Research has suggested that such “damage” does not really occur except in extreme cases (eg eating disorders) and that what most people consider “slow metabolism” is actually a combination of underestimating calorie intake and overestimating output.
6 -
^This is what it takes to build muscle, with the lower, wider bases being what support and must be there for the upper levels to matter.
No amount of supplementation will really matter in the grand scheme of things if you aren't consistently following a program that leads to meeting level 3, progression. If you aren't doing resistance that gets harder over time, there's not point in worry about supplements - there's nothing for them to supplement.14 -
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »The doctor said that it isn't anything to worry about now but we could watch it.
Quoted for emphasis....
Both in this thread and your weight loss clinic thread you show a concern (if not outright anxiety!) about muscle loss - so join that gym and start training.
I am not anxious. I am inquisitive. I assumed that was what community was for....for asking a question that you didn't know the answer to and getting responses or for simple discussion. I am ignorant when it comes to fitness. I have lost and gained the same 50lbs or so on and off for at least the last 15 years of my life. As of May 2019 I began to take my health a lot more seriously. So pardon me if I am asking a question that seems to be trivial to some. Its not to me. Nor is doing any more damage to this 44 year old body of mine. I have seen both my primary care doctor and a weight loss clinic. Both of which have different opinions and goals for me.
As far as one poster asked....
I am over all healthy. The only markers that were low were those that I originally discussed. I only take one pill a day and that is HRP (hormone replacement therapy). I am over all healthy! However, according the weight loss clinics REV test I have a very slow metabolism. With dieting it is not getting better but worse.
SO YES>....I don't want to do anymore harm or damage to myself than I have already done.
REV as in low testosterone?
Is this a medical clinic or a commercial clinic?1 -
https://korr.com/metabolic-test-equipment/
Sorry...I typed REV. It's actually ReeVue. This is the test the medical clinic gives to determine metabolism speeds.
@CSARdiver1 -
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »https://korr.com/metabolic-test-equipment/
Sorry...I typed REV. It's actually ReeVue. This is the test the medical clinic gives to determine metabolism speeds.
@CSARdiver
Thanks! Note that these devices carry a high degree of inaccuracy and largely guided by the latest calibration date and the skill of the technician.
How low is low? Would you reveal the data and were multiple readings taken over time?
3 -
I wish I had my paperwork to show you. They do a sliding scale. The first time tested was May 1. My reading was -27% on the scale.
The scale starts at 0 being normal. 1+ would go up to the point of higher or highest level of metabolism. Then of course it goes to the negative -1 and below would be showing as the lower metabolism.
Like I said the first time taken mine was -27%
Second time was the last week of June it had improved to -10%
Then taken last week it was again lower amount hovering to the -27% again.
I am going to see if I can find my copies of the paperwork. Just so you can see what I am talking about.
The clinic then bases your caloric needs based on your metabolism results.0 -
0
-
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »I wish I had my paperwork to show you. They do a sliding scale. The first time tested was May 1. My reading was -27% on the scale.
The scale starts at 0 being normal. 1+ would go up to the point of higher or highest level of metabolism. Then of course it goes to the negative -1 and below would be showing as the lower metabolism.
Like I said the first time taken mine was -27%
Second time was the last week of June it had improved to -10%
Then taken last week it was again lower amount hovering to the -27% again.
I am going to see if I can find my copies of the paperwork. Just so you can see what I am talking about.
The clinic then bases your caloric needs based on your metabolism results.
Have you been losing weight prior to taking this measurement?
Weight loss is going to cause adaptive thermogenesis which is going to lower the RMR / BMR until one has been at maintenance for at least a week or two.0 -
@magnusthenerd No I started with them on May 1. So I wasn't losing prior to this. The pic above our discussion is the testing sheet. For weight loss they had me eating 550-650 calories of protein only in the first week. Then the second week I could add 2 cups of veggies or 1 cup veggie and 1 fruit. Plus a few misc. items. Also two (thumbprint size) fats a day. Once I went up to -10% they upped my protein calories to 600-700 calories of protein along with the two cups veggies and small amount of fat.0
-
Oh, it looks the the REE isn't a stastical standard, it is just the Harris-Benedict equation. Yeah, your metabolism probably isn't that slow, it is just a matter of Harris-Benedict is going to break when trying to predict people who are outliers of composition. Harris-Benedict assumes an average metabolic level of each lb / kg of body mass, but when dealing with a 275 lb, 5'7" woman, it is going to skew by the fact that a lot of that tissue is going to be fat mass which has very low metabolic activity compared to other tissue.
In fact, guideliens for using the Harris-Benedict equation state:
"For patients who weigh more than 30% of ideal body weight, an adjusted ideal body weight should be used—otherwise, actual body weight should be used to calculate the energy requirement."
No such adjustment is being made in that 1963 predicted REE they're giving you.
This is sloppy methodology on the part of your practitioners - they're just handing you a number with no context or understanding on their part.7 -
I am not saying this to be rude, but it is genuine, if no one at this institute already explained this, stop going there. They're not competent, seriously. Numbers mean nothing without context and it seems no one there understood or at least managed to explain them to you.
It comes off more as them wanting to have something to scare you with to get you to keep consulting with them.7 -
Much appreciated - I'm thinking along the same lines as @magnusthenerd. The estimation is correct, but this would lead me to do another two tests to ensure accuracy. This could be explained by a short fasting period. Does that jive with anything in the days/weeks beforehand?
Basically I don't want you to be overly concerned with this measurement. I have a state of the art GE model in my lab which still carries a 24% degree of error and this is completely contained. I'm curious what the readings are over time. You can expect a slight lowering in the months following weight loss, but this will trend back to normal over time.
5 -
@magnusthenerd Thank you! I am happy to report that as of today I am 235.8. So I am still plugging along and doing what I am supposed to do. I do stay between 1350-1400 calories a day now. However, I don't use their method for protein being my main source of fuel. I try to make sure I have enough protein. My body composition has changed quite a bit in the four months. So for that I am excited. I just don't want to screw it all up by not doing what I am supposed to be doing.1
-
Much appreciated - I'm thinking along the same lines as @magnusthenerd. The estimation is correct, but this would lead me to do another two tests to ensure accuracy. This could be explained by a short fasting period. Does that jive with anything in the days/weeks beforehand?
Basically I don't want you to be overly concerned with this measurement. I have a state of the art GE model in my lab which still carries a 24% degree of error and this is completely contained. I'm curious what the readings are over time. You can expect a slight lowering in the months following weight loss, but this will trend back to normal over time.
@CSARdiver take a look at what they're using for a predicted REE - that's far more the issue than their measurement of her metabolic rate. The predicted REE isn't a statistic, it is just the Harris-Benedict equation being applied way out of context. In no way are these numbers a way to tell if her metabolic rate is below "average" in a statistical sense.0 -
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »@magnusthenerd Thank you! I am happy to report that as of today I am 235.8. So I am still plugging along and doing what I am supposed to do. I do stay between 1350-1400 calories a day now. However, I don't use their method for protein being my main source of fuel. I try to make sure I have enough protein. My body composition has changed quite a bit in the four months. So for that I am excited. I just don't want to screw it all up by not doing what I am supposed to be doing.
I'm not saying there is something wrong with losing weight. I'm not even saying how they're getting you to lose weight is necessarily wrong or incapable of doing it.
I am saying their ability to analysis and or present information is far off, and has given you a drastically false impression that something in you is broken, when nothing they've presented shows that.
You, and more importantly they, have no idea that your metabolism is low. Not, at, all.7 -
Thank you @CSARdiver.
All the testing with the metabolic test require fasting before you take the test. But only like it would be for blood work. Overnight or at least nothing for four hours prior to testing.
0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Much appreciated - I'm thinking along the same lines as @magnusthenerd. The estimation is correct, but this would lead me to do another two tests to ensure accuracy. This could be explained by a short fasting period. Does that jive with anything in the days/weeks beforehand?
Basically I don't want you to be overly concerned with this measurement. I have a state of the art GE model in my lab which still carries a 24% degree of error and this is completely contained. I'm curious what the readings are over time. You can expect a slight lowering in the months following weight loss, but this will trend back to normal over time.
@CSARdiver take a look at what they're using for a predicted REE - that's far more the issue than their measurement of her metabolic rate. The predicted REE isn't a statistic, it is just the Harris-Benedict equation being applied way out of context. In no way are these numbers a way to tell if her metabolic rate is below "average" in a statistical sense.
Yup, that's why I rebuke much of the data in metabolic testing - it's taken way out of context.
If you're metabolism is truly 27% decreased - by George you'll know it as you'd be hospitalized.1 -
QueenofCaffeine4Life wrote: »@magnusthenerd Thank you! I am happy to report that as of today I am 235.8. So I am still plugging along and doing what I am supposed to do. I do stay between 1350-1400 calories a day now. However, I don't use their method for protein being my main source of fuel. I try to make sure I have enough protein. My body composition has changed quite a bit in the four months. So for that I am excited. I just don't want to screw it all up by not doing what I am supposed to be doing.
This is what matters. Just be better today than you were yesterday. Do this over weeks, months, years, and you'll find those small seemingly meaningless changes hold dramatic impact over time. The human body is unbelievably resilient.
Keep asking questions and stay active within a community here. I encourage everyone to check out the data within the National Weight Control Registry: http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
The pryamid graphics @magnusthenerd posted upthread are gold - all your focus at this point should be at those items at the base of the pyramid. For weight loss it boils down to keeping a caloric deficit. You can worry about the minor influences much later.4 -
@CSARdiver and @magnusthenerd I really do appreciate your help! Its been very informative and gives me hope.2
-
One could take a different formula and you'd have a "high metabolism".
Klatch-McArdle with an assumption that you have just slightly more lean mass than average (105 lbs for a 5'7" woman, particularly a 43 year old would be higher than the average for 5'7" women) for your height as woman would give a result that your BMR should be 1401 calories / day while the device says you have 1440.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions