Low Muscle Mass due to weight loss- What SUPPLEMENTS can I take to aid in my fitness routine?

2»

Replies

  • QueenofCaffeine4Life
    QueenofCaffeine4Life Posts: 88 Member
    @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.
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    CSARdiver 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.
  • QueenofCaffeine4Life
    QueenofCaffeine4Life Posts: 88 Member
    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.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    CSARdiver 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.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    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.
  • QueenofCaffeine4Life
    QueenofCaffeine4Life Posts: 88 Member
    @CSARdiver and @magnusthenerd I really do appreciate your help! Its been very informative and gives me hope.
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    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.
  • CipherZero
    CipherZero Posts: 1,418 Member
    Supplements, other than testosterone, don’t make you stronger. Resistance training does.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    CSARdiver 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.

    I started to respond to your initial comment about the lack of accuracy of the test given to the OP, but work tends to pile up at the end of the week and wasn’t able to finish it.

    While I have a lot of experience in this field, I have not had the opportunity to work extensively with actual metabolic testing devices. Your references above indicate that you do have such access and experience.

    I know that Korr is well known in the field for metabolic testing devices. From looking up more detail on the ReeView device mentioned, from what I can tell they are analyzing expired air for O2 only. It is my understanding from when I researched some of these devices 10 years ago that a portable device that measured O2 only was not as accurate as one that analyzed both expired O2 and CO2.

    So I was curious to learn more details about your experiences with these machines and their clinical use.

    Thanks.

  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    CSARdiver 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.

    I started to respond to your initial comment about the lack of accuracy of the test given to the OP, but work tends to pile up at the end of the week and wasn’t able to finish it.

    While I have a lot of experience in this field, I have not had the opportunity to work extensively with actual metabolic testing devices. Your references above indicate that you do have such access and experience.

    I know that Korr is well known in the field for metabolic testing devices. From looking up more detail on the ReeView device mentioned, from what I can tell they are analyzing expired air for O2 only. It is my understanding from when I researched some of these devices 10 years ago that a portable device that measured O2 only was not as accurate as one that analyzed both expired O2 and CO2.

    So I was curious to learn more details about your experiences with these machines and their clinical use.

    Thanks.

    I'm absolutely not an expert. That's why it concerns me that such a glaring error is there.
    I don't know the actual limitations of what the machine tested in her - I know the limitations of what they're using as a comparison to say her results are "below average" - they don't have an average.
    Her recorded metabolism may well be accurate, but the percent "slow" is probably entirely wrong.

    It might help to clarify the problem with the Harris-Benedict equation in this instance. The Harris-Benedict is an equation for predicting metabolism based on height, bodyweight and age. It assumes a linear relationship between body weight and metabolism.

    So here's the problem. The heavier someone is, the more the mass has to be fat tissue, that has a low metabolic rate. Yet the Harris-Benedict uses a linear relationship for the range when body mass is still mostly lean tissue. So the situation is like this graph:
    lv09pcxq1id7.png
    The blue logarithmic function is how resting metabolic rate would scale with body weight for most people because a body can only hold so much lean tissue and so as weight goes up, more and more is adipose, giving little increase in metabolism per pound.
    Yet the Harris-Benedict is the purple line - it has a slope set based on people with a much lower body fat percentage with a larger percentage of their tissue being relatively more active organ and muscle tissue.

    The discrepancy then is the paper is saying someone at a 5, 6, or 7 body weight on the x-axis is below the purple "average". That purple line is not an average.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    CSARdiver 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.

    I started to respond to your initial comment about the lack of accuracy of the test given to the OP, but work tends to pile up at the end of the week and wasn’t able to finish it.

    While I have a lot of experience in this field, I have not had the opportunity to work extensively with actual metabolic testing devices. Your references above indicate that you do have such access and experience.

    I know that Korr is well known in the field for metabolic testing devices. From looking up more detail on the ReeView device mentioned, from what I can tell they are analyzing expired air for O2 only. It is my understanding from when I researched some of these devices 10 years ago that a portable device that measured O2 only was not as accurate as one that analyzed both expired O2 and CO2.

    So I was curious to learn more details about your experiences with these machines and their clinical use.

    Thanks.

    I'm absolutely not an expert. That's why it concerns me that such a glaring error is there.
    I don't know the actual limitations of what the machine tested in her - I know the limitations of what they're using as a comparison to say her results are "below average" - they don't have an average.
    Her recorded metabolism may well be accurate, but the percent "slow" is probably entirely wrong.

    It might help to clarify the problem with the Harris-Benedict equation in this instance. The Harris-Benedict is an equation for predicting metabolism based on height, bodyweight and age. It assumes a linear relationship between body weight and metabolism.

    So here's the problem. The heavier someone is, the more the mass has to be fat tissue, that has a low metabolic rate. Yet the Harris-Benedict uses a linear relationship for the range when body mass is still mostly lean tissue. So the situation is like this graph:
    lv09pcxq1id7.png
    The blue logarithmic function is how resting metabolic rate would scale with body weight for most people because a body can only hold so much lean tissue and so as weight goes up, more and more is adipose, giving little increase in metabolism per pound.
    Yet the Harris-Benedict is the purple line - it has a slope set based on people with a much lower body fat percentage with a larger percentage of their tissue being relatively more active organ and muscle tissue.

    The discrepancy then is the paper is saying someone at a 5, 6, or 7 body weight on the x-axis is below the purple "average". That purple line is not an average.

    I hadn’t gotten to that part yet. 😅 I was focusing first on the methodology.

    Without even going to that level of detail, the very fact that with serial testing you got such widely varying scores should tell you something was wrong.

    It looks like what you have here is a situation that’s relatively common with “franchise” type programs. The testing device comes with the canned analysis so it is plug and play out of the box. (Or is advertised as such). The people giving the test and results have no real training in the subject so they just parrot the report. And the guy who runs the whole business is just looking at the bottom line. (Franchises like crossfit, orange theory, et al have the exact same problems).

    Someone with the kind of education and background you should have before running this kind of business would know better than to just hand out a report like that.

    There is one of these clinics within a 15 min drive of my house. I checked their website and the “nutrition counselors” were ER nurses, a BA in psychology, and a BA in nutrition. Good, sincere people I’m sure, but not really qualified to interpret a metabolic test.


Categories