Did I just ruin my metabolism unknowingly
UmaMageswarymfp
Posts: 280 Member
I’m literally in shock right now. So I went to this well known gym and took my Body Analyzing test. It comes in a paper form. Initially it showed me I burn 1800 at resting rate. NOW after me doing OMAD for about a month now and I’ve been eating at 1.3k cause of my lifestyle which was sedentary. I checked today and it shows 1580 calories only? I only burn 1580 calories when I’m resting?! What the hell? Thing I’m seeing scale numbers dropping despite me eating at 1.3k cals . Recently it stopped cause I started strength training so I’m assuming it’s fluctuating due to water retention. In order for me to lose weight I have to be eating only 1000 calories a day? That’s insane. Did I just ruin everything...
5
Replies
-
Resting calories are how many are needed to keep your body alive if you are in a coma or otherwise not moving at all. This number will go down as you lose weight-it takes less energy to fuel less body.
You burn many more calories than that with every bit of movement you do (including taking a shower and getting dressed all the way up through your workouts).
To lose weight, you need to eat fewer calories than your overall, total calorie burn (which includes all the calories you burn moving around).
You didn’t ruin anything. Your resting burn should be going down as you’re losing weight.12 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Resting calories are how many are needed to keep your body alive if you are in a coma or otherwise not moving at all. This number will go down as you lose weight-it takes less energy to fuel less body.
You burn many more calories than that with every bit of movement you do (including taking a shower and getting dressed all the way up through your workouts).
To lose weight, you need to eat fewer calories than your overall, total calorie burn (which includes all the calories you burn moving around).
You didn’t ruin anything. Your resting burn should be going down as you’re losing weight.
I’m still 105kg and have 25kg more to lose. At this rate , don’t you think my not moving calories are too low already? Apparently for my weight and heigh my body should be still burning about 1.7k cals -1.8cals without moving 😭 idk omg2 -
The bigger your body is, the more calories it needs to sustain itself. As you lose weight, it naturally will require fewer calories to maintain your existing weight. This is natural, it's not a bad thing, and metabolisms can't be "broken."9
-
What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).5 -
What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?1 -
It's NOT accurate - not in the least.
That is a BIA bodyfat % scale, that's all.
If it's an accurate model, best 5% accuracy IF you present exactly the same hydrated body to it.
If it's normal models 10% accuracy and same issue if hydrated body.
It is getting your LBM (Lean Body Mass - everything that is not fat), and running it through a Katch-McArdle formula for BMR, or Nelson or Cunningham RMR formula.
It is NOT measuring your metabolism at all.
Read that paper a lot closer and please report the other figures that are on there.
You are reading way too much into something that isn't that accurate.
BTW - you drink 16 ozs of water you just gained 1 lb of LBM and weight - and that formula would give you a different RMR figure.
That is exactly how inaccurate it can be.
Meaning to say - you've been on a diet and lost water weight - therefore your LBM has gone down, therefore your RMR per formula (not measurement) has gone down.
And I thought you said in another thread you were lifting.
That is not sedentary if you are referring to overall activity level.
If you mean sedentary on MFP and 1300 calories is your base Net eating goal but because of workouts you do actually eat more (which you should say that differently when describing how much you eat) - then fine.21 -
It's NOT accurate - not in the least.
That is a BIA bodyfat % scale, that's all.
If it's an accurate model, best 5% accuracy IF you present exactly the same hydrated body to it.
If it's normal models 10% accuracy and same issue if hydrated body.
It is getting your LBM (Lean Body Mass - everything that is not fat), and running it through a Katch-McArdle formula for BMR, or Nelson or Cunningham RMR formula.
It is NOT measuring your metabolism at all.
Read that paper a lot closer and please report the other figures that are on there.
You are reading way too much into something that isn't that accurate.
BTW - you drink 16 ozs of water you just gained 1 lb of LBM and weight - and that formula would give you a different RMR figure.
That is exactly how inaccurate it can be.
Meaning to say - you've been on a diet and lost water weight - therefore your LBM has gone down, therefore your RMR per formula (not measurement) has gone down.
And I thought you said in another thread you were lifting.
That is not sedentary if you are referring to overall activity level.
If you mean sedentary on MFP and 1300 calories is your base Net eating goal but because of workouts you do actually eat more (which you should say that differently when describing how much you eat) - then fine.
Oh wow but in order to lose weight I do have to be eating 500 cals lesser than my RMR right? So what do I even base on to lose weight. 1580 cals? If that’s the case then I should be eating only 1080 calories. Usually strength training I do about 60 mins which is 300 cals. Which I don’t eat back. I try to stick to my 1300 cals only because let’s say if I don’t work out my average steps are 3k steps daily if I DONT work out. If I work out it’s 8-10k steps. I try to workout 6 days a week1 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
11 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.1 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »It's NOT accurate - not in the least.
That is a BIA bodyfat % scale, that's all.
If it's an accurate model, best 5% accuracy IF you present exactly the same hydrated body to it.
If it's normal models 10% accuracy and same issue if hydrated body.
It is getting your LBM (Lean Body Mass - everything that is not fat), and running it through a Katch-McArdle formula for BMR, or Nelson or Cunningham RMR formula.
It is NOT measuring your metabolism at all.
Read that paper a lot closer and please report the other figures that are on there.
You are reading way too much into something that isn't that accurate.
BTW - you drink 16 ozs of water you just gained 1 lb of LBM and weight - and that formula would give you a different RMR figure.
That is exactly how inaccurate it can be.
Meaning to say - you've been on a diet and lost water weight - therefore your LBM has gone down, therefore your RMR per formula (not measurement) has gone down.
And I thought you said in another thread you were lifting.
That is not sedentary if you are referring to overall activity level.
If you mean sedentary on MFP and 1300 calories is your base Net eating goal but because of workouts you do actually eat more (which you should say that differently when describing how much you eat) - then fine.
Oh wow but in order to lose weight I do have to be eating 500 cals lesser than my RMR right?
No. You need to need eat less than your TOTAL calorie burn, which is not the same as RMR. At 550 kcal less than your total calorie expenditure, per day, you would lose 0.5kg per week.11 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
MFP and many other sites and also that form from that gym use average statistics. Which work (more or less) for most people. Le people go a bit further and calculate their actual total calorie burn (not the same as RMR) based on a comparison between how much weight they should have lost according to these average statistics and how much they actually lost (presuming they know their calorie intake accurately).
Personally, I don't know what my RMR is and I don't really need to know, I just know that I lose weight marginally faster than I would expect based on what MFP expects (and my total calorie burn according to my fitness watch) which means I can trust the calorie goal it gives me.6 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »It's NOT accurate - not in the least.
That is a BIA bodyfat % scale, that's all.
If it's an accurate model, best 5% accuracy IF you present exactly the same hydrated body to it.
If it's normal models 10% accuracy and same issue if hydrated body.
It is getting your LBM (Lean Body Mass - everything that is not fat), and running it through a Katch-McArdle formula for BMR, or Nelson or Cunningham RMR formula.
It is NOT measuring your metabolism at all.
Read that paper a lot closer and please report the other figures that are on there.
You are reading way too much into something that isn't that accurate.
BTW - you drink 16 ozs of water you just gained 1 lb of LBM and weight - and that formula would give you a different RMR figure.
That is exactly how inaccurate it can be.
Meaning to say - you've been on a diet and lost water weight - therefore your LBM has gone down, therefore your RMR per formula (not measurement) has gone down.
And I thought you said in another thread you were lifting.
That is not sedentary if you are referring to overall activity level.
If you mean sedentary on MFP and 1300 calories is your base Net eating goal but because of workouts you do actually eat more (which you should say that differently when describing how much you eat) - then fine.
Oh wow but in order to lose weight I do have to be eating 500 cals lesser than my RMR right?
No. You need to need eat less than your TOTAL calorie burn, which is not the same as RMR. At 550 kcal less than your total calorie expenditure, per day, you would lose 0.5kg per week.
That’s around 1800cals including my movement plus workout. So I should be eating 1.3k cals. That’s what I’m eating for now2 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
MFP and many other sites and also that form from that gym use average statistics. Which work (more or less) for most people. Le people go a bit further and calculate their actual total calorie burn (not the same as RMR) based on a comparison between how much weight they should have lost according to these average statistics and how much they actually lost (presuming they know their calorie intake accurately).
Personally, I don't know what my RMR is and I don't really need to know, I just know that I lose weight marginally faster than I would expect based on what MFP expects (and my total calorie burn according to my fitness watch) which means I can trust the calorie goal it gives me.
Well sadly I can’t trust the calorie it gives me cause i was stuck at one weight for 6 months until I tried OMAD. So guess even MFP is unreliable1 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
If you didn't want to believe bad news your reaction to something that couldn't possibly be true would have been to distrust a machine rather than assume you had "ruined your metabolism".
That distrust would have led to a completely different question......
Are these machines accurate?
That's a very different reaction and it's just a different mindset that takes you down a different and less anxious path.
Weight loss is not rocket science and that's part of the problem.
Keep it simple and trust that if you maintain a sensible calorie deficit you will lose weight.10 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »It's NOT accurate - not in the least.
That is a BIA bodyfat % scale, that's all.
If it's an accurate model, best 5% accuracy IF you present exactly the same hydrated body to it.
If it's normal models 10% accuracy and same issue if hydrated body.
It is getting your LBM (Lean Body Mass - everything that is not fat), and running it through a Katch-McArdle formula for BMR, or Nelson or Cunningham RMR formula.
It is NOT measuring your metabolism at all.
Read that paper a lot closer and please report the other figures that are on there.
You are reading way too much into something that isn't that accurate.
BTW - you drink 16 ozs of water you just gained 1 lb of LBM and weight - and that formula would give you a different RMR figure.
That is exactly how inaccurate it can be.
Meaning to say - you've been on a diet and lost water weight - therefore your LBM has gone down, therefore your RMR per formula (not measurement) has gone down.
And I thought you said in another thread you were lifting.
That is not sedentary if you are referring to overall activity level.
If you mean sedentary on MFP and 1300 calories is your base Net eating goal but because of workouts you do actually eat more (which you should say that differently when describing how much you eat) - then fine.
Oh wow but in order to lose weight I do have to be eating 500 cals lesser than my RMR right?
No. You need to need eat less than your TOTAL calorie burn, which is not the same as RMR. At 550 kcal less than your total calorie expenditure, per day, you would lose 0.5kg per week.
That’s around 1800cals including my movement plus workout. So I should be eating 1.3k cals. That’s what I’m eating for now
This sounds more reasonable. How much weight are you losing on 1300 calories? Over the last 4-6 weeks, for example, what did you lose? Your real life data will give you the best idea of your true caloric needs.2 -
Redordeadhead wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »It's NOT accurate - not in the least.
That is a BIA bodyfat % scale, that's all.
If it's an accurate model, best 5% accuracy IF you present exactly the same hydrated body to it.
If it's normal models 10% accuracy and same issue if hydrated body.
It is getting your LBM (Lean Body Mass - everything that is not fat), and running it through a Katch-McArdle formula for BMR, or Nelson or Cunningham RMR formula.
It is NOT measuring your metabolism at all.
Read that paper a lot closer and please report the other figures that are on there.
You are reading way too much into something that isn't that accurate.
BTW - you drink 16 ozs of water you just gained 1 lb of LBM and weight - and that formula would give you a different RMR figure.
That is exactly how inaccurate it can be.
Meaning to say - you've been on a diet and lost water weight - therefore your LBM has gone down, therefore your RMR per formula (not measurement) has gone down.
And I thought you said in another thread you were lifting.
That is not sedentary if you are referring to overall activity level.
If you mean sedentary on MFP and 1300 calories is your base Net eating goal but because of workouts you do actually eat more (which you should say that differently when describing how much you eat) - then fine.
Oh wow but in order to lose weight I do have to be eating 500 cals lesser than my RMR right?
No. You need to need eat less than your TOTAL calorie burn, which is not the same as RMR. At 550 kcal less than your total calorie expenditure, per day, you would lose 0.5kg per week.
That’s around 1800cals including my movement plus workout. So I should be eating 1.3k cals. That’s what I’m eating for now
This sounds more reasonable. How much weight are you losing on 1300 calories? Over the last 4-6 weeks, for example, what did you lose? Your real life data will give you the best idea of your true caloric needs.
I’ve lost 4kg in 1.5months2 -
Is this with weighing all your food and double checking the entries on MFP?UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
MFP and many other sites and also that form from that gym use average statistics. Which work (more or less) for most people. Le people go a bit further and calculate their actual total calorie burn (not the same as RMR) based on a comparison between how much weight they should have lost according to these average statistics and how much they actually lost (presuming they know their calorie intake accurately).
Personally, I don't know what my RMR is and I don't really need to know, I just know that I lose weight marginally faster than I would expect based on what MFP expects (and my total calorie burn according to my fitness watch) which means I can trust the calorie goal it gives me.
Well sadly I can’t trust the calorie it gives me cause i was stuck at one weight for 6 months until I tried OMAD. So guess even MFP is unreliable5 -
If you've lost 4kg in 6 weeks, thats 8lbs or 1.33 lbs/wk (sorry I have to convert to lbs) which is a weekly deficit of 4666 or 666 calorie deficit per day. So if you are in fact eating 1300 calories (like others mentioned - if you are weighing EVERYTHING accurately etc) that means that you are burning just under 2000 calories a day on average. If that is all true, then you could eat just under 1500 calories and still lose 1lb / week. Sounds like everything is on track!13 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »It's NOT accurate - not in the least.
That is a BIA bodyfat % scale, that's all.
If it's an accurate model, best 5% accuracy IF you present exactly the same hydrated body to it.
If it's normal models 10% accuracy and same issue if hydrated body.
It is getting your LBM (Lean Body Mass - everything that is not fat), and running it through a Katch-McArdle formula for BMR, or Nelson or Cunningham RMR formula.
It is NOT measuring your metabolism at all.
Read that paper a lot closer and please report the other figures that are on there.
You are reading way too much into something that isn't that accurate.
BTW - you drink 16 ozs of water you just gained 1 lb of LBM and weight - and that formula would give you a different RMR figure.
That is exactly how inaccurate it can be.
Meaning to say - you've been on a diet and lost water weight - therefore your LBM has gone down, therefore your RMR per formula (not measurement) has gone down.
And I thought you said in another thread you were lifting.
That is not sedentary if you are referring to overall activity level.
If you mean sedentary on MFP and 1300 calories is your base Net eating goal but because of workouts you do actually eat more (which you should say that differently when describing how much you eat) - then fine.
Oh wow but in order to lose weight I do have to be eating 500 cals lesser than my RMR right? So what do I even base on to lose weight. 1580 cals? If that’s the case then I should be eating only 1080 calories. Usually strength training I do about 60 mins which is 300 cals. Which I don’t eat back. I try to stick to my 1300 cals only because let’s say if I don’t work out my average steps are 3k steps daily if I DONT work out. If I work out it’s 8-10k steps. I try to workout 6 days a week
No - you eat 500 cal below your total daily burn.
You would only eat 500 less than your RMR if you SAT around awake ALL-DAY-LONG.
I think you forgot some good points from one of your earlier topics.
You might look at your created posts and review it.4 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
MFP and many other sites and also that form from that gym use average statistics. Which work (more or less) for most people. Le people go a bit further and calculate their actual total calorie burn (not the same as RMR) based on a comparison between how much weight they should have lost according to these average statistics and how much they actually lost (presuming they know their calorie intake accurately).
Personally, I don't know what my RMR is and I don't really need to know, I just know that I lose weight marginally faster than I would expect based on what MFP expects (and my total calorie burn according to my fitness watch) which means I can trust the calorie goal it gives me.
Well sadly I can’t trust the calorie it gives me cause i was stuck at one weight for 6 months until I tried OMAD. So guess even MFP is unreliable
You need a big piece of scratch paper to write useful points down on - I know some things were covered in other topics that you are not remembering that you seemed to get at the time.
Almost everything is an estimate (which means potentially unreliable if you think it should be like a sunrise each day) - or you need to be in a research study or pay some huge amount to have your daily burn actually measured. Or get on a news show where they pay the bill.
For instance - yes MFP is an estimate, and when used as designed (base eating goal plus exercise calories when done), you'll have a point you can adjust to reflect what has actually occurred.
But you have to log things, make a note.
Your OMAD caused you to eat less calories than you were before. Simple as that.
If you think you are logging exactly the same amount of calories eaten just eating at once - than your logging has changed somewhere.
Or your activity has changed in some way and you didn't note that change.
Ditto's to sijomial - really think about how you approached that piece of paper and the direction you took - it's very telling.
And I'll still bet there is more info on that piece of paper you either missed or went right past.
I noticed you didn't comment on request for rest of the figures on there.9 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
MFP and many other sites and also that form from that gym use average statistics. Which work (more or less) for most people. Le people go a bit further and calculate their actual total calorie burn (not the same as RMR) based on a comparison between how much weight they should have lost according to these average statistics and how much they actually lost (presuming they know their calorie intake accurately).
Personally, I don't know what my RMR is and I don't really need to know, I just know that I lose weight marginally faster than I would expect based on what MFP expects (and my total calorie burn according to my fitness watch) which means I can trust the calorie goal it gives me.
Well sadly I can’t trust the calorie it gives me cause i was stuck at one weight for 6 months until I tried OMAD. So guess even MFP is unreliable
You need a big piece of scratch paper to write useful points down on - I know some things were covered in other topics that you are not remembering that you seemed to get at the time.
Almost everything is an estimate (which means potentially unreliable if you think it should be like a sunrise each day) - or you need to be in a research study or pay some huge amount to have your daily burn actually measured. Or get on a news show where they pay the bill.
For instance - yes MFP is an estimate, and when used as designed (base eating goal plus exercise calories when done), you'll have a point you can adjust to reflect what has actually occurred.
But you have to log things, make a note.
Your OMAD caused you to eat less calories than you were before. Simple as that.
If you think you are logging exactly the same amount of calories eaten just eating at once - than your logging has changed somewhere.
Or your activity has changed in some way and you didn't note that change.
Ditto's to sijomial - really think about how you approached that piece of paper and the direction you took - it's very telling.
And I'll still bet there is more info on that piece of paper you either missed or went right past.
I noticed you didn't comment on request for rest of the figures on there.
0 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
MFP and many other sites and also that form from that gym use average statistics. Which work (more or less) for most people. Le people go a bit further and calculate their actual total calorie burn (not the same as RMR) based on a comparison between how much weight they should have lost according to these average statistics and how much they actually lost (presuming they know their calorie intake accurately).
Personally, I don't know what my RMR is and I don't really need to know, I just know that I lose weight marginally faster than I would expect based on what MFP expects (and my total calorie burn according to my fitness watch) which means I can trust the calorie goal it gives me.
Well sadly I can’t trust the calorie it gives me cause i was stuck at one weight for 6 months until I tried OMAD. So guess even MFP is unreliable
You need a big piece of scratch paper to write useful points down on - I know some things were covered in other topics that you are not remembering that you seemed to get at the time.
Almost everything is an estimate (which means potentially unreliable if you think it should be like a sunrise each day) - or you need to be in a research study or pay some huge amount to have your daily burn actually measured. Or get on a news show where they pay the bill.
For instance - yes MFP is an estimate, and when used as designed (base eating goal plus exercise calories when done), you'll have a point you can adjust to reflect what has actually occurred.
But you have to log things, make a note.
Your OMAD caused you to eat less calories than you were before. Simple as that.
If you think you are logging exactly the same amount of calories eaten just eating at once - than your logging has changed somewhere.
Or your activity has changed in some way and you didn't note that change.
Ditto's to sijomial - really think about how you approached that piece of paper and the direction you took - it's very telling.
And I'll still bet there is more info on that piece of paper you either missed or went right past.
I noticed you didn't comment on request for rest of the figures on there.
Ignore the scribbles it’s from my trainer1 -
UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »UmaMageswarymfp wrote: »What is this body analysing test? You mention a paper form?
From 1800 to 1580 in just a month, or from the beginning of your weight loss?
I'm wondering if it's even accurate (you mention a paper form?). The only BMR/RMR testing I know (from reading about it) is on a treadmill or stationary bike while hooked up to all sorts of machinery. Is that what you did?
A lower BMR/RMR is normal when you lose weight (but it would be a large decrease for only a month).
Yes I had to stand on a machine and hold two bars and it’ll print out a paper where it analyzes everything. It’s accurate. I last measure 6 months ago where it showed 1790 cals before my weight loss. I measured again today after 6months and I’m certain it’s because of my OMAD diet. I didn’t know it’ll be this low?
No it's not accurate. Sometimes it's lucky.
If you really want to get a RMR test then go to a lab but a machine that puts a low voltage charge through just half of your body to measure your electrical resistance isn't going to do that.
If you don't mind me saying you do keep looking for bad news!
Am I keep looking for bad news or am I just trying to learn what’s going on with my body and trying to figure this rocket science which is called weight loss? About the RMR I don’t know I’m only assuming because I’m sure not everyone went through that lab test you’re talking about and they figured out simply by checking their calories with SOMETHING.
MFP and many other sites and also that form from that gym use average statistics. Which work (more or less) for most people. Le people go a bit further and calculate their actual total calorie burn (not the same as RMR) based on a comparison between how much weight they should have lost according to these average statistics and how much they actually lost (presuming they know their calorie intake accurately).
Personally, I don't know what my RMR is and I don't really need to know, I just know that I lose weight marginally faster than I would expect based on what MFP expects (and my total calorie burn according to my fitness watch) which means I can trust the calorie goal it gives me.
Well sadly I can’t trust the calorie it gives me cause i was stuck at one weight for 6 months until I tried OMAD. So guess even MFP is unreliable
You need a big piece of scratch paper to write useful points down on - I know some things were covered in other topics that you are not remembering that you seemed to get at the time.
Almost everything is an estimate (which means potentially unreliable if you think it should be like a sunrise each day) - or you need to be in a research study or pay some huge amount to have your daily burn actually measured. Or get on a news show where they pay the bill.
For instance - yes MFP is an estimate, and when used as designed (base eating goal plus exercise calories when done), you'll have a point you can adjust to reflect what has actually occurred.
But you have to log things, make a note.
Your OMAD caused you to eat less calories than you were before. Simple as that.
If you think you are logging exactly the same amount of calories eaten just eating at once - than your logging has changed somewhere.
Or your activity has changed in some way and you didn't note that change.
Ditto's to sijomial - really think about how you approached that piece of paper and the direction you took - it's very telling.
And I'll still bet there is more info on that piece of paper you either missed or went right past.
I noticed you didn't comment on request for rest of the figures on there.
Btw this whole paper has a lot of infos in it , specify what you wanna know and I’ll show1 -
That's an InBody BIA - perhaps nicer than your home scales with BF% using BIA also.
http://inbody.com.hk/inbody770/
Here again is good example of estimates.
It's measuring the impedance to an electrical current sent through your body - foot to foot, hand to hand, hand to foot same and opposite sides, ect.
Do some subtraction and you have some specific figures.
From those figures using statistical averages (AC - Arm Circumference & AMC - Arm Muscle Circumference), and age, gender, height, maybe waist or neck circumference - some calculations are done to give the figures shown, and more your printout probably has.
BCM - Body Cell Mass for the figures you show may be the one run through a formula to give the BMR figure.
Here again - BMR - calories burned while sleeping. Perhaps RMR is given elsewhere, but this clearly says BMR.
That is an estimated calculated figure.
They did not measure it.
And of course you don't start the math for amount you eat with a calorie burn of you sleeping all day. Just to be clear.
At least the testing method shows good results for accuracy on the measurement and calculations of LBM.
https://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(11)00066-5/fulltext
6 -
That's an InBody BIA - perhaps nicer than your home scales with BF% using BIA also.
http://inbody.com.hk/inbody770/
Here again is good example of estimates.
It's measuring the impedance to an electrical current sent through your body - foot to foot, hand to hand, hand to foot same and opposite sides, ect.
Do some subtraction and you have some specific figures.
From those figures using statistical averages (AC - Arm Circumference & AMC - Arm Muscle Circumference), and age, gender, height, maybe waist or neck circumference - some calculations are done to give the figures shown, and more your printout probably has.
BCM - Body Cell Mass for the figures you show may be the one run through a formula to give the BMR figure.
Here again - BMR - calories burned while sleeping. Perhaps RMR is given elsewhere, but this clearly says BMR.
That is an estimated calculated figure.
They did not measure it.
And of course you don't start the math for amount you eat with a calorie burn of you sleeping all day. Just to be clear.
At least the testing method shows good results for accuracy on the measurement and calculations of LBM.
https://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(11)00066-5/fulltext
What’s the difference though I mean if my BMR is 1500 ish , isn’t that considered bad when it shows normal range of something wayyy higher ?1 -
From their info it likely means you are more BF% than average, or healthy, or whatever scale they are basing it on.
Your screenshot seemed to show some percentile ranges there at top, so perhaps based on population averages.
Based on what's considered healthy would be better though, and that may be elsewhere on printout.
So less LBM% than average or healthy or whatever.
Again - they are NOT measuring your BMR.
They are estimating it based on LBM.
That is it.
My RMR measurement test showed a reading that was lower than a Bodpod BF% calculated estimate gave.
Likely because I can really pack on the water weight in stored glycogen in my muscles - and water while a part of LBM also doesn't burn any calories.
So bad calculation.
So you really have no idea if that is your BMR.
Call it a potentially better calculated estimate than your Mifflin BMR based on gender, age, height, weight.
From that BMR could come a slightly better calculated estimated daily burn based on guessed activity level.
Compared to that guess based on Mifflin BMR.
But now you just introduced another big estimate - 4 levels of activity compared to the potential variable amount that actually occurs.
Guess what's better than that?
Having 4 weeks of best you can accuracy on food logging, and best valid weigh-ins.
Do the math and you have your own daily burn figure with whatever your workout schedule is - all included.
No you cannot estimate your BMR backwards from that.
But it doesn't matter, you only need to confirm rate of loss is reasonable, and adjust as needed.
Use what you got to compare BF% to healthy or desired range.
Use it compare calculated estimated muscle mass between visits to see if lifting doing some good.
But don't read too much in to it.
It's not rocket science, and don't attempt to make it such.
It'll be much better on your stress levels.14 -
From their info it likely means you are more BF% than average, or healthy, or whatever scale they are basing it on.
Your screenshot seemed to show some percentile ranges there at top, so perhaps based on population averages.
Based on what's considered healthy would be better though, and that may be elsewhere on printout.
So less LBM% than average or healthy or whatever.
Again - they are NOT measuring your BMR.
They are estimating it based on LBM.
That is it.
My RMR measurement test showed a reading that was lower than a Bodpod BF% calculated estimate gave.
Likely because I can really pack on the water weight in stored glycogen in my muscles - and water while a part of LBM also doesn't burn any calories.
So bad calculation.
So you really have no idea if that is your BMR.
Call it a potentially better calculated estimate than your Mifflin BMR based on gender, age, height, weight.
From that BMR could come a slightly better calculated estimated daily burn based on guessed activity level.
Compared to that guess based on Mifflin BMR.
But now you just introduced another big estimate - 4 levels of activity compared to the potential variable amount that actually occurs.
Guess what's better than that?
Having 4 weeks of best you can accuracy on food logging, and best valid weigh-ins.
Do the math and you have your own daily burn figure with whatever your workout schedule is - all included.
No you cannot estimate your BMR backwards from that.
But it doesn't matter, you only need to confirm rate of loss is reasonable, and adjust as needed.
Use what you got to compare BF% to healthy or desired range.
Use it compare calculated estimated muscle mass between visits to see if lifting doing some good.
But don't read too much in to it.
It's not rocket science, and don't attempt to make it such.
It'll be much better on your stress levels.
Alright thank you sooo much 💜2 -
Based on the way you're logging your food intake and based on your losses your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is approximately 667 calories a day higher than the average amount of food you've been eating.
Until and unless you significantly change your life to the point where you are able to actually weigh the ingredients that go into the food you eat, and where you weight the actual amount that you eat the vast majority of the time, your calories in will remain relatively speaking very imprecise.
Given this lack of precision I would not worry very much about the exact numbers.
Before omad you used to eat out of the house a lot. Are you know finding yourself eating more home-cooked meals instead of eating street/hawker or market/restaurant food?
A bowl of curry made by two different people and filled to different levels can be a very different experience.
Smart substitutions and using items that tend to be filling such as the pumpkin you were talking about the other day are a smart way to go about doing things.
We have discussed before going too fast, eating too little, and then undoing everything with a couple of days of excess eating.
Even though you've got some weight available to lose patience is your friend. It takes many extra decades to try to go faster and fail when you give up when the results of your hard work are not visible as opposed to going slower and finding something that is sustainable to you, which you can see yourself doing for 5 or more years, and which therefore will be what you'll be doing for the next 5 years regardless of whether the results are visible at any one point of time.
Stop thinking weight loss and start thinking long-term weight maintenance. Discovering that long-term will also lead you to the weight loss today.
9 -
Those machines are very tricky, they do spit out the avarage data from all thousands of population. My answer was, imaging, body BMI =19.8, normal, Then body fat% =32% obece. When I do caliper measures over the body, I obtain 13.5% or max 14.5%. How in the world I can be obece?3
-
I also don't know my RMR. Who cares. But I cnow almost axactly how much calories a day keep my weight same, how much cal I loose weight and definetely, on haw many cal a day I will gain weight. Practice with calorie counting for week, or 2, you see the difference. Then create you own calorie schedule. That simple3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions