Help keep losing muscle and gaining fat slow metabolism
Replies
-
musicfan68 wrote: »Most of us have been here for years, and through that experience, we find that there is almost always something off with counting calories, or calorie burn. That is why we are skeptical, and you are so argumentative that that raises flags for people as well. We aren't trying to argue just to argue with you. Again, most of us have been at this for a long time and see new people come on with issues such as yours and it is usually something simple like not measuring your food, or a miscalculation of some sort. For what it's worth, my BMR is about 1275, if I'm not moving at all, that would be my maintenance, but I move, so I get a few hundred more calories depending on my activity, so your numbers don't seem that strange to me. According to the image you uploaded, your maintenance is up to 1292, which is at rest.
FWIW, I've been here for years, too I think she's making a much better case here that she's an actual outlier than any other I've seen here before.
Yeah, people who have difficulties can benefit from accurately measuring intake (I haven't read back through to see whether she's said she actually already is). But if multiple DEXA results are producing results like those shown, that's kinda persuasive, to me . . . especially with her other very specific (not vague) statement about what's been considered medically, and by whom.
I agree that almost universally, people coming here claiming "slow metabolism" are mistaken, and commonly have some kind of estimation/measurement issue going on. Heck, I started weight loss assuming I had a "slow metabolism" because I'd been very athletic/active for over a decade while still staying obese. (Turned out I actually burn materially *more* calories than most formulas predict, possibly on the opposite, more fortunate, side of outlier-hood, compared to OP. 🤷♀️)
OP, I'm sorry this is where you're finding yourself. That's beyond frustrating. Sounds like you've done second opinions in some areas (endocrinology?), and repeat tests, so that's about what you can do.
I agree with Dogmom that HIIT might not be the ideal choice after strength training (though after is better than before). It's seriously overrated as to benefits by many sources, and can accumulate fatigue at a higher rate, so it might be worth backing down that intensity for a while (couple months?) as an experiment, but that's a hail Mary play. If there's anything you can do on the NEAT front, that's another option (may also be a hail Mary in your case).
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1
Other than that, the only thing I can think of - and maybe you've already done it - is to seek out specialty clinics or research centers related to metabolism, and see if there's anything known there that could help you.
I'm sorry.13 -
@AnnPT77 OP doesn’t weigh foods. Although they may be an outlier, NOT accurately tracking caloric intake is only going to make things worse.10
-
BlueDesire89 wrote: »Sijomial just for you, because you misunderstand. I know what im talking about. SEE IT LITERALLY SAYS IT.
I understand perfectly thanks.
You have to eat under your maintenance to lose weight - it's a choice by how much.
There is no compulsion at all to try and lose at a pound a week or any other number that someone dictates to you - adults get to choose.
If someone wrote down "eat 250 cals a day" then it would LITERALLY SAY IT - wouldn't make it compulsory let alone sensible. Use some judgement rather than wrapping yourself in misery.
Just like exercising for half an hour is a choice - but then don't moan about low exercise calorie expenditure.
Just like spending a lot of your day resting would be a choice.
Your definition of "high METS" is a rather pedestrian level of exercise by the way, yes I did the maths.
Didn't realise you had all the answers and just wanted to vent, sorry I gave up my free time to try and help you.
27 -
Just as a check: is it physically possible to have a normal bmi (TO doesn't say what her bmi is, right?) but 40% fat? I find it difficult to get some meaningful numbers out of calculators, especially as those don't check for a correlation with weight that makes sense. Some bmi vs bodyfat charts certainly don't really go into that range, and if they do then that's severely obese territory. Something must be off.4
-
I have a calibrated scale paid for from a nutritionist. My calories are 1259 cals on workout days. 1000 on weekends as i do nothing but care for my child. Tues and wed depends on intensity of spin/rpm class at home. I have increased these cals and gained weight (i do not want to gain muscle right now my goal is fat loss i have bern a gym junkie for 4 years can only gain muscle on a surplus)
I did the whole slow cardio after weights DID NOTHING FOR 6 months gained 4 kgs to be precise. This workout is the first time i have lost in a while.
My workout is too long to write up but targets legs/glutes, back, shoulders, chest, triceps, biceps (not in that order) approx 2 exercise types for each muscle group 3 sets of 8-10 for most 3 sets of 10-15 for others. Eg lat pulldown 35 kgs last rep hard but in good form. Incline chest press dumbbells 12kgs each. Bicep curl ezy barbell 15kgs, leg press 76kgs etc. i make sure my last 2 reps are fatigued if i can do more i up my weights.
I do not believe in the rubbish lift high reps. Total garbage.
I have 1.5 hrs only at the gym mon, wed, fri absolutely no other time and my house is too tiny to even do a starjump. Can not workout weekends. So to get all muscles i do full body mon wed and fri if i split it i lose strength and go down in weights. Since doing this i can lift much heavier.
It takes an hr for the weights because i do have to wait for some equipment and i have such a tiny bladder i pee 4 times in this time. I am working out before any main meal but after i breath into my lumen i will eat a banana if it says to based on intended workout to fuel my muscles. If i dont eat it i struggle. If i consume protein before i struggle immensely like its too heavy on my stomach even if it was a light protein source.
2 -
Oh and my hiit isnt a typical workout its the body boss program look it up. Approx 30 mins including stretch and cool down.0
-
How do you measure your calories? In other words, how do you know you are eating 1259 calories?10
-
BlueDesire89 wrote: »Sijomial just for you, because you misunderstand. I know what im talking about. SEE IT LITERALLY SAYS IT.
While I'd trust the numbers measured normally - anything beyond that I would NOT trust because that is interpretation of the numbers.
Since your RMR is reported 949 - resting metabolism - you do NOT need to eat less than that. Unless you laid around all day exactly like the test.
Your pic of report confirms they are using some user supplied info - exercise and daily activity level calories burned - that is not measured.
Per Katch BMR formula using 40% BF - that would be 1169, so not that far off.
You been in a diet for awhile? There is metabolic adaption, could explain the 19% lower than calculated estimate based on BF%. Though that is comparing estimated BMR to measured RMR.
Now, Cunningham RMR formula also based on 40% BF would have you at 1314, so that is badly off.
How long in a diet, what has been deficit you have been attempting from start?
But huge red flag to me on that RMR report - it gives your VO2 137 mL/min, or 2.22 mL/kg/min.
Normal resting VO2 is around 3.5.
Do you do a lot of cardio? I mean a lot of endurance level hours of cardio weekly. I recall mine being around 3 when I got tested in great aerobic shape.
Here's a bigger red flag - 0% of the burn is from fat, 100% from carbs, on the report.
That is bonkers when resting - that would normally show 90-95% from fat as source.
Call them and ask if their machine really puts those figures on the report. It does indeed measure some values that would show that amount, and that math is the whole bases for determining RMR.
Perhaps they just don't include it on the report.
But that is not correct.
That report looks familiar to ones I'd see from this RMR testing operations that would visit gyms and malls to offer cheap tests.
They were worthless - because no one was prepped like you were - no exercise and eating prior to test.
But these outfits also used analyzers and hadn't done their calibrations that require spending some bucks to get accurate - so they didn't care. Spend the calibration money on the paying customers weekly.17 -
How the hell did you guys miss the fact that i fastidiously measure and weigh my food. I have a calibrated scale from a nutritionist. I eat 110grams of protein, 90 grams of carbs, 52 grams of fat on workout days. My meals are boring as. Chicken tenders with steamed brocolli, tablespoon of peanut butter, greek yoghurt with hempseed and chia seeds perfectly measured. Tinned tuna with baby spinach and onion. Nuts, lean meats like eye fillet all fat removed. 5% fat minced beef. Etc etc i always get my protein and fibre.
If i up my carbs i get racing heart blurry eyes and unable to focus. Once again all test within normal range. Only thing endocrinologist said was my mitochondria was very poor meaning my carb uptake into the muscle was short i cant store enough carbs because my muscle has no room due to poor mitochondria. Hence the lower than normal carb intake. It was worse before the lumen device (look it up).
Yes i came here hoping someone may have had same experience and can shed a light. Not argue that im just wrong. I believed it was wrong too but i cant do that anymore. Test dont lie especially multiple ones.3 -
Ih by the way im premium on my fitness pal i waste so much time logging and tracking my food. By the way i used to be 84kgs i list it all on my own very slowly and properly. Then i injured myself and all things went to hell. I couldnt eat carbs i gained weight fast even though i compensated for having to stop working out until surgery healed. I got to 53kgs thank you very much so obviously i knew what i was doing. But just one day it was like i smelt food and gained weight. Slowly im gaining and now im 61.3. If you want to be supportive great of not go away.
I can prove it too so whoever disagreed you know nothing about me. I was obese my cholesterol was 7.4 its now 4.8 on my own.2 -
OP
How was anyone supposed to assume you meant food scale? There are many different calibrated scales. My calibrated scale is for body weight.
Plus, no one needs a calibrated food scale, you got ripped off. My food scale was $20 at Walmart and measures a nickle at 5 grams each and every time.
That said, @heybales just gave you some fantastic info.
And the only one fighting with people here is YOU. The rest of us are just trying to help troubleshoot.13 -
Based on the numbers presented...
Try lifting exclusively and progressively. Eat your 1416 calories and exercise up to 124 calories. For me, that's about 20-30 min of lifting, pushing, pulling, hinging, etc.
Better still, get a second opinion and continue talking to your healthcare team for clarity about all this instead of the interwebs. Kudos on you for coming back to update though.
Folks are just trying to help based on information you provided (which may or may not be accurate)8 -
How in the world were we supposed to get out of your rantings that you "weigh your food on a food scale" when you didn't say this?
Obviously, you are the one that wants to argue, and obviously a bunch of internet strangers who have been at this longer than you can't help you. Obviously you know better than anyone what is going on. Good luck in figuring out what is going on.9 -
To clarify im in australia very different product here very different doctors and help here. The rmr test was expensive and calibrated regularly. I had to travel hours to get to one. They do not have these in gyms here. Australia has limited options. This rmr test is state of the art machinery for nsw it was the only clinic to do it.
As for my rer yes i purely burnt carbs because at the time i was doing 16:8 fast and my body did not like fasting longer than 14 hours and my liver would go into overdrive and secrete glucose to compensate. The lumen device has corrected that and im nomally between a 0.7 to .8 now.
I used to do so much cardio and weights but my cortisol was so high i was told i was stressing my body. I love cardio and weights i hate slow boring time consuming wasting precious time cardio like walking on a treadmill i get bored and lose no weight. Plus im limited for time.
I burn a pathetic 130 cals for 30 mins of met 10 for my body. So a met level of say 4-6 i burn about 45 cals for 30 mins. I would have to walk for 2 hours to get anything substantial. I need the cals to help with the deficit i hate eating below 1300 cals i used to eat 1580 on deficit and 1998 on maintenance now i just gain so fast on those figures. I am a firm advocate of not starving yourself. But 1259 is such a low amount.i do it but if i eat more i gain. When i eat less i lose but i struggle with nutrient sacrifice.2 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »I have a calibrated scale paid for from a nutritionist. My calories are 1259 cals on workout days. 1000 on weekends as i do nothing but care for my child. Tues and wed depends on intensity of spin/rpm class at home. I have increased these cals and gained weight (i do not want to gain muscle right now my goal is fat loss i have bern a gym junkie for 4 years can only gain muscle on a surplus)
Be aware that fast gain or loss is merely water weight - fat is not fast either direction.
You may have some screwed up mitochondria - that's what Gregg Lemond ended up with the effect of after his gunshot injury and lead absorption, prevented him from being at the top of his potential game and retiring from pro-cycling.
In his case didn't effect daily level of living - well I haven't checked in lately maybe it is as he got older.
So that may change some carb related stuff, and fat related for that matter.
But storage of glycogen, not seen that related - and that's probably why you can have some fast charges - glycogen stores with attached water in muscles - that is probably still happening.
If you really have had some metabolic adapting, then your current path of attempting to eat at maintenance and getting the best full-body lifting workout is the solution.
You may be able to test eating 100 extra calories daily for a month.
It would take 35 days of that to slowly put on 1 lb of fat - if you actually ate above maintenance.
So know that any faster weight is NOT fat, but water.
But you may find your body willing to speed up in many ways that increases your RMR and TDEE in general.
BTW - with numbers these far off average - don't waste money on daily activity tracker unless you only want to monitor steps or HR - other info on burning calories is useless for you.10 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »To clarify im in australia very different product here very different doctors and help here. The rmr test was expensive and calibrated regularly. I had to travel hours to get to one. They do not have these in gyms here. Australia has limited options. This rmr test is state of the art machinery for nsw it was the only clinic to do it.
As for my rer yes i purely burnt carbs because at the time i was doing 16:8 fast and my body did not like fasting longer than 14 hours and my liver would go into overdrive and secrete glucose to compensate. The lumen device has corrected that and im nomally between a 0.7 to .8 now.
I used to do so much cardio and weights but my cortisol was so high i was told i was stressing my body. I love cardio and weights i hate slow boring time consuming wasting precious time cardio like walking on a treadmill i get bored and lose no weight. Plus im limited for time.
I burn a pathetic 130 cals for 30 mins of met 10 for my body. So a met level of say 4-6 i burn about 45 cals for 30 mins. I would have to walk for 2 hours to get anything substantial. I need the cals to help with the deficit i hate eating below 1300 cals i used to eat 1580 on deficit and 1998 on maintenance now i just gain so fast on those figures. I am a firm advocate of not starving yourself. But 1259 is such a low amount.i do it but if i eat more i gain. When i eat less i lose but i struggle with nutrient sacrifice.
No way you are purely burning carbs - if so that is a medical issue and should have been noticed.
Inability to burn fat.
Lumen can be interesting, but it really has to be treated like RMR test - not valid for what body is burning unless body has had no food for 4-6 hrs, and no workout recovery in prior 24 hrs.
If those things occurred the RER is merely reflecting other reasons for increased CO2 expelled.
BTW, liver should be secreting glucose most of the time - that's what it's supposed to do as blood sugar is used by the brain and a few elsewhere - liver releases more to compensate.
Only after meals is that not needed - so not sure why it releasing during a fast would be viewed as messed up.
That's great it's helped you reach a better fat burning level - which frankly points out again that should be shown on your RMR test but it's not.
Something is wrong there - either they don't happen to report that figure, or messed up test.
If not reported - why not and what was your figures.10 -
BlueDesire89 wrote: »To clarify im in australia very different product here very different doctors and help here. The rmr test was expensive and calibrated regularly. I had to travel hours to get to one. They do not have these in gyms here. Australia has limited options. This rmr test is state of the art machinery for nsw it was the only clinic to do it.
As for my rer yes i purely burnt carbs because at the time i was doing 16:8 fast and my body did not like fasting longer than 14 hours and my liver would go into overdrive and secrete glucose to compensate. The lumen device has corrected that and im nomally between a 0.7 to .8 now.
I used to do so much cardio and weights but my cortisol was so high i was told i was stressing my body. I love cardio and weights i hate slow boring time consuming wasting precious time cardio like walking on a treadmill i get bored and lose no weight. Plus im limited for time.
I burn a pathetic 130 cals for 30 mins of met 10 for my body. So a met level of say 4-6 i burn about 45 cals for 30 mins. I would have to walk for 2 hours to get anything substantial. I need the cals to help with the deficit i hate eating below 1300 cals i used to eat 1580 on deficit and 1998 on maintenance now i just gain so fast on those figures. I am a firm advocate of not starving yourself. But 1259 is such a low amount.i do it but if i eat more i gain. When i eat less i lose but i struggle with nutrient sacrifice.
Please don't take this as being argumentative, I'm truly trying to understand, just struggling a little bit mentally because your situation seems so different from the norm. In that light, regarding the bolded:
I'm wondering whether that might be misleading, in your case. METS are a valid research-based method of estimating exercise calories, but they aren't perfect. In particular, I'm confused by the possible difference between a physics-oriented answer, and an exercise-science kind of answer. Here's what I mean:
In physics terms, it takes X amount of energy to do a certain amount of work. (Force and movement/distance are the variables, (W = F * d).) That equates to the energy requirement to do that work, which for human movement is usually measured in calories (kCal, actually). That's a direct equated thing, not an estimation (though the actual quantification of F & d can be complicated, especially with human body mechanics!). IMU, and I'm a pure amateur, the physics equation is hard and fast, in the sense that you can't somehow get the same work done with less energy ("efficiency" is not a counter-example AFAIK).
METS are a sort of convenience for estimating calories. They rely on the idea that during most activities, we're moving our body around, so that makes body weight a variable (part of the force requirement, IMU). However, some activities use more body movement than others, so that variable is of greater or lesser importance in different activities. Using RMR in there is sort of a proxy for body size (but it has some limitations in itself). What you get out of the METS approach is very much an approximation/estimate of exercise calories, IMU, scaled to body size, on average.
What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure that if one has an outlier RMR, one can assume that calorie estimates based on METS are reasonable, because the relationship of RMR to body size is out of whack, and it's body size that matters in the physics sense, mostly. Bottom line, I'm not sure it's a correct assumption that you'd burn fewer calories doing the same work (in the physics sense) as someone the same size, but a higher RMR. In a case like yours, METS may be less useful, less accurate.
However, I don't think there's a good way to run an n = 1 experiment to figure this out in a practical way. Since exercise is a pretty small component of TDEE for most of us, the amount of exercise a person would have to do to try to figure this out on one's own would be prohibitive, I think.
I do hear what you're saying about your time limitations, and the fact that steady-state/slow cardio bores the (bleep) out of you, and I'm sympathetic. Bottom line, though, if I'm right - and I'm not aggressively asserting that I am - I'm thinking you may burn more calories from any given activity (exercise or NEAT-type stuff) than the METS method of estimating the calories might imply.
I think heybales has some very insightful observations going in his post, and I think he's trying to engage in a sincere way with you. (I'm hearing you as very frustrated - understandably - right now, so I say that partly because I hope you won't throw out some good posts cognitively because of lumping feelings about the overall thread all together . . . which would be sort of a natural human thing to do.)
I noticed you mentioned high cortisol levels in the past. Do you have any indication of where your cortisol level has been sitting more recently? If that's still high, there could be some subtle things going on there, possibly conspiring (metaphorically speaking) with the adaptive thermogenesis heybales mentioned.8 -
I’m not arguing against the results of your test. All I asked was how many calories you have been eating and if you weigh your food. I did not see you answer this question anywhere. If that test is correct then you have no room for error when it comes to logging your food.
Some people do need to eat low calorie to lose weight. I’m one of them. I’m short and maintain at 1400-1450 when sedentary. Keep in mind sedentary for me is 3000-4000 steps a day. If I lay in bed all day which I have done when sick, I maintain around 1100-1200 a day. I have no room for error so I understand frustration with this. This is why accurate logging is so vital.
Until we know how many calories you have been eating and what your weight loss goals are, then it is hard to help you. You may be one of those people who need to eat 1200 a day to lose and will lose very slowly. The only way to do this is very accurate logging using a food scale, IMO.10 -
There are mistakes that people commonly make that cause them to not lose weight that we might be able to spot if you change your Diary Sharing settings to Public: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings
9 -
musicfan68 wrote: »Most of us have been here for years, and through that experience, we find that there is almost always something off with counting calories, or calorie burn. That is why we are skeptical, and you are so argumentative that that raises flags for people as well. We aren't trying to argue just to argue with you. Again, most of us have been at this for a long time and see new people come on with issues such as yours and it is usually something simple like not measuring your food, or a miscalculation of some sort. For what it's worth, my BMR is about 1275, if I'm not moving at all, that would be my maintenance, but I move, so I get a few hundred more calories depending on my activity, so your numbers don't seem that strange to me. According to the image you uploaded, your maintenance is up to 1292, which is at rest.
FWIW, I've been here for years, too I think she's making a much better case here that she's an actual outlier than any other I've seen here before.
She's my height, and I find it difficult to believe that someone who lifts and apparently has for a while is 40% fat at 136. That would give her barely over 80 lb of lean mass, which seems unlikely. I don't lift consistently or particularly heavy and have a hard time gaining muscle even when I do, and if anything I have a small build (tiny wrists, look better around 20 BMI, narrow hips), and I was over 90 lb lean mass at 125 (my weight when I had a Dexa, and all other measures have consistently made me think that's likely correct).
The RMR is from a blow into a tube thing that IS NOT Dexa and I don't think it has anything like the same accuracy (and even Dexa can be off for some). I'm quite skeptical about it, especially since I know there are ways it can be screwed up (some have rules about eating before hand, if it's not on correctly, etc.). I did one too (it was tossed into the cost of my Dexa package), and they told me mine was under the expected by some percentage too, which I figured was because I'd lost weight recently and was still working on it, and yet in reality my results seem more like what the calculator claims than the low metabolism result.
The big thing, though, is the 40% BF -- if that's so, it should be pretty apparent based on physique, not something one just discovers through a test.14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions