Help keep losing muscle and gaining fat slow metabolism

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.

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.

How do you measure your calories? In other words, how do you know you are eating 1259 calories?

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.

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.

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.

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