Got the metabolic testing results. EVERYTHING is different.

I had to run on the treadmill, with a mask on, that was hooked to a machine reading gases. I also was wearing a HRM. I ran at various intesity levels, up to the point when I was unable to go more. That part took around 15 minutes. The whole session ran an hour.

When you use this method, start to track your body fat. I still think you will lose more muscle than fat. Also, is the trainer a certified nutritionist or dietician?

I do not understand why you're implying that the OP will lose muscle if she doesn't eat "all of her calories".

My understanding, and with some help from thinking through how the body works, is that muscle mass is lost through atrophy. It's only in the late stages of "starvation mode" (the real one) that the body has digested all of the adipose fat that, at that point it, will consume muscle mass. This occurs at the very end stage of starvation and is, unless the human starts to eat, followed by death.

A couple of points:

It makes no sense for the body to consume muscle when there's adipose fat (males have about 5% essential fat, women 10 to 12%). The body stores fat for the express reason of creating a reserve. Why would the body not consume the adipose fat (something that goes on all the time) in favor of consuming muscle?

It's very hard to measure muscle mass. Yes, there are consumer-level instruments that measure body fat, lean body mass, etc. but lean body mass is not the same as muscle mass. My little Omron body fat meter measures body fat so I can back into a lean body mass number but I cant get to a muscle mass reading.

Have you worked with instrumentation and a subject audience where you have tracked that data? If so, could you share those results with us?

If not, it would be great if someone could post medically-based links on the correlation between weight loss, loss of loss of lean body mass and loss of muscle mass.

Actually, your body doesn't save lean muscle mass for last. Lean muscle uses more energy than fat, which is why your body will convert muscle to energy sooner than fat - in order to preserve energy. That's how starvation mode works. That's also why many recommend slow weight loss over time in order to keep the body from using lean muscle mass instead of fat.

I just did testing today too. It was spendy-$180. It was done by a certified exercise physiologist--not sure what that is, through my HMO. Showed that I'm fit and fat. My VO2 was in the "superior" category for my age, but my body fat % was 38%, which was not even on the chart . My BMR was 1379. She set up some training targets for training in various HR zones. She also gave a suggested weight range to shoot for, that surprised me a bit. It was 130-152 (I'm 5'2"). I had been shooting for 135, and thought that was on the high end of where I should be. I entered the VO2 into my HRM, and it now has my calorie burn higher, so that was good to see---I think.

How did you find one of these doctors or places to do this? I wouldn't even know where to begin searching.

My HMO has a health promotion division that does various things like this. But, I also did an internet search on fitness testing, and found several commercial outfits, and their pricing was comparable--some were better.

You can burn more calories, be safer, and better, improve fat burning enzymes, by working out at a lower intensity.

this old myth has been debunked on several fronts by several studies. The truth is, lower intensity is easier which is the main reason some people hang onto this justification to not really bust out a hard workout.

If your fitness level is a beginner or otherwise, there is nothing wrong with low intensity. But know the real reason and dont fool yourself by relying on this outdated myth....it isnt more beneficial to not work harder.

Do you think maybe you are over-training? Are all your workouts high intensity? This can stall out your weight loss due to chronic inflamation and stress, make you retain more fluids and actually gain weight. Instead of lowering the intensity, try cutting back on how many training sessions and taking a rest day between each. I went from six to four days high intensity and my weight started dropping again. That's just what worked for me.

Oh and I definately "feed" my workouts with a recovery shake of simple carbs and protein.

When you use this method, start to track your body fat. I still think you will lose more muscle than fat. Also, is the trainer a certified nutritionist or dietician?

I do not understand why you're implying that the OP will lose muscle if she doesn't eat "all of her calories".

My understanding, and with some help from thinking through how the body works, is that muscle mass is lost through atrophy. It's only in the late stages of "starvation mode" (the real one) that the body has digested all of the adipose fat that, at that point it, will consume muscle mass. This occurs at the very end stage of starvation and is, unless the human starts to eat, followed by death.

A couple of points:

It makes no sense for the body to consume muscle when there's adipose fat (males have about 5% essential fat, women 10 to 12%). The body stores fat for the express reason of creating a reserve. Why would the body not consume the adipose fat (something that goes on all the time) in favor of consuming muscle?

It's very hard to measure muscle mass. Yes, there are consumer-level instruments that measure body fat, lean body mass, etc. but lean body mass is not the same as muscle mass. My little Omron body fat meter measures body fat so I can back into a lean body mass number but I cant get to a muscle mass reading.

Have you worked with instrumentation and a subject audience where you have tracked that data? If so, could you share those results with us?

If not, it would be great if someone could post medically-based links on the correlation between weight loss, loss of loss of lean body mass and loss of muscle mass.

Actually, your body doesn't save lean muscle mass for last. Lean muscle uses more energy than fat, which is why your body will convert muscle to energy sooner than fat - in order to preserve energy. That's how starvation mode works. That's also why many recommend slow weight loss over time in order to keep the body from using lean muscle mass instead of fat.

"starvation mode" - can you send me a link to a credible source.

I'm just not buying into the idea that the body will consume muscle instead of fat. The only info I have to go on was my own experience. I ate 800 to 1k cals/day for 7 months and lost 95 pounds. In the time period for which I have metrics, I lost 77 pounds, 62 from fat and 15 from LBM. Five of the 15 were from water so that leaves 10 from the rest of LBM - bone, skin, and organs. My body comp was done at Lindora, a company that offers a medically-supervised weight loss program in 40 clinics here in SoCal so their machines are probably accurate.

If I lost only 10 pounds of muscle, bone, skin, blood volume, etc. that's not an awful lot of muscle mass to lose (vs losing 62 pounds of adipose tissue). And, all the while, I was told that my LCD would cause all sorts of problems yet I had zero loose skin, scads of energy, etc., etc.

My issue is that many folks claim that the body "hangs on to X" yet now you're claiming that it sacrifices muscle tissue even though it's got adipose fat that it stored specifically so that it could be used as an energy source.

I just can't reconcile those two points.

I had some testing done last year and the only info I got from the "vendor" was my BMR.

I've had someone looking for a facility here in SoCal and there are a few places that offer this sort of testing.

I haven't tried this equipment but, perhaps, this will be of help to someone who wants to have VO2 uptake, RMR, dun tank, etc.

Wander over to this site, click on the tiny little link in the lower right hand corner that reads "find a site near your" and punch in your ZIP code:

http://www.newleaffitness.com/index.html

I've found one source here that will do all three tests and will answer questions!! for $320.

Again, no endorsement of these folks but it looks like a good place to start.

It's just not that simple. When you work at 55% to 75% of max HR you use mostly fat for fuel. so if you burn 500 calories, you've burned roughly 400 in fat. But you get little residual metabolic benefit. The other extreme is when you do HIIT, and burn 500 calories you (and I've not looked up the exact numbers so I'm guesstimating) burn 100 calories of fat and 400 of muscle glycogen. But you get substantial metabolic increase for some period that most estimate at 2 hours give or take, during which you burn more fat during normal activities. This is a primary reason why it is good to incorporate 3 things in your training regimen. Low intensity cardio, HIIT and strength training. Covers all bases for getting lean!

My understanding, and with some help from thinking through how the body works, is that muscle mass is lost through atrophy. It's only in the late stages of "starvation mode" (the real one) that the body has digested all of the adipose fat that, at that point it, will consume muscle mass. This occurs at the very end stage of starvation and is, unless the human starts to eat, followed by death.

A couple of points:

It makes no sense for the body to consume muscle when there's adipose fat (males have about 5% essential fat, women 10 to 12%). The body stores fat for the express reason of creating a reserve. Why would the body not consume the adipose fat (something that goes on all the time) in favor of consuming muscle?

But the body will, unless actively resisted, lose a combination of both fat and lean mass.

It's a somewhat complicated issue, but true. IIRC, diets where you are consuming at least your BMR will tend to lose more fat than lean while consuming less than BMR your lean % will go up and fat % go down. But you lose both.

Think of it this way. It takes muscle (lean mass) to transport an excess of body weight around effectively; much less when when weighing less. Also, take a 300 pound person who is 30% body fat. If you went to 210 pounds, a 100% fat loss would mean *no* body fat -- i.e., you'd be dead. The body has regulatory processes where it balances out lean and fat mass.

This isn't an issue of lean mass and fat — my question has to do with loss of muscle mass.

I understand that lean mass is lost - between 1/15/11 and 8/5/11, I lost 62 pounds of fat and 15 pounds of LBM, 5 of which was water. I lost lotsa inches, too so add in a couple of pounds of skin lost so that's only 8 pounds of muscle mass for 62 pounds down.

What I'd love to find is a medically sourced document that provides detail about this. Per my other posting, if the body creates adipose fat for the sole purpose of being able to access that fat when caloric intake drops, why would it disregard all of that energy rich fat (which exists for no other purpose) and go after muscle which, I'd assume, is harder to break down and takes longer to break down. As they say in the South, "That jess don't set right."

I sincerely appreciate your feedback.

Sorry, I just saw your post and I will see if I can find a creditable source that backs that. I know from your experience you didn't lose too much lean muscle mass during your weight loss (which is awesome) but I have seen many others on this board that have lost 30% of their weight from lean muscle mass (all being women). i can tell you, I have tracked my body fat as well as having a professional track my body fat over the course of my weight loss. I lost 20 lbs and 0 from lean muscle mass. Now, I will note, this is evaluating body fat from body fat calipers so it may not be as advance as the machines you were hooked up to, so I am sure there is some margin of error. I, also, might not be a great case as I did not have a substantial amount of weight to lose or body fat and it may be more apparent in those that are categorized as morbidly obese.


I will note, that threw several of these threads by the OP, i have and still will suggest 2400 calories based on the math. If you teach classes for 6-8 hours you will burn a ton of calories, even though you may not be full participating. And correct me if I am wrong Graysmom, but you are also working out after your classes? Between these two, it's probably very easy to say you are burning 1000 calories a day. And large deficits can cause an issues as noted by the info posted from bodyrecomposition.com from another user.

Now, where it's great to have a HRM and RMR testing, it still leaves the most important thing out of the equation; TDEE. I think it would be a worthwhile investment to get bodymedia/fitbit to estimate your TDEE. You may be surprised that it's possible you are burning well over 3000 calories a day, which will back that 1600/2200 won't be enough calories.

http://alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Awesome data! Thanks

So I finally coughed up some money and got some metabolic testing done. After months of busting my *kitten* and no results I needed answers! My RMR is a little above 1600. So just laying in bed all day I'd burn 1600.

The trainer/dietician said that on rest days I should eat 1700, moderate days when I teach once for example do 1900 and big days like Thursday when I teach 3 times do 2200 but not more. Also I need to fit in some lower intensity workouts because with my other test it showed when I was in my two lower zones I burned 77% fat. The higher zones that I'm normally in teaching spin I'm burning mostly carbs. Hence no fat loss even with 1000 calorie a day burns.

zones are a crock of S^!t. you wont burn as much fat as a % of cals burned, but you burn so many more cals at the higher intensity that you actually burn more cals from fat, just at a lower %, but for the rest of the day you will burn more fat then doing the lower intensity.

Whew, I got a headache reading through all these posts of individuals challenging you and your training/eating. I had the same test done and I've been very pleased with everything I've learned. I didn't realize I had to eat so much in order to lose weight. Since I've bumped up my calorie intake (it's the same no matter what I exercise that day) I've lost 12 pounds in 6 weeks. I do a huge variety of training. Every morning (or every other morning after longer runs) I do intervals on the treadmill for 45-60 minutes... this includes sprints, walking on an incline, slower walking, jogging, regular running at my pace... I do weight training 3x a week with 2 of the days being heavier weights. On Saturday I do heavy weights and a kickass Spin class. On Sunday I do long runs (last week was 10 miles).. I think the point is to vary your workouts as best as possible. I personally believe in zone training and I'm not interested in getting into an argument about it but it makes sense to me and it's been working for me. Good luck to everyone in the path they choose. I don't think it's kind of others to question a person who has sought out professionals in the field for their expertise.

My understanding, and with some help from thinking through how the body works, is that muscle mass is lost through atrophy. It's only in the late stages of "starvation mode" (the real one) that the body has digested all of the adipose fat that, at that point it, will consume muscle mass. This occurs at the very end stage of starvation and is, unless the human starts to eat, followed by death.

A couple of points:

It makes no sense for the body to consume muscle when there's adipose fat (males have about 5% essential fat, women 10 to 12%). The body stores fat for the express reason of creating a reserve. Why would the body not consume the adipose fat (something that goes on all the time) in favor of consuming muscle?

But the body will, unless actively resisted, lose a combination of both fat and lean mass.

It's a somewhat complicated issue, but true. IIRC, diets where you are consuming at least your BMR will tend to lose more fat than lean while consuming less than BMR your lean % will go up and fat % go down. But you lose both.

Think of it this way. It takes muscle (lean mass) to transport an excess of body weight around effectively; much less when when weighing less. Also, take a 300 pound person who is 30% body fat. If you went to 210 pounds, a 100% fat loss would mean *no* body fat -- i.e., you'd be dead. The body has regulatory processes where it balances out lean and fat mass.

This isn't an issue of lean mass and fat — my question has to do with loss of muscle mass.

I understand that lean mass is lost - between 1/15/11 and 8/5/11, I lost 62 pounds of fat and 15 pounds of LBM, 5 of which was water. I lost lotsa inches, too so add in a couple of pounds of skin lost so that's only 8 pounds of muscle mass for 62 pounds down.

What I'd love to find is a medically sourced document that provides detail about this. Per my other posting, if the body creates adipose fat for the sole purpose of being able to access that fat when caloric intake drops, why would it disregard all of that energy rich fat (which exists for no other purpose) and go after muscle which, I'd assume, is harder to break down and takes longer to break down. As they say in the South, "That jess don't set right."

I sincerely appreciate your feedback.

Sorry, I just saw your post and I will see if I can find a creditable source that backs that. I know from your experience you didn't lose too much lean muscle mass during your weight loss (which is awesome) but I have seen many others on this board that have lost 30% of their weight from lean muscle mass (all being women). i can tell you, I have tracked my body fat as well as having a professional track my body fat over the course of my weight loss. I lost 20 lbs and 0 from lean muscle mass. Now, I will note, this is evaluating body fat from body fat calipers so it may not be as advance as the machines you were hooked up to, so I am sure there is some margin of error. I, also, might not be a great case as I did not have a substantial amount of weight to lose or body fat and it may be more apparent in those that are categorized as morbidly obese.


I will note, that threw several of these threads by the OP, i have and still will suggest 2400 calories based on the math. If you teach classes for 6-8 hours you will burn a ton of calories, even though you may not be full participating. And correct me if I am wrong Graysmom, but you are also working out after your classes? Between these two, it's probably very easy to say you are burning 1000 calories a day. And large deficits can cause an issues as noted by the info posted from bodyrecomposition.com from another user.

Now, where it's great to have a HRM and RMR testing, it still leaves the most important thing out of the equation; TDEE. I think it would be a worthwhile investment to get bodymedia/fitbit to estimate your TDEE. You may be surprised that it's possible you are burning well over 3000 calories a day, which will back that 1600/2200 won't be enough calories.

/thread