Got the metabolic testing results. EVERYTHING is different.

bump

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.

Douglas, you're all over it like a rash... You're so right... I just got stronger in such a huge deficit and lost body fat, not muscle!

Also...interested which doctor the OP saw, how much it cost and was it worth it...i.e. are you seeing results as a result of knowing how much to eat!?

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.

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.

Wrong physiology actually, undereating for your workout level easily can start burning muscle for fuel - no matter how much fat you got left.

You are referring to starvation mode and body's response if no exercise.

You probably heard of the "wall" recreational marathoners hit.

That is the wall of glucose stores having been used up, and muscle breakdown is occurring, there is a shift. Glucose is burned with the fat, ratio depends on the intensity. Fat has been burned the whole time, and continues to be burned.
Fat burning zone is great for endurance, because you can get 50-60% of energy from carbs, rest from fat.

You have limited carb stores, when the liver's 400-450 are gone, and muscles need more, the muscle stores of 1500-2000 are tapped. At this point however, the brain still needs glucose, and muscle stores can NOT be put into the bloodstream for that purpose.
Muscle will be broken down.

When the muscle glucose stores are depleted and more is needed to keep burning fat for a workout, then muscle is broken down to convert to glucose. Fat does not convert to glucose.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how much fat you got left.
That is the wall reached when you go at too high intensity for your training level. If you do it right, you hit no wall.

This exact same effect CAN be hit after several days of intense exercise. Your daily diet can't provide enough carbs to make up for your workout, let alone all other daily activity taking some carbs.

Eat 1200, 50% carbs - 600 cal of carbs.

Spin class intense burn of 1000 cal, 70% carb burn - 700 cal of carbs.
You went through the liver stores, you went into the muscle stores, and some muscle is broken down during/after the workout for brain function glucose needs.

Your daily eating of 600 leaves the stores in general 100 short, but because that 600 tops off liver first, the muscle second, it really got left out.

Do that routine several days in a row, with all other daily activity using some glucose for energy. Shoot, even at rest, about 30% is glucose.

You lose weight because 1 gram glucose holds 2.7 gram water with it, as the week goes on. Finally with no stores, muscle is broken down, real good weight loss then, but now less muscle to hold glucose - gets worse the next week.

Oh yeah, this can get ugly if you eat very small and exercise very intense.

All this info is in any basic physiology book, online articles, ect. Just the way the body operates.
Different ratios of carbs/fat usage for energy needs depending on intensity, and limited stores of carbs, and what is broken down to provide more when depleted.

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.

What is REALLY different is I don't do net. So If my 1600 is my RMR and I burn 1000 calories teaching two classes one day, the MOST I'm to eat is 2200 which would have me net 1200. 400 calories UNDER my base. This goes against most of what I've been told here at MFP. I'll try it though for a few weeks, add some low intensity stuff...add even MORE protein....and see where I land.

So that means you have the RMR of a person with 50 kg of LBM, and that person would have a BMR of about 1450.
If your LBM is actually higher than that, your RMR is below what it could be, of a much smaller person - bummer.

So you are literally at the happy state with classes that you could eat at maintenance for non-exercise activities, and allow your exercise to create the deficit then.

Except you probably burn more than 7000 in a week, so you probably need to eat more each day so the deficit isn't so great.

Why not do that instead of trying to figure out a deficit and safe eat back amount?

That would mean setting MFP Diet/Fitness profile to Maintain weight, activity level for what the non-exercise day is.

And then enter workout calories, but don't take the credits to eat back.
MFP will still show you "in 5 weeks ..."

And on days the green Net daily goal is more than 1000 in the clear, you eat that much extra back.

Any rest day is a make up day.

What is VO2?

Amount of oxygen your body can make use of during exercise, usually VO2max is given, with HR at that point.

Training can improve this number, which means if VO2max goes up, you can workout at same HR you did last year, and it is easier on your system, and more fat burning then previously, but also less calorie burn.

You can self test to decent estimate.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

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.

This is a common misunderstanding; in fact, I was prompted to write a blog post about just this issue.

You may be interested in it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/DL121004/view/heart-rate-monitors-zone-training-and-fat-burn-216961

What is REALLY different is I don't do net. So If my 1600 is my RMR and I burn 1000 calories teaching two classes one day, the MOST I'm to eat is 2200 which would have me net 1200. 400 calories UNDER my base.

Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

You're forgetting about the risks of high intensity training(replying to your blog). Increased risk of injury, increased risk of over training, which can lead to depression and emotional issues. Lack of energy due to glycogen depletion, more hungry (so you want to eat more) etc... I made a topic " how to hack exercise calories". You can burn more calories, be safer, and better, improve fat burning enzymes, by working out at a lower intensity. I'll agree with the minute per minute, high intensity burns more calories.

Of course long duration lower intensity exercise carries the very real danger of repetitive stress injuries as well. When I walked my dog 3-5 hours a day I eventually started to have problems with this. Sure it was great exercise, but the repetitive stress injuries due to the required duration are just as much of a danger as possible injuries from high intensity training. The thing is, most people have 30 minutes to and hour to workout, they don't have 5 hours. If I person is careful to do proper warm-up and cool-down, and to make sure they are doing the exercise correctly allowing for enough rest between exercise sessions, there is no reason high intensity needs to be any more dangerous. In fact low intensity has the inherent risk that because of the low intensity people will not realize the potential for injury and will ignore the warning signs.

When glycogen (carbs) are depleted your body switches over to using fat preserving the remaining glycogen for the vital functions that absolutely require it.

That is absolutely false.

You burn varying ratios of fat and carbs all day long, more fat at lower intensities, more carbs at higher level, until you anaerobic and 100% carbs.
You can NOT burn 100% fat.

Best you'll get is 70-80% if your training has focused on that, and that is ONLY at sleep level.

Even the ill-named "fat-burning zone" is closer to 40-50% fat burning if you are lucky with the 50%. And lowers from there as intensity goes up.

Glucose will be almost wiped out and glucagon will signal for the body to increase blood sugar level when they start dipping low, if nothing else available, muscle will be broken down.

Fat can NOT be converted to glucose.