Originally Posted by JohnP
Walking is powered by fat. Thus, walking two hours a day does not mean your body is catabolizing muscle even if you're in a steep deficit. It might be but the body catabolizing muscle results in faster weight loss (not fat loss) than if the body was only burning fat. This is because a lb of muscle breaks down into far fewer calories than a lb of fat. Roughly 700 vs 3500. Since the complaint is slower than expected weight loss it does not follow that her body is catabolizing muscle.
Regarding the nutrition - it really depends on what the OP is eating. You appeared to be making the case that one reason the OP was not losing faster was that her body was not functioning correctly. I don't "hear" any evidence that is happening. Certainly I've never seen the case made that lack of micronutrients would slow weight loss.
I don't see you making much of a case for saying that fat powers walking. I just read an assertion that doesn't actually make much sense anyway. If you want to convince me, you will have to provide some a link to some a reputable source that this is what happens.
Everything i've read about the way the body provides energy for exercise involves a higher proportion of carbs to fat. And if the carbs aren't there, the body makes glucose from muscle. the fat is always the less part of the ratio.
What you've said more or less contradicts the notion entirely that the body burns muscle at all, when calories carbs are not available.
The exception to this is if the body is in ketosis or whatever the right terminology for the way people burn on a low carb diet. The OP didn't say she was on a low carb diet. she just said she's eating low calories.
Given her weight, and the fact she's exercising, normally she'd be losing faster than 5 pounds a month whether its muscle or fat if she's eating carbs in a normal sort of ratio to protein