Weight Loss Support - Resting Metabolic Rate Testing




View Full Version : Resting Metabolic Rate Testing


Mami
02-21-2007, 12:43 PM
For the past 5 weeks, I've been logging daily calorie totals, plus total burned and total weekly deficit to see if a 3500 calorie deficit is really amounting to the equivalent in weightloss. Well, its not exactly working right so I'm thinking I'm either underestimating my calorie intake or overestimating what I burn in a day.

I HAVE been grabbing lots of nuts lately without measuring and just estimating. Since nuts are so caloric, I realized strict measuring with a tablespoon is totally necessary.

Fitday says my body needs 2046 calories at this weight using the "seated work" lifestyle option. I'm starting to wonder if this is correct. So I made an appointment for the RMR test on Friday with a dietician so I will REALLY know what's going on! And yay, my Oxford insurance actually covers the whole visit and test!

Let me know how off you were if you had this test. For those who track your deficit, is it accurately turning into number of pounds lost?


Angihas2
02-21-2007, 12:59 PM
It's alot more accurate, now that I upped my calories. When I was strictly eating 1400 I was seeing this huge amount of calories burned, but no weight loss. Once I upped my calorie intake, I've been seeing loss, nice and steady. The scale this morning was very very kind, but it doesn't count until Monday.

JPennies
02-21-2007, 01:07 PM
If you don't mind me asking... I have a similar scenario and would be interested in finding out my RHR. I live in NYC and have Oxford as well... who are you seeing? And have you gotten a recommendation that they were good or you just picked them out of the book?


Mami
02-21-2007, 01:22 PM
Angihas, if anything I eat way too much averaging around 1900 calories per day lately, so eating too little is definitely not the problem in my case.

JPennies, I searched on the net for RMR testing in NYC and didn't find anything except this place called nutritionenergy.com. I've heard nothing about them and just spoke with someone on the phone briefly, but they are registered dieticians and since I dont require referrals to specialists, I can just go and still be covered. Given that I'm really not paying, I dont even care how great they are as long as their RMR test is accurate!

JayEll
02-21-2007, 01:27 PM
I haven't had that test, but I do know that FitDay gave me too many calories burned every day, and then I didn't lose weight. I had to set it to totally "sedentary" when not asleep. Then I add in any exercise I do. That seems to work better for me. My weight loss over the last 13 weeks is exactly what FitDay said it would be.

Never eat nuts without measuring! I love nuts, and I would do the same thing. What's another few nuts? Well, 18 cashew nuts is 165 calories! Same for 22 almonds. I literally do count out the nuts if I'm going to eat them.

Jay

biolerchick
02-22-2007, 12:33 AM
I find the Fitday estimates the calories I burn each day very high. And different on-line calculators will tell you different things. If I input my height, weight, and gender in CalorieKing.com it tells me that I burn 500 calories LESS than Fitday tells me I burn. A 500 calorie difference with the same information--that's 3500 calories a week (which is a pound). It will be interesting to be tested for your RMR. If I didn't have to pay for it, I would certainly do it!

Mami
02-22-2007, 09:03 AM
Yup Jay, definitely need to watch those nuts LOL. They are SOO darn delicious but SOOOO high in calories. Its funny how we want so badly to fool ourselves and pretend we're not eating something by not measuring properly or by not logging it. But in the end we only sabotage ourselves. I've been a bit more determined this week and I really didn't want to have more calories last night. I had alloted 3 tangerines on fitday and then ate them out of the large box they come in. I so wanted to have another and thought, ah, they're only 30 calories. But for once I wanted to just stick to my calorie plan to get off this mini plateau.

boilerchick, I'll report back on the difference in the numbers between the RMR and fitday. I would so love to believe fitday though! LOL That's why I blindly go along with it knowing that its higher than other calculators and very possibly too high for me :)

Mami
02-24-2007, 08:18 AM
Justed wanted to report back on my RMR test.

On a scale of 1 to 5 (being the highest), my metabolism was a 4, considered a higher a than normal metabolism (yah!). The machine gave me the following numbers:

1627 - my resting metabolic rate (what I need just in being alive; no activity)
486 - my lifestyle calories burned (normal daily activities)
169 - my calories burned per 30 minutes at moderate intensity

The verdict as compared to fitday? The "seated work" setting is around 2045 calories for me at 5'2"/146 pounds. Thus the fitday calculation ends up working for me (its about 100 calories lower than the RMR test said for me for RMR plus lifestyle, but that number cant be 100% accurate because "lifestyles" vary widely in activity). Looks like this could be too high for people whose metabolism is in the normal or lower than normal range.

The RMR test recommended the following per day calorie allowances:

maintenance zone (without exercise) = 1627-2113 (being RMR plus lifestyle)
weighloss zone (without exercise) = 1303 to 1627
weightloss zone (with 2 hrs per week of exercise) = 1472 - 1800

The bad news: the LifeFitness and Precor ellipticals at the gym tell me I'm burning around 330 calories per 30 minutes using their cardio program at around 130-145 heart beats per minute, which I think is considered moderate intensity. So unfortunately those fitness machine calculators appear to be highly inaccurate (by about double as I'm really only burning 170 per 1/2 hour).

To those who aren't strength training, this may encourage you as I've never been the "naturally thin" type, so I'm sure my higher than normal metabolism is from years of strength training (just normal weights in the gym, nothing at all extreme less than 2 times per week), rather than genetics (this I can assure you).

Doughnut
02-24-2007, 08:37 AM
I've been watching for this post Mami - very interesting.