Higher Metabolism AFTER I've Lost Weight?

has this happened to anyone?

i did the personal metab averages formula and i find that my recc. metab based on body fat and wt are a lot lower than my actual averages metab formula.

calculators have me from 1500ish-1900ish

my averages leave me with a 2200ish burn level instead.
which would make 1200 a bit too low for me. i have always been able to tell when it feels too low as i stall and feel like crap.

it wasnt like this before. when i was actually obese it was spot on with harris benedict formula.

i havent done any amt of exercise other than situps for a bit and casual biking every once in awhile when i felt bloated.

but nothing regular.

i just wonder if its one of those things of poor health in obesity leads to other issues like problems shedding the wt and metabolic issues that would slow your BMR down because you body had the stress of excess wt?

opinions? articles? experiences?

^^^^^^^^^ btw thw 2200 is sed. cals. no exercise. so i am not overcounting or undercounting exercise burns.

I am unclear what you are saying... is your metabolism faster or slower than the average? They've done studies on metabolism that show people's metabolism can hundreds above or below the average.
Seems more women complain of being under the average.

All of the most recent stuff I have read says you can't "wreck your metabolism."  It will slow if you diet, especially if you have too big of a deficit, but it rebounds within weeks when you resume normal calories again.  Also recent studies show that repeated yo-yo dieting doesn't permanently lower your metabolism. ... except if your muscle mass is less as a result.  The National Weight Control Registry follows about 6000 people who have lost and maintained weight.  When comparing people who dieted to people of same muscle mass who had never dieted, their metabolisms were the same.

it was avg to slow when i was heavier.

and now at a lower healthy wt its faster again like it used to be when i was younger.

saw your 11/16x wt. formula in another thread....

its 16 now..before i would say it was 12ish

my mother had hyper thyroid at 30 post baby. so i just want to make sure it was the baby not the age that triggered it.

its something i watch for.

also in reading that its harder to lose wt at high wts and hearing it too...i would say whatever happened in my body would make that true. or so it seems by the number games.

perhaps my nutrition is catching up with me?



 

nods

LOL
way better title for the thread.

well my goal weight will be much easier to stay at than i was thinking originally. ?

super happy...yet still cant believe it!


 

Thanks for explaining. It is extremely interesting to me.  What got me going on this was recently I encountered a woman who was 220 and felt she was unable to lose weight due to slow metabolism. Then she told me she was quite sure she ate 3000 a day when she maintained that weight... she had kept good records.  Well I'm 128 and maintain at about 1550. I did the math, and she needs 13.63 calories per pound, I need 12.10.  So I have since been collecting daily calories and weights of people of all shapes and sizes, really curious how this worked with a larger population. I have about 60 people, mostly women, mostly 20 to 45, mostly lean maintenance weights. Extremely few people know how many calories they ate when they were obese... so I have numbers for three heavy men and four heavy women. So far I'm finding that the ratios for lean and obese are about the same, in the 11 to 16 range.  Higher than than 16 and you mostly  get into athletes, and maybe teens with roaring metabolisms.  I have read 20 to 26 is the need for professional athletes.  The only two under-10s I have found are for a 66 and 77 year old.  Doing a "belle curve" of the people I have, the majority fall in the 11 to 16 range, with 12 or 13 being the most common.  I am very intrigued by this... it is a crude way to compare metabolisms.  I've looked all over the internet for someone who has looked at it this way before, but haven't seen anyone.  If someone out there has seen work on this before, let me know.

I have also wondered if the ratio changed as people lost weight, so I had hoped to find people in this forum who knew stats from before and after.  No one, with a significant loss, seems to know both.  If I had found people, I could tell you if your experience is typical. If you DO know both stats, send me an email (I might miss a forum post, I'm going to be away).  In the mean time keep good records and see if this changes.

In theory, as you lose weight your ratio should go up because your percentage of body fat is less. Fat is not metabolically active, though it uses calories because you have to carry it around, it doesn't use calories as muscles does.  On the other hand, at least one metabolic researcher thinks exercise can slow your RMR because your body becomes more efficient.  We can only guess... unless someone were to collect numbers from a large number of people.

I do realize I am looking at a very small sampling of people, I would like to find more to see if the pattern holds, also to see if men and women are different.  Looking at it this way helps me to understand that the problem might be less about metabolism, and instead other factors. I have been reading a lot lately about serotonin, and so you will see many posts of mine discussing that.  Why do people who so desperately want to lose, still are unable?  Saying it's all lack of will power is too  simple. What things can they do that are easy that might shift their serotonin, increase their sense of fullness, curb cravings and so on.  By shifting some of these things a little, might be enough to help some people lose better.



 

Nutrition Notes: Weight Cycling: Not So Bad After All

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/stori esView/sid/23566/