calories, calories, calories. (long)

Is there some way to objectively measure metabolism? I mean, how to tell the difference between not losing because you're eating too many calories, and not losing because you're eating too few? We've seen lots of info about how many calories to eat, but it's all based on knowing (1) your 'base' metabolism (i.e. resting caloric need), and (2) your 'starvation' cutoff.

We've got ketostix to measure ketosis. Do we have metabostix to measure metabolism?

These folks claim to have a simple, accurate way to measure RMR.

There are ways to have basal metabolic rate measured directly. Even that only gives you part of the picture since it won't tell you anything about activity related calorie burning. It typically requires going to a hospital that has teh equpment and breathing in a hood for 15 minutes in the morning. I've seen some new hand held devices that purport to do teh same thing but I couldn't find pricing information on them.

Beyond that, right now morning/waking temperature is a decent *rough* indicator of metabolic rate. It gives a fairly integrated measure of how many calories you're burning at rest. Studies have shown that a morning temp of 97.8-98.2 are consistent with a 'normal' metabolic rate (that is 100% of the predicted value). For each degree below that, you have a metabolic rate that is ~10% below normal. If you track morning temp prior to starting your diet (to establish a baseline) and then find that it suddenly drops, that would be a rough indicator that your metabolism had slowed down in response to either:

a. too few calories b. too much activity c. too few calories + too much activity d. your body simply adapting to the diet (which will happen to some degree almost no matter what you do).

To give you a personal example, my morning temp right now (currently in the range of 10% bodyfat and have been dieting for a while) is ~96. I'm not convinced I'm alive. Even after 2 weeks of eating at maintenance/above, my morning temp will top out at 96.8 or so. So I'm a full degree below normal even under the best of circumstances. I also have to cut calories to 8 cal/lb AND do cardio to get fat loss of any measurable amount to occur. If I bothered to have it measured, I'd probably have non-existent leptin levels, low T3 levels, low normal insulin and low sympathetic nervous system output.

Resting blood pressure/heart rate also gives some indication of overall sympathetic nervous system output (low SNS output going along with a low metabolic rate AND low fat burning capacities). If you typically run a low resting blood pressure (or get orthostatic hypotension, which is dizziness if you stand up too quickly), you probably have low SNS output. That's part of the overall metabolically screwed up picture. My training partner, who used to compete in bodybuilding, had to cut calories to 800 cal/day or less to get shredded and he runs a blood pressure that puts him in the 'almost dead' category.

Thanks for the info!

Sigh, more things to measure...

<AOL newbie> Me too! </AOL newbie>

BTW, you're incredibly helpful today. Have aliens taken over your body?

Cheers,

I've got a date tomorrow so I'm in a good mood.

<clap, clap> Okay, people, that means questions will only be answered for the next 24 hours, then we're SOL.

Cheers, Nina I'm just kidding, you'll do fine.

The bodygem is the main new one to estimate RMR, its a little thing that you stick in your mouth and it measures oxygen consumption. all that and costs about 1400US plus other stuff to go with it

Don't remember and which numbers are you questioning? If you're talking about the cal value for LBM, the reason there are discrepancies is that all LBM is not identical. The caloric expenditure of muscle is actually fairly small (your total muscle mass may make up 40% of bodymass but only contribute 25% of your total energy burn). By contrast, kidney, liver, brain make up a tiny contribution of bodymass but burn a huge percentage.

That would be a basic single progression/ HIT style of workout. Effect under certain conditions up to a point. Obviously it meets your goals which is just fine.

The study didn't really give a mechanistic explanation but mentioned that the subject noted a strong sensation of warmth under one of the conditions (I forget which). Basically, one of the oils (the one with the high w-3 content) was increasing thermogenesis. Basically

Delta bodymass = energy intake - energy output

If a particular food is increasing the energy output side of the equation (and this appeared to be the case), that explains the discrepancy. Cosnidering the known effect of w-3 (and fish oils which we talk about all the time) on thermogenesis, that would be the most likely explanation.

From what those who research caloric restriction, this 'almost dead' state, if maintained with optimal nutrition, may lead to a significantly longer life.

Quantity of life =! quality of life. Being cold, lethargic and having no muscle isn't my idea of a good senescence.