Truly "tanking" the metabolism? Possible?

[BlueCorsair]

A fairly layman's response will do; it's not that I can't follow the technical jargon, but I don't really look at this is a too technical a question ! This is also for someone who happens to be female (i.e. - not me!). Being both male, and having never (ever) had a problem with weight in my life, I didn't feel that I could offer up an adequate answer, so I'm here to ask the experts.

Query:

- Female, 27 years old, 143 lbs, 5'7 tall, estimated close to 30% BF. Aiming for 130lbs, or noticeably lower BF - whichever happens first.
- Weight training 4 days per week
- Approximately 1200 calories daily; overall meals have been done through fitday, with occasional deviation. "Cheats", if and when they occur, are held accountable against the maximum daily intake of calories, so going "way overboard" doesn't happen.
- Zero weight loss for two weeks. Zero. Previously was losing 1lb per week, at most.
- thyroid/hormones checked less than two years ago - no problems.

Now the only answer I can come up with is the old myth (is it a myth?) that if one eats too little, the body goes into "starvation mode" and puts the brakes on weight loss. 1200 is low, but (to my mind) not absurdly low, like some of the crazy diets out there. Diet is healthy - eggs, oatmeal, 100% WW bread, healthy fats like natural PB, olive-oil based margarine (no trans or anything), vegetables, chicken. Quite clean! I mean, sure, you could probably drop the bread and margarine, but I doubt that they alone (in their limited quantity) could stop weight loss altogether on their own. I realize a common response to threads like this is "post your meal plan", but I'm not her, so I have no specifics. I do trust her though when she says she fitdays her meals, and doesn't add in any crap that doesn't get accounted for.

Any input that I could pass along would be great. I think we all know how frustrating not meeting our goals can be, especially if we think we're doing everything right. From the superficial outlook, I can't think of a single thing she's doing wrong other than possibly too few calories, but absolutely 100% halting weight loss seems very odd - the old "garbage in, garbage out" I thought applied.

Cheers for any feedback, gents, ladies.

 

[Built]

Hey there bud!

How long has she been dieting? What weight did she start at?

1200 is VERY low. I'm her height and weight, and I maintain on just over 2000 a day.

How do you figure she's 30% bodyfat btw?

 

[Merkaba]

It's not a myth. Remember the human body is trying to survive and do it optimally and efficiently. If you're taking 1200 calories a day and working out moderately 3 or 4 times a week, one has to ask them selves how many calories left over for survival are you getting. Probably less than 1000 a day! Don't forget about the beating heart burning calories, organs, tissue, etc, needing energy and the nutritional intake that occurs from proper caloric intake. Then people end up eating low fat usually, which further makes your body ask, why should I get rid of this stuff I need when I'm obviously not gonna get much.

I call this situation being on the back side of the curve. I Have a client like this now.
The problem is you may gain some weight, temporarily while bringing up caloric needs and changing any needed training protocols.

I'm with Built, how did you get the body fat percentage?
And yes listen to Built, she is a pro.

 

[BlueCorsair]

Ahoy there, guys, and my many thanks for taking the time to help out. You guys are the best (really).

To answer the BF% question:

Here in Vancouver, we have a decent chain of gyms (Fitness World), and part of the benefits of being a member are a free fitness evaluation by a fully certified trainer every eight weeks. A combination of measurements (I imagine waist, hips, bust, etc.) and weighing were used to establish the BF%; it may not be 100% ironclad accurate, but it doesn't seem unreasonable, and I hear the trainer didn't find the results surprising, either. She's somewhat less "typically female" than the stereotype, insofar as she really carries the BF spread out all over the body - sure, there's more of it around the arse/thigh than other places, but it really is spread fairly well. I suppose the upside of people with this build type "look" like they have less of a problem with weight, whereas reality is still reality in terms of the the numbers.

To answer the "how long":

She has been off and on dieting and into fitness for at least seven years, but has only made what one might call a "strong and consistent" commitment to it for the past twelve months - i.e. fitday'ing meals and four days per week of a "proper" workout regimen (I can attest to its' non-wussyness - it's one of Built's routines, actually). When she started the weight loss seven years ago, she was probably in the 170 to 180 range, and now sits at 143. She is ("bone wise") of a relatively small build, and is 5'6 (5'7 at most), so 143 without substantial muscle mass (which she doesn't have) is certainly more than she needs to be or (more importantly) is comfortable with. Going from 180 to 143 is great, but factoring in the seven years to do it doesn't seem so impressive (to me, at least). I think that after this long of struggling with her weight, and now being so (relatively) close to her goal (130), this constant hitting of a brick wall is driving her nuts. When one eats carefully and busts their ass in the gym for no results... yeah, that has to "suck". No better word for it.

Again, her diet is actually remarkably well-balanced, macro-wise, from what I can tell. It's not "low carb" or "low fat", it's balanced - it's just low in calories. I know for a fact that she used to consume more calories than that (1600, initially), but her weight did the exact same thing - it hit a plateau, and even went up a pound or two now and then. Going "down" was the only logical option, thereafter, and 1200 seems to be what she's ended up at because anything higher wasn't accomplishing anything either. I know she didn't just "start" at 1200 ages ago; it has indeed been a process of cutting down as results started drying up at higher caloric levels. I know that one of the things that "scares" her about higher calories is how much damage they've done to her in the past; before a month-long vacation this summer, she had got down to 141 - the lightest she had been since highschool. After these four weeks of being "off" her regular diet and exercise regimen (and she swears she wasn't over-indulging), she had shot back up to 150. I think that much of a rapid weight gain is enough to scare anyone, really, and here we are, several months later, and she still hasn't yet undone that damage.

Frustrating situation, to be sure. Again, I'm an empathetic guy, but being a guy and being one of those people who can change their weight on a whim, I figured getting the perspective and input of those who truly "know" these things would be better than me basically talking out of my arse. I figure if someone she trusts implicitly (i.e. "me") can pass along some good info, maybe I can help her out of this rut.

I know that she has set a goal to run a local Marathon next spring (Vancouver Sun Run, Built!), but if she doesn't get things going in the right direction pretty soon, I'd be worried about her getting through it, or the possibility that she just might scrap her plans to run it altogether, and I think that either of those unfortunate possibilities would be a massive self-esteem hit. I really don't want to see that happen to her.

 

[Built]

Hey, you're in Vancouver now - awesome! We'll have to get in touch.

Now, your girl: "well-balanced, macro wise" isn't actually what I might think of as all that optimal on such low calories. Her protein is likely to be too low on a "balanced" diet and 1200 calories.

30% bodyfat doesn't sound right for her size. I started at 170 lbs myself, and I'm the same height and weight as your girl. Four years into lifting, I carried 112 lbs lean mass when I got down to 14% bodyfat (profile pic); surely she has at least 110 lbs lean mass.

For reference, I had a fitness trainer clip me at 25% bodyfat the day before I was DEXA'd at 16% two years ago, so I'd pretty much ignore that 30% reading. You can get a DEXA downtown if you're interested.

Bodycomp Imaging Inc.
700-890 W Pender St, Vancouver
office: 604.689.1911
mobile: 778.881.6142
Bodycomp Imaging

If you get four people to go through, it's $50 each which is a very good deal.

The Sun Run isn't a marathon btw - it's a 10K. I ran it a half a dozen times back when I was a fat runner. It always made me overeat when I ran. I only got lean when I ditched endurance training and changed my diet.

Has she had her thyroid tested?

 

[BlueCorsair]

Heya,

Yes - back in Vancouver. A year in the U.K. to do the old degree, so now I'm back home. Kind of miss deep fried pizza, but it's likely better if I don't go there

In reply:

The BF doesn't sound right to me, either, but she's visibly... well... over-weight, particularly in the traditional belly/rear/thigh "typical girl" areas. Not massively, and not nearly like she used to be, but she has at least 10 pounds to go (if not more), as estimated by a really respected trainer who used to be my old landlord! She (the trainer, certified in biometrics and all sorts of stuff) had no financial gain to be made out of the situation (and had even offered free training sessions), so I'm pretty sure she wasn't just trying to "sell me" on her services and was being fairly realistic in her estimates.

I might consider the DEXA down the road, so my thanks for the suggestion, but she's still a student (university) right now, and I've only just begun my career as a teacher; the job pays well, but I haven't really seen many cheques, yet! The imaging may have to wait, but I'm definitely saving that info for when I can spare the money.

As to her thyroid, she had a full blood panel about two years ago, including thyroid, and she passed with flying colours. She sees no point in going again, and I've no desire to get into an argument over it.

Sorry for misusing the "marathon" tag; 10k is still a long way, and she couldn't make it half-way up the Grouse Grind a couple of weeks back (and that was at a pretty normal pace).

Anyway; she's mostly used your "Baby got back" routine for the past year, and like I said, started around 1600 or 1800 calories, and has cut down from there sequentially, as losses hit a plateau. She throws in a little extra cardio here and there, mostly so that she can get used to running distances so that the Sun Run doesn't kill her outright.

Not sure what other info I can provide... it's a rough situation. She really seems to be prone to holding and gaining weight, in terms of her body type, which is rough; like I said, she went off her diet and exercise regiment for a single month (five weeks at most), and despite not going "hog wild" food-wise, she gained nearly ten pounds. Frightening.

 

[Built]

I'd like to know what "flying colours" means regarding thyroid. It's notoriously poorly measured, treated and managed.

I wouldn't recommend training for the Sun Run until she is at her goal weight and can eat enough to ensure she doesn't lose any weight.

Is she on The Pill?

 

[BlueCorsair]

Well, "flying colours" I assume to mean that her full blood panel came back well within "norm" ranges.

She's not on the pill; hasn't been for years.

She's not as much training for the Sun Run (yet) so much as simply trying to get used to running; her endurance as far as cardio goes is extremely poor, by her own acknowledgement. She's trying to improve it as a lead-in to the Sun Run, at least that's my interpretation - and hell, she's trying to lose weight, so the extra exercise is a good thing. She's definitely one of those "active couch potatoes", like the latest article on the site talks about; eats healthy, works out several days per week, but spends the rest of her time on her arse in front of a computer or at a school desk. I can't put her down for that, really - I do the same thing, but I'm lucky to be in much better shape!

To sound like the old broken record, I'm not sure what can be done, really. Upping calories in the past has resulted (on many occasions) on a flat weight gain, with the only thing that has stopped or reversed it being cutting calories again. Considering she threw on those ten pounds in five weeks of what "joe average" would consider "regular" eating, I don't blame her for being leery of upping them significantly. Up until a few weeks ago, the 1200 mark was permitting her to lose about one pound per week - not fantastic, but not horrible by any means.

 

[Built]

Normal doesn't mean shit. I need numbers and reference ranges.

Exercising off the weight is not a good thing.

If the ten pounds she gained in five weeks were from fat-gain, she had to have eaten 35,000 calories over maintenance for 35 days. In other words, an extra thousand calories a day.

I somehow doubt she did this.

What probably happened is she reglycogenated, and held a lot of water with that rebound. She MIGHT have gained four pounds of fat - that would have been about a 400 calorie a day surplus.

Still frustrating though.

 

[LAM]

when the caloric intake drops to about 50% of that required by the BMR the resting metabolic rate will slow to a dead crawl. once you add in the calories expended just from walking around the house, work, school, etc. the daily caloric intake easily exceeds the BMR + 500 cals. so when you add in exercise it's easy to see how many people simply do not consume sufficient calories to facilitate fat loss and especially not at optimum levels. a person training at high levels of intensity can easily consume an amount of cals equal to the BMR + 1,000 and still lose fat at a measurable rate

143 - 30% = 42.9
143 - 42.9 = 100 lbs of non-fat
(100/2.2) x 24 = 1092 cals

at 143lbs and est 30% bf the amount of cals needed to support the BMR is close to 1092

 

[BlueCorsair]

You see, this is why you're the expert, and my seven years of "educated amateur" information just isn't enough - my sincere thanks

As to specific numbers, I doubt even she had them. I can try to convince her to get it done again, but that may take an act of God, and being a rather agnostic fellow, I'm not sure he'd be willing to help.

I doubt she threw on 10 pounds of fat in a month either, but some of it had to be, and I'm positive almost none of it would have been muscle. Considering it has taken her three months to get back even *close* to what she was at before the four-week "off time", who knows what proportions the weight was in. The 400 calorie per day surplus may well be accountable; we were travelling through Europe on vacation, and I'll tell you that a Cunard cruise across the Atlantic and several weeks in Europe are hardly a health club... still, I trust her when she says she didn't go balls-out at meal time!

Anyway, responded to your P.M., and my thanks again for all the help.

 

[BlueCorsair]

when the caloric intake drops to about 50% of that required by the BMR the resting metabolic rate will slow to a dead crawl. once you add in the calories expended just from walking around the house, work, school, etc. the daily caloric intake easily exceeds the BMR + 500 cals. so when you add in exercise it's easy to see how many people simply do not consume sufficient calories to facilitate fat loss and especially not at optimum levels. a person training at high levels of intensity can easily consume an amount of cals equal to the BMR + 1,000 and still lose fat at a measurable rate

hmm... you see I'd always heard lots of rumours about the "metabolism tank", but never read much data on it. Thanks for the specifics!

 

[LAM]

a lot of people don't realize how much energy the body needs just "at rest". the BMR pretty much equals the cals needed to keep the basic metabolic functions "normal" in the state of complete rest, i.e. bed rest. so once you add in any activity beyond that you have to account for that in the caloric intake.

another thing that people don't take into account is that the lower the caloric intake the higher the quality of the foods there should be in the diet. so that 250 calorie frozen diet meal that has been heavily processed isn't the same as the chicken breast and veggies that you make and cook yourself, etc. foods in their natural states have all of the proper natural enzymes that allow the body to most effectively digest and utilize those nutrients. the source of the cals in the diet is just as important as the amounts

 

[Built]

when the caloric intake drops to about 50% of that required by the BMR the resting metabolic rate will slow to a dead crawl.

Depends for how long. It surely doesn't happen within a few weeks, but on an extended cut, I agree, metabolism slows.

once you add in the calories expended just from walking around the house, work, school, etc. the daily caloric intake easily exceeds the BMR + 500 cals. so when you add in exercise it's easy to see how many people simply do not consume sufficient calories to facilitate fat loss and especially not at optimum levels. a person training at high levels of intensity can easily consume an amount of cals equal to the BMR + 1,000 and still lose fat at a measurable rate

Unless she's a woman - in which case, the intense activity will likely overstimulate appetite.

Effects of exercise intensity on food intake and appetite in women -- Pomerleau et al. 80 (5): 1230 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

"Conclusion: The results suggest that HIE (high intensity exercise) increases energy intake in women."

 

[LAM]

that would be the natural and expected response by the body to HIE. it's up to the person to make the smart low GI food selections, can't say there is anything negative about having a healthy appetite in response to exercise.