Check out F-Heit.com. They have some good articles and info specifically for women and how to “rev up” the metabolism.
It appears that you are doing everything right. But I still haven’t seen an example of what you are eating. Not just one meal, but an entire day or multiple days. Besides the low calories, there must be something else going on.
[quote]TNT-CDN wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
TNT-CDN wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
chubbychick wrote:
absolutely, that could be part of the problem. Keep in mind though, that for years, almost a decade after my last ED incident, I was around 125 and a size 2. Strong and healthy. These damn last 10lbs came with the babies.
Worth every pound I bet!!!
It’s not a negative cc, and I know you know that. I’ll make you a deal, by X-Mas, you’ll feel really good about the direction you’re heading. You’re just a tweak away from your goals.
Maybe with her history she needs more than just a “tweak”. Maybe a big kick start. Maybe her body is resisting that much harder. It’s that old survival thing from the past. Hard to trick the body.
TNT
I would be much more inclined to believe that were it not for the 10 year time span. The body is quite adaptive.
Then how do you explain something like Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and phobias. After 10 years they should go away??? The body will just adapt??
What if her “metabolism switch” got stuck in low 10 years ago. Never had a transmission get stuck in low gear???
How about a circuit breaker that got fried and wouldn’t reset?
TNT
[/quote]
???I wouldn’t equate mental issues with physical ones.
The metabolism switch(whatever the hell you think that means)may be stuck. I think it’s only a tweak away from becoming ‘unstuck.’
Your analogies(?) of mechanical issues aside, there is much about the human body that is not understood. In this case, I think a slight alteration in nutrient combination and exercise will give her a jolt.
We’ll see.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
TNT-CDN wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
TNT-CDN wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
chubbychick wrote:
absolutely, that could be part of the problem. Keep in mind though, that for years, almost a decade after my last ED incident, I was around 125 and a size 2. Strong and healthy. These damn last 10lbs came with the babies.
Worth every pound I bet!!!
It’s not a negative cc, and I know you know that. I’ll make you a deal, by X-Mas, you’ll feel really good about the direction you’re heading. You’re just a tweak away from your goals.
Maybe with her history she needs more than just a “tweak”. Maybe a big kick start. Maybe her body is resisting that much harder. It’s that old survival thing from the past. Hard to trick the body.
TNT
I would be much more inclined to believe that were it not for the 10 year time span. The body is quite adaptive.
Then how do you explain something like Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and phobias. After 10 years they should go away??? The body will just adapt??
What if her “metabolism switch” got stuck in low 10 years ago. Never had a transmission get stuck in low gear???
How about a circuit breaker that got fried and wouldn’t reset?
TNT
???I wouldn’t equate mental issues with physical ones.
The metabolism switch(whatever the hell you think that means)may be stuck. I think it’s only a tweak away from becoming ‘unstuck.’
Your analogies(?) of mechanical issues aside, there is much about the human body that is not understood. In this case, I think a slight alteration in nutrient combination and exercise will give her a jolt.
We’ll see.[/quote]
WOAHHHH!!! But anorexia has both a mental component and a physical componenet. And you’re right, ther body is very good at adapting. What IF in order for the body to survive a self-imposed starvation, it re-set the metabolism switch lower and then locked it in that position.? What if the starvation caused minor damage to that part of the brain that controls metabolism and now it’s permanentally damaged?
As widespread as eating disorders are, there is very little that is known or understood about them.
TNT
Agreed-eating disorders are of a mental persuasion, BUT
the metabolism isn’t.
You are correct though, there may be damage or other phyiological (non)-response ocurring/not.
My advice still stands. I believe you take the smaller, less radical steps first.
don’t worry cc
I don’t believe you’re damaged–we’re just thinking out loud–on the internet–in front of you.
Please, this is all quite entertaining to have my metabolism tossed about.
I think in some ways it may be a bit on the damaged side. I mean at one point I was running 50+mpw and eating no more than 1800 or so. As I said, I didnt keep track but I do know I was living on salads and powerbars which really dont add up. Never did heavy dressings or anything. So for me to be burning that kinda energy and literally not lose an ounce. It wasnt muscle either because I had been weight training and running regularly before that.
Water question: why so much? what does it techinically accomplish in the body other than “normal” amounts of water intake?
[quote]chubbychick wrote:
Please, this is all quite entertaining to have my metabolism tossed about.
I think in some ways it may be a bit on the damaged side. I mean at one point I was running 50+mpw and eating no more than 1800 or so. As I said, I didnt keep track but I do know I was living on salads and powerbars which really dont add up. Never did heavy dressings or anything. So for me to be burning that kinda energy and literally not lose an ounce. It wasnt muscle either because I had been weight training and running regularly before that.
Water question: why so much? what does it techinically accomplish in the body other than “normal” amounts of water intake?[/quote]
Let’s say you basic need is around 12-1300cals a day. Jogging 5,6,7 miles a day at your weight may burn up 4,5,600 calories. That’s about right, you stayed even at cals in around 1800. And remember as you’ve stated you did not keep track so that could easily by 1,2,300 cals off.
And we may have to account for a very slow metabolism or other factor yet to be determined.
Water is a funny thing, the less you drink the more the body stores. So you may actually be holding some water that you wouldn’t if you drank more.
Also, water is quite anabolic in nature. It is used by the body in all functions and cellular actions.
Especially when trying to lose weight the added water will give you a feeling of fullness and lessen or even eliminate hunger urges. Many seemingly hunger pangs are actually thirst issues.
Being water satiated allows you to workout harder/longer. Many athletes who are even slightly dehydrated can lose 5,10,20% of work capacity thereby shorting themselves the chance to run farther/longer/faster or lift more weights. All of this would aid them(you) in your effort to lose some bodyweight or at least change composition.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Water is a funny thing, the less you drink the more the body stores. So you may actually be holding some water that you wouldn’t if you drank more.
Also, water is quite anabolic in nature. It is used by the body in all functions and cellular actions.
Especially when trying to lose weight the added water will give you a feeling of fullness and lessen or even eliminate hunger urges. [/quote]
Drinking over a gallon of water a day will cause you to run to the can about every five minutes. All this added running should burn off hundreds more calories. <:-)
|/ 3Toes
I just tell myself that I am preventing my deskjob giving me deep vein thrombosis.
CC, Dr Berardi’s article on the 7 nutritional habits are already up to par, but the confusion is on how much calories should matter?
Remember: She has had kids.Womens hormones change when they have kids.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Let’s say you basic need is around 12-1300cals a day. Jogging 5,6,7 miles a day at your weight may burn up 4,5,600 calories. That’s about right, you stayed even at cals in around 1800. And remember as you’ve stated you did not keep track so that could easily by 1,2,300 cals off…[/quote]
According to good old Harris and Benedict, she’d have to be 60 years old to have a BMR that low. And that’s just the BMR. On top of that comes all the activity. You can’t just add the training and ignore all other daily activities.
I’d put a guess on a daily calorie expenditure closer to 2500 kcal with a normal metabolism. I still say you need to eat more to fire things up again. 1300 kcal is really very low.
Apologies if this was mentioned already, but what about zigzagging calories?
Keep at a deficit of about 200 - 300 calories below maintenance 5 days a week, and then boost it to 200 - 300 above maintenance twice a week.
That way you can train with weight, build some muscle (increasing metabolism), burn some fat, and keep your body from going into starvation mode - since you’re not below maintenance all the time.
[quote]Fred_129 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Let’s say you basic need is around 12-1300cals a day. Jogging 5,6,7 miles a day at your weight may burn up 4,5,600 calories. That’s about right, you stayed even at cals in around 1800. And remember as you’ve stated you did not keep track so that could easily by 1,2,300 cals off…
According to good old Harris and Benedict, she’d have to be 60 years old to have a BMR that low. And that’s just the BMR. On top of that comes all the activity. You can’t just add the training and ignore all other daily activities.
I’d put a guess on a daily calorie expenditure closer to 2500 kcal with a normal metabolism. I still say you need to eat more to fire things up again. 1300 kcal is really very low. [/quote]
Well, have to correct myself about the BMR… I was silly enough to use the formula for men. Sorry Sasquatch.
But the main point still stands, even if you should be at 2200-2300 kcal somewhere instead of 2500 like I wrote earlier.
[quote]Fred_129 wrote:
Fred_129 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Let’s say you basic need is around 12-1300cals a day. Jogging 5,6,7 miles a day at your weight may burn up 4,5,600 calories. That’s about right, you stayed even at cals in around 1800. And remember as you’ve stated you did not keep track so that could easily by 1,2,300 cals off…
According to good old Harris and Benedict, she’d have to be 60 years old to have a BMR that low. And that’s just the BMR. On top of that comes all the activity. You can’t just add the training and ignore all other daily activities.
I’d put a guess on a daily calorie expenditure closer to 2500 kcal with a normal metabolism. I still say you need to eat more to fire things up again. 1300 kcal is really very low.
Well, have to correct myself about the BMR… I was silly enough to use the formula for men. Sorry Sasquatch.
But the main point still stands, even if you should be at 2200-2300 kcal somewhere instead of 2500 like I wrote earlier.
[/quote]
Exactly, that was my point
She is not eating enough and her body is holding onto everything it can.
We tweak her workout, add 300-500 cals of clean protein,fat,and a couple complex carbs and I think that may start to help her.
I really don’t know, but that would be my first step with her.
Hi all and thanks for your continued discussions. Its all very educational for me, truly. I agree in theory that raising calories longterm would be the way to raise metabolism, i.e. get the body to burn more calories naturally by slowly raising them.
But as always, I reminder that I have done the higher calorie thing and it really didnt work very well. Right now I am going into my 3rd week, so 2 weeks complete, of lower calorie and moderate expenditure. I cut back a bit on the cardio due to illness, which I believe came from being way overworked.
So exercise wise I would say I am burning around 500 a day 5+ days a week. Sometimes a little more/less. Now my “starting weight” maybe be a bit off due to water retention and such because I had just gotten thru a killer week of training hard again after training moderately.
But my starting weight was about 138. this morning it was 133. The 138 was on the high side, I think because of the fluids, but who knows. I also had definitely upped my cals too, so go figure.
Anyway, my plan is to maintain the lower calorie moderate exercise (i think what Im doing would be considered moderate=4-5miles running 5x a week with weights 3x, sometimes an additional 30min hilly walk on the tmill) for another week or so and see where it takes me.
My typical weight is closer to 134/135 before I went heavy train/eat. So I would say I’m just slightly less than my typical. I would like to see what this week does, because it will be more indicative, i.e. not sick, normal workout routine, etc…I would like to see if this gets me to around 125 on the scale.
Again, not super hung up on the number, just one way to gauge, along with all the other methods. From there, I will start adding in some calories, maybe by zigzagging Fred, maybe by just adding in some more healthy carbs and protiens Sas, and maintain the current workouts as is, and see if the weight maintains or starts back up.
What do you guys think??
Three very simple questions:
Physically, how do you feel. Sloppy, firm, tight?
How do you look in the mirror? Do you like the way you look?
How are you performing? Are you satisfied with your lifts, etc?
Throw that fucking scale away. Don’t start OBSESSING about whether it’s 124 or 132. How do you feel? And don’t come back with “I know, BUT…” Are you happy and satisfied with it? What if you make the 124 and then find out the scale is inaccurate? Panic?
TNT
TNT- Hi, pre-kids I was good with the way I looked. I wore a size 2, weighed about 125, was lifting and running and felt really good.
I wish I could get a damn pic up here, but I just can’t get it to fit. I spose I could email it to one of you, but not really knowing who you are, thats kinda freaky.
Anyway, On low cal, I cant run very far which I hate. As i’ve mentioned, I like my muscle tone alot, its just covered, imo with a layer of chub. I dont like the chub in shorts or a bathing suit.
So, lets recap: feel so so on low cal and feel bad that I can’t run farther. Do NOT like the way I look in the mirror but I really don’t like skinny. btw,if I go much below 125 or so, I start getting “too thin” looking, imo.
give or take some lbs.
[quote]chubbychick wrote:
TNT- Hi, pre-kids I was good with the way I looked. I wore a size 2, weighed about 125, was lifting and running and felt really good.
I wish I could get a damn pic up here, but I just can’t get it to fit. I spose I could email it to one of you, but not really knowing who you are, thats kinda freaky.
Anyway, On low cal, I cant run very far which I hate. As i’ve mentioned, I like my muscle tone alot, its just covered, imo with a layer of chub. I dont like the chub in shorts or a bathing suit.
So, lets recap: feel so so on low cal and feel bad that I can’t run farther. Do NOT like the way I look in the mirror but I really don’t like skinny. btw,if I go much below 125 or so, I start getting “too thin” looking, imo.
give or take some lbs.[/quote]
This is a social worker problem, not a training/nutrition problem. If you only feel “so so” on low cal, just eat more and feel good. Why do you have to “run farther”? Run from what? 135 is “too much” and 125 is “too thin”? Just how thin do you think you can slice cheese?
Is 129.375621 Lb. at 16.93138% BF PERECT?
You don’t need to change your body, you have to change how you “feel”.
TNT
TNT, LOL right now! C’mon, we are on a sight right now where weightlifters literally starve themselves, I’m sorry go through “Cutting” phases in order to get their already massive muscles to poke through their skin!! I’m talkin about 10lbs here! Thats not a small amount of weight when my bodyfat has been read at betweent 25-27%!! I don’t think its overly ridulous of me to ask advice to drop some fat. I am 5’5 not 5’9. Numbers for my height are anywhere from 115-140 per medical charts. I am on the high side of that. But may I restate that if my bodyfat were not boardering on officialy “overweight” I wouldnt have a problem. But when I’ve had 3 different people over the past year take my bodyfat with calipers and the lowest they’ve ever gotten was 26%, I dont think I’m being riculous. Also, I only mentioned the “below 125” to try and help you understand that my goal is not to get skinny. Not that I’d drop in dissappointment if I ended up at 122 or whatever. I understand if someone doesn’t feel good on lower calories to eat more, but than doesnt that defeat every concept of cutting back on calories in order to drop some weight. Could I eat pretty much whatever I wanted, assuming that doesnt include junk food and maintain within a few pounds where I am and have great runs, yes. The issue is that I dont like the way my stomach hangs over my bikini or how my legs look chunky in shorts. This is a place afterall for “Self Improvement” no? As always, though I appreciate and welcome all advice and feedback. 
[quote]TNT-CDN wrote:
chubbychick wrote:
TNT- Hi, pre-kids I was good with the way I looked. I wore a size 2, weighed about 125, was lifting and running and felt really good.
I wish I could get a damn pic up here, but I just can’t get it to fit. I spose I could email it to one of you, but not really knowing who you are, thats kinda freaky.
Anyway, On low cal, I cant run very far which I hate. As i’ve mentioned, I like my muscle tone alot, its just covered, imo with a layer of chub. I dont like the chub in shorts or a bathing suit.
So, lets recap: feel so so on low cal and feel bad that I can’t run farther. Do NOT like the way I look in the mirror but I really don’t like skinny. btw,if I go much below 125 or so, I start getting “too thin” looking, imo.
give or take some lbs.
This is a social worker problem, not a training/nutrition problem. If you only feel “so so” on low cal, just eat more and feel good. Why do you have to “run farther”? Run from what? 135 is “too much” and 125 is “too thin”? Just how thin do you think you can slice cheese?
Is 129.375621 Lb. at 16.93138% BF PERECT?
You don’t need to change your body, you have to change how you “feel”.
TNT
[/quote]
That’s hardly necessarily the case. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with her wanting to be a few pounds leaner. She’s not running from anything. It’s an enjoyable activty. She’s saying she doesn’t have as much her energy to run the way she wants on a lower calorie diet. The deal is that it may be unrealistic and unecessary for her to drop more fat if she has to put herself through absolute hell to do it. That’s not necessarioy the case. She simply might not have found the right approach yet.