Stuck...am I not eating enough?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The amenorrhea from low body fat exactly isn't a malnutrition issue. It is based on leptin signalling, and has to do with a combination of deficit and exercise level. Even at maintenance a lean woman with enough activity will start having it.
A six pack is not a guarantee that a person is unhealthy, but if it is causing amenorrhea, it absolutely it is. People get caught up in thinking that more is always more. Sometimes less is more, particularly when it comes to health.
Being an Olympic runner is healthier than being a couch potato, but is less healthy than being a weekend jogger. Have a lean core is usually healthier than not, but as a person gets leaner, it starts increasing the risk of health issues, just as getting overweight does, they're just different issues.
In both men and women, low enough body fat is a fair signal to turn off reproductive hormones. It is a waste of energy in the perceived environment.
so now you are saying that a weekend jogger is "more healthy" than an Olympic runner, really? What exactly are you basing this on...?
Just like being fat is not a guarantee of being unhealthy, but if it is causing health problems then it is unhealthy ..so not really sure what your point is. Are you against people wanting to be lean or something?
Mortality rates, how do you determine what's killing people? All the injury that accumulates, all the stress that has to be produced to generate energy, do you think it all has no consequences? Let's be absolutely clear and don't dare try to insert arguments I'm not making - I'm not saying people shouldn't exercise or work towards health goals, or that the typical person doing so is doing anything but getting healthier. I am saying though, there's no health improvement from being the 50th fastest runner in the world or 50th best powerlifter in a weight class to go to #1, and that being either might be less healthy than being in the top 80-90%.
Do I have something against being lean? No. I'd recommend women don't get so lean as to cause amenorrhea, but if that's their ultimate desire, I can't pick people's happiness for them. It is pretty simple, isn't it? Go ahead and get lean, if it causes amenorrhea, reduce exercise, introduce refeeds, or up weight if ultimately it isn't sustainable for the person to be that lean without it and they value their bone density.
For men, there's less issue. Cratering testosterone is potentially healthy from a lot of health marker standpoint.
Question: even if what you are saying is true (big if), how is it relevant in a thread where the OP weighs 181?
How are six pack abs relevant to a thread where OP weighs 181? That was my jumping off point - the assumption that a six pack on a woman is likely to be healthy.
Okay, but how does that relate at all to OP's question? I may have missed the post where she said having a six-pack was her goal. Is that what you were responding to?
that's what I've been wondering too! She is 181 lbs...nowhere did she mention 6 pack abs?1 -
sheenabyrd wrote: »I did see my Dr and had blood work done. I told my Dr about the plateau and she just told me to keep doing what I'm doing, that it's a slow process. She did run a full panel of blood work and everything came back normal.
As far as my calorie burn, I get that number from my Polar HR monitor. I do wear a chest strap and I thought those were pretty accurate calculations. I was working out 6 days a week. I did different workouts each day focusing on different parts of the body. I would start off with cardio, move to different sets of strength training, and end with tabatha style workouts at the end based on whatever I was doing that day. My workouts consist of free weights and strength training. On leg day, I would do a mix of squats, lunges, box jumps, etc. I thought maybe I was overtraining, so I cut it down to 3-4 times a week. I still currently do a rotation of legs, arms and abs, straight cardio, and then full body.
An HRM is only useful for calories burned estimation when doing CARDIO. You cannot use it for non-cardio exercise, so stop doing that.
1 -
I think you should eat a little more- maybe 200-300 calories more. My body sounds similar to yours in which once I lost 50 lbs, everything came to a halt for 7/8 months. For some reason with my body, I can eat about 1500 calories or less for about 3 days, then I'll have to eat about 1700-1800 in order for me to lose weight. I have to do that every 3-4 days, then go back to 1500. It sounds weird, but it works for me. Try that for a week or two and see what happens. I know some people will disagree and argue with me, but by me doing that, I lost 3.5 lbs just last week. Everybody doesn't lose weight in the same manner and the trick is knowing what works for you. Whenever your weight starts to dip, go back over the last 3-4 days to see what you ate, what your workouts look like etc. to see what works. Also, try decreasing your cardio for a few days, and just walk at a normal pace. Switch things up a bit and see what happens.
She is not losing weight now, and you think eating MORE will cause her to lose? Oy vey.0 -
I haven't readd many of the other replies so I don't know what has already been said, but if you are training hard (NOT long or with kcal-based workout goals) and never cheating or refeeding, try a refeed day where you lower your lower fats (never below 20% kcal from fat) and protein (never below 50/60g protein) and take in ABOVE maintenance by filling in rest of calories with carbs. Get in micros from veggies and know this is a one time or once a week thing and you will start seeing the scale going down again. This will only work if your calories in and out are accurate for your activity level and intake; if you diet without ever cheating your body may adjust to very low calories1
-
The amenorrhea from low body fat exactly isn't a malnutrition issue. It is based on leptin signalling, and has to do with a combination of deficit and exercise level. Even at maintenance a lean woman with enough activity will start having it.
A six pack is not a guarantee that a person is unhealthy, but if it is causing amenorrhea, it absolutely it is. People get caught up in thinking that more is always more. Sometimes less is more, particularly when it comes to health.
Being an Olympic runner is healthier than being a couch potato, but is less healthy than being a weekend jogger. Have a lean core is usually healthier than not, but as a person gets leaner, it starts increasing the risk of health issues, just as getting overweight does, they're just different issues.
In both men and women, low enough body fat is a fair signal to turn off reproductive hormones. It is a waste of energy in the perceived environment.
so now you are saying that a weekend jogger is "more healthy" than an Olympic runner, really? What exactly are you basing this on...?
Just like being fat is not a guarantee of being unhealthy, but if it is causing health problems then it is unhealthy ..so not really sure what your point is. Are you against people wanting to be lean or something?
Mortality rates, how do you determine what's killing people? All the injury that accumulates, all the stress that has to be produced to generate energy, do you think it all has no consequences? Let's be absolutely clear and don't dare try to insert arguments I'm not making - I'm not saying people shouldn't exercise or work towards health goals, or that the typical person doing so is doing anything but getting healthier. I am saying though, there's no health improvement from being the 50th fastest runner in the world or 50th best powerlifter in a weight class to go to #1, and that being either might be less healthy than being in the top 80-90%.
Do I have something against being lean? No. I'd recommend women don't get so lean as to cause amenorrhea, but if that's their ultimate desire, I can't pick people's happiness for them. It is pretty simple, isn't it? Go ahead and get lean, if it causes amenorrhea, reduce exercise, introduce refeeds, or up weight if ultimately it isn't sustainable for the person to be that lean without it and they value their bone density.
For men, there's less issue. Cratering testosterone is potentially healthy from a lot of health marker standpoint.
so basically encourage people to be mediocre and not strive to be the best they can be, because, in your opinion, there may be some health risk associated with it?
Not all lean people will get amenorrhea, so your argument does not make sense.
Being in the top 80% to 90% of a sport is mediocre? I also pretty clearly said people can do what they like. Olympic athletes when surveyed anonymously admit they'd do what it takes to win even if something that would let them win would take years off their life. Do you know how many people the Bulgarian Olympic Weightlifting system chewed up and spit out? For around every 1 out of 61 that went to the Olympics (from a pool of people who'd already been training often as young as six) you'd get 60 that had overuse injuries. It is what it is.
Yes, not all lean people will get it, I've stated that clearly. It does increase the risk, so you can't assume a six pack is healthy, there are instances where it is unhealthy.
you have an increased risk of drowning if you go swimming, so do you also encourage others to not swim?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The amenorrhea from low body fat exactly isn't a malnutrition issue. It is based on leptin signalling, and has to do with a combination of deficit and exercise level. Even at maintenance a lean woman with enough activity will start having it.
A six pack is not a guarantee that a person is unhealthy, but if it is causing amenorrhea, it absolutely it is. People get caught up in thinking that more is always more. Sometimes less is more, particularly when it comes to health.
Being an Olympic runner is healthier than being a couch potato, but is less healthy than being a weekend jogger. Have a lean core is usually healthier than not, but as a person gets leaner, it starts increasing the risk of health issues, just as getting overweight does, they're just different issues.
In both men and women, low enough body fat is a fair signal to turn off reproductive hormones. It is a waste of energy in the perceived environment.
so now you are saying that a weekend jogger is "more healthy" than an Olympic runner, really? What exactly are you basing this on...?
Just like being fat is not a guarantee of being unhealthy, but if it is causing health problems then it is unhealthy ..so not really sure what your point is. Are you against people wanting to be lean or something?
Mortality rates, how do you determine what's killing people? All the injury that accumulates, all the stress that has to be produced to generate energy, do you think it all has no consequences? Let's be absolutely clear and don't dare try to insert arguments I'm not making - I'm not saying people shouldn't exercise or work towards health goals, or that the typical person doing so is doing anything but getting healthier. I am saying though, there's no health improvement from being the 50th fastest runner in the world or 50th best powerlifter in a weight class to go to #1, and that being either might be less healthy than being in the top 80-90%.
Do I have something against being lean? No. I'd recommend women don't get so lean as to cause amenorrhea, but if that's their ultimate desire, I can't pick people's happiness for them. It is pretty simple, isn't it? Go ahead and get lean, if it causes amenorrhea, reduce exercise, introduce refeeds, or up weight if ultimately it isn't sustainable for the person to be that lean without it and they value their bone density.
For men, there's less issue. Cratering testosterone is potentially healthy from a lot of health marker standpoint.
Question: even if what you are saying is true (big if), how is it relevant in a thread where the OP weighs 181?
How are six pack abs relevant to a thread where OP weighs 181? That was my jumping off point - the assumption that a six pack on a woman is likely to be healthy.
Okay, but how does that relate at all to OP's question? I may have missed the post where she said having a six-pack was her goal. Is that what you were responding to?
someone - not OP - mentioned it on page one....0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The amenorrhea from low body fat exactly isn't a malnutrition issue. It is based on leptin signalling, and has to do with a combination of deficit and exercise level. Even at maintenance a lean woman with enough activity will start having it.
A six pack is not a guarantee that a person is unhealthy, but if it is causing amenorrhea, it absolutely it is. People get caught up in thinking that more is always more. Sometimes less is more, particularly when it comes to health.
Being an Olympic runner is healthier than being a couch potato, but is less healthy than being a weekend jogger. Have a lean core is usually healthier than not, but as a person gets leaner, it starts increasing the risk of health issues, just as getting overweight does, they're just different issues.
In both men and women, low enough body fat is a fair signal to turn off reproductive hormones. It is a waste of energy in the perceived environment.
so now you are saying that a weekend jogger is "more healthy" than an Olympic runner, really? What exactly are you basing this on...?
Just like being fat is not a guarantee of being unhealthy, but if it is causing health problems then it is unhealthy ..so not really sure what your point is. Are you against people wanting to be lean or something?
Mortality rates, how do you determine what's killing people? All the injury that accumulates, all the stress that has to be produced to generate energy, do you think it all has no consequences? Let's be absolutely clear and don't dare try to insert arguments I'm not making - I'm not saying people shouldn't exercise or work towards health goals, or that the typical person doing so is doing anything but getting healthier. I am saying though, there's no health improvement from being the 50th fastest runner in the world or 50th best powerlifter in a weight class to go to #1, and that being either might be less healthy than being in the top 80-90%.
Do I have something against being lean? No. I'd recommend women don't get so lean as to cause amenorrhea, but if that's their ultimate desire, I can't pick people's happiness for them. It is pretty simple, isn't it? Go ahead and get lean, if it causes amenorrhea, reduce exercise, introduce refeeds, or up weight if ultimately it isn't sustainable for the person to be that lean without it and they value their bone density.
For men, there's less issue. Cratering testosterone is potentially healthy from a lot of health marker standpoint.
Question: even if what you are saying is true (big if), how is it relevant in a thread where the OP weighs 181?
How are six pack abs relevant to a thread where OP weighs 181? That was my jumping off point - the assumption that a six pack on a woman is likely to be healthy.
Okay, but how does that relate at all to OP's question? I may have missed the post where she said having a six-pack was her goal. Is that what you were responding to?
someone - not OP - mentioned it on page one....
Thank you.1 -
I really appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my questions. No one has ever told me to not figure in my strength training "calories burned". If I didn't figure those in, my calorie burn would be a lot less per workout. I am going to try this and some other suggestions and see if it helps get me moving back in the right direction. Maybe I should have focused on losing the weight first and then toning. I am proud of the muscle I have built and I don't want to lose it, it's taken a lot of time and consistency to get to where I'm at now; however, I still have more fat to lose. I also think I need to up my cardio a bit and see if that helps. It's just so confusing with all of the material available and really hard to decide what I need to do to get the results I want.1
-
sheenabyrd wrote: »I really appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my questions. No one has ever told me to not figure in my strength training "calories burned". If I didn't figure those in, my calorie burn would be a lot less per workout. I am going to try this and some other suggestions and see if it helps get me moving back in the right direction. Maybe I should have focused on losing the weight first and then toning. I am proud of the muscle I have built and I don't want to lose it, it's taken a lot of time and consistency to get to where I'm at now; however, I still have more fat to lose. I also think I need to up my cardio a bit and see if that helps. It's just so confusing with all of the material available and really hard to decide what I need to do to get the results I want.
Strength training is among the best things you can do for yourself
You are doing the right thing.
3 -
sheenabyrd wrote: »I really appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my questions. No one has ever told me to not figure in my strength training "calories burned". If I didn't figure those in, my calorie burn would be a lot less per workout. I am going to try this and some other suggestions and see if it helps get me moving back in the right direction. Maybe I should have focused on losing the weight first and then toning. I am proud of the muscle I have built and I don't want to lose it, it's taken a lot of time and consistency to get to where I'm at now; however, I still have more fat to lose. I also think I need to up my cardio a bit and see if that helps. It's just so confusing with all of the material available and really hard to decide what I need to do to get the results I want.
Strength training is among the best things you can do for yourself You are doing the right thing.
I agree completely.
And for that matter, I disagree with not counting calories burned from strength training. They are meagre imo.
OP, you sound politely grateful but not really clearer on your approach or reinvigorated. I have nothing to add but that I hope your efforts lead to success.
1 -
I agree completely.
And for that matter, I disagree with not counting calories burned from strength training. They are meagre imo.
OP, you sound politely grateful but not really clearer on your approach or reinvigorated. I have nothing to add but that I hope your efforts lead to success.
[/quote]
I am still a little conflicted with the different opinions and all of the material I've found researching. I'm just going to mix it up a bit by upping my cardio and decreasing my "calories burned" and see if that helps. I just need to find what works for my body to get the results I want.1 -
So I'm similar to you that I wouldn't lose weight I ate 1500 calories. I'm 197 calories, work out hard 6 days/week (strength train + 2 mile run 3x, long runs 3x) and have to eat under 1330 calories to lose weight (even with exercise). I do have hypothyroidism but I take medicine. I'm 33 yo. I so wish I could be one of those people who could eat 1800 calories and lose weight but I'm just not. Also the more weight you lose, the lower calories you need to consume. I can't wait until maintenance when I can maybe eat 1500 calories to maintain (fingers crossed). I'm not perfect and I do splurge but try to make those occasions worth it! But most days I eat really clean and kind of boring. I've lost 60+ lbs so far. Add me if you'd like!!1
-
Are you seeing results in your body and not the scale? If so you are making progress!1
-
sheenabyrd wrote: »I do measure/weigh my food and I wear a polar HR monitor to track each workout, so I can get an accurate calorie burn. I use that number when calculating my food. I've mixed up my workouts, taken time off, upped my calorie intake by 10% and then reduced, and switched up my workouts but nothing seems to work. I'm trying to be patient but it's frustrating. I keep thinking there's got to be something wrong with what I'm doing because I should be seeing results.
Have you updated your weight in your HR monitor? If you haven't, then it will be calculating a higher burn based on your old higher weight. That could easily be taking out your deficit.
1 -
sheenabyrd wrote: »
I am still a little conflicted with the different opinions and all of the material I've found researching. I'm just going to mix it up a bit by upping my cardio and decreasing my "calories burned" and see if that helps. I just need to find what works for my body to get the results I want.
I assume by that you mean that you are going to eat less, right? Sounds like a good approach. A calorie goal of 1500 is quite reasonable but if you were adding 500+ calorie burns and actually eating 2000 calories, I can see where you might be going wrong. Personally, I let the app give me full credit for calories burned while exercising, but I don't typically eat much of it back. My maintenance number is 1750 (I'm older than you) and I try not to go over that amount.
0 -
frannyupnorth wrote: »sheenabyrd wrote: »I do measure/weigh my food and I wear a polar HR monitor to track each workout, so I can get an accurate calorie burn. I use that number when calculating my food. I've mixed up my workouts, taken time off, upped my calorie intake by 10% and then reduced, and switched up my workouts but nothing seems to work. I'm trying to be patient but it's frustrating. I keep thinking there's got to be something wrong with what I'm doing because I should be seeing results.
Have you updated your weight in your HR monitor? If you haven't, then it will be calculating a higher burn based on your old higher weight. That could easily be taking out your deficit.
I didn't even think to update my weight on on my HR monitor. I am going to do that now. Thanks!0 -
goldthistime wrote: »sheenabyrd wrote: »
I am still a little conflicted with the different opinions and all of the material I've found researching. I'm just going to mix it up a bit by upping my cardio and decreasing my "calories burned" and see if that helps. I just need to find what works for my body to get the results I want.
I assume by that you mean that you are going to eat less, right? Sounds like a good approach. A calorie goal of 1500 is quite reasonable but if you were adding 500+ calorie burns and actually eating 2000 calories, I can see where you might be going wrong. Personally, I let the app give me full credit for calories burned while exercising, but I don't typically eat much of it back. My maintenance number is 1750 (I'm older than you) and I try not to go over that amount.
Yes, I am going to eat less calories. It sounds like I may have been over estimating my "calories burned" and maybe eating back more than I should. Thanks for the suggestions.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions