Is my trainer starving me??

NadaHamade

Yeah, I don't necessarily mean doing it all at once, I will focus on fat loss first. Then muscle.

Yeah, I believe I could build more muscle and lose more fat by eating more calories too! Would you mind sharing with me what your calorie intake/level of fitness is? I need to recalculate my calories

Your trainers ridiculous. Burn 1000 and eat only 1100? And you could get better results than that eating more. At 138 pounds I was 22 percent fat. Granted our genetics may be different. Right now 20 pounds more than that (I'm aiming to get down to 120) I am 28 percent.

Throwing this out here again....

You're not going to build muscle and lose fat at the same time.

It's possible to recomp around TDEE by that takes a long....long time.

NadaHamade

True on both counts. Though I figured by default she would have more knowledge than bro science to follow since she is a trainer. I now know I was wrong!

You're trainer is pretty clueless and bro-sciencey.

You are the one starving yourself though.

NadaHamade

Thank you! It's more difficult than I thought it was to choose a competent trainer.

There are some trainers out there that can help you build muscle while keeping you accountable to a healthy diet. Unfornantely, this trainer doesn't sound like one of them. Also, if you are getting enough protein and eating frequently enough, you shouldn't be getting hungry as much. Good luck to you! Choosing a trainer can be difficult decision.

Froggymcconnell

finish your sessions with her but ignore her nutrition advice then get out of there. As one guy on here always says, "If you can't do this for the rest of your life then it is wrong!" Eating shouldn't be a diet, it is a lifestyle. Your body is in starvation mode. You MUST have fuel to workout and lift weights. Some trainers truly are idiots!

No such thing as starvation mode!!!

NadaHamade

Your advice makes a ton of sense and also has a lot of common sense in it. I'm thinking of either netting 1200 or just eating more in general (the 1200-1500 range you mentioned) because it is needed for me.

My weight loss has stalled for awhile or at least become very slow and my stamina has decreased considerably.

So I think I definitely need to decrease my discomfort and eat more than I have been eating. I'm not 100% sure I'm going to start following the net rule on MFP but what I DO know is that I need more calories to compensate for the activity I have been doing. Also I may decrease my exercise activity so there's less of a humongous deficit.

This sounds pretty crazy, and not healthy, as your body seems to be telling you already with your severe hunger/binges. If you were eating over 2000cals a day, I could see the burning 800-1000 being reasonable and not terribly bad for you. Only getting a net of a couple hundred calories a day though? That's bonkers.

Yes! I would always ask her if she was sure I'm not supposed to be netting my calories. She'd say yes. She logs on my fitness pal and never eats back net. It really baffles me.

'Eating back' and 'net calories' aren't a thing outside of the MFP eating plan, and I think a lot of people use MFP to log but not their eating plan.

Most people who want to lose weight, especially for a looming event, use exercise to maximize their deficit and use food to get their basic nutrition, as in vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. You don't have to get some major portion of daily calories burned from today's eating since those can be funded through 'deficit spending', which is the definition of how weight loss works. Though obviously there is a trade-off between discomfort and speed of weight loss. But there is no situation where eating more causes more weight loss, just less discomfort. But if your discomfort is unacceptable, definitely eat more. But unless it has some effect like it makes you log better or comply better or exercise more, eating more won't increase your rate of loss.

But I don't think I could comply with a plan for long that had me burning 800-1000 in the gym and eating 1100. That's like something from Extreme Weight Loss (though there it's more like burning 2000-3000 in the gym). But I also wouldn't spend hours in the gym burning 1000 and then eat it all back if I wanted to shrink for a wedding, either. I'd stick with the 'normal' way-- spend 3-5 hours a week at exercise and eat 1200-1500 calories/day. That's what most accepted diet plans recommend, far and away.

RGv2

Your advice makes a ton of sense and also has a lot of common sense in it. I'm thinking of either netting 1200 or just eating more in general (the 1200-1500 range you mentioned) because it is needed for me.

My weight loss has stalled for awhile or at least become very slow and my stamina has decreased considerably.

So I think I definitely need to decrease my discomfort and eat more than I have been eating. I'm not 100% sure I'm going to start following the net rule on MFP but what I DO know is that I need more calories to compensate for the activity I have been doing. Also I may decrease my exercise activity so there's less of a humongous deficit.

This sounds pretty crazy, and not healthy, as your body seems to be telling you already with your severe hunger/binges. If you were eating over 2000cals a day, I could see the burning 800-1000 being reasonable and not terribly bad for you. Only getting a net of a couple hundred calories a day though? That's bonkers.

Yes! I would always ask her if she was sure I'm not supposed to be netting my calories. She'd say yes. She logs on my fitness pal and never eats back net. It really baffles me.

'Eating back' and 'net calories' aren't a thing outside of the MFP eating plan, and I think a lot of people use MFP to log but not their eating plan.

Most people who want to lose weight, especially for a looming event, use exercise to maximize their deficit and use food to get their basic nutrition, as in vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. You don't have to get some major portion of daily calories burned from today's eating since those can be funded through 'deficit spending', which is the definition of how weight loss works. Though obviously there is a trade-off between discomfort and speed of weight loss. But there is no situation where eating more causes more weight loss, just less discomfort. But if your discomfort is unacceptable, definitely eat more. But unless it has some effect like it makes you log better or comply better or exercise more, eating more won't increase your rate of loss.

But I don't think I could comply with a plan for long that had me burning 800-1000 in the gym and eating 1100. That's like something from Extreme Weight Loss (though there it's more like burning 2000-3000 in the gym). But I also wouldn't spend hours in the gym burning 1000 and then eat it all back if I wanted to shrink for a wedding, either. I'd stick with the 'normal' way-- spend 3-5 hours a week at exercise and eat 1200-1500 calories/day. That's what most accepted diet plans recommend, far and away.

What is your ht/wt and how much are you going to exercise. From there we can get easily get a pretty basic BMR/TDEE for you.

HeidiCooksSupper

How is she measuring your "metabolism"?

What she has been doing is measuring my body fat with calipers and then making her own calculations.

Calipers are often inaccurate. Read (or even print out for her):

http://www.livestrong.com/article/339058-accuracy-of-the-caliper-test-for-body-fat/

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=250

And besides, calipers don't measure "metabolism." They are used to try to estimate body fat percentage.

NadaHamade

I am currently 5'2'' and 139 lbs. With my trainer I would do cardio 5x a day at 800 calories (90 mins). But I might decrease that to an hour at 400-500 calories. Strength training twice a week, an hour each, about 400-450 calories per session.

Your advice makes a ton of sense and also has a lot of common sense in it. I'm thinking of either netting 1200 or just eating more in general (the 1200-1500 range you mentioned) because it is needed for me.

My weight loss has stalled for awhile or at least become very slow and my stamina has decreased considerably.

So I think I definitely need to decrease my discomfort and eat more than I have been eating. I'm not 100% sure I'm going to start following the net rule on MFP but what I DO know is that I need more calories to compensate for the activity I have been doing. Also I may decrease my exercise activity so there's less of a humongous deficit.

This sounds pretty crazy, and not healthy, as your body seems to be telling you already with your severe hunger/binges. If you were eating over 2000cals a day, I could see the burning 800-1000 being reasonable and not terribly bad for you. Only getting a net of a couple hundred calories a day though? That's bonkers.

Yes! I would always ask her if she was sure I'm not supposed to be netting my calories. She'd say yes. She logs on my fitness pal and never eats back net. It really baffles me.

'Eating back' and 'net calories' aren't a thing outside of the MFP eating plan, and I think a lot of people use MFP to log but not their eating plan.

Most people who want to lose weight, especially for a looming event, use exercise to maximize their deficit and use food to get their basic nutrition, as in vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. You don't have to get some major portion of daily calories burned from today's eating since those can be funded through 'deficit spending', which is the definition of how weight loss works. Though obviously there is a trade-off between discomfort and speed of weight loss. But there is no situation where eating more causes more weight loss, just less discomfort. But if your discomfort is unacceptable, definitely eat more. But unless it has some effect like it makes you log better or comply better or exercise more, eating more won't increase your rate of loss.

But I don't think I could comply with a plan for long that had me burning 800-1000 in the gym and eating 1100. That's like something from Extreme Weight Loss (though there it's more like burning 2000-3000 in the gym). But I also wouldn't spend hours in the gym burning 1000 and then eat it all back if I wanted to shrink for a wedding, either. I'd stick with the 'normal' way-- spend 3-5 hours a week at exercise and eat 1200-1500 calories/day. That's what most accepted diet plans recommend, far and away.

What is your ht/wt and how much are you going to exercise. From there we can get easily get a pretty basic BMR/TDEE for you.

NadaHamade

Thank you. I would love to try a bod-pod test one day lol. I heard those are the best ways to estimate and everything else has a big margin of error.

How is she measuring your "metabolism"?

What she has been doing is measuring my body fat with calipers and then making her own calculations.

Calipers are often inaccurate. Read (or even print out for her):

http://www.livestrong.com/article/339058-accuracy-of-the-caliper-test-for-body-fat/

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=250

And besides, calipers don't measure "metabolism." They are used to try to estimate body fat percentage.

emilyGPK

Thank you! Her exercises are good but I feel like she has no idea what she is talking about as far as nutrition.

if thats how you feel then why not stick with her and just ignore her dietary advice

My concern would be that if she over-estimates her skill in one area, maybe I can't trust her in the other.

dbmata

True on both counts. Though I figured by default she would have more knowledge than bro science to follow since she is a trainer. I now know I was wrong!

You're trainer is pretty clueless and bro-sciencey.

You are the one starving yourself though.

I have even met MDs that fall to broscience, and when presented with data running counter to their belief, they stuck with belief over science.

It's when beliefs and data collide, things get weird if someone is too jammed up in believing they know it all.

RGv2

I am currently 5'2'' and 139 lbs. With my trainer I would do cardio 5x a day at 800 calories (90 mins). But I might decrease that to an hour at 400-500 calories. Strength training twice a week, an hour each, about 400-450 calories per session.

Your advice makes a ton of sense and also has a lot of common sense in it. I'm thinking of either netting 1200 or just eating more in general (the 1200-1500 range you mentioned) because it is needed for me.

My weight loss has stalled for awhile or at least become very slow and my stamina has decreased considerably.

So I think I definitely need to decrease my discomfort and eat more than I have been eating. I'm not 100% sure I'm going to start following the net rule on MFP but what I DO know is that I need more calories to compensate for the activity I have been doing. Also I may decrease my exercise activity so there's less of a humongous deficit.

This sounds pretty crazy, and not healthy, as your body seems to be telling you already with your severe hunger/binges. If you were eating over 2000cals a day, I could see the burning 800-1000 being reasonable and not terribly bad for you. Only getting a net of a couple hundred calories a day though? That's bonkers.

Yes! I would always ask her if she was sure I'm not supposed to be netting my calories. She'd say yes. She logs on my fitness pal and never eats back net. It really baffles me.

'Eating back' and 'net calories' aren't a thing outside of the MFP eating plan, and I think a lot of people use MFP to log but not their eating plan.

Most people who want to lose weight, especially for a looming event, use exercise to maximize their deficit and use food to get their basic nutrition, as in vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. You don't have to get some major portion of daily calories burned from today's eating since those can be funded through 'deficit spending', which is the definition of how weight loss works. Though obviously there is a trade-off between discomfort and speed of weight loss. But there is no situation where eating more causes more weight loss, just less discomfort. But if your discomfort is unacceptable, definitely eat more. But unless it has some effect like it makes you log better or comply better or exercise more, eating more won't increase your rate of loss.

But I don't think I could comply with a plan for long that had me burning 800-1000 in the gym and eating 1100. That's like something from Extreme Weight Loss (though there it's more like burning 2000-3000 in the gym). But I also wouldn't spend hours in the gym burning 1000 and then eat it all back if I wanted to shrink for a wedding, either. I'd stick with the 'normal' way-- spend 3-5 hours a week at exercise and eat 1200-1500 calories/day. That's what most accepted diet plans recommend, far and away.

What is your ht/wt and how much are you going to exercise. From there we can get easily get a pretty basic BMR/TDEE for you.

So you're looking at 7+ hrs per week?

If that's the case:

TDEE = ~2500 calories (what you could eat each day and maintain weight with your exercise)

TDEE -20% = ~2000 (what would be your daily intake with your exercise and lose at a comfortable pace)

BMR = 1427 (sustenance in a coma)

Your trainer is insane. That low of intake COULD be applied to someone who is morbidly obese, but usually requires medical supervision because it's a VLCD,and why many of us say it's dangerous.

Someone your age with as little to lose, applying this thinking, and expecting it will speed up the metabolism is asinine.

brower47

finish your sessions with her but ignore her nutrition advice then get out of there. As one guy on here always says, "If you can't do this for the rest of your life then it is wrong!" Eating shouldn't be a diet, it is a lifestyle. Your body is in starvation mode. You MUST have fuel to workout and lift weights. Some trainers truly are idiots!

No such thing as starvation mode!!!

Well there is, just not the way most people use it here.The Minnesota Starvation Experiment is a good example of the real starvation mode.

michelleepotter

finish your sessions with her but ignore her nutrition advice then get out of there. As one guy on here always says, "If you can't do this for the rest of your life then it is wrong!" Eating shouldn't be a diet, it is a lifestyle. Your body is in starvation mode. You MUST have fuel to workout and lift weights. Some trainers truly are idiots!

Can I eat at a 20% deficit to TDEE for the rest of my life? (Not counting dying from lack of food.) Does that mean it would be wrong for me to do so for some period of time?

Her body isn't in starvation mode.

Netting 100-300 calories per day? I'm not sure how she isn't actually, literally, starving to death.

VeryKatie

Your trainer obviously isn't trained. She's stupid. Switch now.

NadaHamade

Blunt yet wise advice

Your trainer obviously isn't trained. She's stupid. Switch now.

rowlandsw

I agree find a new trainer. This one shouldn't even have a job she's being so dangerous with her advice.

aliakynes

Scooby is a good place to start when it comes to calorie recommendations: http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

Pick desk job if you want net calories and add in exercise as you do it, else put in your workout times and just eat that every day.

PhatD

Is it even possible to "measure" metabolism?

You need to ditch her nutrition advice - if you like her workouts you can keep working with her on that but go with your gut, if you feel uncomfortable with her nutrition plan than don't follow it. She works for YOU - not the other way around.


^^^^^ Totally agree and if she has figured out a way to measure metabolism get that formula and put a patent on it cause somebody's gonna be rich !!!

uchube

im 5ft 2 with only 8lbs to lose, and im basically 100% sedentary. I net 1100ish. I literally would not be able to function running daily errands, let alone workout to the extent you do, on this amount.

please fire and *report* her, i agree its very dangerous and she's putting clients in a state of metabolic damage with her advice, how awful.

Liftng4Lis

Trade her in!

lisalsd1

I'm 5'3, mid-30's, currently 126lb (was 128.8 and 24.5% BF back in Feb.) and have my calories set at about 1500/day. I eat back most of my exercise calories most days (usually 300-500 cals.day). I couldn't function at 1100 cals/day.

NadaHamade

Thank you all for your advice. Right now I set my MFP to lose 1 pound per week at lightly active so I am going to be eating 1360 calories, and when I exercise, eating back my net calories. My activity level won't be anywhere near how it used to be (the 800-1000 deficit). I will eventually increase intensity of exercise as I get comfortable with higher calories.

I already feel slightly better today after eating a higher amount I will see if I begin losing weight again and my energy levels improve. I definitely need to fix my metabolism! Thanks again everyone.