OMG Everything I know is wrong!

That's fine. This is the problem I have.

Everyone can say their peace, what works for them, etc and if the OP doesn't agree then keep it pushing.

Why keep on engaging trying to tell an adult what she is doing wrong or what she should be doing?

I know most mean well, but beating a dead horse still doesn't bring them back to life.

Say your opinion, advice and keep it pushing. At the end of the day looking out for yourself is all you need to do.

And I say that with the utmost respect.

I feel you. I hold quite a few unconventional nutrional ideals that can, and occasionally have, gotten me some resistance from MFPers. And yes people here can be overly harsh and snarky; such is the interwebs.

But if you're going to open up ideas that aren't very popular, or don't seem sound to the masses, you've got to be prepared to deal with all kinds of views. Because this isn't a ra-ra board, and it isn't a fan club.

This woman came on here to offer "help". She hasn't even proven the "help" works for her, much less anyone else.
She's claiming that she's eating 1300-1500 calories a day, even though she doesn't weigh or measure. How is that possible?
She's claiming that she's a "marathon runner" and "athlete" who is able to do great physical feats, on a severe caloric deficit, with no fat loss? How?
She's claiming her nutritionist told her she needs a maintenance of 3,100 calories, when there are male body builders who are BULKING on that amount.

These are legitimate inquiries. If what she was doing was working, that would be a different story. As it stands she's not actually implemented this plan and has provided dubious, changing details for a story that seems almost physiologically impossible.

So the bottom line is this:

How can an overweight woman be a marathoner and athlete and yet gain weight if she eats over 1300 calories a day? Especially since, according to her nutritionist, she should be maintaining at 3,100 calories. Which means actually that even if that were true, that's exactly around what she's currently eating. Since she is maintaining.

OK - I am confused now..where did OP say that she was cutting to 2100? the only thing I see is increasing to 3100? this post is confusing

its mentions quite a few times....helps to read the whole post before jumping in with advice :laugh:

I have been in and out of this one since the beginning...If you had read the whole thing you might have noticed that. Oh wait, did you just do, what you accused me of doing..?? Ironic...

i did read it all, hence the laughter that you had posted so much but missed a vital detail

I find it amusing that some of these folks are the "Eat more to lose more" crowd.

Nobody is saying this isn't the case. There is obviously an upper limit to how much you can eat to continue to lose weight. Most people here are doubtful of what she's eating and what her progress will be like if she eats what has been "recommended".

Oh, thanks for that clarification. I thought they were just being supportive.

No, just pointing out that the information she was sharing is incorrect and could lead to problems for others who might try to follow it.

Since the information shared was to follow the advice of a trained professional, it's good advice.

based on false information...

I had a look at her diary, food and exercise.

The OP does not weigh her food so her intake is not correct Her Burns for an 85 min run were over 1k....not just 1002....almost 1100...So given that the information the professional used is flawed so is the advice.

If she were truely eating 1500 calories a day and not losing weight how is she going to lose on 2100????

I find it amusing that some of these folks are the "Eat more to lose more" crowd.

Nobody is saying this isn't the case. There is obviously an upper limit to how much you can eat to continue to lose weight. Most people here are doubtful of what she's eating and what her progress will be like if she eats what has been "recommended".

Oh, thanks for that clarification. I thought they were just being supportive.

No, just pointing out that the information she was sharing is incorrect and could lead to problems for others who might try to follow it.

Since the information shared was to follow the advice of a trained professional, it's good advice.

Not when the trained professional is giving her advice that is incorrect. Whether the mistake comes from the fact that OP miscalcuated her intake or her burn is irrelevant.

The advice sounds pretty much like all 'eat more to lose more' advice I've seen on these forums.

I find it amusing that some of these folks are the "Eat more to lose more" crowd.

Nobody is saying this isn't the case. There is obviously an upper limit to how much you can eat to continue to lose weight. Most people here are doubtful of what she's eating and what her progress will be like if she eats what has been "recommended".

Oh, thanks for that clarification. I thought they were just being supportive.

No, just pointing out that the information she was sharing is incorrect and could lead to problems for others who might try to follow it.

Since the information shared was to follow the advice of a trained professional, it's good advice.

Not when the trained professional is giving her advice that is incorrect. Whether the mistake comes from the fact that OP miscalcuated her intake or her burn is irrelevant.

The advice sounds pretty much like all 'eat more to lose more' advice I've seen on these forums.

If that's what you've gotten out of this thread, or any of my posts, you are having some comprehension problems.

I find it amusing that some of these folks are the "Eat more to lose more" crowd.

Nobody is saying this isn't the case. There is obviously an upper limit to how much you can eat to continue to lose weight. Most people here are doubtful of what she's eating and what her progress will be like if she eats what has been "recommended".

Oh, thanks for that clarification. I thought they were just being supportive.

No, just pointing out that the information she was sharing is incorrect and could lead to problems for others who might try to follow it.

Since the information shared was to follow the advice of a trained professional, it's good advice.

Not when the trained professional is giving her advice that is incorrect. Whether the mistake comes from the fact that OP miscalcuated her intake or her burn is irrelevant.

The advice sounds pretty much like all 'eat more to lose more' advice I've seen on these forums.

If that's what you've gotten out of this thread, or any of my posts, you are having some comprehension problems.

Edited because I misread:

What is different in the advice the nutritionist gave - slowly increase your calories to properly fuel your body - than the standard 'eat more to lose more'?

That's fine. This is the problem I have.

Everyone can say their peace, what works for them, etc and if the OP doesn't agree then keep it pushing.

Why keep on engaging trying to tell an adult what she is doing wrong or what she should be doing?

I know most mean well, but beating a dead horse still doesn't bring them back to life.

Say your opinion, advice and keep it pushing. At the end of the day looking out for yourself is all you need to do.

And I say that with the utmost respect.

I feel you. I hold quite a few unconventional nutrional ideals that can, and occasionally have, gotten me some resistance from MFPers. And yes people here can be overly harsh and snarky; such is the interwebs.

But if you're going to open up ideas that aren't very popular, or don't seem sound to the masses, you've got to be prepared to deal with all kinds of views. Because this isn't a ra-ra board, and it isn't a fan club.

This woman came on here to offer "help". She hasn't even proven the "help" works for her, much less anyone else.
She's claiming that she's eating 1300-1500 calories a day, even though she doesn't weigh or measure. How is that possible? She's claiming that she's a "marathon runner" and "athlete" who is able to do great physical feats, on a severe caloric deficit, with no fat loss? How?
She's claiming her nutritionist told her she needs a maintenance of 3,100 calories, when there are male body builders who are BULKING on that amount.

These are legitimate inquiries. If what she was doing was working, that would be a different story. As it stands she's not actually implemented this plan and has provided dubious, changing details for a story that seems almost physiologically impossible.

So the bottom line is this:

How can an overweight woman be a marathoner and athlete, who the and yet gain weight if she eats over 1300 calories a day? Especially since, according to her nutritionist, she should be maintaining at 3,100 calories. Which means actually that even if that were true, that's exactly around what she's currently eating.

Totally understand what you are saying and respect your post.

It doesn't really make sense for her to say you can't lose weight because you aren't eating enough calories. If you aren't eating enough calories you should be having trouble with losing too much weight, including lean muscle. You should weigh everything you eat and calculate how many calories you need using your TDEE, and then eat below that to lose weight. If you aren't losing weight it's because you are calculating your intake incorrectly and not eating at a deficit.

This. Quoted for truth.

It does make sense...if you do not fuel your body properly it will hold on to EVERYTHING it has. It's like a car, the farther you go the more gas it needs. Simple.

Thank you. This is exactly what she said. I eat more than the 1300 I was consuming plus some exercise calories and I would put on weight! She has me slowing increasing my calories so my body adjusts. She will still keep me at a deficit to help me lose but she wants me more at 2100. I am 5'9 I run at least 25 miles a week plus cross training and lifting and weigh 187 pounds.

regardless of the 'starvation mode argument', which everyone on both sides is going to get wrong anyway...

2100 cals/day for a woman of your height and age who runs 25 miles a week is a totally reasonable and sane goal.

Yeah, see, it's like this:

The less you eat, the more your body moves into a catabolic, muscle breakdown survival state. When you aren't eating enough, your hormonal profile changes to conserve as much energy as possible. By adding in "some" exercise, you really aren't doing anything to change the simple fact that your body is eating it's fat stores to make up for the difference, and your muscles will be running low on muscle glycogen pretty much all the time.

If you were to eat 1300 (or whatever) and train for a marathon, you couldn't. It's not enough energy to sustain the effort. In the minnesota starvation studies, and any other study where particiapnts were locked in and FORCED to stick to a calorie level, men lost TONS of weight eating at 1500 with taxing physical labor several days a week.

After they started to refeed them, (which was the purpose of the study, to properly refeed the starving masses of WW II europe without killing them by feeding them too much too soon), as they ate more, their bodies were still in a catabolic state, and continued to lose weight for 2 weeks after they started eating at "maintenance" for their height and weight.

The whole thing shows that people who make posts about "help me, I eat more than 1200 and gain" almost always has an error in their analysis. Every study that controls calories as a part of the study, removing human error and temptation from the equation shows the same thing: Eat less, lose more. Eat more, lose less... if physical activity remains the same.

In the OP's Case, she is probably running more than any dieter out there, and it's entirely possible that low calories + aerobic exercise (which only burns calories as long as you are running) is causing a severe reaction in her body. You can't outrun your hormones. If your body has set itself in a protectionist stance, when ghrelin and insulin respond like they do when you're underfed (along with cortisol), it can be almost impossible to maintain that level of activity, hence why she felt so run down.

Feeling rundown leads to skipping workouts, or putting in half effort into them. Standing in the gym is not the same as sweating your *kitten* of in the gym. (true story). If your only workout is getting into smelly shorts and a tank top and running the same, even paced 3 miles that you always run, guess what?

Your body has adapted to that stimuli, and you will expend much fewer calories running 3 miles than when you started. Weightlifters also experience this kind of plateau, where the same weight doesn't encourage more muscle growth. Progressively overload, and feed yourself to keep out of a catabolic state.

The end.

Totally understand what you are saying and respect your post.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I think, regardless of where we're coming from, we've all said just about everything we can to the OP. She's an adult and she'll do what she pleases. And I truly hope that she does find something that works.

exactly. she was telling people to see a professional so they can get plans tailored to them

Take it from someone who has been lurking in this forum for years. People will see a number of calories and think it's a magic number.

The whole situation needs clarification. I'm still confused as to why a registered dietitian would encourage 2100 calories for weight loss when her maintenance calories are supposedly 3100 as a very long distance runner, and I'm also seeing people throw around the 1300 value, which is further confusing.

I would imagine several people are confused. There is the limited information the OP provided, coupled with the twisting of that information by the naysayers, along with a lot of unknowns. Which is why it's so odd that so many insist they know better than the board certified nutritionist, who had an hour long consultation in which she likely gathered the information needed to make an educated analysis.