eating to fuel your body (very long)

1235

Replies

  • hiddensecant
    hiddensecant Posts: 2,446 Member
    This makes total sense to me, to have a maintenance day once a week. I've gotten so use to eating 1200 calories (or less) a day that I start feeling bad for going over that, and I think that's why I feel like I need to save up calories throughout the week so I can be a little lax on the weekend. If I view it as a maintenance day, with the realization that I may not lose a whole 2 lbs that week (but that's okay!), it might help me to eat how much I'm supposed to during the week instead of trying to save up. I think the concept of having a maintenance day is much more in line with incorporating healthy living as a lifestyle instead of a diet.
    I only started doing this recently. I cut my sugars to under 15g and I wanted a day where I can eat some fruit. So far it hasn't slowed my weight loss.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member

    This makes total sense to me, to have a maintenance day once a week. I've gotten so use to eating 1200 calories (or less) a day that I start feeling bad for going over that, and I think that's why I feel like I need to save up calories throughout the week so I can be a little lax on the weekend. If I view it as a maintenance day, with the realization that I may not lose a whole 2 lbs that week (but that's okay!), it might help me to eat how much I'm supposed to during the week instead of trying to save up. I think the concept of having a maintenance day is much more in line with incorporating healthy living as a lifestyle instead of a diet.

    This also, I feel, is a slippery slope. by that I mean, it really depends on what your deficit is on days where you aren't eating your maintenance. Remember, there's no on/off switch for starvation mode. Essentially starvation mode is just a more extreme version of a catabolic state (if you're not sure what that is I recommend reading up on it). In other words, whenever you eat less than you burn, your body knows this and will make minor adjustments to accommodate, and it takes a few days to do so, so eating 200 or 300 more 1 day a week isn't a big deal, but eat 1000 more (as an example) without a subsequent rise in calories burned (I.E. exercise) and the body thinks it's a 1 time deal and will store more as fat. And since body fat isn't a primary fuel source, it's not going to be immediately burned off when you go back down.

    In other words, keep your changes moderate. I have no problem with someone having a few hundred extra calories, especially if their deficit is small, but make wholesale changes, especially if your body is already struggling to keep it's energy burn down, and you risk storing extra fat.

    I'm not saying any of you guys ARE doing this, it's just something to be aware of. Hey, we all have bad days, me included (probably more than I'd like, especially in the summer) but it's important to be aware of them and try to minimize the down sides.
  • hiddensecant
    hiddensecant Posts: 2,446 Member
    This also, I feel, is a slippery slope. by that I mean, it really depends on what your deficit is on days where you aren't eating your maintenance. Remember, there's no on/off switch for starvation mode. Essentially starvation mode is just a more extreme version of a catabolic state (if you're not sure what that is I recommend reading up on it). In other words, whenever you eat less than you burn, your body knows this and will make minor adjustments to accommodate, and it takes a few days to do so, so eating 200 or 300 more 1 day a week isn't a big deal, but eat 1000 more (as an example) without a subsequent rise in calories burned (I.E. exercise) and the body thinks it's a 1 time deal and will store more as fat. And since body fat isn't a primary fuel source, it's not going to be immediately burned off when you go back down.

    My net calorie increase is about 300 calories on my extras day; it often means some fruit with breakfast and a sashimi lunch.

    I've never been at 2 lbs per week but maintenance would be a 1000 calorie increase ... So maybe Blue can go for a 500 calorie increase a day out of the week. That would keep a deficit and still allow for a menu change.
  • BlueLikeJazz
    BlueLikeJazz Posts: 219 Member
    This also, I feel, is a slippery slope. by that I mean, it really depends on what your deficit is on days where you aren't eating your maintenance. Remember, there's no on/off switch for starvation mode. Essentially starvation mode is just a more extreme version of a catabolic state (if you're not sure what that is I recommend reading up on it). In other words, whenever you eat less than you burn, your body knows this and will make minor adjustments to accommodate, and it takes a few days to do so, so eating 200 or 300 more 1 day a week isn't a big deal, but eat 1000 more (as an example) without a subsequent rise in calories burned (I.E. exercise) and the body thinks it's a 1 time deal and will store more as fat. And since body fat isn't a primary fuel source, it's not going to be immediately burned off when you go back down.

    My net calorie increase is about 300 calories on my extras day; it often means some fruit with breakfast and a sashimi lunch.

    I've never been at 2 lbs per week but maintenance would be a 1000 calorie increase ... So maybe Blue can go for a 500 calorie increase a day out of the week. That would keep a deficit and still allow for a menu change.

    Lots of good points again. I am currently at a 1000 calorie deficit most days, though I think I'll probably switch to closer to a 750 deficit soon, probably after the next 10 pounds (which is when I'll be close to crossing the line from obese to overweight). I probably should just give it a go with no increased days, except for when I'm eating my exercise calories, and see what kind of results I get from that. Just because I'm used to having those "save up your points" days from my time doing WW doesn't mean I NEED to have them. It's probably a good habit to break.
  • cardigirl
    cardigirl Posts: 492 Member
    Bumping to the top of the forum. :flowerforyou:
  • hiddensecant
    hiddensecant Posts: 2,446 Member
    Good to have my internet connection back ... wasabe!
  • gottaluvboyz
    gottaluvboyz Posts: 555 Member
    Good read and good info! Thank you for your time:)
  • cardigirl
    cardigirl Posts: 492 Member
    This needs a bump!!! :flowerforyou:
  • leavinglasvegas
    leavinglasvegas Posts: 1,495
    :heart:
  • alpha2omega
    alpha2omega Posts: 229 Member
    Bump!
  • Angiepackmom4
    Angiepackmom4 Posts: 75
    Well said and thought out. A couple of things I didn't know and learned from this, but also the stuff I already did know, I could have never articulated it as well as you did. Great information for us. Thanks!!!
  • hiddensecant
    hiddensecant Posts: 2,446 Member
    :flowerforyou:
  • edorice
    edorice Posts: 4,519 Member
    bump
  • angiereid
    angiereid Posts: 158
    very good job explaining things
  • callie365
    callie365 Posts: 689
    Bump
  • clarkecolin
    clarkecolin Posts: 34 Member
    Thanks Bank,

    Was a burning question for me, nicely answered, no stone left unturned.
  • portianay
    portianay Posts: 13
    Wow, I needed this! Thanks for the detailed, intelligent post.
  • ChirishGirl
    ChirishGirl Posts: 111
    Thank you thank you thank you for this post. I was just asking some people today about this balancing act. I'm a little closer to understanding it now!
  • Nomoreplus_sizes
    Nomoreplus_sizes Posts: 97 Member
    This really helps alot! Thanks for that part about obese so I know what to do now and how I may need to change things as I go down the scale.
  • kimeister
    kimeister Posts: 212
    bump
  • cbirdso
    cbirdso Posts: 465 Member
    I like this!:heart:
  • heniko
    heniko Posts: 796 Member
    great post!
  • NitaCB
    NitaCB Posts: 532 Member
    I do completely understand the science behind what you're saying Banks, don't get me wrong. But I do have a few questions to try and figure out why it really doesn't seem to be working for me.

    If I did a long run (1hr 20min) like today, MFP says that I burned 970 calories. So that is a lot of extra calories added to the day. And I do this often, cos I'm training for a marathon. My daily allowance is set to 1280 per day, so that really doesn't leave much wiggle room if you're trying to get up to the 'minimum 1200 net calories' as I so often read on here. It just seems like too much food for someone of my size. (5"3, 130lbs). I guess I'm skeptical that the amount of calories that MFP figures out for my exercise is accurate. Does it take into account your fitness level? Because clearly if I've been running for a while my body is accustomed to the exercise so it probably isn't burning that many calories right?

    So in saying this I try and leave at least a couple hundred calories at the end of the day to take into account the fact that I probably underestimate some of my food, and my skepticism on the accuracy of the MFP exercise calories. Should this work? So far I'm really not having any weight loss success.
  • Atlantique
    Atlantique Posts: 2,484 Member
    Bump--great explanation!
  • jonathandavid_t
    jonathandavid_t Posts: 107 Member
    I do completely understand the science behind what you're saying Banks, don't get me wrong. But I do have a few questions to try and figure out why it really doesn't seem to be working for me.

    If I did a long run (1hr 20min) like today, MFP says that I burned 970 calories. So that is a lot of extra calories added to the day. And I do this often, cos I'm training for a marathon. My daily allowance is set to 1280 per day, so that really doesn't leave much wiggle room if you're trying to get up to the 'minimum 1200 net calories' as I so often read on here. It just seems like too much food for someone of my size. (5"3, 130lbs). I guess I'm skeptical that the amount of calories that MFP figures out for my exercise is accurate. Does it take into account your fitness level? Because clearly if I've been running for a while my body is accustomed to the exercise so it probably isn't burning that many calories right?

    So in saying this I try and leave at least a couple hundred calories at the end of the day to take into account the fact that I probably underestimate some of my food, and my skepticism on the accuracy of the MFP exercise calories. Should this work? So far I'm really not having any weight loss success.

    I'm not 100% sure on this, but I suspect that you MFP calories for running are fairly accurate. It requires a fairly fixed amount of energy to move a 130lb weight a fixed number of miles (you'll notice that a 2 hour walk at 2.5mph burns the same as a 1 hour walk at 5mph) (although obviously if you do a 2-hour walk you need to subtract twice as many "but I would have burnt e.g. 70 calories per hour anyway sitting at home reading a book" calories from what you log/eat back). I think that as you train more it will *feel* like less effort, but still require the same total effort (muscles are working more efficiently).

    Maybe someone with more experience can clarify things further.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Let me be absolutely clear on this.

    I DO NOT ADVOCATE TRAINING FOR AN EXTREME EVENT ON A CALORIE DEFICIT.

    Thats dangerous, besides, it makes training harder, and you get less benefit from the training.

    Guys, if you ever get the chance, go to look at an olympic athlete's diet while in training, I think you'll be shocked.

    Michael Phelps was known for eating 12000 calories a day when training, but he's not the only one. College football players are know to have to double and sometimes triple their intake during pre-season camp (when they're practicing for 4 or 5 hours a day).

    here's a quote from the montana U. website on olympics nutrition and energy balance.

    http://btc.montana.edu/olympics/nutrition/eat01.html
    An athlete's success at meeting energy requirements depends on accomplishing these two goals:

    Matching energy intake to energy expenditure.
    Maintaining body weight and body composition at levels that are compatible with good health and athletic performance.
    Monitoring body weight is a practical way to assess both energy and fluid balance. Weight stability, particularly during periods of heavy training and competition, provides athletes with a good indicator that overall energy requirements are being met. In addition, monitoring body weight before and after individual exercise training sessions gives athletes the feedback they need to assess hydration status and to take action to prevent dehydration. If body weight loss or weight gain is desired to enhance athletic performance, it is best addressed in the off-season. Weight loss during the competitive season places athletes at risk for inadequate energy, carbohydrate, and fluid intake. Weight gain in the form of body fat compromises endurance, speed, and power.

    please notice the part about not trying to lose weight during training periods.
  • eliapperson
    eliapperson Posts: 2
    I know this was an old post, so not sure if you'll get this, but I have a question. Hopefully you can answer. You mention that your body can only burn so much fat at any given time. So does this mean that we should be lowering our calories from fat within our diets so that we can burn the fat stores? What is considered low? I am 32, 5'2", 120, pretty athletic (work out for 45 (intense) - 1 hour (moderate) 5 days a week.

    I am in the been eating too little for too long category and it's nearly impossible for me to lose weight. In fact, I think I'm in the stage where I'm gaining and my body is adjusting. It's been taking forever to adjust though! And honestly, I have to force myself to eat quite often, as I'm not always hungry for what's considered a normal amount of food.

    Can you advise?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    I know this was an old post, so not sure if you'll get this, but I have a question. Hopefully you can answer. You mention that your body can only burn so much fat at any given time. So does this mean that we should be lowering our calories from fat within our diets so that we can burn the fat stores? What is considered low? I am 32, 5'2", 120, pretty athletic (work out for 45 (intense) - 1 hour (moderate) 5 days a week.

    I am in the been eating too little for too long category and it's nearly impossible for me to lose weight. In fact, I think I'm in the stage where I'm gaining and my body is adjusting. It's been taking forever to adjust though! And honestly, I have to force myself to eat quite often, as I'm not always hungry for what's considered a normal amount of food.

    Can you advise?

    dietary fat is completely different from adipose fat (body fat), and isn't really what I mean when I talk about how much fat you can burn in a day. Lowering your dietary fat will have little difference on how much fat is burned in the body (generally speaking). Dietary fat is not the enemy and is used for many necessary processes in the body, in general though, try to make most (if not all) of your dietary fat come in the form of omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids (unsaturated fats), and avoid saturated fats (mostly, some isn't to bad) and absolutely avoid hydrogenated oils, that's the worst kind of fat.
  • eliapperson
    eliapperson Posts: 2
    Thanks that is really helpful.
  • von100blue
    von100blue Posts: 9 Member
    Bump
This discussion has been closed.

Categories