Trainer said EAT MORE
jahnlaw
Posts: 95 Member
For the past 2 weeks I've been working out intensely 6 days a week lifting weights alternating days with HIIT and eating about 1600 calories. I'm 6ft, 277, down from 284.
I met with a trainer yesterday and he said I may have metabolic damage from dieting. He said if I keep doing what I'm doing then I'd stall. He said the answer is to cut out HIIT running, increase daily walking, lift weights 3 days a week , and most puzzling, eat more.
He said I should be able to lose weight at 2100 cal and if I don't then I'd have to increase may daily cal to 2400, 3000 until I lose weight at that level.
He said I need to eat a combination of clean eating and dirty with more rice and potatoes and even bread.
Has anyone followed a plan like this? Does he make sense?
I met with a trainer yesterday and he said I may have metabolic damage from dieting. He said if I keep doing what I'm doing then I'd stall. He said the answer is to cut out HIIT running, increase daily walking, lift weights 3 days a week , and most puzzling, eat more.
He said I should be able to lose weight at 2100 cal and if I don't then I'd have to increase may daily cal to 2400, 3000 until I lose weight at that level.
He said I need to eat a combination of clean eating and dirty with more rice and potatoes and even bread.
Has anyone followed a plan like this? Does he make sense?
0
Replies
-
6ft and 277? With 6 days exercise
Hell yes you can eat more and still lose ..
The rest of his advice should possibly be filed under w for woo
Aim for 2lb per week max, averaged over 6-8 weeks (possibly as high as 3 in the short term)8 -
I've found that for some, eating more actually helps you to lose more [which is odd]. Yesterday I did my best to eat around 2000 calories [instead of my usual 1500-1600] and I actually lost 3 pounds. I assume most of that was water weight, but still.0
-
Darlin, I eat more than that and lose weight without exercise as a 5'4" female (and I'm only 132 lbs).
For sure, you are setting yourself up to crash. Eat a bit more - what doesn't matter; "clean" and "dirty" are just words to make people think foods are good or bad, which they are not. I would suggest aiming to hit your protein macro to help out with all that training, but even that is just a suggestion. Eat what makes you feel good!
Good luck!!
6 -
You have not caused any metabolic damage by losing seven pounds.
Change your goals to lose one pound a week if you want to eat more.
As long as you hit your protein goal, fill your daily calories with whatever makes you comfortable, whether it be bread or ice cream -- does not matter.
6 -
He's right about eating more. And I personally agree with him about the training because that's the way I lose too...moderate to no cardio, heavy weight training. You're not going to "stall though". You will probably just feel like *kitten* really soon if you don't eat more.
And as far as eating "clean and dirty", he is also kind of right but it's a weird way to say it. Just...eat food. 80% nutritionally dense whole foods, and leave room for somethings you really love or "junk" as people call it.0 -
While i don't think his advice of eating a more appropriate calorie goal considering your current height/size is bad, i don't think you should be relying on the information of a trainer when it comes to diet/nutrition.
I myself am a personal trainer and depending on our certifications it is VERY clear that we can recommend calorie goals, however, cannot give any further advice when it comes to nutrition. His pseudoscientific comments are exactly why. Unless he has further training and education he should not be advising you on this topic. The "metabolic damage" is nonsense. The "you have to eat carbohydrates from x sources" is nonsense.
Although, i don't think you'll be performing at your best when eating such a small calorie goal. And there have been studies that show that a very low calorie goal for men can result in lower sex hormones over time.
Will you stall? Doubtful. But i'm not so sure your current routine is best for optimizing results.
This of course depends on your end goal. For most men i know they want to look "ripped/aesthetic". If this is your goal and you were my client I would:- Have you lower the amount of cardio you're doing to the minimum required for cardiovascular health. This is ,of course, unless you are training for some sort of race/cardio specific goal. In which case we would lower the lifting to compensate for that. In my opinion we should focus on one main aspect at a time.
-
p.s. this is low intensity for 30 minutes 5x a week (like walking), or high intensity 20 miniutes 3x a week only.
- Have you lower the amount of strength training days to around 3-4 to allow for proper rest and adequate adaptation.
- Put you on a progressive lifting program, have you consume adequate protein, and a more realistic and sustainable calorie goal.
To recap: I do think you are eating too little for optimal training/satiation/maintenance, training in an unsustainable (and less optimal) way.
8 - Have you lower the amount of cardio you're doing to the minimum required for cardiovascular health. This is ,of course, unless you are training for some sort of race/cardio specific goal. In which case we would lower the lifting to compensate for that. In my opinion we should focus on one main aspect at a time.
-
I'm your height, weigh about 30lbs more, and am a woman. I lose between 2 and 3 pounds a week by eating up to 2500 calories on my most active days. So yes, you should be eating more.
The clean/dirty eating part is garbage, though. Just get the macros you need to fuel your health and workouts.2 -
I found eating every 3-4 hours (watch clock) at werk makes a big difference. Im more liberal with Carbs in AM (if your active at werk youll burn it) and skew to more and more protien with subsequent meals. 300 to 500 cal in 3 meals or 300 ish in 5 meals werks well (not that I dont eat the occassional 700, and cut back later). (my wife calls this grazing) This plan is to avoid getting starvingly famished at end of day and breaking the dont eat then sleep on a full stomach rule. If your doing this for your health , speed of weight loss is not important but the goal is to get persistant loss, learn lifestyle change and get discipline at holidays, family parties or other communal binge eating feasts. I aimed for 1/2 to 4 lb weight loss per month and found I had ~ 8 lb/ month. BUT my metobolism kinda crashed. but I can live eating normal portions vs American portions. I can not eat 3 burgers, 3 hotdogs, and try to get some steak at a bbq. A can of nuts is probaby all the calories you need for a day.
Dont anything more than 100 cal of protien (tuna) within 3-4 hours of sleeping. Ultimately, what werks for me may not werk for you. Dont be afraid to experiment. Rushing it can mean health problems (kidney) and loose skin. Muscle is heavier than fat, dont get obsessed with scale.
Remember high activity days means eat, Sedentary days: no beer, no chips and dip. One guy I now eats a huge plate of pasta late on friday (gains 6? lbs) but burns it all off Saturday by playing handball all day. Go figure.
Salad, water and soup/broth is your friend for feeling full. Salad is good late night friend. You should to learn as much about health and diet as your personal trainer. Read various diet books (with a grain of salt).
The Goal should be health, strenght and endurance (with good bloodwork with your doctor). Scale number is bonus.
Try your trainers plan, if it fails then try something else. Just do small changes. If your doing 1600 try 1800 and see if you lose weight. LOG everything.
Good Luck. Im rooting for you.1 -
Trainer said it would take 18 months. I was hoping for a year by my next birthday. We may have different priorities.0
-
Hi all, Im 23, female and 64kg. I have recently made a commitment to myself to eat clean food with treats in moderation. I am now trying to allow myself a treat meal once a week which is satisfying my sweet tooth. However, I have been sitting below 1200 calories every day, but I'm scared that if I go up, I will put on weight again. I feel like I'm eating a lot- 3 meals + 4 small snacks a day, (mostly protein and vegetables) and I work out 6 times a week, sometimes I walk on top of my workout. Lately I've been waking up with hunger pains in the middle of the night, sore muscles, headaches and I'm extremely irritable. Does anyone have any advise? Eat more? I'm worried about undoing all my weight loss progress. Thanks:)0
-
Rainbowbow, you asked about my goals I want body fat of 10-15% and pant size of 33-34. Weight loss is mostly secondary. Trainer said it would take 18 months. I was hoping for a year by my next birthday. We may have different priorities.
I'm confused. You say weight loss is secondary, yet your main goal is to lose fat. Can you elaborate?
0 -
kate_cross wrote: »Hi all, Im 23, female and 64kg. I have recently made a commitment to myself to eat clean food with treats in moderation. I am now trying to allow myself a treat meal once a week which is satisfying my sweet tooth. However, I have been sitting below 1200 calories every day, but I'm scared that if I go up, I will put on weight again. I feel like I'm eating a lot- 3 meals + 4 small snacks a day, (mostly protein and vegetables) and I work out 6 times a week, sometimes I walk on top of my workout. Lately I've been waking up with hunger pains in the middle of the night, sore muscles, headaches and I'm extremely irritable. Does anyone have any advise? Eat more? I'm worried about undoing all my weight loss progress. Thanks:)
Uh yeah, working out six days per week, walking, and only eating 1200 calories means you're netting a lot less. Your body is giving you signs to increase your calories. I'm 49kg and I still lose eating 1800 calories per day.0 -
I've found that for some, eating more actually helps you to lose more [which is odd]. Yesterday I did my best to eat around 2000 calories [instead of my usual 1500-1600] and I actually lost 3 pounds. I assume most of that was water weight, but still.
Yes.....what you're describing is natural weight fluctuation. Eating more and still losing weight only works if you are already eating at a deficit and losing weight. You will just lose slower.
Eating more is never the answer to trying to lose weight. If it were there would be no fat people.1 -
6ft and 277? With 6 days exercise
Hell yes you can eat more and still lose ..
The rest of his advice should possibly be filed under w for woo
Aim for 2lb per week max, averaged over 6-8 weeks (possibly as high as 3 in the short term)
Tjis. It's better to eat more and lose at a slower rate.0 -
mazarasltm wrote: »I found eating every 3-4 hours (watch clock) at werk makes a big difference. Im more liberal with Carbs in AM (if your active at werk youll burn it) and skew to more and more protien with subsequent meals. 300 to 500 cal in 3 meals or 300 ish in 5 meals werks well (not that I dont eat the occassional 700, and cut back later). (my wife calls this grazing) This plan is to avoid getting starvingly famished at end of day and breaking the dont eat then sleep on a full stomach rule. If your doing this for your health , speed of weight loss is not important but the goal is to get persistant loss, learn lifestyle change and get discipline at holidays, family parties or other communal binge eating feasts. I aimed for 1/2 to 4 lb weight loss per month and found I had ~ 8 lb/ month. BUT my metobolism kinda crashed. but I can live eating normal portions vs American portions. I can not eat 3 burgers, 3 hotdogs, and try to get some steak at a bbq. A can of nuts is probaby all the calories you need for a day.
Dont anything more than 100 cal of protien (tuna) within 3-4 hours of sleeping. Ultimately, what werks for me may not werk for you. Dont be afraid to experiment. Rushing it can mean health problems (kidney) and loose skin. Muscle is heavier than fat, dont get obsessed with scale.
Remember high activity days means eat, Sedentary days: no beer, no chips and dip. One guy I now eats a huge plate of pasta late on friday (gains 6? lbs) but burns it all off Saturday by playing handball all day. Go figure.
Salad, water and soup/broth is your friend for feeling full. Salad is good late night friend. You should to learn as much about health and diet as your personal trainer. Read various diet books (with a grain of salt).
The Goal should be health, strenght and endurance (with good bloodwork with your doctor). Scale number is bonus.
Try your trainers plan, if it fails then try something else. Just do small changes. If your doing 1600 try 1800 and see if you lose weight. LOG everything.
Good Luck. Im rooting for you.
Please ignore this post, OP. I'm sure the poster meant well, but it's full of misinformation.
The timing of your meals doesn't matter. Eating before sleeping doesn't matter unless you find it affects your sleep. Losing 8lbs per month is not going to 'crash your metabolism', it's an acceptable rate of loss at your weight. Muscle is not heavier than fat, it's more dense. If you want chips and dip on sedentary days, have them, you might just have to eat less of them.6 -
I've found that for some, eating more actually helps you to lose more [which is odd]. Yesterday I did my best to eat around 2000 calories [instead of my usual 1500-1600] and I actually lost 3 pounds. I assume most of that was water weight, but still.
Yes.....what you're describing is natural weight fluctuation. Eating more and still losing weight only works if you are already eating at a deficit and losing weight. You will just lose slower.
Eating more is never the answer to trying to lose weight. If it were there would be no fat people.
My TDEE is 2900 calories, so even eating around 2000 calories a day keeps it well below that, so still a loss.0 -
I just started working a personal trainer and he told me the same thing except for the bread part your trainer told you. I've been eating at 1,200. I lost 90 pounds and started really slowing down. He said to bump it up to 2,000 calories on workout days and 1,800 on non-workout days. He explained to me like a car can only go so far with limited fuel. When I was a lot bigger I had an abundance of fuel (stored fat). Now that I'm smaller my body doesn't want to let go of the fat because I'm not giving it enough fuel to work with.1
-
Why on earth were you only eating 1600 and working out 6 days a week. I suspect you were using MFP's calculator to lose 1.5-2 lbs a week and not eating any of your exercise calories back.
This is wrong, especially in only 2 weeks.I met with a trainer yesterday and he said I may have metabolic damage from dieting. He said if I keep doing what I'm doing then I'd stall.
He's correct here. You can easily lose weight at 2100. I'm 6' 2" and lost most of my weight at 2200.and most puzzling, eat more.
He said I should be able to lose weight at 2100 cal and if I don't then I'd have to increase may daily cal to 2400, 3000 until I lose weight at that level.
I don't like classifying food as dirty or clean. Food is fuel, some is more nutritious than others. I think eating a balanced diet of food you like is more sustainable.He said I need to eat a combination of clean eating and dirty with more rice and potatoes and even bread.
YesHas anyone followed a plan like this? Does he make sense?
2 -
Trainer said it would take 18 months. I was hoping for a year by my next birthday. We may have different priorities.
18 months to what? Meet your goal? I'd figure on the longer time line too. Probably longer if you have specific physique goals. Most people don't go from obese to goal physique in one clean fell swoop.0 -
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I just started working a personal trainer and he told me the same thing except for the bread part your trainer told you. I've been eating at 1,200. I lost 90 pounds and started really slowing down. He said to bump it up to 2,000 calories on workout days and 1,800 on non-workout days. He explained to me like a car can only go so far with limited fuel. When I was a lot bigger I had an abundance of fuel (stored fat). Now that I'm smaller my body doesn't want to let go of the fat because I'm not giving it enough fuel to work with.
Nah. The human body just does not work like that.
The fact that you're now smaller means you need less calories, as you'll be using less to function.
Assuming calories out remains the same 2000 calories will lose more than 2500, 1250 will lose more than 2000, 73 will lose more than 1250, and so on and so on until death occurs, and your body will quite happily let go of fat and everything else until death does occur.
The only way eating more works is by properly fueling purposeful exercise, thus increasing the calories out side of the equation, creating a larger deficit.
Eat more to lose more should really be read as 'eat more to train more to lose more'.3 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Rainbowbow, you asked about my goals I want body fat of 10-15% and pant size of 33-34. Weight loss is mostly secondary. Trainer said it would take 18 months. I was hoping for a year by my next birthday. We may have different priorities.
I'm confused. You say weight loss is secondary, yet your main goal is to lose fat. Can you elaborate?
Hi Rainbowbow,
I see why you're confused. I find the scale to be very misleading and heartbreaking. When I gain muscle and get fit in the past, I sometimes see the scale go up. Drives me insane. And do we need to talk about bodybuilding and the BMI?
I wanted a more objective goal broadly as body fat% and specifically pant size. I just don't want to obsess over the weekly scale.
As far as timing, my goal is to get in shape asap where as trainer naturally want to prolong income payment. Nothing wrong with that but it's a hunch.
Bottom line, Does a wife really care how much her hubby weighs if he looked really good? :-)
Mike
1 -
If your calorie deficit is too aggressive (which it is here), your metabolic rate will adjust and lower itself to compensate for the lack of calories to ensure you can still workout and carry on normal daily functions. It's a conservation issue that the body is well adapted to doing if you consistently eat too little. So I agree with the trainer.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Then see the trainer only every other week, or once a month. I train a lot of people this way. They want a program, I write it up, we perform it with correct form and execution, and then they do it on their own till they see me again for the next program.rainbowbow wrote: »Rainbowbow, you asked about my goals I want body fat of 10-15% and pant size of 33-34. Weight loss is mostly secondary. Trainer said it would take 18 months. I was hoping for a year by my next birthday. We may have different priorities.
I'm confused. You say weight loss is secondary, yet your main goal is to lose fat. Can you elaborate?
Hi Rainbowbow,
I see why you're confused. I find the scale to be very misleading and heartbreaking. When I gain muscle and get fit in the past, I sometimes see the scale go up. Drives me insane. And do we need to talk about bodybuilding and the BMI?
I wanted a more objective goal broadly as body fat% and specifically pant size. I just don't want to obsess over the weekly scale.
As far as timing, my goal is to get in shape asap where as trainer naturally want to prolong income payment. Nothing wrong with that but it's a hunch.
Bottom line, Does a wife really care how much her hubby weighs if he looked really good? :-)
Mike
The goal of a personal trainer should not only be to help you, but to get rid of you. Because by that time, you should know the basics on how to continue on your own. Granted there are some people who just have to have a trainer for accountability and direction (I have a few), but trainers trying to just hang onto to clients for income just show they aren't that good. There are lots and lots of people that need help and if you help enough, income will take care of itself.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Rainbowbow, you asked about my goals I want body fat of 10-15% and pant size of 33-34. Weight loss is mostly secondary. Trainer said it would take 18 months. I was hoping for a year by my next birthday. We may have different priorities.
I'm confused. You say weight loss is secondary, yet your main goal is to lose fat. Can you elaborate?
Hi Rainbowbow,
I see why you're confused. I find the scale to be very misleading and heartbreaking. When I gain muscle and get fit in the past, I sometimes see the scale go up. Drives me insane. And do we need to talk about bodybuilding and the BMI?
I wanted a more objective goal broadly as body fat% and specifically pant size. I just don't want to obsess over the weekly scale.
As far as timing, my goal is to get in shape asap where as trainer naturally want to prolong income payment. Nothing wrong with that but it's a hunch.
Bottom line, Does a wife really care how much her hubby weighs if he looked really good? :-)
Mike
While I don't agree with all the reasons your trainer gave, I do believe the advice to eat more is good and not necessarily to draw out your membership with him/her.
There is a lot of good reasons to lose weight slower as already mentioned in this thread.4 -
There is more than one issue here. The first is: can you successfully lose weight and not suffer "metabolic damage", and get adequate nutrition on 1600 cal/day and a vigorous workout routine. The answer is yes you can and no you won't suffer any "damage". The second is more behavioral: is that rigorous an intake something you can sustain for a long time and how easily can it translate into a maintenance lifestyle. I think you are going against the odds on that one. Third: can you sustain a vigorous volume of exercise at your size and that intake. Probably not at a high performance level, even though I doubt you are burning as many exercise calories as you think.
It's probably not a bad idea to bump the intake up a bit, although it doesn't have to be a lot. Maybe to 1800-2000. And forget you ever heard the term "clean eating", and anything else that trainer told you.1 -
The all important question that needs asked here, and it's probably the most important question on 99.9% of all threads, is how accurate is your calorie counting? People are always quick to say someone is eating too little, and I agree completely that at your height and weight your calorie intake is too low which can have negative effects, BUT this is all assuming your calorie count is accurate. When I first began losing weight I ate "1200" calories, thing was, when I factor in weekly cheat days, miscalculating, estimating portion sizes, forgetting to log things, etc my "1200" was probably closer to 2000-2500 which was appropriate for me. Are you weighing 100% of what you eat on a food scale (measuring spoons and cups DONT count)? Do you prepare and weigh all your own meals? Do you have cheat days? Do you eat out or at friends and families house? All those things matter greatly in determining if your calories really are too low or not. 2100 calories as your trainer suggests absolutely seems appropriate, but in actuality, unless you are very good at counting calories (extremely uncommon for a beginner) you might already be eating that much...10
-
I've found that for some, eating more actually helps you to lose more [which is odd]. Yesterday I did my best to eat around 2000 calories [instead of my usual 1500-1600] and I actually lost 3 pounds. I assume most of that was water weight, but still.
Yes.....what you're describing is natural weight fluctuation. Eating more and still losing weight only works if you are already eating at a deficit and losing weight. You will just lose slower.
Eating more is never the answer to trying to lose weight. If it were there would be no fat people.
My TDEE is 2900 calories, so even eating around 2000 calories a day keeps it well below that, so still a loss.
Okay........
But do you get my point?
Eating more to lose weight is never the answer, but eating more and still losing weight is appropriate when you are already in a calorie deficit. If your TDEE is 2900, and you eat 2000 calories a day, of course you will lose weight. 1 -
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I just started working a personal trainer and he told me the same thing except for the bread part your trainer told you. I've been eating at 1,200. I lost 90 pounds and started really slowing down. He said to bump it up to 2,000 calories on workout days and 1,800 on non-workout days. He explained to me like a car can only go so far with limited fuel. When I was a lot bigger I had an abundance of fuel (stored fat). Now that I'm smaller my body doesn't want to let go of the fat because I'm not giving it enough fuel to work with.
Your body doesn't hold onto fat due to lack of fuel. In fact, if you eat too little you will lose weight, just like if you eat too much you will gain. It's science. 1 -
I wouldn't listen to a mechanic for medical advice, so don't listen to a trainer for nutritional advice. Unless that trainer has an advanced degree in nutrition, a trainer is going off of the same bias we all have of X or Y diet plans, etc.1
-
I've found that for some, eating more actually helps you to lose more [which is odd]. Yesterday I did my best to eat around 2000 calories [instead of my usual 1500-1600] and I actually lost 3 pounds. I assume most of that was water weight, but still.
Yes.....what you're describing is natural weight fluctuation. Eating more and still losing weight only works if you are already eating at a deficit and losing weight. You will just lose slower.
Eating more is never the answer to trying to lose weight. If it were there would be no fat people.
My TDEE is 2900 calories, so even eating around 2000 calories a day keeps it well below that, so still a loss.
Okay........
But do you get my point?
Eating more to lose weight is never the answer, but eating more and still losing weight is appropriate when you are already in a calorie deficit. If your TDEE is 2900, and you eat 2000 calories a day, of course you will lose weight.
I guess I should have worded it better, or added the part about keeping it under your TDEE. Sorry about that.
I was just saying that you seem to lose more weight when your cut isn't so extreme [for me, 900 cut vs 1500 cut]. Probably because with an extreme cut your metabolism slows down.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions