Stuck...am I not eating enough?
Replies
-
Some of the Polar HRM's have a strength training mode. I think it is considered more accurate, but the number of calories burned during strength training is pretty fuzzy in general due to recovery calories. I usually don't count strength training calories unless I am trying to gain.1
-
I agree that it's very unlikely that you're burning 700 calories from your workouts. I burn that with 1.5 hour of pretty intense cardio, for example (basically uphill walking - I only burn 450 calories on the bike in that time)... and strength training really doesn't burn as many calories.
I'm 5'5" as well and I lost the weight eating 1600-1700 but I was weighing everything, using accurate entries (that might be one of your issues too), working out one hour a day (mostly cardio) while being fairly active as well (I'm a SAHM, I rarely sit more than one hour at a time).
Bottom line, decrease your calories by 100 or 200 or be more accurate with your logging.3 -
It's extremely unlikely that you're burning 700 calories from Zumba unless you're doing it for 2 hours straight.3
-
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.
If your polar is as "accurate" as my fitbit then you are most certainly overestimating your burn and underestimating your calories in. I eat a max of 50% of my fitbit calories back, if i calculated my food off of what my fitbit says my TDEE is, i would gain weight.
1 -
How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.1 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
she's 5'5" and 181lbs - I didn't see anywhere she talked about needing a 6 pack. She still has weight to lose to be in a healthy range.1 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
Really about the 6 packs...I know lots of women with them who just are living life.
It is not unhealthy as long as you are eating enough and if you were low BF and hair was falling out etc you weren't eating enough and you were unhealthy...6 -
As others have said, a plateau never means eat more.
You basically have been eating maintenance calories and obviously more than you think you are.
Tighten up the logging, use a food scale, don't eat back too many exercise calories and you'll soon be on a losing streak once more.0 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????7 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
cause she had one and wasn't healthy...ie hair falling out, fainting, skin to dry cracking and bleeding...sounds like malnutrition to me....5 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
cause she had one and wasn't healthy...ie hair falling out, fainting, skin to dry cracking and bleeding...sounds like malnutrition to me....
well yea, if you malnourish yourself to the point where you have 8% body fat, but I don't think you would even have a six pack at that point..2 -
At your stats weight should be falling off at 1500 cals.
Are you using a food scale accurately?
are you eating back a calorie burn? if so how much?
The maths aren't adding up here
1 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
Hoping that's sarcasm. Amenorrhea and the accompanying osteoporosis don't usually do wonders for actuary tables.
You can have a 6 pack without amenorrhea6 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
Hoping that's sarcasm. Amenorrhea and the accompanying osteoporosis don't usually do wonders for actuary tables.
so you are saying that any female with a six pack will have amenorrhea and osteoporosis? Hope you are not serious...6 -
First of all Congratulations on losing 60 pounds!!! That is amazing. I have no sage advice for you other than what has already been said here (and there has been great advice) but I feel like maybe you are being awfully hard on yourself. You have accomplished so much. Having said that 10 months clearly indicates either a miscalculation in what you are eating/burning or a health problem. I am neither a doctor nor a nutritionist but I think that's common sense. Don't give up. That's what happens when we gain it all back. I hope you find a way to get going again. For what it's worth you and I are about the same size although I would wager you are way more fit and definately decades younger, lol. Hang in there kiddo.1
-
Go back to the MFP goal settings and refigure everything. You could up your activity level to get a higher calorie budget (for example, if you had it at sedentary before, put it at lightly active), then don't eat back exercise calories - consider your exercise accounted for.0
-
goldthistime wrote: »Perhaps what might help is eating more for a short period of time, like two weeks for instance. A refeed. Your weight will go up a little but you may find it easier to lose what you gained and then some afterwards. I've read opinions that say refeeds are more of a mental break than a physical advantage, but it's worked fairly reliably for me. (My refeeds have all been unplanned, but still seemed to be more helpful than harmful).
I was going to suggest this as well. 2 weeks ago I was sitting at 140 unable to break to the 130's. I took a week at maintenance+100 cals and dropped the following week back to my deficit of 1700. This week SUPRISE 138.0
The only thing is I don't suggest this for individuals who are over weight at all. This protocol is better used for people who are already lean trying to get leaner. It provides a mental break as well as additional fuel to get thru training.
There is an error in her logging. That is the only answer here she does not need a reefed.0 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
You didn't have those symptoms because you had a six pack, you had them because of another medical issue, perhaps malnutrition.
I see six packs on women a lot at the gym, and they are not doing bodybuilding competitions. They are just working out pretty darned hard. They all seem very healthy to me.
This is a situation of eating too much, not muscle building.3 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
Hoping that's sarcasm. Amenorrhea and the accompanying osteoporosis don't usually do wonders for actuary tables.
so you are saying that any female with a six pack will have amenorrhea and osteoporosis? Hope you are not serious...
No, not all, but quite a few. If you get amenorrhea, it will increase osteoporosis risk substantially if sustained.
A six pack on a woman is not necessarily a sign of health.
It's not necessarily a sign of bad health either.
2 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
Hoping that's sarcasm. Amenorrhea and the accompanying osteoporosis don't usually do wonders for actuary tables.
so you are saying that any female with a six pack will have amenorrhea and osteoporosis? Hope you are not serious...
No, not all, but quite a few. If you get amenorrhea, it will increase osteoporosis risk substantially if sustained.
A six pack on a woman is not necessarily a sign of health.
neither is having one unhealthy.
2 -
beetle_stomper wrote: »How much are you still looking to lose? If it's already been said, I missed it; sorry. I ask because, as a female, you're going to have a little bit of belly fat unless you're severely dehydrated. Women just store more fat than men. I'm not talking rolls or anything, I know plenty of healthy girls with very flat stomachs, but I also have a vendetta against the unrealistic body images a lot of the fitness community propagates. Unless you're training for a bodybuilding competition or similar, it's rare to see a 6-pack on women. It's also very unhealthy. That little bit of padding keeps the core systems running at an optimal rate. When I was at a very low BF level, I lost circulation constantly, my hair fell out in clumps, I passed out (twice), my skin cracked and bled, I basically felt like death 24/7.
And we can't forget, a pound of muscle looks a hell of a lot smaller than a pound of fat. If you're doing those hardcore regimes regularly, you've got a lot of heavy muscle on you. So it's not about weight there, it's about tone and inches.
Lastly, your body WILL adapt to a lower calorie intake and become more efficient at using them. Basically, you burn fewer even doing your usual routine. A HRM can't really account for that, because all it does is count the BPMs.
how in the world would you think a six pack on a woman is not healthy?????
Hoping that's sarcasm. Amenorrhea and the accompanying osteoporosis don't usually do wonders for actuary tables.
so you are saying that any female with a six pack will have amenorrhea and osteoporosis? Hope you are not serious...
No, not all, but quite a few. If you get amenorrhea, it will increase osteoporosis risk substantially if sustained.
A six pack on a woman is not necessarily a sign of health.
conversely, it is not a sign of poor health either...
2 -
Funny no one is talking about what is contained in the "1500" calories eaten regardless of the exercise.... Once I started watching macros, and changed the combo up when calculating what foods I was eating, my plateau ended and started losing again, doing my same fitness program.0
-
sarahlifts wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Perhaps what might help is eating more for a short period of time, like two weeks for instance. A refeed. Your weight will go up a little but you may find it easier to lose what you gained and then some afterwards. I've read opinions that say refeeds are more of a mental break than a physical advantage, but it's worked fairly reliably for me. (My refeeds have all been unplanned, but still seemed to be more helpful than harmful).
I was going to suggest this as well. 2 weeks ago I was sitting at 140 unable to break to the 130's. I took a week at maintenance+100 cals and dropped the following week back to my deficit of 1700. This week SUPRISE 138.0
The only thing is I don't suggest this for individuals who are over weight at all. This protocol is better used for people who are already lean trying to get leaner. It provides a mental break as well as additional fuel to get thru training.
There is an error in her logging. That is the only answer here she does not need a reefed.
I agree with others that 700 calories is way too high a burn for Zumba and that there have to be other logging errors, or she would be losing. Either that or she is very short or old, because 1500 calories seems like a reasonable goal. Ten months is a long plateau.
I still think a refeed is a good way to go though. Part of my zeal for refeeds is that they have worked so well for me. I come back to a deficit with renewed vigour and determination, the bit of weight I gained falls away quickly and I finally break through to "new numbers" as I like to call them. Everything seems easier. I assume that there has been some kind of hormone/metabolism change taking place. Most of the refeed articles are aimed at people just like the OP who have lost a significant amount of weight and are plateauing.
Perhaps it is my terminology that is misleading. What I am suggesting is also known as a diet break.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html/
Personally, I'm driven to "cheat" or log incorrectly when it's too tough. And how tough it feels seems to be affected by leptin, ghrelin, peptide yy etc. Getting those hormones closer to normal levels makes the whole process easier.
I'm not sure why it matters whether a person is lean or still overweight when a refeed or diet break is being considered but I'm willing to listen.
ETA: I went back and reread. At 5'5", and 29 years old, 1500 calories is, imo, slightly aggressive but reasonable.0 -
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?
0 -
delilah116 wrote: »Funny no one is talking about what is contained in the "1500" calories eaten regardless of the exercise.... Once I started watching macros, and changed the combo up when calculating what foods I was eating, my plateau ended and started losing again, doing my same fitness program.
1500 calories = 1500 calories, regardless of macros..
unless you increased protein you may have seen a small increase from TEF but that is marginal...
more than likely you corrected logging inaccuracy.3 -
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.0 -
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.
this has nothing to do with the OP or if having a six pack is healthy or not....
I know lots of women with six packs who don't have issues at all...ever.3 -
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?3 -
Maybe one way to position your training and calories burned is to only track your cardio and not input calories for strength training? One way to look at it is this: you manage your diet for weight loss, and you exercise to reach your fitness goals. So keep your CICO separate from your exercise. This is why a lot of people will log/track their exercise but change the calories burned to "1" so they don't over-estimate or eat them back.1
-
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?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions