EPTI find it hard to believe you're at 18% bf and not dropping in weight on that kind of caloric intake. Anyway I would suggest upping your intake to atleast 1500kcal per day because there is no way you can support everyday life and lifting on a 1150kcal average(and even 1500 is probably way too low but I guess you have to start somewhere).
Fitness Questions & Answers - Page 104
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Sneakyz
Sweden2361 Posts
I find it hard to believe you're at 18% bf and not dropping in weight on that kind of caloric intake. Anyway I would suggest upping your intake to atleast 1500kcal per day because there is no way you can support everyday life and lifting on a 1150kcal average(and even 1500 is probably way too low but I guess you have to start somewhere). | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
 Keep us updated and I'm glad you shared your struggles with us. You can make the change | ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
Like what others have said, you're probably losing so little fat because you suddenly changed your caloric intake from a ton (you said you used to eat too much) to way too little, causing your metabolism to mess up. Your body pretty much went into shock, and thus went into "starvation-survival" mode, where you burn very very little calories each day (because your body is trying to survive on so little calories). Basically, if you continue down this road, you will suffer from malnutrition because you don't eat enough, you will not lose weight because your body is burning very few calories, and you will not gain muscle because your body is using all of its calories and nutrients to maintain the most important functions. What you gotta do is to slowly up your caloric intake by eating higher quality foods. That is key. Eating only a couple fruits and a sandwich is not enough to get your body what it needs to function normally, burn off extra fat, and build muscle. The main things you should be eating are meat and veggies. Beef, chicken, fish, eggs, broccoli, spinach, kale, asparagus, are all good. Throw in a fruit or two each day. This diet will give you the nutrients you need to stay healthy, will keep you full so you won't end up binge eating, and will not be high in calories. The other point is that you should up your intake gradually. Don't go from eating 500kcal a day to eating 3000. Up it by 150-200 each day to let your body adjust. | ||
|
rEiGN~
369 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 19 2012 04:33 rEiGN~ wrote: So, if your body goes to starvation-survival mode where your body composition and weight remains the same, what are the long term drawbacks? Otherwise eating 1000 kcal daily without problems would sound pretty good. Extreme fatigue, headaches, inability to gain weight, weakened immune system, difficulty regulating body temperature, difficulty recovering from even non-strenuous physical activity. Imagine having all the downsides of being drunk (without feeling good), along with having the flu, for an extended period of time. There may be more things other people have, others may not have all of those, that's just my experience from when my Crohn's first got diagnosed, and I was getting way undernourished. | ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
you'll probably have to ask eshlow or someone more knowledgeable in this topic if you want a more biochemical and technical explanation of what actually goes on. this is just stuff i remember from physiology class.... | ||
|
theJob
272 Posts
| ||
|
Snuggles
United States1865 Posts
Like you I would eat only 1000 - 1200 calories a day, nothing but salad and chicken breasts. I also ran a fair amount during that time as well so I was losing some weight but very little. In the entire period I had starved myself I only lost around 5 lbs but I still looked terrible. Why? Because I didn't have any muscle on my body lol. There's also the terrible yo-yo affect where once you stop dieting all the fat hops right back on you and it's even harder to get rid of since your metabolism is all messed up. So it goes like , 'lose 5lbs, gain 15lb more' and so on. Of course I can't say the same about your body, but regardless of how anyone's body may be, I'm pretty damn sure that eating under your BMR is BAD. I'm pretty sure it's one of those things that's simply common sense and doesn't need a research sheet to prove itself (but it's there if you're a real stickler). Plus you're working out too man, YOU GOTTA EAT BRO. Once you realize that you should be eating 2200 calories a day with an active workout routine you'll love it. These people here have been doing it for a long time and I can assure you that they are not exaggerating one little bit about calories. This is coming from my own experience which you may relate to since it seems like we follow the same train of thought. Like 2 months ago I thought I'd be alright just eating my at my BMR while working out, I lost fat and my gains, end result was me still looking like a pussy. Just gotta eat man. | ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
On October 21 2012 05:02 Snuggles wrote: + Show Spoiler + Damn Knap4Life you're doing what I used to do when I had issues with my body image. You can't starve yourself man, its literally the worst possible thing you can do for your body in my opinion. Like you I would eat only 1000 - 1200 calories a day, nothing but salad and chicken breasts. I also ran a fair amount during that time as well so I was losing some weight but very little. In the entire period I had starved myself I only lost around 5 lbs but I still looked terrible. Why? Because I didn't have any muscle on my body lol. There's also the terrible yo-yo affect where once you stop dieting all the fat hops right back on you and it's even harder to get rid of since your metabolism is all messed up. So it goes like , 'lose 5lbs, gain 15lb more' and so on. Of course I can't say the same about your body, but regardless of how anyone's body may be, I'm pretty damn sure that eating under your BMR is BAD. I'm pretty sure it's one of those things that's simply common sense and doesn't need a research sheet to prove itself (but it's there if you're a real stickler). Plus you're working out too man, YOU GOTTA EAT BRO. Once you realize that you should be eating 2200 calories a day with an active workout routine you'll love it. These people here have been doing it for a long time and I can assure you that they are not exaggerating one little bit about calories. This is coming from my own experience which you may relate to since it seems like we follow the same train of thought. Like 2 months ago I thought I'd be alright just eating my at my BMR while working out, I lost fat and my gains, end result was me still looking like a pussy. Just gotta eat man. I think the rule is 5-10% less than your daily calorie need, in order to lose fat without starving yourself. | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
| ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On October 23 2012 00:44 mordek wrote: Went to the gym near my parent's as I was visiting this weekend. Trainer comes up to me and my brother as we're squatting and I'm explaining form to him. He tells me we should have our feet forward. That's the natural way feet point and if they point out its because we've had bad technique in our activities throughout life. I know I've heard 30-45 degrees is normal and its comfortable and it gets your legs out of the way so you can go below parallel on squat. I still wasn't sure how to respond though. I just nodded my head and did it the same anyways. Is there anything out there that shows squatting in that stance is perfectly fine? There's no way I'm going to a narrow feet forward stance but I like to be able to defend my positions. Tell him feet out is a powerlifting squat while feet forward is a more olympic squat. I just went to the SS DVD, chose a random spot, and then jumped ahead 20 secs at a time. These were the first four frames: + Show Spoiler [Pictures] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6ynmt.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oGtq2.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rFF96.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X5Vif.jpg) From Starting Strength (p.13): We will use a fairly neutral foot placement, with the heels about shoulder width apart, the toes pointed out at about 30 degrees More from Starting Strength (p.30): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aGjWH.png) | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 23 2012 00:44 mordek wrote: Went to the gym near my parent's as I was visiting this weekend. Trainer comes up to me and my brother as we're squatting and I'm explaining form to him. He tells me we should have our feet forward. That's the natural way feet point and if they point out its because we've had bad technique in our activities throughout life. I know I've heard 30-45 degrees is normal and its comfortable and it gets your legs out of the way so you can go below parallel on squat. I still wasn't sure how to respond though. I just nodded my head and did it the same anyways. Is there anything out there that shows squatting in that stance is perfectly fine? There's no way I'm going to a narrow feet forward stance but I like to be able to defend my positions. A wider stance is going to give you better balance. And if you try to aim your feet forward with your knees out a bit for balance, you're putting abnormal torque on your knees and ankles, which increases the risk of injury. Now, obviously, as with just about any exercise, changing form can affect how you hit what muscles, but that's rarely a cause for alarm. Just try doing an empty handed squat with both stances, and feel the difference in the movement of your muscles. In particular, you should get a different feel in your quads and hips with the stance difference. Mind, I'm no expert with weights, that's just best guess from my experience with other types of exercise, but there's some parallels you can draw to martial arts and body weight stuff that make it a decently educated guess. | ||
|
iLikeRain
Denmark504 Posts
In response to Knap; I'd suggest checking with your doctor first to see if everything is alright. There are conditions which can affect the metabolism. Beyond that, make sure you get everything your body needs through food, a good balance of healthy fats, proteins, carbs (don't buy into a no-low-carb diet unless you know what you're doing), vitamins and minerals. Finally make sure your intake of calories is as close to your need as possible but still lower if you want to lose fat. Forcing the body to break down components to get energy too fast is not fun nor is it healthy. Severe side effects might occur. Study on starvation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490?dopt=Abstract | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
Too much caloric deficit can screw with your thyroid function, which determines metabolic rates of many tissues in the body, especially if you're under loads of stress, On the other hand, it's true that you can't out-do thermodynamics so starvation does eventually work albeit it's very unhealthy. Generally speaking, it's best to aim for a slow gradual weight loss, with occasional refeeds. Eat more fruits, vegetables, meats, fish. I would strongly suggest keeping a food log as well. People say they eat so little, but then you find out they're drinking sugary beverages, and not counting snacks, and whatever else. There was some study that showed that 80+% of overweight people underestimate how much they eat to some small or even large degree | ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
On October 23 2012 05:38 iLikeRain wrote: I think the lot of you throwing out terms like starvation mode and what not to Knap4Life need to realize what you're actually saying. No studies have ever shown such a biological response to starvation that you will discontinue weight loss at something like 1000 Kcal a day unless that is your average expendure (height, weight, illness). It's bro science and branded a myth that if you go into a very low intake your body will adjust and you will cease to lose weight, the only documented change is a slight decrease in metabolism (10-20%). The body will continue to break down fat and muscle to keep sure it has enough energy to operate all the important functions in your body. Eventually die of organ failure die to insufficient nutrition available. In response to Knap; I'd suggest checking with your doctor first to see if everything is alright. There are conditions which can affect the metabolism. Beyond that, make sure you get everything your body needs through food, a good balance of healthy fats, proteins, carbs (don't buy into a no-low-carb diet unless you know what you're doing), vitamins and minerals. Finally make sure your intake of calories is as close to your need as possible but still lower if you want to lose fat. Forcing the body to break down components to get energy too fast is not fun nor is it healthy. Severe side effects might occur. Study on starvation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490?dopt=Abstract How is this different from what we said? you wrote: The body will continue to break down fat and muscle to keep sure it has enough energy to operate all the important functions in your body. i wrote: your body is using all of its calories and nutrients to maintain the most important function once you're in this state, your body breaks down muscle for calories, making it very difficult to maintain body composition. you wrote: Eventually die of organ failure die to insufficient nutrition available. i wrote: if you continue down this road, you will suffer from malnutrition because you don't eat enough you wrote: make sure you get everything your body needs through food, a good balance of healthy fats, proteins, carbs (don't buy into a no-low-carb diet unless you know what you're doing), vitamins and minerals. i wrote: What you gotta do is to slowly up your caloric intake by eating higher quality foods. That is key. Eating only a couple fruits and a sandwich is not enough to get your body what it needs to function normally, burn off extra fat, and build muscle. The main things you should be eating are meat and veggies. Beef, chicken, fish, eggs, broccoli, spinach, kale, asparagus, are all good. Throw in a fruit or two each day. This diet will give you the nutrients you need to stay healthy, will keep you full so you won't end up binge eating, and will not be high in calories. That said, thanks for clearing up the fact that metabolism decreases only around 10 to 20% during prolonged starvation.. This was where I wasn't sure. Unfortunately, some of high school science turns out to be broscience as well  | ||
|
iLikeRain
Denmark504 Posts
| ||
|
Malinor
Germany4727 Posts
| ||
|
Snuggles
United States1865 Posts
On October 23 2012 15:02 iLikeRain wrote: I'm sorry if it came off as directed against certain people; it wasn't and particularly not you. The problem is just that it's a widespread believe that starvation will crash your metabolism completely which is just not true. I hear it all the time in the gym and pretty much everytime someone discusses diet/weight loss, and felt a need to clear that up. Mmm I'm assuming you were probably addressing my comments on it. I did believe that starvation would crash metabolism but I guess I now stand corrected =(. But at least we can all agree on it being generally unhealthy to under eat to that extreme. | ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
On October 23 2012 15:02 iLikeRain wrote: I'm sorry if it came off as directed against certain people; it wasn't and particularly not you. The problem is just that it's a widespread believe that starvation will crash your metabolism completely which is just not true. I hear it all the time in the gym and pretty much everytime someone discusses diet/weight loss, and felt a need to clear that up. ooohhh gotcha, misunderstood the tone of your post. always good to dispel myths | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
I've recently felt my daily workout has gotten stale and I'd like some advice from people who know this stuff better than me on how to get it to be more efficient! Background : + Show Spoiler + In the past ~14 months, I've lost about 70 pounds and have been slowly working my way up with exercise and diet to getting into shape. I've still got ~30-40 pounds to lose, and I've hit a snag recently and haven't lost any weight in the last 2 months, so I'm looking to up my daily exercises to fix that. My diet is already up to par. My current weekly schedule : + Show Spoiler + Weekends : I work 2x12 hours shifts so I have 0 time to dedicate to exercise. However, I do walk 12km a day because of travel to and from work. Weekdays : I do the same routine each day : 1) General stretches 2) Basic exercises that are not physically demanding : 1x100 ankle lifts (often done in 2 sets because I am prone to calf cramps and I can't help but take a small break once I feel them tensing @ ~60 reps). 1x100 wrist exercise (some light gripping exercise I found on many tennis based websites - not difficult) 1x100 butt clench (ahah I know, but I figured why not, I want to get in better shape overall not just legs/arms --- probably completely pointless as I don't feel anything doing them). 3) Exercises that are a bit more demanding : 4x25 curls (with 15 lbs dumbbells) 4x25 squats (no weights) 5x10 situps (working my way up, but I'm bad at them and I still have a big belly). Note : I do take a pretty long wait between each rep, and I'm wondering what is considered a good wait between reps! The issues : + Show Spoiler + 1) It takes a while to do all this and I'm not seeing any real results. I do feel like I'm in better shape than before overall, but I don't feel tired when doing my exercises (only for ~15 minutes, then it's like I did nothing). 2) Can't afford gym/new equipment. I MAY get 25 lbs dumbbells for myself at christmas simply because 15 lbs is just not challenging for me anymore, even with 100 reps. 3) What I have to work with : 2.5, 5, 10 and 15 lbs dumbbells are what I have. I can't really focus on aerobics exercise because I have people living under me and they would tear my head off if I started jumping around my apartment. My future plan/goal : + Show Spoiler + Ok this is where I need input. I've been thinking of splitting my week into 2 exercise routines, doing one 3 times, one twice. Routine 1 (leg focus) -Do the basic exercises I mentioned before as they are very quick to do (stretches, ankle lifts, etc) -150-200 squats (divided in 4 or 5x sets) -1 or 2 more leg exercise (I'm really not in the know for basic leg exercises so please help me!) -5x10 situps (work way up to 5x20 eventually) Routine 2 (upper body focus) -Do the basic exercises I mentioned before as they are very quick to do (stretches, ankle lifts, etc) -150-200 curls (divided in 4 or 5x sets) -5x20 reverse wrist curls (with 5 lbs weights) -5x5 pushups (I can barely do these right now : work way up to 5x20) -5x10 tricep extensions (which weight is safe for these? I stopped doing them with 15 lbs because I felt I was hurting myself more than anything!) -5x10 situps (work way up to 5x20 eventually) So basically, most of my exercises I already do, but eliminating 1 type of exercise and adding more to focus on 1 body area. I know I'm doing a lot of reps, but my reasoning is simple : if I can't do aerobics exercises, doing a lot of anaerobic ones with lower weight will still help my cardio. Note : I'm not sure if I should split the routines the same way each week or do 3/2 one week and 2/3 the other! So I know this was a long post but I didn't want to miss anything. Is what I have planned useful? Is there any easy improvement to these routines before I start them next week? Thanks for any help! | ||
| ||
