Am I consuming enough calories and exercising enough

[lip3]

Hi Everyone I am new to this

I am a 22 year old female. I used to weigh between 134 to 137 lbs. I am 5'7 so I was right in me BMI and weight class. I started exercising on Nov. 12 and eating less.

For exercise I do a half hour of pilates: 10 minutes of Pilates Fat Burn, 10 min of Buns and Legs Tone, and 10 min. of Abs, and I do the 8 minute abs program, and I do a half hour of cardio: usually a combo of Tae Bo, Cardio Dance, and Belly Dance. I do this routine six times a week, and usually take a day to rest.

In terms of eating, I used to never count the calories and would eat normally, maybe even too many sweets and meats. Since I decided to lose weight I started eating a 1000 calorie diet: slice or two of bread, peanut butter, corn, peas, cabbage, and whole grain cereal and bars. I also drink a lot of water.

Since Nov. 12 I have gone down to 123 lbs (which is around 2 lbs per week I believe) Is this normal? Am I doing my routine right? Should I be eating more or exercising more? Am I pushing myself to hard? As of now, I am happy with the results, but I don't want to get stuck or plateau yet. I want to get down to 115 lbs. What do I need to do to ensure that by Feb. 14 I reach my goal?

Also, though the scale says I am losing weight, I am not sure if I look much thinner. Grant it I want to look like a skinny model, and everyone says I look thinner, but I want to make sure, as I am going in February to a country in the middle of summer, and I want to look good in a bikini. Maybe I simply can't see it? Still what do I need to do to loose 8-15 lbs by Feb. 14?

 

[Steve]

For exercise I do a half hour of pilates: 10 minutes of Pilates Fat Burn, 10 min of Buns and Legs Tone, and 10 min. of Abs, and I do the 8 minute abs program

Whoever named those workouts should be shot.

Nothing against you.

I do a half hour of cardio: usually a combo of Tae Bo, Cardio Dance, and Belly Dance. I do this routine six times a week, and usually take a day to rest.

Do you do this from the privacy of your home? Or do you belong to a gym?

In terms of eating, I used to never count the calories and would eat normally, maybe even too many sweets and meats. Since I decided to lose weight I started eating a 1000 calorie diet: slice or two of bread, peanut butter, corn, peas, cabbage, and whole grain cereal and bars. I also drink a lot of water.

I'm surprised your weight loss hasn't slowed already with that kind of caloric intake.... you are lucky. Most would have plateaued by now.

Your cals are low. Not terribly for someone your size, but low none the less.

And where is your protein?

Since Nov. 12 I have gone down to 123 lbs (which is around 2 lbs per week I believe) Is this normal?

That's a good rate of weight loss. How are you tracking your caloric intake?

 

[lip3]

I do this at home. I am abroad in Ukraine and the gyms here are pitiful and very expensive. Sometimes I speedwalk as well. As of now the workouts, though terribly named they may be, seem to work and tone me. My heart rate increases into the 60-80% range.

Peanut butter has a lot of protein and I do eat chicken once in a while, but I tend to stay away from meat and predominantly eat fruits and vegetables.

So if I continue with the low calorie diet I will plateau soon? What should I increase too?

 

[lip3]

One other thing about the calorie intake. I know this is terribly unhealthy and wrong, but the fact that this seems to work makes me confused and skeptical about the importance of calorie intake. I know many of the models are anorexic and obviously eat way below 1200 calories, but they seem to lose lots of weight doing it. Now, I would never do that, but since they could lose weight from eating almost nothing and exercising, why do I need to maintain at least 1200 calories? It seems to work for them to eat less than that. Any comments would be appreciated.

 

[Steve]

As of now the workouts, though terribly named they may be, seem to work and tone me.

Your definition of what works is weight loss and when you're eating 1000 calories per day.... it truthfully doesn't matter what you do in terms of exercise. Absolutely anything is going to *work* in said context.

Toning is a function of fat loss.

Not a particular exercise.

My heart rate increases into the 60-80% range.

There are two important modes of exercise; aerobic and anaerobic.

Many think the heart has to be racing for something to be considered exercise. It doesn't. When I train with weights, I'm getting an awesome workout with amazing results, yet I'm rarely out of breath nor does my heart rate rise by much.

Peanut butter has a lot of protein

Not really relatively speaking. I label protein as more a source of fat than protein....

You are right though, it does contain protein.

and I do eat chicken once in a while, but I tend to stay away from meat and predominantly eat fruits and vegetables.

There are two essential macronutrients; protein and fats.

Right now I'd bet you are low in both.

So if I continue with the low calorie diet I will plateau soon? What should I increase too?

Any diet is going to lead to an eventual plateau.

In general, the *harder* you diet, the faster this will happen.

In general too, the *harder* you diet when you don't have a lot to lose to begin with, the better the chances of losing muscle. Especially in the absence of any real form of resistance training and low/no protein.

The goal should be fat loss.

Not weight loss.

 

[maverick2]

Sure, lots of models lose weight by not eating enough. Lots of them also collapse and die of anorexia-induced heart attacks and other complications from living an unheathy lifestyle.







Anorexia doesn't "work" for anyone. It causes osteoporosis, heart arrythmia (a leading cause of anorexia-related death), infertility, and organ failure.

It's real easy to be skinny if you're dead.

 

[Steve]

One other thing about the calorie intake. I know this is terribly unhealthy and wrong, but the fact that this seems to work makes me confused and skeptical about the importance of calorie intake.

Again, it's about your definition of work.

Of course very low caloric intakes are going to lead to a reduction in the scale. Something would be seriously wrong with you if they didn't.

My definition of work though is health and a good physique. Malnutrition is usually not a prerequisite for either of these.

I know many of the models are anorexic and obviously eat way below 1200 calories, but they seem to lose lots of weight doing it.

If you're going for the anorexic, crackhead look..... that's easy.

Most models today are grossly underweight and repulsively skinny, in my opinion. Obtaining that look is simply a matter of poor diet and caloric restriction.

If you are going for tone/definition and a healthy/fit look, this method will not get you there.

Now, I would never do that, but since they could lose weight from eating almost nothing and exercising, why do I need to maintain at least 1200 calories?

See all that I've said above.

If all that mattered was the number on the scale, this would be the easiest damn thing in the world.

 

[lip3]

No, I agree with you. What they do is terrible. My point in bringing it up, is that I just confused with how a low calorie intake can cause you to plateau your weight loss, when you hear about these girls doing it and it seems to work for them. I don't want to do that, and never will, I just need someone to explain to me how exactly and in what situations a low calorie diet can cause you to stop losing weight.

 

[allyphoe]

I'm far from being an expert, and this is just my opinion.

If your body gets used to very very low calorie levels, it gets more efficient. There's a limit to that efficiency, so if you didn't eat anything at all, you'd continue to lose weight right up until you starved to death. But if you don't starve to death, you're likely to have a lower-than-average maintenance calorie level compared to other people of your weight and height. So you're more likely to regain that weight (and then some) when you stop the low-calorie diet, even if you only eat "normal" portions.

 

[lip3]

Okay I understand now.

One final question:

I cannot go to the gym and do not have any high-tech equipment at home, except for two hand held dumb bells. What kind of resistance training can I do at home?

 

[lip3]

I also do reps of push ups, squats, lunges, and shoulder workouts. I believe that is a form of resistance training.

 

[slavke]

I personally hate doing calorie counting. I just make sure my breakfast is the biggest meal of the day and I eat between breakfast and lunch, some sort of snack (apple or few almonds). Just make sure you never let your self be too hungry that you can hear your stomach make noises. Take small portions when you eat and give it time instead of going all out with big meal. For example when I am hungry in unexpected time i eat something small (piece of fruit, vegetable or few nuts) than I give it some time and if I am hungry again I take some more until I am satisfied. Its better if you eat little bit every hour or so than having 2 big meals in one day. My average calorie count is probably around 1500 a day, sometimes I go lower and sometimes I go higher than that. Just try not to rely on calorie counting too much even though 1000 calories is really low. Follow what you body tells you and eat healthy food with proper servings. Hope this helps.

 

[Blancita]

No, I agree with you. What they do is terrible. My point in bringing it up, is that I just confused with how a low calorie intake can cause you to plateau your weight loss, when you hear about these girls doing it and it seems to work for them. I don't want to do that, and never will, I just need someone to explain to me how exactly and in what situations a low calorie diet can cause you to stop losing weight.

At 1,000 calories a day I would think its easy to lose weight when being normally active plus adding in daily exercise. My question is what happens when you tire of eating only fruits and veggies and a restrictive 1,000 calories? Will you not put on weight as you start to eat normally again, since you've now slowed your metabolism? Or do you plan on living on 1,000 calories for the rest of your days? Sounds like a horrible and deprived existence to me. Being 115 and 5'7" also doesn't sound so sexy but I guess its all about your own preferences.

 

[Blancita]

Its better if you eat little bit every hour or so than having 2 big meals in one day.

Why is that?

 

[slavke]

Why is that?

it speeds up your metabolism that way and makes it easier for your stomach to digest the food you eat.

 

[Steve]

it speeds up your metabolism that way and makes it easier for your stomach to digest the food you eat.

More meals does not = faster metabolism.

Certainly popular myth, but simply untrue.

 

[slavke]

More meals does not = faster metabolism.

Certainly popular myth, but simply untrue.

myth or not it works for my diet.

 

[Steve]

myth or not it works for my diet.

Right, it works for you. I was not contesting this.

I was contesting your statement about the speed up in metabolism.

It works for you not b/c of a magical stoking of the metabolic fire just b/c you eat more often. It could, however, be working for a multitude of other reasons such as increased satiety, caloric control, etc, etc.

 

[Blancita]

Right, it works for you. I was not contesting this.

I was contesting your statement about the speed up in metabolism.

It works for you not b/c of a magical stoking of the metabolic fire just b/c you eat more often. It could, however, be working for a multitude of other reasons such as increased satiety, caloric control, etc, etc.

I have also read about studies showing the opposite effect, that fat metabolizes easier and faster when eating less frequently. However, I'm not a scientist, and seeing as there are several different theories and studies showing different outcomes, and different studies are coming out all the time which challenge "set in stone" theories, I find it a mistake to claim as fact any of these theories without noting that there are also counterbalancing theories surrounding the majority of weight loss issues.

 

[Steve]

I have also read about studies showing the opposite effect, that fat metabolizes easier and faster when eating less frequently. However, I'm not a scientist, and seeing as there are several different theories and studies showing different outcomes, and different studies are coming out all the time which challenge "set in stone" theories, I find it a mistake to claim as fact any of these theories without noting that there are also counterbalancing theories surrounding the majority of weight loss issues.

Haha, Claudia, nothing is set in stone. To believe otherwise would be terrible for anyone.

But I'm not about to put a disclaimer on all things I say stating, "This is subject to change as new science unveils better findings."

That would be stupid.

And what you miss about much of what I say on this forum is this: It's based primarily on anecdotal evidence. I never let science dictate reality.... only define what is already known and/or observable.

And I know that on many, many occasions I've gotten myself or clients equally lean eating fewer meals opposed to more and vice versa.

Differences are going to be beyond negligible that I couldn't care less what science tells me from this point forward to be honest..... b/c it's not going to change my advice.

To add, on the subject of meal timing and frequency.... there isn't enough scientific evidence at all to suggest any concrete answers.