Re: focus on the deficit ...

June 5, 2006

How you doing Joni? Nice to see an " oldie " still here LOL. Hopefully

you remember me on and off for the past 4 years. =)

June 5, 2006

Joni,

I constantly focus on the deficit. The challenge is whether I'm

cutting too low, although I didnt think that was really possible since

I'm eating more than 1200 cals/day, I'm only 5'1 " . I thought that

since figure competitors and bodybuilders do this, why not me? But it

seems that I am losing lean mass as much as the fat now, so the advice

I'm getting is to increase calories. I find this to be a scary

proposition because I don't want to gain fat and get back to where I

started. I find this whole 'calories in vs out' thing annoying because

it really isnt that simple.

When I hit a plateau, I get more aggressive and cut back a bit more,

or increase activity a bit more, or reduce carbs a bit, etc. But this

just leads to another plateau. Eventually I'll be down to eating

sawdust if I keep it up!

Anyways, I'm upping my calories lately and we'll have to see how much

damage I do to my progress. lol

> From the Hussman website, something to remember ...

> " Now, if you've gone for more than about 6 weeks, working out

> consistently, without any measurable fat loss, you're probably

asking

> What's wrong with me?!!! I've seen this problem hundreds of times.

> Trust me. Nothing is wrong with you. There's only one reason you're

> not losing fat, and it's that you aren't creating a persistent

caloric

> deficit. FOCUS ON THE DEFICIT. "

> The rest of the article 'Unleash The Secret Weapon' is here:

> http://www.hussmanfitness.org/html/TSSecretWeapon.html

>

> joni

>

June 5, 2006

, it makes sense to me that a more athletic, active person

would be burning more calories (ie. more lean mass, harder

training). But once a plateau is reached, it seems that one would

have to (a) increase activity to burn more or ( reduce calories to

get the deficit. I don't have any more time or energy to burn more

with activity (i.e. I'll be overtraining for 'me'), so it would seem

I need to cut calories. But I'm being told to eat more....I can't

get my mind around how 'eating more' produces the deficit. My mind

won't seem to bend. lol

>>>>> The " eat more / eat less " thing seems contradictory at first

glance,

> but either way your weight loss stalls because you're NOT creating

a

> calorie deficit. In one case it's because you're eating too many

> calories, and in the other case it's because you're not burning

enough

> - as in, your metabolism has rolled over and died.

>

> Either way, you have to get the deficit happening again in order to

> burn body fat. You can make your metabolism faster with more fuel

and

> more activity, or you can make your calorie intake smaller with

less

> food, but you have to widen and maintain the deficit in order to

see

> changes.

>

> The more weight you have to lose and the higher your calorie

intake,

> the more likely you're still consuming too many calories, hence

> Hussman's advice. The leaner and more athletic you are, and the

harder

> you train, the more likely you've cut your calories too low for

your

> activity level and put the brakes on your metabolism.

>

> I hope that makes some kind of sense. It's a mind-bender for sure,

but

> if the goal is fat loss, " focus on the deficit " is the correct

advice

> in either situation.

>

June 5, 2006

Here is now I try to look at the " eat more to loose fat " thing....

Imagin you are beseiged. In your 'keep' you have people, some live

stock, grains and water. You could keep the livestock, feeding and

watering it, so that you have protein later, but by doing that you end

up, eventually with a bunch of hogs and no grain or water.

Alternately you can slaughter the same bunch of hogs now, preserve the

meat, and have meat, grain and water to sustain your people for a much

longer period of time.

Muscle is the hog. Great for energy and strength, but usues up

resources (fat just sits there, but muscle burns calories even when

you are sleeping). When you cut your calories too far your metabolism

looks for ways to consever what little you are taking in, and one way

to do that is to ditch muscle. Your lean mass decreases, your bf%

increases, you get more tired; it's harder to do weights, and you hit

a platau. Give yourself just a few more calories on average a day and

you body will give up storage and start building muscle again.

Does that help?

Barbara

June 5, 2006

ok, so I can see the logic in this, but it is like walking a

tightrope....sometimes a calorie cut is needed to get the deficit,

sometimes a calorie increase. Hussman's message is --- you must be

cheating, cut back those calories! And then I start to wonder if my

TDEE calculations are *really* that accurate? Maybe I am inflating

how much I am (or could) be burning, so 'better cut those calories

again'. It is hard for an analytical brain (my job is running a

dept where we build statistical models) to get past the simple

calorie calculation (in vs. out). And how many times have I heard

that there is no mystery to losing weight, simply push your chair

away from the table. ;-)

> Eating more revives your metabolism. If you have a fast metabolism,

> your body burns more calories both at rest and during training, and

> that metabolic boost is what makes the deficit bigger. It doesn't

> necessarily involve increasing your activity or reducing your

> calories, it involves convincing your body to burn more.

>

> There are plenty of people training 2 hours a day and living on

> lettuce who's body only burns 1000 calories per day. They can

either

> cut their calories to 800 and add a couple more hours of exercise,

or

> they can ease up on the calorie restriction and allow their

metabolism

> to recover to the point that it's burning the 1,500, 1,900 or 2,400

> calories that it should have been burning in the first place at

that

> activity level.

>

> Once your metabolism is back in action, you're able to start losing

> again at a higher calorie level.

>

> > , it makes sense to me that a more athletic, active person

> > would be burning more calories (ie. more lean mass, harder

> > training). But once a plateau is reached, it seems that one

would

> > have to (a) increase activity to burn more or ( reduce

calories to

> > get the deficit. I don't have any more time or energy to burn

more

> > with activity (i.e. I'll be overtraining for 'me'), so it would

seem

> > I need to cut calories. But I'm being told to eat more....I

can't

> > get my mind around how 'eating more' produces the deficit. My

mind

> > won't seem to bend. lol

> >

> > >>>>> The " eat more / eat less " thing seems contradictory at

first

> > glance,

> > > but either way your weight loss stalls because you're NOT

creating

> > a

> > > calorie deficit. In one case it's because you're eating too

many

> > > calories, and in the other case it's because you're not burning

> > enough

> > > - as in, your metabolism has rolled over and died.

> > >

> > > Either way, you have to get the deficit happening again in

order to

> > > burn body fat. You can make your metabolism faster with more

fuel

> > and

> > > more activity, or you can make your calorie intake smaller with

> > less

> > > food, but you have to widen and maintain the deficit in order

to

> > see

> > > changes.

> > >

> > > The more weight you have to lose and the higher your calorie

> > intake,

> > > the more likely you're still consuming too many calories, hence

> > > Hussman's advice. The leaner and more athletic you are, and the

> > harder

> > > you train, the more likely you've cut your calories too low for

> > your

> > > activity level and put the brakes on your metabolism.

> > >

> > > I hope that makes some kind of sense. It's a mind-bender for

sure,

> > but

> > > if the goal is fat loss, " focus on the deficit " is the correct

> > advice

> > > in either situation.

> > >

> >

June 6, 2006

Maybe it doesnt sound logical-

but I keep hearing from trainers and body builders things like " 3

pds of lean muscle burns 150 calories at rest " , as motivation to

keep building more muscle, hit the weights, dont be afraid etc.

The equations start sounding scientific (more lean body mass= more

caloric expenditure= higher food intake JUST to maintain)

hmmm, the places we'll go...

--

>

> , it makes sense to me that a more athletic, active person

> would be burning more calories (ie. more lean mass, harder

> training). But once a plateau is reached, it seems that one would

> have to (a) increase activity to burn more or ( reduce calories

to

> get the deficit. I don't have any more time or energy to burn

more

> with activity (i.e. I'll be overtraining for 'me'), so it would

seem

> I need to cut calories. But I'm being told to eat more....I can't

> get my mind around how 'eating more' produces the deficit. My

mind

> won't seem to bend. lol

>

> >>>>> The " eat more / eat less " thing seems contradictory at first

> glance,

> > but either way your weight loss stalls because you're NOT

creating

> a

> > calorie deficit. In one case it's because you're eating too many

> > calories, and in the other case it's because you're not burning

> enough

> > - as in, your metabolism has rolled over and died.

> >

> > Either way, you have to get the deficit happening again in order

to

> > burn body fat. You can make your metabolism faster with more

fuel

> and

> > more activity, or you can make your calorie intake smaller with

> less

> > food, but you have to widen and maintain the deficit in order to

> see

> > changes.

> >

> > The more weight you have to lose and the higher your calorie

> intake,

> > the more likely you're still consuming too many calories, hence

> > Hussman's advice. The leaner and more athletic you are, and the

> harder

> > you train, the more likely you've cut your calories too low for

> your

> > activity level and put the brakes on your metabolism.

> >

> > I hope that makes some kind of sense. It's a mind-bender for

sure,

> but

> > if the goal is fat loss, " focus on the deficit " is the correct

> advice

> > in either situation.

> >

>

June 6, 2006

,

I'm right there with you on all this. It's like you are reading my

mind. If your life is anything like mine, you have no more time for

exercise because of family responsibilities, etc. So, do I eat

less??? I am also a small person, 5'4 " but very small boned and a

VERY hard gainer. I am convinced for me the answer is I am eating

too much. When I reduced my calories I lost three pounds of fat in

the past month, but it appears I lost a little lean mass too.

In Fitday, at my activity level, I should be burning about 2,700

calories per day. But I am only taking in about 1200-1400 calories

per day and losing very slowly. So obviously there is more to it

than calories in/calories out. Someone posted that one pound of

muscle burns 50 calories more per day than fat, but that's been

disproved in a recent study. A pound of muscle only burns 5-10

calories more per day. So, I wouldn't worry too much about the

muscle loss. Anyway, all you know is you lost lean mass--that could

mean so many things: hormonal fluctuations, water retention, etc.,

not just muscle loss.

Did you read that Fitday journal link someone posted earlier? It

was the journal of a fitness competitor. She weighed 140 pounds and

was only taking in about 1,100-1,200 calories per day. No free days

or free anything. I assume she was working out hard. I weigh 118

and take in 1400 calories per day and I wonder why I am not losing

fat?

This is all very confusing. I am coming to the conclusion that I

just don't have the time or energy to plan meals that involve carb

cycling or high-low days or any of that other complicated, time-

consuming stuff. I don't have time to exercise more than I already

am. I only keep at it because I just want to know that I can make

my goal and be the best I can. This has to be a lifelong plan and

if I have to log every calorie into Fitday for the rest of my life I

don't know if I can keep that up. I'm wondering if the problem

isn't with my eating but my thinking? Maybe I need to be more

accepting of where I am?

Jen

> > > , it makes sense to me that a more athletic, active person

> > > would be burning more calories (ie. more lean mass, harder

> > > training). But once a plateau is reached, it seems that one

> would

> > > have to (a) increase activity to burn more or ( reduce

> calories to

> > > get the deficit. I don't have any more time or energy to burn

> more

> > > with activity (i.e. I'll be overtraining for 'me'), so it

would

> seem

> > > I need to cut calories. But I'm being told to eat more....I

> can't

> > > get my mind around how 'eating more' produces the deficit. My

> mind

> > > won't seem to bend. lol

> > >

> > > >>>>> The " eat more / eat less " thing seems contradictory at

> first

> > > glance,

> > > > but either way your weight loss stalls because you're NOT

> creating

> > > a

> > > > calorie deficit. In one case it's because you're eating too

> many

> > > > calories, and in the other case it's because you're not

burning

> > > enough

> > > > - as in, your metabolism has rolled over and died.

> > > >

> > > > Either way, you have to get the deficit happening again in

> order to

> > > > burn body fat. You can make your metabolism faster with more

> fuel

> > > and

> > > > more activity, or you can make your calorie intake smaller

with

> > > less

> > > > food, but you have to widen and maintain the deficit in

order

> to

> > > see

> > > > changes.

> > > >

> > > > The more weight you have to lose and the higher your calorie

> > > intake,

> > > > the more likely you're still consuming too many calories,

hence

> > > > Hussman's advice. The leaner and more athletic you are, and

the

> > > harder

> > > > you train, the more likely you've cut your calories too low

for

> > > your

> > > > activity level and put the brakes on your metabolism.

> > > >

> > > > I hope that makes some kind of sense. It's a mind-bender for

> sure,

> > > but

> > > > if the goal is fat loss, " focus on the deficit " is the

correct

> > > advice

> > > > in either situation.

> > > >

> > >

June 6, 2006

Jen, at 5'4 " and 118 pounds how much more fat do you have to loose?

I'm 5'6 and only plan on getting down to 140. Two inches can't make

that much difference, can it?

I hear people talk about struggling and being dissapointed in their

progress, then I hear they are size 6 or 118 pounds and I get

confused. Maybe it's just because I've always been so fat (I was 106

pounds in the fifth grade!) so I don't know what a woman 'ought' to

weigh or what size a woman 'ought' to be. And I know different body

types carry weight differently.

I guess at your current place the thing you want to be looking at is

bf% entierly. The scale really is meaningless because you are

OBVIOUSLY not over weight, but if you are not happy with your bf% you

have a goal to work on.

I think that Fitday gives too high a daily caloric need figure. I put

some stats into the Hussman site, making some assumptions about you

because I don't remember all of your stats. If you are a 34 year old

female with 20%bf at 118 pounds and 5'4 " Hussman says your BMR is

between 1290 and 1390, and your daily caloric 'burn' if you are active

is around 1980. He recommends 1120-1420 calories a day for fat

burning, but to build lean mass you would want to go a little higher,

1550-1900ish.

So, if your observation is that having lower than 1400 calories a day

helps you burn off some fat, then you are probalby correct. You are

probably also correct that you might loose some lean mass if you are

going too low. Body builders always say that you can't build lean mass

while burning fat, and it may be that you are at 'that' stage of the

process.

I don't think that cycling calories has to be all that complicated or

time consuming to plan. You don't have to add all that many to make a

difference, and we already do a bit of cycling with the free day.

Barbara

> > > > , it makes sense to me that a more athletic, active person

> > > > would be burning more calories (ie. more lean mass, harder

> > > > training). But once a plateau is reached, it seems that one

> > would

> > > > have to (a) increase activity to burn more or ( reduce

> > calories to

> > > > get the deficit. I don't have any more time or energy to burn

> > more

> > > > with activity (i.e. I'll be overtraining for 'me'), so it

> would

> > seem

> > > > I need to cut calories. But I'm being told to eat more....I

> > can't

> > > > get my mind around how 'eating more' produces the deficit. My

> > mind

> > > > won't seem to bend. lol

> > > >

> > > > >>>>> The " eat more / eat less " thing seems contradictory at

> > first

> > > > glance,

> > > > > but either way your weight loss stalls because you're NOT

> > creating

> > > > a

> > > > > calorie deficit. In one case it's because you're eating too

> > many

> > > > > calories, and in the other case it's because you're not

> burning

> > > > enough

> > > > > - as in, your metabolism has rolled over and died.

> > > > >

> > > > > Either way, you have to get the deficit happening again in

> > order to

> > > > > burn body fat. You can make your metabolism faster with more

> > fuel

> > > > and

> > > > > more activity, or you can make your calorie intake smaller

> with

> > > > less

> > > > > food, but you have to widen and maintain the deficit in

> order

> > to

> > > > see

> > > > > changes.

> > > > >

> > > > > The more weight you have to lose and the higher your calorie

> > > > intake,

> > > > > the more likely you're still consuming too many calories,

> hence

> > > > > Hussman's advice. The leaner and more athletic you are, and

> the

> > > > harder

> > > > > you train, the more likely you've cut your calories too low

> for

> > > > your

> > > > > activity level and put the brakes on your metabolism.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hope that makes some kind of sense. It's a mind-bender for

> > sure,

> > > > but

> > > > > if the goal is fat loss, " focus on the deficit " is the

> correct

> > > > advice

> > > > > in either situation.

> > > > >

> > > >

June 6, 2006

Hi Barabara, a 'rule of thumb' is usually about 3 lbs for every

inch, so 124 lbs would be the magic number at 5'6 " . The thing is

there are so many variables: bone structure, bodytype, bf%, etc etc,

that it is crazy to compare this way.

I understand where you are coming from, but part of this is having a

vision & goal in mind and wanting to achieve it. I thought I'd be

satisfied at a certain bf% but I'm not. I'm looking to get rid of

the last bit of 'roll' on my tummy, and the cellulite off the back

of my legs. I don't know the magic bf% that will get me there, I

just know how I want to look!

True, scale weight is meaningless, but it still plays tricks with

our minds. When I have a sister who weighs 100 lbs, being 116 lbs

seems too heavy. There is no doubt I am muscular and stocky (my

husband told me last night I should train for a natural

bodybuilding competition because he thinks I could do it). In my

minds eye, I would prefer to be thin and lean, so it is aggravating

that I put on muscle and don't lose scale weight.

I looked at your calorie estimates, and when I plug in numbers for

me (I'm not Jen), Fitday estimates about the same number as the

standard TDEE formula. The BMR for the standard formula & Hussman's

site are the same at about 1300 cals. But the activity factor is

higher for someone following BFL and doing some extras, so total

daily cals is 2240 not 1980 (Hussman's estimate). To get 3500 cal

defecit/wk, Jen should aim for 1700-1750 cals per day, which is

quite a bit higher than 1400. This 300-350 cal difference is the

gap I am experiencing in my calculations too, which is why I think

Jen & I are separated at birth. lol

>>>>>>> Jen, at 5'4 " and 118 pounds how much more fat do you have to

loose?

> I'm 5'6 and only plan on getting down to 140.

>>>>>> I hear people talk about struggling and being dissapointed in

their

> progress, then I hear they are size 6 or 118 pounds and I get

> confused. Maybe it's just because I've always been so fat (I was

106

> pounds in the fifth grade!) so I don't know what a woman 'ought' to

> weigh or what size a woman 'ought' to be. And I know different

body

> types carry weight differently.

>

> I guess at your current place the thing you want to be looking at

is

> bf% entierly. The scale really is meaningless because you are

> OBVIOUSLY not over weight, but if you are not happy with your bf%

you

> have a goal to work on.

>

> I think that Fitday gives too high a daily caloric need figure. I

put

> some stats into the Hussman site, making some assumptions about you

> because I don't remember all of your stats. If you are a 34 year

old

> female with 20%bf at 118 pounds and 5'4 " Hussman says your BMR is

> between 1290 and 1390, and your daily caloric 'burn' if you are

active

> is around 1980. He recommends 1120-1420 calories a day for fat

> burning, but to build lean mass you would want to go a little

higher,

> 1550-1900ish.

>

> So, if your observation is that having lower than 1400 calories a

day

> helps you burn off some fat, then you are probalby correct. You

are

> probably also correct that you might loose some lean mass if you

are

> going too low. Body builders always say that you can't build lean

mass

> while burning fat, and it may be that you are at 'that' stage of

the

> process.

>

> I don't think that cycling calories has to be all that complicated

or

> time consuming to plan. You don't have to add all that many to

make a

> difference, and we already do a bit of cycling with the free day.

>

> Barbara

>

> > > > > , it makes sense to me that a more athletic, active

person

> > > > > would be burning more calories (ie. more lean mass, harder

> > > > > training). But once a plateau is reached, it seems that

one

> > > would

> > > > > have to (a) increase activity to burn more or ( reduce

> > > calories to

> > > > > get the deficit. I don't have any more time or energy to

burn

> > > more

> > > > > with activity (i.e. I'll be overtraining for 'me'), so it

> > would

> > > seem

> > > > > I need to cut calories. But I'm being told to eat

more....I

> > > can't

> > > > > get my mind around how 'eating more' produces the

deficit. My

> > > mind

> > > > > won't seem to bend. lol

> > > > >

> > > > > >>>>> The " eat more / eat less " thing seems contradictory

at

> > > first

> > > > > glance,

> > > > > > but either way your weight loss stalls because you're

NOT

> > > creating

> > > > > a

> > > > > > calorie deficit. In one case it's because you're eating

too

> > > many

> > > > > > calories, and in the other case it's because you're not

> > burning

> > > > > enough

> > > > > > - as in, your metabolism has rolled over and died.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Either way, you have to get the deficit happening again

in

> > > order to

> > > > > > burn body fat. You can make your metabolism faster with

more

> > > fuel

> > > > > and

> > > > > > more activity, or you can make your calorie intake

smaller

> > with

> > > > > less

> > > > > > food, but you have to widen and maintain the deficit in

> > order

> > > to

> > > > > see

> > > > > > changes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The more weight you have to lose and the higher your

calorie

> > > > > intake,

> > > > > > the more likely you're still consuming too many

calories,

> > hence

> > > > > > Hussman's advice. The leaner and more athletic you are,

and

> > the

> > > > > harder

> > > > > > you train, the more likely you've cut your calories too

low

> > for

> > > > > your

> > > > > > activity level and put the brakes on your metabolism.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope that makes some kind of sense. It's a mind-bender

for

> > > sure,

> > > > > but

> > > > > > if the goal is fat loss, " focus on the deficit " is the

> > correct

> > > > > advice

> > > > > > in either situation.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

June 6, 2006

Yeah, I'm familiar with that " rule of thumb " , and it is one of the

things that has kept me feeling like a total failure as a woman.

That might sound drastic, but it has been my emotional reaction. I

spent many years (mostly my teen years) telling myself that since I

don't fit what a woman should look like I should not make a clown

out of myself trying to look like a woman. Hair not done, no

makeup, what ever cloths I could get to fit...don't look like you

are trying to look good when it is hopeless because you are too damn

fat!....sorry, what was my former internal voice coming out for a

minute, or maybe it is not as 'former' as I like to tell

myself..lol. I guess it didn't help that I have an older sister

that struggles to get her weight up to 110, so I've always felt like

a monster next to her.

I imagine it is frustrating when you've worked really hard and you

have done so much and you still do not look like what you want, but

you really do have to focus on the successes.

It's funny, I would look at you and thing " wow, she looks great!

She is soooooo lucky to have achieved what she has " and you would

look at someone else and say the same thing. We are a complicated

bunch.

Barbara

June 6, 2006

Hi Jen, you are right that I don't have more time for exercise. And

this isnt an excuse because that is usually how it can be

interpreted. I do HIIT 3X week, weights 3X week like the BFL plan

lays out. I also walk to & from work 5X week, 2 miles each way.

Plus, I am active in general, so I typically exercise for 1.5-2

hours per day. Even if I had more time, I don't think it would be

wise to exercise more = OVERTRAINING.

I am not small boned, I am stocky. I wouldnt call myself a hard

gainer either, I gain muscle pretty easily although things have

slowed down lately. Of course, I worry about eating too much or I

will just build more bulk which isnt really where I want to go.

If you lost mostly fat and just a bit of lean mass, I think you are

ok with your current plan. Obviously your metabolism is stoked, you

are burning the fat, and essentially maintaining the muscle. The

lean loss could be water.

I was running along on lower calories too, and my metabolism was

burning the fat with a teenie weenie bit of lean (not necessarily

muscle). I was happy with the progress and stayed on the plan. The

problem is it all stalled! I didnt lose fat (my caliper reading

went up a bit!) but weight stayed the same. In the course of 2

weeks, I lost 1 lb of lean mass and gained some fat. This is

clearly not a good thing. Based on BFFM and all the other advice

around here, I've upped my calories. Who knows what will happen?

Even if I maintain or gain a bit of fat, I will hopefully have given

my metabolism a kick in the pants, so when I cut calories again I am

burning fat.

I did see the fitness model diet in fitday. I know exactly what you

mean. Hey I am only 5'1 " and I am eating 1650 cals/day (low) and

2200 on high days. I am definitely not starving myself! Plus the

personal trainer I just saw evaluated me and thought I should eat

2400 cals a day --- no freaking way! ;-)

I have found a happy place regarding time & energy. I don't really

plan anything, I just follow the program. I estimate

calories/ratios in my head, measure most of the time, on a meal by

meal basis. I quit tracking in fitday because it was too time

consuming. I just pick 2 high days per week, where I follow the

same plan, but I add a bit of carb or fat to each meal (50 cals or

so). I don't find this too daunting.

There is something to be said for accepting how we look. I know I

have a problem with that. My husband sees someone who is lean, fit

and he thinks I'm a nut about wanting to 'get rid' of anymore fat.

I was teased a lot by my family (even my grandmother used to give me

a hard time) for having a big butt so it is difficult to see the

real me. I was never overweight and I doubt my butt was every

really THAT big. I have always just been stockier, more muscular ---

- I never looked like my mom or sister who were skinny and waifish

and 100 lbs or less.

I suppose I could follow a no carb lose lean mass program and get to

a measly 100 lbs and look sickly like Lohan or whoever is

the flavour of the month in Hollywood. But then I wouldnt have the

energy for my workouts or chasing my kids. That isnt an option for

me and I know it isnt a healthy route.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> I'm right there with you on all this. It's like you are reading

my

> mind. If your life is anything like mine, you have no more time

for

> exercise because of family responsibilities, etc. So, do I eat

> less??? I am also a small person, 5'4 " but very small boned and

a

> VERY hard gainer. I am convinced for me the answer is I am eating

> too much. When I reduced my calories I lost three pounds of fat

in

> the past month, but it appears I lost a little lean mass too.

>

> In Fitday, at my activity level, I should be burning about 2,700

> calories per day. But I am only taking in about 1200-1400

calories

> per day and losing very slowly. So obviously there is more to it

> than calories in/calories out. Someone posted that one pound of

> muscle burns 50 calories more per day than fat, but that's been

> disproved in a recent study. A pound of muscle only burns 5-10

> calories more per day. So, I wouldn't worry too much about the

> muscle loss. Anyway, all you know is you lost lean mass--that

could

> mean so many things: hormonal fluctuations, water retention, etc.,

> not just muscle loss.

>

> Did you read that Fitday journal link someone posted earlier? It

> was the journal of a fitness competitor. She weighed 140 pounds

and

> was only taking in about 1,100-1,200 calories per day. No free

days

> or free anything. I assume she was working out hard. I weigh 118

> and take in 1400 calories per day and I wonder why I am not losing

> fat?

>

> This is all very confusing. I am coming to the conclusion that I

> just don't have the time or energy to plan meals that involve carb

> cycling or high-low days or any of that other complicated, time-

> consuming stuff. I don't have time to exercise more than I

already

> am. I only keep at it because I just want to know that I can make

> my goal and be the best I can. This has to be a lifelong plan and

> if I have to log every calorie into Fitday for the rest of my life

I

> don't know if I can keep that up. I'm wondering if the problem

> isn't with my eating but my thinking? Maybe I need to be more

> accepting of where I am?

>

> Jen

June 6, 2006

Hi Barbara, I hope I didnt make you feel like a failure today. ;-(

I know where you are coming from though. Because my

sister/mother/grandmother were all tiny, I was considered big/fat. I

don't think I ever was really fat/overweight, the highest weight

I've had (not including pregnancy) is about 125 lbs. But at 5'1 "

when everyone else around me at that height is 95-105 lbs, then an

extra 20 lbs is HUGE.

It is hard to not have that negative voice inside my head. There is

definitely a tendency to see the worst looking back at me from the

mirror, rather than the best. My husband and I were looking at some

photos from a beach vacation last summer. I thought I looked fat in

the picture, and he thought I was nuts. When he asked me to point

out what I didnt like, one of the things I honed in on was a 'lumpy

bump' on my hip that I thought looked like flab. He said I needed

my head examined because he thought it was my hip bone. I guess I

am a bit crazy!

I read my goals and affirmations everyday so I can start to replace

the negative talk with positive talk. Sometimes it seems to just be

which side of bed I roll out of in the morning...

>>>>>> Yeah, I'm familiar with that " rule of thumb " , and it is one

of the

> things that has kept me feeling like a total failure as a woman.

> That might sound drastic, but it has been my emotional reaction. I

> spent many years (mostly my teen years) telling myself that since

I

> don't fit what a woman should look like I should not make a clown

> out of myself trying to look like a woman. Hair not done, no

> makeup, what ever cloths I could get to fit...don't look like you

> are trying to look good when it is hopeless because you are too

damn

> fat!....sorry, what was my former internal voice coming out for a

> minute, or maybe it is not as 'former' as I like to tell

> myself..lol. I guess it didn't help that I have an older sister

> that struggles to get her weight up to 110, so I've always felt

like

> a monster next to her.

>

> I imagine it is frustrating when you've worked really hard and you

> have done so much and you still do not look like what you want,

but

> you really do have to focus on the successes.

>

> It's funny, I would look at you and thing " wow, she looks great!

> She is soooooo lucky to have achieved what she has " and you would

> look at someone else and say the same thing. We are a complicated

> bunch.

>

> Barbara

>

June 6, 2006