Plateau

[Steve]

BL,

Do you mind answering where your conviction comes from? Are you a professional in the industry? If so, in what regards and how long have you been doing it? Also, what sort of people, physically speaking, have you worked with?

Of course this debate isn't about you and it isn't about me... but in the select instances where the academic research simply isn't there, you sort of have to rely on experience more than anything else.

You obviously have a lot of conviction with this specific population in the context we're speaking (relatively light trying to get lighter)... so I'm just wondering where it is you're coming from.

I've been doing this for 10 years. My client base contains a wide array of people. Many people simply trying to lose weight. A few sports teams (male and female). A number of individual athletes. And lastly, the most applicable to this case, relatively light folks trying to get leaner.

I use the term "lean" loosely as I'm not speaking necessarily about women with 6 packs trying to lose additional fat. I'm speaking about non-fat women trying to lose more fat than they already have.

You're speaking as if with the people you've worked with in this subset of the population, stress on a cumulative level hasn't caused issues and you've always been able to push the diet and exercise harder without backlash.

If this is the case, I'm very interested in speaking more as that's been the exact opposite in my experience - especially with females who've been dieting appreciable lengths of time and using, what I'd consider, too much exercise.

I never really thought much of it frankly, until 6 or so years ago when I met up with a coach who preps figure competitors. As you know, he's dealing with very anal and lean women who are trying to push their bodies to a level that's typically not maintainable except for periods around a show. Granted, they're not bodybuilder lean, but it's still very lean.

In MANY cases women were coming to him with terrible times breaking plateaus even though their nutrition seemed to be dialed in great. Mind you, these aren’t your typical people who have a tendency to eat more than they think. In most of these cases, these females came to him either from another coach or from their own programs where more was more rather than less was more and they all ran the same sort of symptoms.

Knowing what he knew about the general adaptation syndrome and the stress response, he figured he'd "reset" some things by removing all the stress and starting over afterwards with parameters he felt were more "sane." Sure enough... the girls would break free of their issues.

Since then... this is something I've implemented in my practice with a lot of people who come to me carrying the same symptoms. I'm a skeptic. And I've a scientific, rational thought mentality. I've immersed myself in the research for as long as I've been in the industry.

And yes, I used to think it was solely a matter of eating too much or expending too little. But as my awareness grew and people I highly respect started talking about it (see Lyle for starters) it became very apparent that this wasn't some fluke.

It’s always calories in vs. calories out. It that sounds very simple on paper ASSUMING things are working orderly. But if I utilized your approach to this specific population, which I have mind you, my success rate among them wouldn’t be what it is today.

Science doesn’t define reality. It merely describes it. And you’re basing a lot of very concrete ideas off of an area of study that isn’t that voluminous.

So yeah, that's long winded and possibly unnecessary, but I'm hoping you could share where you're coming from - your experience with this select population?

To speak specifically to what you typed...

 

[Steve]

I'm not trying to deliberately make a strawman, but saying that in some cases exercising too much will prevent weight loss certainly sounds off to me. It's possible there can be extreme cases where a person can mess up their metabolism, but in everything I read about it you never actually stop losing weight, you just don't lose it as fast as you could.

And you'd be right. I've said it many times on this very board that the adaptive component to metabolic slowdown associated with dieting has yet to been shown to turn what should be a deficit into a surplus.

But your “extreme cases” aren’t as rare as you’d think, especially when you’re talking about lighter folks who’ve been dieting for a while.

Of course if you had a screwed up energy out side of the equation for whatever reason, you can slash calories more and more and with patience, you’ll lose. Look at anorexics.

But it typically leads to more problems and more importantly; it’s not necessary when there’s an alternative that works.

I don't see the point of exercising less unless you've truly driven your body into the ground and are suffering from injuries.

That's an interesting take.

With my business model, I'm more inclined to avoid this by not driving the body into the ground, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting to this specific poster in my experience.

I've gone the route of pushing harder with these folks before I knew better.

Even more so, I've had people come to me struggling with little to zero progress even though they've been anal as hell about their numbers and they had aches and pains, reduced energy burn per bodybugg or breath tests which we had at our previous facility.

Invariably, what I'm suggesting was "the answer" if you'd like to call it that. But I’m interested in hearing about your experience with these folks. I’m always open to new ideas.

The OP talks about how she enjoys working out, so it doesn't sound like that's the case.

Most of those who fall into this category enjoy training. It's somewhat of an addiction. Even when they're spinning their wheels and hurting... they keep the exercise going strong because a) they fear the alternative and b) they do really enjoy it.

Also, objectively speaking 2 hours a day doesn't sound extreme enough to cause that for a person who is not even overweight and seems to be in good physical condition. It's probably quite natural and healthy to be active for more than 2 hours a day, and it's the sedentary lifestyle that's unnatural (simply considering our history as a species).

Nah, that's not the case. The more trained you become, the more intense you're able to exercise. The more intense you're able to exercise, the greater a hole you're able to dig yourself into.

I'm not speaking out about being active. I'm speaking out about relatively light females trying to get lighter by running chronic calorie deficits paired with high volume exercise.

Again, your general vs. my specific.

This is based on me reading how much calories different activities burn.

How many calories would 2 hours of straight walking at a moderate speed, say 3 mph, burn for someone with similar stats as our OP based on your "research"?

Now...

Do you believe that her typical exercise is more intense or less intense than walking at 3 mph?

But she is not losing weight, and that to me is the biggest evidence that she is either not burning as much as she thinks or eating more than she thinks.

She later said she was losing a lot of weight eating 1200-1400 calories, but that she found herself having low energy and upped her calories but that made her plateau/gain.

Which all screams it's time to "reset" some things and start again using better parameters.

Unless it's water weight or you are constipated, that would be like making something out of nothing. How could a person possibly make new tissue when the calories they intake are not enough to sustain their lives, and they have to use their body simply to keep breathing?

Wow, I'm actually responding as I read along. I regret typing everything I did. After calling out your original strawman, which was pretty massive.... here you are building yet another obvious strawman.

Weight is not tissue.

Do not lecture me about thermodynamics. I've spent a significant part of my career understanding energy dynamics as it pertains to weight loss.

I did NOT claim that you can add tissue while being in a calorie deficit. I claimed you can gain weight while in a calorie deficit.

And this was in response to your absolute statement:

Except since she's not losing weight, she is obviously not in a caloric deficit.

Which is wrong. And you know it since you expressed the distinction between energy containing variables and non-energy containing variables that comprise weight.

And “real weight”?

Weight is weight. If you wanted to discuss tissue mass, that’s fine. But that’s merely a component of weight.

In cases specific to the population in question, it’s quite common to see gains in weight due to water flux while fat mass if falling due to the energy deficit. I’ve seen this numerous times over the course of 2-3 months.

At this point, I’m through with the discussion. I don’t have the time to debate with someone who intentionally or unintentionally shifts my own argument, even when my words are right here on the screen to read. Strawmen get offensive after a while.

At best, they're intellectually dishonest.

I feel confident that the OP has enough information from both of us to make up her own mind in what direction to go. The best is it’s not like she’s signing a contract. She very well might cut calories and exercise more per your instructions and realize fantastic progress. Some people can get away with it. Or, she might take that route and run into even more issues at which point she can easily lean more towards my advice.

Either way I wish her the best.

Thanks for your time.

 

[biggestloser105]

BL,

Do you mind answering where your conviction comes from? Are you a professional in the industry? If so, in what regards and how long have you been doing it? Also, what sort of people, physically speaking, have you worked with?

I am not a professional in the industry, my information comes from reading research/listening to professionals.

How many calories would 2 hours of straight walking at a moderate speed, say 3 mph, burn for someone with similar stats as our OP based on your "research"?

Around 250 calories per hour, so 500 total. I don't know how intensely the OP works out, she said she does different activities. Step aerobics for example could be more or less than walking, depending on the intensity. Also does she do 2 hours straight of something like running or step aerobics, or an hour of Pilates followed by half an hour of running and half an hour of stretching?

That's why I suggested she concentrate her workouts into exercises that burn a lot of calories. Say 2 hours straight of fast running up an incline. That may well burn 1500 calories.

Which all screams it's time to "reset" some things and start again using better parameters.

Why? She said she was losing weight well on 1200-1400 calories a day and stopped losing/started gaining when she increased her calories. Why would you recommend eating even more rather than returning to the diet plan that worked for her before?

Weight is not tissue.

...

I did NOT claim that you can add tissue while being in a calorie deficit. I claimed you can gain weight while in a calorie deficit.

Okay, weight can also be water or stomach contents, I said that from the start and agreed that people in a caloric deficit can put on this type of weight. But is that the weight anyone cares about?

Fat is tissue, dieters generally are aiming to lose fat not lose water. Does it matter if she puts on water weight? I personally wouldn't care about water weight (unless it was making me sick), and my main concern is losing fat.

Do you agree that it's not possible to make new fat tissue while in a caloric deficit?

In cases specific to the population in question, it’s quite common to see gains in weight due to water flux while fat mass if falling due to the energy deficit. I’ve seen this numerous times over the course of 2-3 months.

Really, defining weight loss as loss of fat tissue is an intellectually dishonest strawman?

I think including water loss in weight loss is not a useful definition. The scale will inevitably count it so unless you have a scale that measures body fat % you can't avoid it, but it just doesn't seem like the thing that would be of concern to someone interested in losing fat. It can obviously be a concern for a different reason, such as if it causes uncomfortable bloating.

I brought up water loss in my very first post, and I said that I agree that people in a caloric deficit can retain water.

If eating more causes someone to drop water weight but gain fat or stop losing fat, then how is that helpful to the ultimate goal of fat loss? It would be a good idea to do something for a short time to drop water weight, but after that return to the regimen that is optimal for fat loss. But I think it's more interesting to look at the causes of water retention. Medication can do it, certain illnesses can do it, inflammation can do it, eating more salt and carbs can do it, hormonal changes can do it. I guess overexercising could be causing inflammation or hormonal changes? How would eating a 1200 calorie diet cause water retention though?


I personally would doubt that the OP is retaining water simply because she said she was losing weight while eating 1200-1400, and stopped losing once she started eating more.


I don't understand by the way why you're so offended by my posts.

 

[Steve]

Really, defining weight loss as loss of fat tissue is an intellectually dishonest strawman?

You can define things however you'd like.

It's your fallacious debate tactics that are dishonest. You shift things in order to debate against claims I'm not making. Strawmen are strawmen and anyone versed in logical fallacies can pick up on them.

Maybe it's unintentional as you claimed. However, if you keep doing it after it's pointed out... it most likely means it's not changing anytime soon.

Pair this with either your inability to understand or my inability to convey the message about systemic stress and our capacities to deal with it, which is evidenced by your repetitive points and questions.

Either way though, I'm no longer interested in the discussion with you.

Take care.

 

[biggestloser105]

You can define things however you'd like.

It's your fallacious debate tactics that are dishonest. You shift things in order to debate against claims I'm not making. Strawmen are strawmen and anyone versed in logical fallacies can pick up on them.

I did not shift anything, because I said from the beginning that you can put on water weight or stomach contents weight while in a caloric deficit. It's not my fault you didn't notice that.

Pair this with either your inability to understand or my inability to convey the message about systemic stress and our capacities to deal with it, which is evidenced by your repetitive points and questions.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand you.

Either way though, I'm no longer interested in the discussion with you.

Take care.

Fine by me, so long as the OP knows that you're talking about her losing water rather than fat by switching to a higher calorie and lower exercise regimen, because I would doubt that a slim woman who eats 1800 calories is in starvation mode and would lose weight faster by eating more.

 

[mommamel]

I hate to throw a temper tantrum on the floor like a 3 year old to get attention but, hello, I really thought I was the one asking the question and asking for help, advice and a possible attempted solution.

BL thanks for the input but I don't think you have the knowledge to help me. You do not seem to understand my need for 200-400 extra calories a day nor do you seem to understand what the exercises I do consist of. I promise if you tried a Cardio Tennis class followed by Boot Camp circuit training followed by 20 mins on the stairmaster at level 8-10 you wouldn't wonder if I were exercising strenuously enough. Also, I never included stretching as part of my workout regimine, I do do that but do not count the calories burned or the time I do it. Nor did I stress Pilates, however, you seem to think that maybe that is all I do. Please do not continue to respond to this post as I am more interested in what other's have to say in their experience. Maybe your bias is based upon your own inability to either exercise effectively or in your inability to count calories accurately. I can do both.

Steve, I would really like to understand what "reset" means in regards to my weightloss process.

I would agree that I am not over weight but I am not at my optinal BMI. I'm not looking to be anything other than to be healthy and fit and I think I am close but not quite there yet. That's it. I'm just wondering why I've stalled!

Any info on that for ME???

 

[Steve]

I did not shift anything, because I said from the beginning that you can put on water weight or stomach contents weight while in a caloric deficit. It's not my fault you didn't notice that.

Since you seem to enjoy pretending what's been said isn't visible, let me remind you.

You: Since she's not losing weight, she's obviously not in a calorie deficit.

Me: You can be in a calorie deficit and not lose weight since weight is comprised of other things besides energy-containing variables.

You: How could a person possibly make new tissue when the calories they intake are not enough to sustain their lives?

Me: Huge strawman.

Because you differentiated between non-energy containing variables and energy-containing variables earlier on does not negate the fact that you directly replied to a quote of mine refuting a claim I never made.

It's a strawman by definition.

I never claimed you can create tissue while eating hypocalorically.

It's not my problem you're either forgetful or illogical to the point you can't keep from spewing fallacies.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand you.

This would be the case if you actually countered any of the claims I've made. You haven't. Replying to something I said doesn't equate to countering a claim I've made.

What's unfortunate is I truly believe that you don't realize it's happening. Which is why this should simply stop. It won't go anywhere.

Fine by me, so long as the OP knows that you're talking about her losing water rather than fat by switching to a higher calorie and lower exercise regimen, because I would doubt that a slim woman who eats 1800 calories is in starvation mode and would lose weight faster by eating more.

You see things at face while ignoring what's lurking beneath. Has it ever occurred to you that water retention is simply an indicator of other things going on justifying my original advice?

Often times water retention in this crowd is followed by increased SNS output, decreased muscle function, signs of hypercortisolemia, increased blood pressure, etc.

But what the hell do I know?

OP, it's not rocket science.

Either cut calories and see how that treats ya for a month or so. I'd suggest using more metrics than just your scale.

Or increase calories to maintenance for a week or two, reduce exercise to low intensity walking during that same time period, and when finished, start back with a more balanced approach with a handful of strength training sessions, 3-5 "metabolic" sessions of varying intensities, and 10 calories per pound on the nutrition front.

If you pick one and don't like the outcome, try the other. At the end of the day, BL or myself can't be certain where you stand, physiologically speaking. Both suggestions are very viable possibilities given your symptoms.

 

[mommamel]

Thank you; in the end I did get advice. I'll see where it takes me.

 

[biggestloser105]

Since you seem to enjoy pretending what's been said isn't visible, let me remind you.

You: Since she's not losing weight, she's obviously not in a calorie deficit.

Me: You can be in a calorie deficit and not lose weight since weight is comprised of other things besides energy-containing variables.

You: How could a person possibly make new tissue when the calories they intake are not enough to sustain their lives?

Me: Huge strawman.

You seem more intent on catching me in a strawman than engaging in a discussion. I said this in my second post in the thread:

If you were eating 1800 and burning 2500 you would be losing 1.5 lbs per week, since you're not losing it, you're either counting wrong or you're burning a lot less. (It's possible, but unlikely, that you're continuously retaining massive amounts of water that just keeps building to make up for your loss).

I guess I should have put that water retention comment every time I said anything about calories? That's just too obsessive for me to mention all the exceptions every time, I think once per post is quite enough. And reading the post in context would have shown you that I am perfectly aware of water retention.

This would be the case if you actually countered any of the claims I've made. You haven't. Replying to something I said doesn't equate to countering a claim I've made.

Well, we agree on the fundamentals. We both agree that you can't gain fat while in a caloric deficit, initially I thought you were saying you could gain fat because you were disagreeing with me when I mentioned water gain and I figured since you were disagreeing you were talking about something other than water gain. Else why would you disagree with me when I specifically said you can gain water weight because of hormones, or inflammation or whatever?

You see things at face while ignoring what's lurking beneath. Has it ever occurred to you that water retention is simply an indicator of other things going on justifying my original advice?

Okay, and I said in my last post that it would be good to follow your advice until that resolves and then return to a fat loss regimen.

We're not really disagreeing.

Or increase calories to maintenance for a week or two, reduce exercise to low intensity walking during that same time period, and when finished, start back with a more balanced approach with a handful of strength training sessions, 3-5 "metabolic" sessions of varying intensities, and 10 calories per pound on the nutrition front.

And I think that is good advice. Initially it seemed to me that you were saying to permanently increase calories, and because you disagreed with my post that specifically mentioned water gain I was under the impression that you were talking about fat gain and not water gain.

Now that you're clarified it, it's obvious to me that we pretty much think the same way about this issue in general. Except maybe that after her water weight issues resolved I would return to the 1200-1400 plan that worked for her before, and possibly also look for other sources of water retention than exercise. Also I would doubt that she's retaining water in the first place because her plateau coincided with an increase in calories and she was losing weight fine on a lower calorie regimen.


(And if you think I'm just making this up, there was another thread where a poster was eating too few calories and exercising a lot where I thought they should eat more for a while to fix their metabolism http://weight-loss.fitness.com/advanced-weight-loss/43590-please-help.html I just didn't think that the OP's situation was this kind of a situation, because 1800 for a small woman is a lot.)

 

[Steve]

Fair enough. Lots gets lost in translation when dealing with this medium of exchange. And admittedly it's difficult for me to not take things personally at times when a "leisure researcher" starts lecturing me about thermodynamics.

I know I shouldn't...

But flip things. If I came to you with regards to your profession and started preaching to you about the very basics... at first you'd most likely laugh. And when I kept hitting on them, you'd most likely start to wonder.

And strawmen happen to be a pet peeve of mine. It's not about catching people in them. Not at all. Just think about what a strawman is - it's a misrepresentation of the claims I've made.

Now admittedly, said misrepresentation can be fueled by my communication skills, which I accept. But still, when multiple strawmen pop up... it rubs me the wrong way.

Lastly, I've become a grouch on the net. I should probably fold my cards and walk away, lol. I've got nearly 18,000 posts on this board and many of them were almost verbatim what you've said in this very thread. "You can't negate the energy dynamics. You're either eating too much or not burning enough. You can't create something out of nothing. Blah blah blah."

Either way, it's nice debating with someone who doesn't default to calling me names. Sometimes ad hominens are worse than strawmen!

See ya around the board.

 

[Steve]

(And if you think I'm just making this up, there was another thread where a poster was eating too few calories and exercising a lot where I thought they should eat more for a while to fix their metabolism http://weight-loss.fitness.com/advanced-weight-loss/43590-please-help.html I just didn't think that the OP's situation was this kind of a situation, because 1800 for a small woman is a lot.)

Good deal - so you're right. We agree more than we disagree.

I believe the OP said she's 156 lbs. Not to drag this out... but what do you feel a typical woman who's 156 lbs burns per day assuming she's moderately active? Say an hour of exercise 6 days per week of varying intensities... some strength training, some interval training, some cardio.

At my facility we've used the bodybugg quite extensively. I think you'd be shocked by some of the daily burns we've recorded in little females who go nuts on the exercise and diet front.

Something like 1800-2000 worth of intake would put them at significant deficits. And that's sort of what I've been getting at. This might be a class of people you've not dealt with. They're not all that common but in reality, unfortunately, it seems they're growing in numbers.

By the way... I was just reminded of a very neat article a buddy of mine wrote a while back that touches on some of what I've discussed here. You might find it interesting:

A New Explanation for Adrenal Fatigue and Metabolic Damage? | AmpedTraining.com | Matthew Perryman, CSCS

 

[mommamel]

I'm so curious as to why my way of working out is so awful. I mean, I'm totally at a loss. I'm being ridiculed for trying to be fit. I don't get it. Little women like me are ANAL and addicted.
I really enjoy working out and maybe I am a little anal about things and maybe I take my exercise to the next level I can but I don't understand how that's so NUTS!!?? Unfortunately, crazies like me are growing in numbers. I would think that is sort of a better thing than I was at 240 lbs unable to jog down the street.

Could you please put this into perspective for me?

 

[Primevci]

you guys arguing over this is like.. well look below

 

[biggestloser105]

Fair enough. Lots gets lost in translation when dealing with this medium of exchange. And admittedly it's difficult for me to not take things personally at times when a "leisure researcher" starts lecturing me about thermodynamics.

I wasn't trying to be a smartass with the thermodynamics, actually I have formal training in physics and I generally think in those terms. I wasn't consciously trying to lecture.

Good deal - so you're right. We agree more than we disagree.

I believe the OP said she's 156 lbs. Not to drag this out... but what do you feel a typical woman who's 156 lbs burns per day assuming she's moderately active? Say an hour of exercise 6 days per week of varying intensities... some strength training, some interval training, some cardio.

Well since the OP said she has 5 kids, she is unlikely to be young woman, but she is taller at 5'8". For sedentary lifestyle she'd burn about 1700 calories, adding in an hour of exercise 6 days a week I'd probably say 1900-2200 calories per day. Probably anyone on a diet gets some metabolic reduction, so the actual number could be less than that.

At my facility we've used the bodybugg quite extensively. I think you'd be shocked by some of the daily burns we've recorded in little females who go nuts on the exercise and diet front.

How does the bodybugg work? Does it use any averages based on height/weight/age, or does it go purely from how it measures the body?

What kind of burn numbers do they get generally?

At what caloric deficits are you starting to see significant metabolic reduction?

[/quote]

It's interesting to me because I am generally pretty stressed, and I notice that I run hot. (Like, I will wear a tshirt when others are wearing jackets, I can have a resting heart rate near 100 when I'm anxious, even as high as 120 sometimes, and I was losing more weight than I should have been according to caloric deficits. 3 pounds per week instead of 2. I don't know if it's going to get me at some point.)

I've also taken corticosteroids and that can cause adrenal exhaustion. That makes me quite concerned, so I wonder what I could do to help my adrenal system recover.

 

[biggestloser105]

I'm so curious as to why my way of working out is so awful. I mean, I'm totally at a loss. I'm being ridiculed for trying to be fit. I don't get it. Little women like me are ANAL and addicted.
I really enjoy working out and maybe I am a little anal about things and maybe I take my exercise to the next level I can but I don't understand how that's so NUTS!!?? Unfortunately, crazies like me are growing in numbers. I would think that is sort of a better thing than I was at 240 lbs unable to jog down the street.

Could you please put this into perspective for me?

I don't know if you're referring to what I said, because I don't think this at all.

 

[Spinner19641]

I'm not interested in joining the very long winded discussion about why the OP is not losing weight because I don't know why she isn't. My personal opinion is that as long as a person is within a healthy weight range then all is well. I would just put in a healthy and doable diet and exercise programme and let time do the work. The lower your weight, the longer it takes to lose any weight and we can't emulate a professional trainer's knowledge (they need to know a lot more about you to provide any specific advice on a forum).

But BL's last post interested me.

It's interesting to me because I am generally pretty stressed, and I notice that I run hot. (Like, I will wear a tshirt when others are wearing jackets, I can have a resting heart rate near 100 when I'm anxious, even as high as 120 sometimes, and I was losing more weight than I should have been according to caloric deficits. 3 pounds per week instead of 2. I don't know if it's going to get me at some point.)

I can get what I call 'tired & wired'. I've spent a lot of time trying to work out causes and symptoms. Underlying does appear to be personality traits - perfection, conscientious, internalisation, body sensation awareness. Body responses can include disrupted sleep, elevated heart rate, ringing ears, hypervigilence, slight mood shifts (largely internalised). But prior to a bout of post viral fatigue I did not get 'tired & wired'.

So the article was interesting that it referenced chronic fatigue.

It is manageable. I have learned to 'stand down'. So when I get 'tired & wired', I recognise the symptoms and rest, relax and tell myself to 'settle down'. Usually within a couple of days of eating well, resting, pursuing activities I enjoy, regaining some perspective, getting some better quality sleep then all the symptoms clear up.

And yes, exercising too much can also make me 'tired & wired'. I was feeling that way last week and I realised (after a long conversation with Steve on another thread) that I am probably over exercising (increased my workout 4 months ago, accidentally reduced calories, lost weight rapidly & didn't realise the impact).

So, I decided to take a week off the gym and spent the weekend relaxing and I am feeling much healthier already. I will stay out of the gym until next Sunday.

Anyway, i don't know why we react as we do but we do and I think the best approach is to understand how we are feeling and have strategies to return ourselves to 'steady state' even if that means we cut ourselves some slack some times.

 

[biggestloser105]

But prior to a bout of post viral fatigue I did not get 'tired & wired'.

What kind of a virus did you have?


I am considering actually a week per month of "refeeding" myself by eating maintenance calories. I wonder if it would improve my metabolism overall.

 

[Spinner19641]

What kind of a virus did you have?


I am considering actually a week per month of "refeeding" myself by eating maintenance calories. I wonder if it would improve my metabolism overall.

It was a bit of a long winded 'screw up' in my life (all of my own making) culiminating in getting ill.

- I started up a multi million dollar business when I was 33 and for 5 years worked 20 days out of 21, didn't eat properly, was underweight, over stressed and well outside of my coping skills.
- When I was 38 I decided enough was enough, took up exercise, started eating well and was doing well but my adrenal glands were exhausted and my immune system was wrecked.
- When I was 39/40 I caught adult chicken pox (not Shingles, I did not have chicken pox as a child so I was not immune to the virus & my immune system was weakened).
- The chicken pox resulted in a deep fatigue for about a month and, once that cleared up, my energy levels were very unreliable for about 2 years. I would suddenly lose energy and have to sit down - it was scary & frustrating. A doctor told me this was a common post viral fatigue response - I didn't seek medical support but I did need to adapt my life for a few years to manage it.
- When I was 43 I felt well enough to start up a continuous diet and exercise programme which I have done for over 3 years now. It has been a gradual increase in effort as I have gotten fitter (always about 1 hour 15/20 minutes but intensity has increased over time). I needed to prove to myself I was healthy and able again.

Your article & Steve's advice has really resonated with me. I haven't had a week off the gym in over 3 years and yet I am willing to do it now (my husband is amazed someone finally got through to me that I need to stand down off the gym!).

I'm twiddling my thumbs a little this morning as I would normally be in the gym BUT it is more important to me to feel good inside and out so if I need to take the time out I will.

I put up strict rules in my head to maintain my diet & exercise programme 3 years ago and I needed someone to kick down my 'barriers' in a way that did not raise my defensiveness and I could hear what they were saying.

I know, from your posts, you work out like crazy and monitor your diet very closely. I don't think a little break won't do you any harm. This as part of my learning - I have now learned I need to have breaks every 3 months and to work out only 4 - 5 times a week plus maintain my calories.

It's kind of weird because I am having to learn food is not the enemy (i.e. makes you fat) but is an integral part of my exercise programme.

For me this has been a very valuable week. I learnt, I am adapting and feeling better for it.

Hope that helps! S