« January 2008 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Skwigg Blog
Monday, 28 January 2008
Yes, You. Eat!

Lately, I've been getting a lot of questions about food and calories. Lots of people bought The New Rules of Lifting for Women and they balk at the advice to eat at a maintenance level. They look at the formula and think the calories are too high, the math must be wrong, they must be different, or special, or misunderstood. Surely women only need to eat 1200-1400 calories per day, like hungry Shape Magazine models or dainty little birds. Women freak out and die if you tell them to eat 2,000 calories. I'm here to tell you, that's nothing!

Do you want to be an athlete or do you want to be a dieter? There's a major difference, both in attitude and appearance. Dieters are soft and hungry and super-critical of themselves. Athletes are rock solid lean, very well fed, and oozing confidence. I'm a 40 year old woman who regularly eats 2400-2800 calories per day just to maintain. I would never "diet" again. No, no. Bad. :-)

The better you eat, the more you can eat. 2,000 calories worth of lean protein, fruits, vegetables and healthy fat is way different than 2,000 calories of breakfast cereal, sandwiches, chips, and low-fat snack treats. The more you emphasize high-quality whole foods, the higher your calorie intake can go. Women living on rice cakes, Special K and Slim-Fast need to keep their calories shockingly low because they're ingesting such crap. An athlete living on scrambled omega eggs, black beans, grilled chicken, huge leafy green salads, fresh berries, almonds, sweet potatoes, etc. can lose weight on a much higher calorie intake because they're eating metabolism-boosting whole foods packed with protein, fiber, and nutrients.

For a more in-depth discussion about women's calorie needs, particularly as it relates to New Rules, there's a great interview with all three authors posted on the Precision Nutrition Forums. I listened to it while I was cleaning the house a few days ago. I love that they addressed all of the food/calorie/weight issues right off the bat. And of course there were some laugh-out-loud one-liners from Lou and Alwyn, who could probably become a comedy duo if they get tired of the fitness thing.


Posted by skwigg at 1:06 PM CST

Monday, 28 January 2008 - 3:11 PM CST

Name: "Tracey"

I have been trying to figure out how to order the turbulance training and I can't get the link to work.  Can you help?

Monday, 28 January 2008 - 3:30 PM CST

Name: "Raechelle Thomas"
Home Page: http://raechellesblog.blogspot.com/

Well said! Too many women out there still don't get it. Eating is healthy! And yes, huge difference between being skinny and being lean & fit!

Monday, 28 January 2008 - 6:38 PM CST

Name: "Kali"

"40 year old woman who regularly eats 2400-2800 calories"

 I would love to eat 2400 - 2800 calories! Skwigg, can I ask how tall you are? 

Monday, 28 January 2008 - 11:52 PM CST

Name: skwigg

You can get it at www.turbulencetraining.com

Monday, 28 January 2008 - 11:55 PM CST

Name: skwigg

I'm 5'8"

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 12:13 AM CST

Name: "Angela"

Can I get an "Amen". I am just learning this attitude of eating more after living on a low carb/low calorie diet for one year. I love eating more healthy food than "crap" any day of the week. 

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 7:00 AM CST

Name: "RG"

I was actually one of those who asked Renee about the calories.  But, I'm also a math-geek, and so to make myself feel more confident I crunched some numbers.  I'm short, and I'm in okay shape - 22% bodyfat and in a weight-table-approved weight range.  That said, I'm coming off of years of cardio and low-fat-low-calorie dieting.  My metabolism is officially dead (I take medication to replace it).

So, here's  the upshot: my 5'1" frame carries a lean body mass of 100 pounds, whereas Renee's 5'8" frame has a lean body mass of 114 pounds.  It's not easy to tease out the muscle mass difference there since bone and organs also enter into that equation.  However, I'm going on the assumption that the difference is purely muscle.  Even if we are eating the same foods and have similar metabolisms and workout at the same intensity, she will need 600 more calories to maintain muscle.  My advantage is that as a newbie lifter, I can gain muscle faster. 

Did all those ifs, ands, and buts confuse you?  Then ignore me.  for me, it helped to think of the equation of 1800 plus building muscle calories  minus eating badly calories minus Renee's extra cardio activities.  She listed it once and it was some insane 17 hours a week of working.  That's not me even in my cardio queen days, but especially doing Cosgrove for the first time.

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 8:24 AM CST

Name: skwigg

I actually have 121 lbs of lean mass (145.5 lbs 17%). And my activity level has come WAY down since I was doing Afterburn plus 2 hour martial arts sessions this summer. That was pure madness! Now, I'm doing TT 45 minutes 3 times a week and walking the dogs most days. That's it.

What does that do to the equation? ;-) In my mind, it goes: more muscle = ability to eat many calories while sitting on ass.

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 1:24 PM CST

Name: "Jennifer"

I dunno Renee.....

I am a clean eater.  Really.  I don't eat processed crap foods, I watch my portions.  I eat whole grains, tons of veggies, and lean chicken & fish.  I work out 5 days a week.  I do weights (no, not dinky weights, good and heavy ones) and HIIT.  BUT I am still lingering at 30% bodyfat, even after following this for years.  I have gone nearly mental wondering what the F is going on because I'm doing what I'm "supposed to".  I eat more (clean food) cuz they say so.  I exercise more.  I still stay jiggly.  I have hired personal trainers.  I have read on this subject until my eyes were bleeding.  How come everyone can supposedly eat all this food and without gaining an ounce and I'm still flabby???

Then I got ahold of a wonderful little article bundled in with my TT package called "Eat Stop Eat".  It really made a whole lotta sense to me.  So I have been doing this for two weeks now and lo and behold I am able to fit into pants that I haven't in a long time.  I eat like I regularly do during the week (clean & healthy) and do with 1 or 2 24 hour fasts in between it all (trust me, if I can do it, anyone can do it!) This will create an automatic caloric deficit.   I still work out with my heavy weights and still have all the energy I need for my HIIT cardio.   The author of the article recommends doing the TT program along with his eating suggestions and that so far has been the only thing that has worked for me.   It's a compelling article and I recommend reading it if you can.

I think the important thing here is that everyone's different.  What might work for one person (eating 2400 - 2800 calories a day) may not for another.  People have to be open to trying new things and realize that at the end of the day, if you want to lose fat, it's calories in vs. calories burned.  At this point if I ate 2500 calories a day, even clean ones, I would blow up like a balloon.  

To lose fat, you have to eat clean, exercise smart, and focus on the caloric deficit.   For an even more info on this subject, go onto John Hussman's fitness site http://www.hussmanfitness.org/ and do his BMR calculator.  That was the reality check I needed and here is part of what he said after I punched in all my specs:

"NOTE:  If you are having trouble losing weight, it is wishful thinking to believe that eating more calories will help.  Do not use the BMR calculation as a reason to increase your caloric intake.  Even if you were taking in far too few calories, you would still lose lots of weight, but part of it would be muscle.  So if you're losing neither fat weight nor scale weight, most probably you're eating too many calories that you aren't counting (I write this because the research on this point in clear).  You have to run a caloric deficit when you total it up over the full week, counting any free day.  Sadly, some people use the BMR calculation and their free day to justify overeating.  This is unfortunate.  The only way to lose fat is to create a persistent, daily, sustained caloric deficit.  Eating more frequent and smaller meals can help, but it is superstition that simply eating more will help you lose fat."

God Bless John Hussman!  So, I am happy to say I am still eating well, working out with the TT program, and finally managing to lose some fat in the process.  And if you think I am wrong, we can check my progress updates Before & After when I am done (Weight, Body Fat & Lean Mass calculations). 

Jennifer  :-)

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 2:35 PM CST

Name: skwigg

According to Hussman's calculator, I should be eating as little as 1130 calories per day for fat loss. That's whack. It's the reason I don't blindly send people links to nutrition calculators anymore. They tend to come back crying and confused. 

You're 100% right to do what works for you, not what works according to conflicting experts, calculators, theories and articles. I got tossed around like a flabby little rag doll until I figured out that real, measurable results are all that matters. You do what works.

If Hussman's math works beautifully in your case, or if intermittent fasting works, keep doing it. I would never tell somebody to stop doing what works - unless they were smoking crack or eating tape worms or something. :-P

But as a friendly alternative to Hussman's traditional calorie restriction, I would also like to share:

A New View of Energy Balance - http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/new_view.htm

G-Flux: Building the Ultimate Body - http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/g-flux.htm

 

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 5:06 PM CST

Name: skwigg

Just saw a good post from Alwyn explaining how switching processed carbs for protein and vegetables can be the equivalent of spending an extra 20-25 minutes per day on the treadmill.

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 9:51 PM CST

Name: "Glynis"
Home Page: http://glynisp.multiply.com

On tonight's Biggest Loser, the folly of eating too little was proven once again.  One of the "big" guys thought he could up his weight loss by cutting his calories down below 1000 for the week.  Instead of losing, he GAINED 3 pounds.  

 Eating the right things allows you to eat more and enjoy it more. Most definitely. :)

Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 11:46 PM CST

Name: "Dr. Ding"
Home Page: http://www.askdrding.com

Amen, Sista Skwigg, amen.

Wednesday, 30 January 2008 - 3:12 PM CST

Name: "Randi"
Home Page: http://www.thenextthingtotry.blogger.com

Yay! Why aren't there more blogs like this reminding me of what I know and what science says and what I want. Instead I'm tempted by all these blogs (by really nice good people) talking about how great it was that they didn't snack and weren't even hungry all the way from lunch to supper, and how they were so gross eating 1800 calories (and gaining 2 lbs from it). I need to read posts like this more often! Thank you!

Wednesday, 30 January 2008 - 6:15 PM CST

Name: "Cat"
Home Page: http://keastydownunder.blogspot.com

Couldnt agree more

Friday, 1 February 2008 - 4:00 PM CST

Name: "Dara "
Home Page: http://darachadwick.typepad.com

Fascinating topic as always, Renee...and a good reminder of what really works. Working with my nutritionist this year, I learned the importance of eating more of the good food and less crap, drinking more water and eating smart (for example, my largest serving of whole grains for the day immediately after my workout). It really is that simple and yes, people have a hard time believing that I ate more while writing Shape's Weight-Loss Diary column than I'd ever eaten before -- I just ate different kinds of food.

You can call me the "not hungry" former Shape model.

Saturday, 2 February 2008 - 10:53 AM CST

Name: "featherz"

I'm also 40 years old and I agree heartily with Renee. I just shake my head when I read the 'diet' and 'fitness' forums and see 18 year olds subsisting on 1200 cals because some magazine told them so. I used to eat 1200-1500 cals of junk and I weighed almost 170 pounds! (5'4). Now I'm 120 and eat about 2000-2200 on average, mostly clean except for too much cookie dough every now and then as a 10% meal. :). I probably cannot get away with 2800 as I am considerably shorter than renee, but you really CAN eat more than those calculators advice. 

Thursday, 7 February 2008 - 3:14 PM CST

Name: "Gabrielle"

Skwigg:

Just wanted to drop in and say..."I love" your blog.  Very interesting, filled with tons of information and FUN!

 Have you ever thought of writing a book?

Gab

View Latest Entries