Questioning

I have some very exciting news: I put on a bikini from 3 years ago the other night to do some progress pictures and it didn't look totally disgusting!! In fact, aside from having more belly fat, it actually fit my hips better than it ever has. That's pretty awesome. Reasoning behind randomly putting a bikini on when it's October: I figure I need to show a little more of my body in my progress photos if I'm (supposedly) no longer tracking weight. This way I can actually SEE the difference. I feel like it's hard to tell sometimes with the black workout pants, and I feel like a lot of my change is happening in the leg/hip/butt area. Maybe I can find some of those workout short-shorts on clearance at Target and use those with a sports bra instead of the bikini. My husband might appreciate that a little more lol.

What do you guys think? Workout shorts/sports bra, or just go all the way with the bikini? 

Other somewhat exciting news: I'm down to 195.

Let that sink in for a minute...

Funny story: Friday morning I rolled out of bed and without even thinking about it stepped on that scale. And then immediately was like, "OH! NO no no!!" But then I looked at that number and thought, "Yes, yes, yes. YESSSSS!!!"

Eating is working.

I know that seems like a strange thing to say, but it's true. I tracked calories last week, but wasn't incredibly worried over how much I was actually eating. Apparently my body likes it when I eat. I averaged just over 2,000 calories a day for the whole week. I lost 2 lbs. I lost 2 lbs on the weekend going into starting my period. That hasn't happened to me once this entire year up until now. Usually I see a 2-3 lbs gain on a Friday before starting my period.

I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject of nutrition and metabolism lately, especially in reference to strength training and the effect nutrition has on the results of that strength training. Basically you can't build muscle and boost your metabolism if you're starving. That seems like a "duh" statement, but you'd be surprised. Currently I'm going through the nutritional chapters of The New Rules of Lifting for Women - if you've been trying to lose weight/fat by extreme calorie restriction while adding regular exercise into your daily or near-daily routine and are seeing no or slow results with that method, I really recommend reading this book. It's essentially the same stuff I've been reading for the last few years (since getting "into" health and fitness) about calorie-restrictive diets - ie: they don't work long term. Because you can't teeter on starvation for the rest of your life. It's as simple as that. The reoccurring theme being put across by these certified trainers, physiologists, nutritionist/dieticians, and medical doctors is that the key is WHAT you eat, not necessarily how much. And in order to build muscle, you must EAT - regularly (y'know, like all three meals a day plus a snack or two), until you're satiated, and especially post-workout. You must EAT - protein, fat and the dreaded carbs. You must EAT - real food, not pre-made, processed diet meals from your grocer's freezer section.

Eat, eat, eat!! Eating is good! Calories are good! Full-fat is good!

Did you know you burn 20% of your calories during the day digesting? But if you aren't eating, you can't digest, which means less calorie burning, which equals a slower metabolism. Your body is highly adaptable and designed to run as efficiently as possible on the food/energy you put into it. This means if you are only eating 1,000 calories a day - your body will learn to exist on only 1,000 calories a day. And what does that mean? It means that it rearranges it's priorities in order to keep your brain functioning, heart beating, lungs breathing, etc. (think vital organs), and puts things like (as a woman) your reproductive organs on the back burner. If you're starving, why would biology want to work hard to make a baby for you? Your body doesn't know we live in 2012 where food is always readily available at every turn and you're just starving yourself on purpose. Your body thinks you're still living in 1243 AD and the harvest was ruined by drought.

Long story short: weight loss - more importantly, FAT LOSS - is much more than calories in/calories out. The calories in part is more vital than we want to believe.

So what is considered "extreme calorie restriction" by these various publications I've read? Essentially anything under 1400 calories/day. Even if you're only 5 feet tall or smaller. By restricting your caloric intake and upping your physical activity (more with high-cardio vs. strength training, but occurs in both depending on your restriction), you may see the number on the scale come down (not everyone does, though, like moi), but you're not just losing fat - in fact, you aren't even mostly losing fat. You're losing mostly muscle fibers and bone mass. That's right. BONE MASS.

Pretty scary stuff, huh? But probably not scary enough to spook you into eating a "normal" calorie intake on a regular basis. The indoctrination by our diet-driven society is ridiculous. Let's do ourselves a favor: stop starving ourselves and EAT!

Here's a nifty little formula for you to know where you should be on your calories:

To calculate BMR:

1. Take your body weight and divide by 2.2 to get your body weight in kilograms (round to the nearest whole number). Example: I weigh 195lbs: 195/2.2 = 88.64, nearest whole number is 89.
2. Take your weight in kgs and multiply by 7.18 (again round), then add 795. Example: 89 x 7.18 = 639.02   639+795 = 1,434

So my BMR is 1,434. I would burn this many calories if I laid in bed all day and did absolutely nothing. Doctor's would feed me this many calories via a feeding tube if I were in a coma in order to keep my vital organs functioning. 

To calculate how many calories you would eat to maintain your current body weight:

1. Find your BMI here.  Example: I'm 70" tall, I weigh 195lbs, my BMI is: 28
2. If your BMI is between 18 and 24.9 multiply your BMR by: 1.6 (non-workout days) or 1.8 (workout days)
3. If your BMI is greater than 25 multiply your BMR by: 1.5 (non-workout days) or 1.7 (workout days)

For me, this equals approximately 2,150 on a non-workout day and 2450 on a workout day. New Rules for Lifting for Women recommends not cutting any more than 300 calories off this number to begin with since that magic "500" is not really so magic afterall since, as I mentioned earlier, the calories in/calories out concept is dated and far more complicated than just your net calorie intake.

Also, please keep in mind, that your workout day calories are your calories BEFORE exercise - since ideally any exercise you'd be doing would burn roughly the difference between your workout-day/non-workout day numbers.

**Please keep in mind that every body is different and you may have to test eating more/less calories until you find that "sweet" spot that works for your body**

As I mentioned, I averaged about 2,000 calories last week overall. I'm going to adjust my MyFitnessPal calories today to make that my new mark in an effort to embrace feeding my body instead of starving it. I won't lie to you and say that it doesn't terrify me a little bit even though it's only 200 calories/day more than where I was.

Would you consider upping your calorie goals to see if it stimulates your body to start dropping weight/fat? Does the idea terrify you? Leave me a comment about it!