New RW article about racing weight

[Wines Not Whines]

Has anyone read the article in this month's RW about simultaneously training and losing weight? It seemed timely after Susie's post the other day. It's mostly about how to eat smart and healthy, how it's important to know how many calories you *really* burn and *really* eat every day (as opposed to estimates, which can be off), and how to eat so you don't feel like you're starving and it doesn't negatively impact your training. That last part was the most interesting to me. They suggested that if you're in training mode, you shouldn't go into a deficit of more than 200-300 net calories/day, which is far less than most programs recommend. So they basically recommend that you aim to lose half a pound a week if you don't want it to negatively impact your training. What do you think about this?

It resonated with me, because I know I've been crashing and burning when I tried to have a 500 calorie deficit. I would end up starving and eat way over my calories the next day. So maybe I need to adjust my plan to something more modest.

I don't see the article on their website yet, but it will probably be up soon.  They had different advice/strategies for runners who are training for different distances (5k, 10k, half and full marathons).

[agswife]

I have not read it, but will keep an eye out for it on the website. Would love to know what I need to eat to lose and train well for my 15k this summer.

[joenali]

I wasn't able to make this clicky, but it's from the Ironman Facebook page. I really like the last paragraph.

Four Fat-Loss Myths for Endurance Athletes

Achieve your best weight by being aware of these myths.
Despite their apparent leanness, many active people are still discontent with their body composition. Don't let these myths do you in.
by Nancy Clark
All too often, I hear seemingly lean athletes express extreme frustration with their inability to lose undesired bumps and bulges:
"Am I the only runner who has ever gained weight when training for a marathon?"
"Why does my husband lose weight when he starts going to the gym and I don't?"
"For all the exercise I do, I should be pencil-thin. Why can't I simply lose a few pounds?"
Clearly, weight loss is not simple and often includes debunking a few myths.
Myth: You must exercise in order to lose body fat
To lose body fat, you must create a calorie deficit. You can create that deficit by:
1) exercising, which improves your overall health and fitness, or
2) eating fewer calories
Even injured athletes can lose fat, despite a lack of exercise. The complaint “I gained weight when I was injured because I couldn't exercise,” could more correctly be stated “I gained weight because I mindlessly overate for comfort and fun.”
Adding on exercise does not equate to losing body fat. In a 16-week study, untrained women (ages 18 to 34) built up to 40 minutes of hard cardio or weight lifting three days a week. They were told to not change their diet, and they saw no changes in body fat (1). Creating a calorie deficit by eating less food seems to be more effective than simply adding on exercise to try to lose weight.
Athletes who complain they “eat like a bird” but fail to lose body fat may simply be under-reporting their food intake. A survey of female marathoners indicated the fatter runners under-reported their food intake more than the leaner ones. Were they oblivious to how much they actually consumed? (2) Or were they too sedentary in the non-exercise hours of their day?
Myth: If you train for a marathon or triathlon, your body fat will melt away
Wishful thinking. If you are an endurance athlete who complains, “For all the exercise I do, I should be pencil-thin,” take a look at your 24-hour energy expenditure. Do you put most of your energy into exercising, but then tend to be quite sedentary the rest of the day as you recover from your tough workouts? Male endurance athletes who reported a seemingly low calorie intake did less spontaneous activity than their peers in the non-exercise parts of their day (4). You need to keep taking the stairs instead of the elevators, no matter how much you train. Again, you should eat according to your whole day's activity level, not according to how hard you trained that day.
Myth: The more you exercise, the more fat you will lose
Often, the more you exercise, the hungrier you get and 1) the more you will eat, or 2) the more you believe you “deserve” to eat for having survived the killer workout. Unfortunately, rewarding yourself with a 600-calorie cinnamon roll can quickly erase in a few minutes the 600-calorie deficit you generated during your workout.
The effects of exercise on weight loss are complex and unclear—and depend on the 24-hour picture. We know among people (ages 56-78) who participated in a vigorous walking program, their daily energy needs remained about the same despite adding an hour of exercise. How could that be? The participants napped more and were 62% less active the rest of their day (3). Be sure to pay attention to your whole day's activity level. One hour of exercise does not compensate for a sedentary lifestyle.
Myth: You should exercise six days a week to lose weight
Research suggests exercising four times a week might be better for weight control than six times a week. A study with sedentary women (ages 60 to 74) who built up to exercising for 40 minutes of cardio and weights suggests those who did four workouts a week burned about 225 additional calories in the other parts of their day because they felt energized. The group that trained six times a week complained the workouts not only took up too much time, but also left them feeling tired and droopy. They burned about 200 fewer calories in the non-exercise parts of their day (5).
The bottom line
If you are exercising to lose weight, I encourage you to separate exercise and weight. Yes, you should exercise for health, fitness, stress relief, and most importantly, for enjoyment. (After all, the E in exercise stands for enjoyment!) If you exercise primarily to burn off calories, exercise will become punishment for having excess body fat. You'll eventually quit exercising—and that’s a bad idea.
Instead of focusing on exercise as the key to fat loss, pay more attention to your calorie intake. Knocking off just 100 calories a day from your evening snacks can theoretically result in 10 pounds a year of fat loss. One less cookie a day is simpler than it sounds.
References:
1. Poehlman, J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87(3):1004-9, 2002.
2. Edwards, Med Sci Sports Exer 25:1398, 1993
3. Goran, Am J Physiol 263:E950, 1992
4. Thompson, Med Sci Sports Exerc 27:347, 1995
5. Hunter, Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Jan 30. [Epub ahead of print]
6. Donnelly, Arch Intern Med 163:1343, 2003
7. Janssen, Int J Sports Med, 10:S1,1989
8. Pietrobelli Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 26:1339, 2002
___________________
Nancy Clark, MS, RD CSSD (Board Certified Specialist in Sports Dietetics) counsels active people at her private practice in Newton, MA, For more information, read her Sports Nutrition Guidebook and food guides for marathoners and new runners. The books are available at nancyclarkrd.com
Share This Article



March 13th 2013
Nutrition
2013
Training


Originally from: www.ironman.com/triathlon-news/articles/2013/03/weight-loss-myths.aspx#ixzz2Nk1dEbNY

[Deleted]

Yeah, I'd read it and that 200-300 lbs recommendation stuck out to me too. That is really hard to accept but then joenali's post is encouraging because those tiny sacrifices really do pay off.

[Deleted]

I'm willing to believe the 200-300 calorie thing. I added some calories back to my daily diet making my deficit about that and I lost 2lbs this month - the most I've lost since October. And my training is going better.

[clseale]

The part that I found really interesting about it was when they broke down how to calculate calories burned. We run a 10 mile run, & we count all of those calories burned....but as they point out, you would have burned some of those calories even if you didn't run. So they're not all EXTRA calories burned. Maybe it only makes a difference of 50-100 calories here or there, but if you're trying to lose, that would add up!

[Wines Not Whines]

Mar 16, 2013 18:50:41 GMT -5 clseale said:

The part that I found really interesting about it was when they broke down how to calculate calories burned. We run a 10 mile run, & we count all of those calories burned....but as they point out, you would have burned some of those calories even if you didn't run. So they're not all EXTRA calories burned. Maybe it only makes a difference of 50-100 calories here or there, but if you're trying to lose, that would add up!

 That struck me, too. I've thought about that before, but I usually don't take it into account when tracking. I probably should.

[kellina]

Mar 16, 2013 18:50:41 GMT -5 clseale said:

The part that I found really interesting about it was when they broke down how to calculate calories burned. We run a 10 mile run, & we count all of those calories burned....but as they point out, you would have burned some of those calories even if you didn't run. So they're not all EXTRA calories burned. Maybe it only makes a difference of 50-100 calories here or there, but if you're trying to lose, that would add up!

Dammit! So if I'm only running like 2miles currently and only burning 200cal then I shouldn't even eat those cal back? WAH!!!!

[spunkypenguin]

I haven't read the artcle. I tried to really listen to my body while training for this first half. I cut back my weight loss goals and didn't get too caught up with the scale. I didn't lose much once I got into the higher mileage and when I did see a drop, it was usually a cutback week. Training has been great and I'm feeling good about my first race and I'm planning to sign up for more after this. My weight loss is stalled a bit, but I feel like I've learned a lot about my body since january! Its definitely tough finding the perfect balance.

[Wines Not Whines]

Mar 16, 2013 19:35:02 GMT -5 kellina said:

Mar 16, 2013 18:50:41 GMT -5 clseale said:

The part that I found really interesting about it was when they broke down how to calculate calories burned. We run a 10 mile run, & we count all of those calories burned....but as they point out, you would have burned some of those calories even if you didn't run. So they're not all EXTRA calories burned. Maybe it only makes a difference of 50-100 calories here or there, but if you're trying to lose, that would add up!

Dammit! So if I'm only running like 2miles currently and only burning 200cal then I shouldn't even eat those cal back? WAH!!!!

Basically what the article said was that you should calculate your BMR (basal metabolic rate). You can do that via online calculators. Divide your BMR by 24. That's how many calories you burn, on average, every hour, even if you're just laying on the couch. Let's say your BMR is 1200 calories/day, so it's 50 calories/hour. You go out for a one-hour run and your HRM says you burned 500 calories. So you think, great, now I can eat 1700 calories today! But 50 of those calories don't really count, because you would've burned them anyway. Your workout only burned 450 *extra* calories above your BMR. Does that make sense?

The difference in calories with a 2-mile run probably isn't huge. I think it becomes more of an issue if you're working out for 2 hours/day, and your BMR is around 70 calories/hour, so you're inadvertently overeating about 150 calories/day.