Arrghhh!

LegacyUser

Hi everyone!
Well totally new to this whole posting scene so I said I'd have a rant here and see if anyone else is/has been through similiar.
So basically last Saturday I started seeing a personal trainer. The first session was to go through diet/food stuff (for the previous week I had been keeping a food diary). Everything she told me made absolute sense but on only day 5 of the new 'lifestyle' (note i don't say diet ) I am nearly weak with the hunger.
She has given me portion sizes to follow and I am seriously struggling. I'm just going to write down a example of what I ate yesterday....

Breakfast: Boiled egg with 2 slices of spelt bread (she has told me only 1 slice but it's not filling me at all). 1 gl of water

Snack@11am: 1 apple, 30g mixed seeds

Lunch: Stir fried prawn (30g) and veg (4 baby carrots, beansprouts, mangetout, peas and peppers). 1 pint of water

Snack@4pm: Finns Rye cakes with 2 tbsp organice tofu tomato flavour paté. 1 gl of water

Dinner: 6 Quorn chicken style dippers, 2 tbsp carrots, 180g sweet potato. 1 pint of water

During the day I felt absolutely ravenous... my question is 'is this just my imagination that I'm hungry because I know I have changed my diet and cut down on portions etc or am I genuinely hungry?'. I have tried drinking water when I feel hungry but I am on the loo 10 times a day! (sorry to be crude!).

I exercise 5 times a week and am wondering do I need to up my calorie intake to give me more energy. The personal trainer has put me on max of 1400kcal a day through food. I am 5ft 9 with a large frame and am 178lbs. I want to lose a stone but am really finding it difficult to stop thinking about food. She has told me the first 1 or 2 weeks will be the hardest.
Has anyone elsebeen doing this? Does 1400kcal sound quite low or is that just me????? HELP pleasey

CerebralCortex

No expert but I'd suggest more protein.

g'em

curls007 wrote: »

The personal trainer has put me on max of 1400kcal a day through food. I am 5ft 9 with a large frame and am 178lbs.

This has me very worried. You are essentially starving yourself and 1400cals per day is absolutely too little food to be giving yourself, I'm not surprised you're starving!!!

Sincho

It seems kinda low to me too...and I have been dieting, doing weight watchers and even on a diet (as opposed to a change in lifestyle!) I've never once been hungry. If I was you I'd be trying to find out how many calories nutritionists recommend for someone of your age, height, weight and activity levels. Its unlikely that your personal trainer has a degree in nutrition so double check your facts and speak to them again. You shouldn't be starving yourself as this can only work in the short term and will eventually mean you will return to your old habits. If you are doing this to lose weight I highly recommend weight watchers, they provide a really sensible eating plan that doesn't in any way limit the type of food you eat and you won't be told to stop eating while you're still hungry!
Best of luck with it x

EileenG

As a very general rule of thumb, 10 calories per pound of weight is the very lowest you should consider for a cutting diet, and even at that level, you should have an occasional refeed day. That 10 cals per pound could still be too low if you are young, male or active, or female and active or breastfeeding.

If you know your lean mass (total weight minus bodyfat), I'd base a cutting diet on 14 cals per pound of lean mass, and that also allows for refeeds.

If you are constantly hungry (as opposed to occasionally peckish) then it's a good bet you are not eating enough. On a cutting diet, you can expect the occasional hunger pang, but most of the time you should feel normal, and not obsessed with food.

Just looking at your diet, it seems to be seriously short of fats. Apart from that handful of seeds and one egg, everything else looks low fat or fat free, and fat has an RDA for a reason, you need it for good health and satiety.

Hold on, am I seeing things? 30g of prawns? That's miniscule. I normally start with 150-200g of prawns!

corkcomp

EileenG wrote: »

As a very general rule of thumb, 10 calories per pound of weight is the very lowest you should consider for a cutting diet, and even at that level, you should have an occasional refeed day. That 10 cals per pound could still be too low if you are young, male or active, or female and active or breastfeeding.

If you know your lean mass (total weight minus bodyfat), I'd base a cutting diet on 14 cals per pound of lean mass, and that also allows for refeeds.

If you are constantly hungry (as opposed to occasionally peckish) then it's a good bet you are not eating enough. On a cutting diet, you can expect the occasional hunger pang, but most of the time you should feel normal, and not obsessed with food.

Just looking at your diet, it seems to be seriously short of fats. Apart from that handful of seeds and one egg, everything else looks low fat or fat free, and fat has an RDA for a reason, you need it for good health and satiety.

Hold on, am I seeing things? 30g of prawns? That's miniscule. I normally start with 150-200g of prawns!

yeah prawns are one thing you can probably safely eat as much as you want of! they are almost pure protein and low in fat

LegacyUser

Yeah I know 30g is miniscule for that amount of prawns but thats what she has recommended. I feel so much better now knowing that other people think this is a little on the extreme side. I used to be a gym instructor and have done sports nutrition so I should really know what to do but for me it's that extra push I need to lose the weight. I know the low GI is safe but it's the portion amounts that I can't understand. I'll just say it to her at the next session.
I am seriously considering going back to weight watchers as this is a really sensible way of eating and just training with her.
On another subject how is everyone getting on with counting calories? She has recommended me to buy Collin's Calorie Counter and I am waiting on that to arrive. Meanwhile I have been looking up websites but there doesnt seem to be a Irish or even UK based calorie counter available? Only USA ones, which don't really have the brands we have here. Maybe once I get the calorie counter book I will be able to keep track of how much I taking in more easily.
Thanks to everyone who posted though, I'm super relieved

EileenG

The popular one is www.fitday.com. As you said, some of the food is stuff we don't eat, but you can enter your usual stuff as custom foods, and you only need to do this once.

I like the MyPlan section of www.lowcarber.org. It has a default of 100g (unlike a lot of sites that seem to use Cup as default) and it has nice graphs for tracking weight loss and exercise.

Or my personal favourite is a little handheld gadget called Robi Nutrition Assistant. It cost about 20 euro, and comes preloaded with lots of food and you can add more of your own. But it's small enough to carry, and you can enter whatever you ate in a couple of keystrokes, so you really do use it.

I would plug all your food from your trainers plan into Fitday and see what the totals are. It sounds to me like her plan just doesn't have anough protein etc for good health. Low GI is fine, but it won't keep you healthy if you don't eat enough of it.

aare

g'em wrote: »

This has me very worried. You are essentially starving yourself and 1400cals per day is absolutely too little food to be giving yourself, I'm not surprised you're starving!!!

I am sure G'em, (and a few others) will be happy to confirm that I am the starvation and ketosis Queen around here, with one thing and another, but reading your diet, I honestly, genuinely cannot see how any human being could live on that...

To my unrefined eyes it looks like the kind of diet you could eat *in addition* to unlimited proteins or something, not by itself...

Another thing that would concern me is that, knowing WAY more than I ever will about diet (as an ex gym instructor and having done sports nutrition), you didn't have the confidence to just tell this Personal Trainer where to go with her diet, and take yourself off to weight watchers without a second thought.

naasface

1400 is not "starving yourself". I think you just need to adjust to the diet. Your bmi puts u at overweight you might just be used to eating more. Dieticians dont recommend going under 1200. So 1400 is reasonable enough. The first two weeks will be difficult but i think the meals will start to fill you up quickly-you'll be amazed at how quickly the body adjusts. I'd advise u to stick with it.It sounds like she knows what she's doing. Hang in there - losing weight isnt going to be easy peasy or else we'd all be size tens. Once you start to see results you'll be glad you stayed with it.
And to all the other posters shocked by 1400- its not that low AT all?!? I am i delusional?

g'em

naasface wrote: »

1400 is not "starving yourself".

For someone who is 5'2" and 110lb no, it's not starving yoruself.

For someone who's 5'9" and weighs 178lb yes, it is. At that height and weight the Basal Metabolic calorie requirement is in or around 1600 calories per day - that is, this is the absolute minimum energy your body needs to function normally. Drop below that and effectively you are starving yourself of the energy your body needs to work.

Sure, there's a bit of give and take, but for someone that size dropping down to 1400 calories on chronic basis will do them no favours at all.

aare

I am not a big calorie counter but all my gut feelings totally agree with G'em on this, based entirely on the actual quantities of food.

You have two ways to lose weight:

a) Drastic Crash dieting
b) Slow healthy weight loss

G'em will probably thump me with something, but I happen to believe that it's up to you which suits you in the end.

However, this 1400 calorie diet straddles the two...with all the discomforts and health disadvantages of crash dieting without the benefit of fast weight loss. Which, apart from the lifestyle aspects, means staying on a starvation diet for a prolonged period of time.

To me that makes no sense whatsoever.

You would actually be a lot better off, all round, taking out most of the carbs, doubling the proteins and going into ketosis...at least it wouldn't be for so long.

...and one last point...to be told that a starvation diet like that is your "new lifestyle" must be terminally demotivating for anyone who needs to lose weight now and watch it on a regular basis.

g'em

aare wrote: »

G'em will probably thump me with something, but I happen to believe that it's up to you which suits you in the end.

lol, I'm a quite peaceful soul really

You're right in the extent that whatever suits an individual is probably the best thing for them all round but my issue with drastic crash dieting is that it's very much a short-term solution and the ill-effects of what it can do to your metabolism pretty much negate the whole "what suits is best" argument.

Crash dieting nearly always = sluggish metabolism and rapid weight gain when you eat "normally".

aare

Safe to come out so?

Seriously though...pretty much all you are saying about crash dieting probably applies equally to the OP's "new lifestyle" as far as I can see...

g'em wrote: »

Crash dieting nearly always = sluggish metabolism and rapid weight gain when you eat "normally".

...and a "life sentence" of the diet above, just to shift a stone...hardly bears thinking about, does it?

peanuthead

I first entered this thread with the view to ask how much a personal trainer was? Because I was thinking about getting one to help me tone up. But to be honest, after reading the advice that the OP was given, Ive had a change of heart.

aare

peanuthead wrote: »

I first entered this thread with the view to ask how much a personal trainer was? Because I was thinking about getting one to help me tone up. But to be honest, after reading the advice that the OP was given, Ive had a change of heart.

I am tempted to say "GOOD!", but, in truth, I have known a few personal trainers socially and not one of them would ever be so unrealistic...

This isn't the first peculiar notion I have seen mentioned in connection with personal trainers on these boards. I am beginning to ask myself whether there is some kind of regulatory body and if not, perhaps there should be?

After all, when you pay a personal trainer and place your faith in their judgement, you are giving them, effectively, far more influence over your health related decisions than your family Doctor.

peanuthead

aare wrote: »

I am tempted to say "GOOD!", but, in truth, I have known a few personal trainers socially and not one of them would ever be so unrealistic...

This isn't the first peculiar notion I have seen mentioned in connection with personal trainers on these boards. I am beginning to ask myself whether there is some kind of regulatory body and if not, perhaps there should be?

After all, when you pay a personal trainer and place your faith in their judgement, you are giving them, effectively, far more influence over your health related decisions than your family Doctor.

Yes I suppose that was a sweeping generalisation, but I agree. There should be some regulations involved with trainers and their qualifications (which Im sure there is, but like every profession, theres always one...)

I think if trainers and trainees are in a position where they want to see results quickly, they will overdo it