Well, a few of the ladies around here recommended Nancy Clark's articles on nutrition, available at adventurecycling.org ...
The more I read, the more I wonder if I'm ever going to get this right.
My goals are to lose fat and to get stronger and faster with more endurance. Basically to be more fit. It seems like this should all work hand in hand and it should be easy to make everything work together.
Well, last year, I followed Covert Bailey's advice and went for low fat, ignoring calories. I worked out almost every day. At first, I felt great and had tons of energy. Toward the end of the summer, though, I was constantly sick and I felt exhausted all the time. I did lose weight (mostly regained since then), but the calipers never showed much of a bodyfat change. Granted, I'm not sure we were using the calipers consistently. I'll admit that my workouts tend to be of the lung-busting variety, not the aerobic workouts that Bailey recommends.
Now, reading Clark's articles, I wonder if maybe the low fat approach was hurting me. She says that athletes are healthier and more capable on 50-80g or more of fat a day; I'd been shooting for 40g or fewer. Maybe my low-fat approach was actually making me sick? But then, I'm not really an athlete; I don't have nearly the workouts that real athletes do.
I also wonder about other assumptions. Clark cites studies that seem to show that women don't lose fat through exercise. Reading even further, it seems like she thinks that women who want a lean, athletic body are going to find it phenomenally difficult to get there because their bodies want to be fat for pregnancy.
I'm getting really frustrated. I'm starting to think that women are just built to get screwed. My body is optimized for the one thing I don't want -- pregnancy.
Er, sorry. Getting back to the topic. So I emailed Clark and said, okay, if exercise can't help me lose fat, what can? She actually responded (yay!) and said that a caloric deficit is what I need. She says exercise maintains, but caloric deficit is what I need to actually lose fat.
It seems to me that maybe I can't have it all. It seems to me that eating fewer calories than your body needs while also working out strenuously can't be healthy; can it?
Is it unreasonable to try to lose fat at the same time as I am trying to get my muscles into shape? DH tells me that when he was a high school swimmer, they spent the entire first month of the season breaking down all their muscles, actually making themselves weaker, so that they could then build up their muscles from scratch. That doesn't seem like a healthy, balanced approach. Maybe it works for teenagers; I doubt it's something you'd want to do every year.
Maybe I'm making this too complicated, trying to rationalize my lack of willpower. I don't know. And I should probably be posing this question (or ramble) to a nutritionist. But I'm throwing it out there. I'm confused. I don't know what to do. I want to get rid of this flab, which can't be good for me, but I also want to be strong. Oh, and to make it even better, another Clark article shows that women tend to get so hungry after exercise that they eat as many calories as they've just burned! Well, yeah, I knew I was doing that. I guess it's reassuring to find out I'm not alone.
Grrr.



Reply With Quote
)
) everything in moderation!
