NOTE: After review it is obvious that my original calorie intake estimate was wrong. I've edited this post to revise it to 2,000 calories. I originally said that it was 1000, which makes no sense.
I am looking for dietary advice in order to maximize my results. Prior to getting into swimming I was consuming about 2,000 calories per day and trying to favor protein. Considering that I was sitting in front of a computer most of the day even 1,000 calories may have been too much. My weight pretty much stayed around the same 220lbs (lean weight target being somewhere around 185lbs).
Now that I am swimming I probably need to change my dietary intake. I do want to get rid of the extra pounds as soon as possible. However, with these 1 1/2 hour workouts and only 2000 calories I felt out of energy for the first couple of days. My lack of conditioning probably had a lot to do with it.
Some of the questions I have are:
Should I try to remain close to 2000 calories in order to expedite weight loss and then stabilize at a higher caloric intake?
My workouts are at 5:30AM. I can't have breakfast prior to the workout. This means that I am working off of energy from dinner and stored fat. Should I favor certain foods for dinner?
Also, what would be the best distribution of caloric intake throughout the day? Should I front load (heavy breakfast) or have a larger dinner to put some energy away for the morning workout?
Any other thoughts/advice would be appreciated.
Thanks.
When I eat high quality foods, I can eat my fill and maintain a good weight... IF I exercise enough, and I mostly just swim... usually not more than 6-9K yds/wk. I know for most folks this is not easy to achieve, but if you can, it seems to be a healthy path.
I totally agree that exercise in an important component of overall good health. I swim almost every day. In the winter, when my team is in session, it's mostly aerobic sets, and I tend to put on a pound or two because I'm usually quite hungry after a workout. In summer, I swim mostly open water, so it's mainly for endurance, and I usually lose those same couple of pounds so by fall I'm ready to start the cycle again.
True paleo people, like Mark Sisson, don't hold with aerobic exercise. They believe that paleolithic man sat around most of the time, waiting for his next meal to wander by, whereupon he acted with sudden, explosive energy to make the kill. Sisson therefore advocates building strength by "lifting lots of heavy things."
Personally, I couldn't live without the "high" I get from a good hour-and-a-half aerobic workout.
if you don't eat carbs you are probably eating much less calories as well.
Actually, I don't count calories or carbs. (For anyone wishing to do so, fitday.com is an excellent tool.) When I started my new way of eating, seven or eight years ago, I merely tried to go easy on the rice, potatoes, bread, pasta, etc. while increasing my intake of fresh fruits and veg. I also tried to consume the bulk of my carbs early in the day ("No White at Night").
Last year, I stopped eating wheat, as an experiment initially. I was responding to the challenge here: www.trackyourplaque.com/.../wheat-belly.html
Because I liked the effect this had on me, an effect that was noticeable after only two weeks, I have continued to not eat wheat ever since. But I have never figured out whether those effects are directly attributable to the absence of wheat per se in my diet, or to the drastic reduction in calories (and I would argue "bad" calories) I now consume. I am neither celiac nor wheat sensitive as far as I know (so if I eat a slice of bread or a French pastry I suffer no ill effects). My wife, on the other hand, believes that for her, cutting out wheat has cured a number of long-standing medical conditions, from plantar fasciitis to gerd to joint pain (and she has also lost a lot of weight).
All these differences in 'good' and 'bad' calories are minor despite what these fad diets would like people to believe and try to argue. There's a reason no serious bodybuilder uses anything other than calorie restriction or ketogenic (but cyclic ketogenic which is also a caloric deficit diet). I trust professional dieters over books that try to convince people they can lose weight without ever being hungry and eating all the food they love to eat. BTW, I am speaking about weight loss pure and simple, not healthy eating.
I guess one concern that I've always had with regards to diets is what I've come to call "sustainability". In other words, can you do it for an extended period of time as you work, travel, go out with friends, have family gatherings, go to a ball game, etc.
I did the the super-low-fat approach years ago when I was active in martial arts and also going to the gym for lunch every day. It worked very well while it lasted but it was not sustainable. It is hard to eat like that every day regardless of the setting and circumstances.
The low carb diet, in some ways, seems to be a little more sustainable. You might not be able to avoid carbs 100%, but it would seem to me that it is relatively easy to go into just about any restaurant or fast-food joint and buy a meal that is reasonably close to the intent of the program.
What does concern me greatly in any diet these days it how hard it is to avoid all of the chemicals, corn products and, to generalize, "junk" that our industrialized food system feeds us. That is hard. If you eat out, good luck, it ain't gonna happen. At home you have to be careful where you shop and avoid nearly 90% of what is in supermarket shelves. Is this sustainable? I don't know.
I got to tell you though, I still love a nice, fat and greasy chili cheeseburger with chili fries once every month or two...
I weigh myself regularly. If I am 2 pounds over my ideal weight, I count calories. (The LiveStrong app is great.) If my weight is within range, I don't even think about it. That's been working for me for a very long time.
When I first started swimming I felt ravenous all the time. That made it hard if I ever needed to restrict my calorie intake. There were three things I did to fix this:
1.) Never swim on an empty stomach, unless it's first thing in the morning. Have a snack or a regular meal shortly before swimming.
2.) Drink something with electrolytes while I'm swimming. I like an 8:1 mixture of water and juice. Diluted Gatorade or PowerAid would be fine too.
3.) Have a recovery snack right after swimming. Ideally, that should be about 75% carbs, 25% protein. I keep a thermos of chocolate milk in my swim bag and drink it in the locker room.
Since doing those three things, I have a perfectly normal appetite.
What does BMI really account for? What is it good for?
It's good for evaluations of obesity trends among populations because it works pretty good for most people and the only data you need is height and weight. If your BMI is over 25 it could mean you are overweight. It comes with some caveats, but it's better than nothing.
Depends on body type. I'm 5'9" and my balance point seems to be about 180 when swimming (I just seem to hold onto a little more fat). I am going to try to be 175 for spring, but I just can't be lower than that. There'll be nothing left to lose.
I was about 225 at my heaviest, btw, so I know what you've got ahead of you. It will be worth it. Good luck.
175 for your height is considered overweight:
www.everydayhealth.com/.../index.aspx
I know a guy who is 6'2" and weighs 160. Now he's an extreme case, but still out there. I don't understand the, "nothing left to lose," statement. Unless you just have bones and organs left, you can always drop weight.
agree w/this but has very little place when it comes to athletic people.
The NIH specifically addresses this on their BMI web page:
Although BMI can be used for most men and women, it does have some limits:
* It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
* It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle.
It's good for evaluations of obesity trends among populations because it works pretty good for most people and the only data you need is height and weight. If your BMI is over 25 it could mean you are overweight. It comes with some caveats, but it's better than nothing.
I think a combination of height, weight, BMI, body fat %, together with input from a doctor, and genetics, are all great factors in any fitness plan.
I certainly wouldn't say BMI doesn't apply to athletes, but perhaps it needs to be proportional. I'm at the high end of the 'healthy' BMI range, around 24. Yet at 168, 5'11", body fat 9-10%, I certainly don't think I have much to be alarmed about. Of course family history/genetics plays a large factor for me too.
