Posts by venexiana

I play piano, too.

Do you have any gloves you can try on? See if they fit any differently than they used to. Physically, it is impossible for hands to "shrink". Oh - but there are flexibility exercises you can do with your hands.  My grandmother is in her mid 70s and does them so she can reach for the octaves. You may have a similar condition to carpal tunnel, but in the hands themselves.

It's unfair that specialty health foods cost more, often unnecessarily. I eat 90% organic foods, so I kind of feel your pain. Although, I live with my family, who spend maybe $200 per week for the 4 of us. My own grocery bill is maybe $50 per week. And Trader Joe's is where we do most of our shopping! In NYC, I spent more at stores like Whole Foods and my favorite, Citarella. <3 But organic grocery shopping need not be gourmet shopping. I've tried Stop 'N Shop's organic line, and it's fairly inexpensive and fairly consistent on quality.

Things like lean cuts of meats, rice, basic produce, and whole grain breads don't need to be expensive.

When I was 16, I wasn't that tall (I grew like 3.5 inches after high school and am now 5'7"+) and somewhere around 5'3" or 5'4" and ate approximately 2500+ calories per day. I also wasn't cognizant about what went into my body because it didn't seem to matter. However, I made a lifestyle decision not long after: going vegan. I was eating the same level of calories but in more wholesome foods and LOST weight (and I was already very thin). At 18, I was 5'4.5" and 103 lbs and eating the typical intake of a grown man (still 2,500 or even more). I guess the point is that I think QUALITY OF CALORIES DOES MATTER.

If you ate a truly clean, organic, unprocessed diet on 1600 calories, I seriously doubt you will gain weight. Have you tried switching around the content of your diet? Note that you will never (well, to be safe, I'll say rarely) see an obese vegan.

My dad is a nutrition specialist and works with patients everyday on these matters. He helps women lose 40 lbs or more just by changing WHAT they eat (HOW MUCH you eat also matters, but he tries to encourage the former mindset, because it is so much more sustainable an eating style).

I used to never think twice about eating huge amounts of food. Weight was never an issue, so calorie-counting was irrelevant to me. What did start to matter to me, however, was the quality of the food I was eating. That prompted me to adopt a mainly vegan diet in my teens. I still try to follow it to this day. Processed foods give me the heebie jeebies. I'm serious.

Yoga & Pilates are your new friends. They make subtle, but relevant differences to your body! Especially Pilates.

btw it's shocking that you claim to have gained 35 lbs on 900 calories. Technically, that shouldn't be possible, unless your metabolic rate dropped to a number not previously recorded in human beings (I believe something around 750 was once recorded in a 90 year old, bed-ridden man).

Regardless, stay well & stay fit! See how you respond to cardio and pilates and a 1600 calorie diet of strictly clean foods. It's hard to gain weight on a diet based mainly on organic, raw foods. ;) Even if you don't lose, you will feel wonderful! Which is what matters most.

Theory: Those who are only slightly underweight (agruskin or carmenxox) probably will gain weight back faster than someone who was down to 70lbs(!) at the same height (5'4"). I think when you go that low, it is extremely critical and takes a very long time to build up from. I think being only 10 lbs underweight is more frustrating, because your body will probably gain more on less.  If you suddenly increased to 3,000, I'm not sure the desired effect would be achieved. Oh, you'd probably gain, but way too fast.

There seems to be two approaches to remedying this:

A. Upping slowly but surely (1200 right away and then increase from there)

B. Drastically increasing (refeeding, essentially) to 3,000+ calories which shocks your metabolism into overdrive, and suddenly you'll be able to stay thin on a huge number of calories. It sounds too good to be true, right?

On CC, it seems not many people report back definitively on how either method works out for them in the long run, so we're left with a lot of inconclusive data about how/when/why the approaches above work. A lot of people here who have upped their calories  gradually are still seeing weight gains when they are trying to maintain or lose, which I think discourages new viewers/readers to take the plunge, since it doesn't seem guaranteed to pay off the way it should "in theory". If more people posted and said "I did this and it worked exactly as it should have", it would reassure people.

I think maybe that is why the refeeding/mechanical eating approach is the new trend here - it's so crazy that it just might work. But because so many people have just started that method, it's too early to tell if it works out for them. Meesh has educated the forum on this approach, and it worked well for her, so that is encouraging.

Danamichael - at the end of the day, you need to weigh your options and do what you feel is more manageable. I guess both seem scary, but perhaps the 3,000+ calorie shock is a way to get it all over with faster and you can theoretically return to a high calorie maintenance level without gaining much/any weight. Ask a nutritionist if she recommends this method for you.

P.S. Surprised there isn't two warring camps on the two methods yet. Meanwhile, no one can answer WHICH WORKS BETTER?!

Another stock response is from a guy: "Guys like curves", "Hips are sexy", "Thighs are hot" and all that rot. Did they ever consider that we don't care what they think either way - that our perception of our bodies isn't for their sake at all?  It's actually quite forward of them to think that women's body issues are in direct relation to attracting males, when often, body issues are more to do with OTHER women, if anyone else at all. Many times we are our own worst enemies.

But yeah - I hate it when guys chime in with their generic lines about sex appeal.

Original Post by warbler02:

 

I also want to add that it's possible to weigh 100-105 lbs at my size without undereating or overexercising. At 105-106 right now, I eat 1100-1800 calories per day (it varies), with an emphasis on unpackaged/unprocessed foods. I work out 6 days a week--20 minutes of cardio max and also Pilates. This is a sustainable diet for me--it's not starvation. It's something I can see myself sticking with for the rest of my life, easily, because it's the way I and my family have always eaten. I only got up to 116 because I spent some time in the hospital/at home recovering from a health condition this year. I feel great at 105 so I don't think it's unreasonable or extreme for me to lose just 5 lbs.

Probably not, but it would be great to stay 100lbs by eating at least 1800 calories. If you can do that, then your body obviously is comfortable at that weight. I am taller than you and maintained that weight by never even watching my diet at all - and not just in high school. Up until last year, when I went vegan (well, 90%), I lost weight without meaning to and have been hoping ever since that my metabolism is still as fiery as it once was. Since I don't eat huge meals like I once did, I don't really get the chance to find out. But because I know that even those with the best metabolisms experience a leveling off at some point, I would like to delay that as long as possible. For instance, my father is nearly 60 and still weighs the same as he did in high school. And still eats ad libitum. I'd like to be able to do that, too, while still trying to maintain a vegan-friendly lifestyle.

It sounds like a dream come true, but it's actually quite a Phelps-sized challenge to meet everyday. I'm pretty sure I have a natural hypermetabolism (possibly borderline hypoglycemic even), because I used to eat like 3k a day without even thinking twice and still remained naturally underweight. My father is the same way. But my mother, on the other hand, has hypothyroidism and takes about 6 months just to lose 5 lbs! She hates it. She used to be 110, and then after me & my brother, never got below 130 again.

If she started eating 3,000k per day, would her metabolism be forced to speed up or would she just gain a ton of weight?! I am curious about whether this mechanical eating approach works universally or only for those coming back from the brink of undernourishment.

Whenever I use Opera to post on here, I get these horrific phantom HTML tags accompanying my posts. It's such an eyesore. I apologize.

It's a good idea to mix it up every so often, as long as your splurge days aren't completely egregious - there's no need to go over 2,000 - 2,500 on a heavy day. The idea of eating upwards of that is almost sickening - unless you are a super athlete. And of course, the day after your splurge, you can get by with eating very little. One day of very light eating following a heavy feast won't jeopardize your metabolism or wellbeing and will lessen the effects of the "bad" day.

You know, it is perfectly possible to have a NATURAL BMI under 18. I have my entire life and my doctor tells me constantly I am the picture of health. When my father (ironically, also "underweight", narrow-framed, and the reason I am so) suggested to my doctor that I gain weight (because I had a long flu that year, and he thought I'd heal faster or something), and the doctor said it was completely unnecessary. I used to eat (on average) 2,000-2,500 calories per day and I've never weighed over 105 lbs in my entire life (I'm 5'5"...an inch taller than I thought!). I also have always had very light periods (and why would I complain?). I've survived many injuries without breaking bones, etc.

I have become a vegetarian though and have "cleaned up" my eating, and feel 100% better for it. I lost a little weight doing so, but it wasn't the intention. However, I have no desire to regain what I lost because I like the way I look, and my new eating habits are far healthier than my old and extremely nutritious. So, I can relate the OP in this regard. Don't gain weight just because you are blessed with a miraculous metabolism. It would be a shame.

The condescension on this forum is appalling. Most girls who are aiming to look as sleek as possible are alarmed that cardio makes you appear bulkier. What they don't realize is that this isn't real muscle, but the momentary swelling that comes with water retention after a workout. It goes away, but it is certainly alarming at first sight. I've noticed that walking particularly fast (or overstriding) makes this worse. I find that varying the pace on a walk/run helps prevent this buildup of fluids. And drinking plenty of water.

I agree, that this weight gain does NOT make sense. And while it is easy and convenient for CC posters to chalk it up to the unpredictability of post-ED weight gain, there's still many quotients here that do not add up.

1.)It's not as if your metabolic rate - however "compromised" people think it is - is a mystery. You did, after all, HAVE IT TESTED. Those numbers DO NOT lie. If your BMR is 1350, then you are probably bur ning, at the very least, 1700 calories on a moderately  active day.

That means you should be maintaining on your current caloric intake, and NOT gaining. Your body ha s no choice but to burn its BMR (which again, IS NOT A MYSTERY in your case) at the very least . No matter what the situation, metabolic burn is always purely mathematical. This idea that ED recovery patients are separate from the basic laws of thermodynamics is ridiculous. The numbers still determine everything; the only difference is that most patients never actually GET their metabolisms tested, and therefore can only work from theory. This is not the issue in your case.

2.) It actually is impossible to gain ten pounds of muscle in  four months, even with ex cessive weight training. It cannot happen.

3.) Even if your teenage body is "catching up" and  is adding bone and  organ mass, how it is managing to do this on your current caloric intake, again, "doesn' t make sense".

4.) The fact that all the weight gain is in your middle is odd, as&nb sp;usually females would gain weight  ;in their lower half first.

On the one hand, you are lucky; on the other, it is worrisome as  this could point to fibro id or tumor growth in the pelvic region, conditions which can also make you "inexplicably" gain weight. In fact, this mysterious weight gain is right in line with the primary symptoms of many female related conditions.

Have you been to a g ynecologist?

They could rule out that anything is out of order& nbsp;in your reproductive system.

I hope everything is fine , and that you find an explanation for all this soon!

P.S. Sorry for any weird, phantom html tags that appear in this post. I'm not sure why this continually happens when I post here.