Thank you

Oh and by the way ...
EVEN IF I were to totally abandon portion size considerations and just eat my fill of fat and salad... Odds are my "natural weight" would probably fall MUCH higher than I would like it. If I had to guess, I would probably say somewhere around 150 pounds (I became amenorrhetic at 140 pounds so I'm going to assume that my natural weight is around 150). One of the terribly sad things about allowing yourself to get so heavy is that you permanently set your body up for wanting a higher body fat percentage than it otherwise would have. My genetic weight is probably somewhere around 130 (which is on the healthy side but normal... I'm basing this off the fact my sister of a similar height who doesn't really rigidly control eating is 130 and also has similar sugar metabolism problems... and my other sister who is 5'7 with the same situation has a natural weight of 145).

I don't want to be 150 pounds. Ideally I would like to get back up to 115. Currently I dropped more weight than I would like to and am trying to regain some (slowly, without losing control) and wear a size 2. I like the way I looked in a size 4 misses. I liked it better than I did in a size 12/14. It was MUCH too heavy for me.

So, because of my personal history, the sort of size I would LIKE is a lot different than what I would get, I'm quite certain of that. Some conscious control of energy is going to be a necessity if I want to obtain the body I want. If I'm going to have to do it anyway, might as well eat what I want while doing it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that... maybe it's just youthful vanity, but what's the harm? The guy who goes to the gym to build muscles he doesn't have "naturally"... or any girl who starts out normal weight but likes how she looks 10 20 pounds thinner... is it so wrong to push your body outside of it's "natural realm" (within reason) if it produces a more aesthetically pleasing, confidence-boosting result? I'm sure there are things about your apperance that you purposefully changed that AREN'T natural, right?

My goodness...

this is not the way I had intended to start here.

Been lurking for some months, so I know the cast of characters (of course you know me not at all). But I have speed registered -- will update the info when I have time, e.g., books et al.

And the reason? I was following this debate with some interest, then saw something that set off alarm bells and flashing red sirens.


Woo... you became amenorrheic. And have you remained so? And how old are you? And how much underweight?

I am concerned, Woo... so much that I have enabled the e-mail option so we may discuss this privately IF YOU WISH. Your call. I am a middle-aged woman (just turned 51) who has never weighed over 160 pounds or under 125... as an adult. My periods have been like clockwork for 40 years now.

I hope you have resumed your menses? If not, you have a major medical issue that MUST BE ADDRESSED and who cares how much you weigh? When your endocrine system stops functioning normally, you no longer have good health. Please reassure me. Thanks.

As an intelligent young woman (highly so), you know the profile for anorexia. If you weighed 120 pounds or more, all systems go, I would congratulate you on your marvelous accomplishment, with everyone else here. As things stand... I'm not so sure.


Plenty. And you know it. Too little weight or body fat can be just as dangerous as too much. Especially for women. WE NEED OUR FAT -- it's as vital as any other essential organ. The "fat organ" has multiple functions. And I seem to hear Diana Schwarzbein, M.D., shouting inside my head. Amenorrhea cannot be good (although it happens to elite women athletes as well). But by self-description, you are sedentary, not athletic. So when you hit 140 pounds, something went out of whack. Something vital.

The standards of beauty and thinness maintained in our culture... for young women especially... are grotesque and unhealthy by any definition. I firmly believe that. The gauntness associated with eating disorders (anorexia nervosa and bulimia) is considered "aesthetically pleasing." We should become thin as sticks, like boys who happened to develop breasts? NO.

Long story short. You are probably the LAST PERSON who needs a low fat diet. Skim milk and all. (Don't get me started on skim milk... grrrr) The fear of dietary fat continues even on low carb forums? Sad. You need to normalize at a weight that will support healthy functioning of all body systems... including (especially) the reproductive system. Forget 115 and go for the natural genetic weight that lets you consume more food, more fat.

The lecture on exercise will come later. Essential nutrient... vital to human well being. We need it no less than oxygen, protein, adequate calories, water and sleep. Sedentary sucks. No exceptions.

Well... now that I've endeared myself...

A big HELLO to all. I will introduce myself further when time permits. As a night owl who works evening hours, my posts will happen mainly in the wee small hours. But this is too late even for me! The sun also rises. Uh oh. Time for bed where a little cat waits patiently.

A pleasure to be here; look forward to chatting with many of you.

Andrea (resident insomniac)

Hello,
Welcome to the forum Andrea
I don't want to take this thread off it's tracks by talking about my weight . But please be assured that I do take amenorrhea very seriously and am taking steps to correct it which includes eating more food and slowly regaining a little bit of weight.
Do not worry about me... my periods have never been regular, I've always had sketchy hormones, in fact before starting LC I NEVER got one (which in hindsight I see it was probably PCOS from insulin resistance doing that).

I think most of it is just that my body is in shock from losing so much weight. I think my body would DESIRE to be 150 pounds but I don't think a lower weight would be "unhealthfully thin" to the point where I become totally amenorrhetic. Lots of people push their weights and physiques in unnatural directions. Many if not most women here are trying to "fight nautre" by becoming a little more lean. I'm not going too extreme I don't think. I mean I know I DID go to far... but I realize that and am coming back a little. I'm a little bit underweight currently (7 to 4 pounds depending on other factors)... likely too thin for my body but not emaciated or anything of the sort. I am, like I said, slowly gaining weight and eating enough every day.

Like I said I think most of this has more to do with the rate I lost rather than being totally depleted of fat. I lost my period at such a high weight, and with such a high body fat percentage, that in fact I'm sure this is the main reason. I just need to maintain my weight and eat enough and things will start working again.
I speculate that 150 pounds is my natural set point but I DON"T think it is the minimum weight I can maintain and be healthy. Lots of people maintain weights over/below set point and are perfectly healthy. Nutritional status of your body is the most important thing, and a bare minimum of body fat (which I do have and will have more of ). Right now my body is depleted... I lost nearly 200 pounds and it's understandably FREAKED out. I'm going to go back to 115, renourish it... wait a couple of weeks, see how things are from there.

It's hard for you to understand how I can be unwilling/afraid to gain weight. That's likely because you don't have the same weight history and eating issues I do. You have to understand weight gain is scary to me. I equate weight gain with loss of control over food and eating behavior. If you had my history and high weight you would understand how scary it is to MAKE yourself GAIN. You might understand the temptation to want to lose a little more (unconsciously) for assurance that you aren't gaining. I don't think the fear is irrational and it's understandable... not good but not irrational either.

Anyway sorry for going on so long. In summary, I DO recognize amenorrhea as a sign my body doesn't have enough nutrients, I AM taking it seriously and eating more and seriously stoping weight loss, I AM slowly gaining weight and prioritizing health over some "ideal weight".

Fear not, I will do that for you.

Begging the indulgence of our moderators...

I have a few more thoughts and suggestions.

My younger sister did not begin her menarche at a normal age, so at considerable expense my parents sent her to a specialist. After years on hormones or specialized treatment -- cannot recall the details -- she finally developed a normal unassisted menstrual cycle. But it took YEARS and cost a bundle. She is quite short (under 5') and inclined to gain weight around the middle. Probably insulin resistant. PCOS? That was unknown in the 1970s. She does have a harder time than I, maintaining a normal weight. Low carb (some form) probably would be GREAT for her, too... but she sticks to the standard healthy carb, lower fat diet recommendations (when trying to be "good").

May I suggest then -- take it or leave it -- that a specialist in women's medicine or endocrinology might assist your "sketchy hormones." Some of us are born with genetic glitches and mainstream medicine has its place. In general I regard the pharmaceutical industry with a jaundiced eye but at times their drugs work wonders.

Not to the same degree, perhaps, but I do have eating issues! That's why I'm here. Never could eat a single cookie or two... it had to be the entire box! Y'know? This goes back practically to puberty... hey, doesn't everything? Also I am a control freak (so there).

For several years I have worked with an anorexic young woman. She's OK now... at 5' 7" and 140 pounds looks slender and willowy. Of course she thinks of herself as FAT and always will. It's an obsession. She could drop 5, 10 pounds and remain in a healthy range... the danger is always that she won't stop there.

Anorexia carries a cluster of related traits: it tends to afflict intelligent young women with perfectionist tendencies and a fear of LOSING CONTROL. Anorexics typically "equate weight gain with loss of control over food and eating behavior." Bingo. Do I think that you are anorexic? NO. You have good insight into your behaviors. But you do see... obesity and emaciation are often two sides of the same coin and may affect the same person at different times. The appearance of the disorder has changed, but eating and body image remain disordered and health remains at risk.

And behind the individual, always, lies the disordered CULTURE that refuses to allow young women a healthy range of normal body weights. A woman can never be too rich or too thin... Like H***.

Me neither. A number on a scale is meaningless, anyway, and I'm considering wiping the slate of my own statistics. Krissy thrives at 99 pounds and I look pretty good at 135 (people generally place me at 10 pounds lighter than scale weight). Point is: there are LOTS of STOPS between 107 (too little) and 150 (too much). If you were considering health alone... where would you feel best? Can you ignore the mirror and the Size 2 clothing -- at your age... probably not, sigh -- and focus on finding an optimum body build, whatever that may be? Rather than a predetermined weight and clothing size. It's tough, I know, when the role models all look like Desperate Housewives.

Even for me, at age 51, it remains trial and error. So we change course when necessary and re-adapt (modify) our behaviors. Enjoy the ride and roll with the punches! (to coin a cliche or two) But I have no doubt you'll negotiate a healthy solution as you bring your considerable intelligence to bear on this challenge. On a personal note... I enjoy your nuanced intellect and transparent honesty re the issues. Very appealing.

Could these last posts be snipped and placed more appropriately within the Health and Technical Forums? Can that be done? Then this thread may return to its assigned topic as the newbie ducks and dives for cover.



Andrea

Hi Andrea.



No. Half the threads around the forum end up in a discussion of something that could be discussed in another forum, but to cut and paste all of that would (a) take all day, and (b) confuse people who were following the thread.

You're more than welcome to harangue Woo in her journal. (Just kidding, Woo!)

Hello, Kristine.

Thank you for the reassuring words. Often I feel like the original Sidetracked Sister. Off track and over limit...

I am happy to meet the smart lady who shares my passion for sweet red peppers. Unlike you I have a limited budget, so must exercise restraint most of the time. But in March they sold for 99 cents / lb at Jewel Food Stores (a division of Albertsons). Oh wow. I had a FEAST.

THANK YOU for making that distinction between sweet fruits and not-so-sweet. We are told to EAT FRUIT as though only the sweet ones count. And how much sweeter they have become through hybridization... So I eat them sparingly, as an occasional treat (grapefruit, orange, berries). But live on zucchini, yellow squash, red and green peppers, tomatoes, avocados, cucumbers...

Haven't made it that far down the page, unlikely I'll be looking over Woo's shoulder (or anyone else's).

I have thoughts on portion control that may return this thread to its subject. More later. But for me... counting carb grams works as a sort of Point System (a la Weight Watchers). So I count grams, nothing else, and it works perfectly. Less cumbersome by far than calculating calories. In fact, I agree with Dripping Blood: it's "exciting and inspiring." Fun actually. Like solving a puzzle. See how the pieces fit; arrange and re-arrange. Each day you get a clean slate and start afresh. But then I have an accountant's mind with built-in calculator. Point is: the numbers on low carb are SIMPLE. I run them in my head, then jot down on a scrap of paper. No big deal. Counting calories? Major headache. Often a migraine.

Love your signature line, Kristine. How true.

Andrea

P.S.

Aha -- discovered the JOURNAL button. Now I know where the messages above should have been posted.

I just have to say this...I am learning soooo much from this thread. Andrea and Woo, you are both highly intelligent women and it's a privilege to read all you have written. I wish both of you continued success on the road to being healthy.

HUH, I didn't know you had to count calories???? WHAT?!! OMG!

Kryssi --



SO SORRY that I could not respond to your sweet message sooner.

I came to this board because the MOST INTELLIGENT low carbers on the planet hang here. Awesome and stimulating, too. Lots of good info. When time permits, I will make a proper introduction in the "Introduce Yourself" room and start a few threads on topics of interest. The whole question of Saturated Fats has been bothering me. More later.

I do have many strong opinions, supported or no, and in time you will hear them all! You lucky people, you. Unfortunately a crazy work schedule has me running with little time to post or play.

LOL, Kryssi -- I just read your profile. And the pictures... you have a stunning figure, babe. Gorgeous.

You go, Girl!!! But, ah... play that alternative punk stuff in another room.

Andrea

Hi, Tami --

Many low carbers count calories, too. The objective: portion control.

It's one of those YMMV things... your mileage may vary. Many of us came to low carb diets in order to be liberated from calorie counting. Many follow Atkins by the book, have fabulous success going from Induction to OWL to maintenance, never so much as think about a calorie. More power to them.

Others find that they stall, and manage to restart weight loss by lowering caloric intake -- i.e., eating LESS -- while remaining on a low carb plan.

Whatever works for you... Myself, I have counted calories but find controlling them a lost cause. My daily existence requires a high activity level with lots of exercise (whether I want it or not). Never could stick to a restricted calorie diet plan. The body rebels. It does not want to starve.

You seem to be doing fine so far, Tami. Just fine! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But someday, should you decide to count calories, no need to consider yourself a low carb failure. That would be merely a tweak.

Andrea

Ahh, Andrea thanks for the compliments but it's the rock n roll that keeps me dancing and therefore exercising...woo hoo!

I read in the book that calories dont count but I am confused as so many people say they do. I guess everyone is different some need to watch them and some dont. Im running about 1200 to 1500 a day with very low carbs and I excercise like a fanatic so Im doing pretty well at that rate.

I'm a bit late coming into this thread, but I worked out that since starting Atkins and right through to this day I average about 4000 cals and 20-30g of carbs a day (I've always stayed with induction more or less cos I enjoy it!).

My weightloss stopped of its own accord about 16 months ago (9 months after starting) and give or take a couple of pounds has stayed the same. by that time I was about 14lbs under my estimated original target.

Jo

Ojoj, that's amazing! Can you post your typical menu? Did you yo-yo diet before doing Atkins? I think I would gain pretty quickly on 4000 cals a day, induction or not hehe. What is your activity level like? Did you always eat that high amount of cals on Atkins or did you gradually increase cals? Sorry for so many questions.. I'm just very curious how you could have lost so much weight on 4000 cals a day.

Serre

In DADR (1972 version), Dr. Atkins tells about a patient who works in an office, does not work out, and loses weight on 5000 calories per day.

Ojoj's diet sounds a lot like mine. I eat around 3000 calories per day and 20-30 carbs.

My diet is almost entirely meat, eggs, cheese, butter, lard, olive oil, coconut oil, and green leafy vegetables.