Why am I somehow unable to lose weight?

thats what sucks though. why would i want to crossfit when i am trying to be an elite runner. looks like theres no ideal way to combat this without tradeoff

How's your sugar and salt intake? They can be a problem even for runners if you overdo it. Try cutting back on s&s for a few weeks and see what happens.

If you're 5'10, you should not be under 130. You are already very thin, which is why you aren't (and shouldn't be) losing weight. No history of eating issues? I'd say this post represents some eating issues. There's nothing wrong with having a problem as long as you can identify it. What is more important to you, running or losing weight? If you want to run well, you need to eat more. Your metabolism is slow because you aren't eating enough. Therefore, your body hangs on to the weight because at some level, it is starving. Even though you are eating, you are attempting to lose weight, so that tells me you probably aren't eating eating enough to run 65 mpw and actually improve.

It is people like you who would benefit by a much lower relative intake of carbs. No reason to eat carbs beyond glycogen storage and for people who are insulin sensitive, carbs are geared toward fat storage.

On 65 miles a week, you are likely not burning more than 500 cals of glycogen a day. No need to eat more cals of carbs than that.

Carbs in excess of glycogen use make people fat, not fat. Carbs are NOT your body's main source of fuel, on a run or otherwise. On a steady run, it is about 50/50.

I run 80mpw and perform at a fairly high masters level and only eat about 30% of my cals from carbs. 7% bodyfat. 3500 cals a day.

Cordain is ABSOLUTELY right. You can't lose weight because you follow the typical American, high carb, high processed food diet. Your insulin levels must be a wreck. Best thing you can do is diary a week of eating and post it here and Cordain and I can show you where you went wrong.

Heck, just try and type up a typical day or two and DON'T LIE. It is OK to know that you have been misled into thinking you were eating well. (and we all cheat a little here and there too).

I am 6'4 and weigh 155, run about 75- 80 a week (age 42) and can bench 200 and this is a normal day for me. I used to be the pasta and bread type until I read the non-existant science and politics of how the whole "high carb, healthy whole grain" nonsense came about.

Breakfast: 300 calories of cashews or macadamias and a banana

AM Run before work

Post-run - banana and whey protein in sugar free coconut milk

Lunch 600ish calories of meat (brats, chicken, steak, etc), 300 cals of white rice, fruit, a salad with egg and olive oil.

Dinner: 600ish cals of meat and/or eggs (bacon, chicken, steak, tuna with walnut oil) or something like that. 300 cal serving of rice or a yam with my bacon grease poured on it or coconut oil or walnut oil if I didn't make bacon, an avacado most nights, cashews or macadamias with coconut milk, fruit (lately grapes and clementines), often a veggie like eggplant or kale. 3 squares of 90% cacao dark chocolate.

I don't eat wheat products except as maybe a once a week treat, dairy, sweets (again, maybe once a week), or novel vegetable oils like peanut or soybean. I treat on a few beers a week. I don't eat legumes or soybeans. I put coconut oil, olive oil, or walnut oil on anything that isn't sufficiently fatty. I try to eat nothing that came about owing to the discipline of "food science" apart from a protein supplement post-run. Try to keep my carbs, counting fruit, to no more than 1000 cals a day (1/3 of my energy intake).

My daily calories amount is about 3500

really?????? wrote:

The calorie in calorie out theory isn't the whole picture. Your body needs insulin to store fat so keeping insulin levels low blocks fat storage and encourages energy expenditure. This is the reason Atkins and South Beach work so well.

If Atkins works so well then why did Robert Atkins himself die from heart attack? By the way he was 258 lbs. That doesn't sound like it worked.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Lots of interesting input and plenty of good meal/food ideas...lots of conflicting advice too, but that's to be expected. I'll try to sort through it and use my judgement along with taking the different perspectives into account; I can definitely draw some new meal ideas from some of the things suggested though.

Today I made an effort to get back into carefully tracking my calorice intake and paying attention to everything I eat like many of you suggested. Here's what I ate- feel free to critique:

Breakfast=~350-400 cal

1 cup Kashi cereal (high protein, low sugar; 200cal)

1/2 cup 2% milk (60cal)

Banana (~100cal)

Lunch=~700cal

Salad- spinach + 1/2 cup black beans + vinaigrette

dressing (~250cal)

Small apple w/peanut butter (~250cal)

Protein bar (170cal)

Snack= 140 cal (Chobani greek yogurt)

Dinner=~550 cal

Stir-fry: 4oz salmon (100cal) + 2 cups mixed

veggies(60cal) + 1tbsp olive oil (120cal) + 1tbsp

stir-fry sauce (20cal)

Banana (~100cal) + peanut butter (1/2 of one of those

JIF to-go peanut butter cup things= ~150cal)

All in all only came out to about 1750-1800cal, which I don't know if that is actually too low or okay. I don't feel particularly deprived or anything. I may also have another small snack a little later...I know eating late at night is bad, but it's finals time and I'll probably be up to all hours of the night studying tonight, so I may need a little something else at some point in the next few hours. I don't normally do that, though; when my sleep schedule is normal, I'll typically finish eating for the day by 7 or 8pm.

SSDD wrote:

If you're 5'10, you should not be under 130. You are already very thin, which is why you aren't (and shouldn't be) losing weight. No history of eating issues? I'd say this post represents some eating issues. There's nothing wrong with having a problem as long as you can identify it. What is more important to you, running or losing weight? If you want to run well, you need to eat more. Your metabolism is slow because you aren't eating enough. Therefore, your body hangs on to the weight because at some level, it is starving. Even though you are eating, you are attempting to lose weight, so that tells me you probably aren't eating eating enough to run 65 mpw and actually improve.

I'm definitely not "very thin". I used to be right around 130 at about the same height senior year of HS and was the typical runner type of lean, but defintely not too thin or anorexic looking, and felt like I ran well there. In fact, all of HS I ate whatever and however much I wanted, never thought about weight at all, and was always lean. Then, I kept that up coming into freshman year of college without thinking a thing of it because, of course, it was never something I'd had to worry about before, and for some reason, whether it was my metabolism slowing or dining hall food or whatever, put on nearly the whole "freshman 15" even while running 50+ mpw. My running suffered a LOT, so by the 2nd half of the year I knew I needed to lose the weight and was trying to but didn't see any success until this past summer, when I managed to drop just about 6 pounds or so of what I'd gained before. Whether it was because of that or not, this season was WAY better, but I still feel that I'd race better if I could drop a little more weight. But anyway, I am by no means "very thin" now and wasn't too thin even when I was about 130lbs (had muscle, was actually bigger/stronger looking than most skinny HS runners, but was always lean in a healthy way). Believe me, if you knew me, I'd probably be the last person you'd expect to be anorexic;) (I really love food...and that's probably partially why this is so hard for me:)

That sounds like a good weight to me.

What made you feel that way? Did you run faster than? What were you doing differently?

I have always had to run more mileage than my competitors and training partner to beat them. Otherwise I wouldn't keep up with them.

Lifting weights might be the issue. Why are you doing that, are you going to enter a weight lifting contest? It is important when lifting weights to use them only for building your strength, but never for pumping the muscles, body building style, which is useless and harmful to running. Excess useless muscle mass could be one of the issues.

65 miles a week is not that much to make it difficult to put on weight. Maybe sure you are eating enough complex carbohydrates. Avoid excess fat or protein.

If you're not eating enough carbs, your metabolism will slow down, and cause you to gain weight.

Your current weight is good for your height, so I wouldn't obsess to much about cutting it back, especially not to the extent that it would harm your training or life. I would focus more on your mileage, training, making sure you're eating enough carbs, and drinking enough water.

i like to run wrote:

I do try to ... limit carbs or focus on healthier ones (i.e. whole wheat pasta/bread, brown rice, etc.), but I could still be eating too many carbs as I don't always do the best job with limiting them.

Limiting carbs is a major red flag!!!

That is your problem right there.

I just read your diet. Idk how you're running 65 mpw on that diet. You must be a very talented runner.

Why the high protein? Are you entering a body building contest? Why the milk, are you trying to gain weight? 2% milk is high in fat and high in protein. 33 to 50% of the calories are from fat, the rest are protein. There are NO carbs in milk. The banana had the only carbs that you ate for breakfast, i.e. 100 calories. The rest of the calories were weight gain with no energy and also that slowed your digestion.

Beans are fine, high in protein but okay. Carbs okay. Dressing could be high in fat, did you read the label? Peanut butter is high in fat and is hard to digest. The protein bar probably has very little carbs. Your diet needs to be broken down more, to calculate the percentage and number of calories from carbs per day. Why are you avoiding sugar? It is not an optimal carb but it's better than nothing! You should be avoiding corn syrup. I don't eat sugar but I do eat plenty of carbs.

Percentage of calories from carbs, protein, fat?

Your diet is way too high in fat, too high in protein, and hardly contains any carbohydrates. Your lean teammates are probably eating many more carbs than you are, and they are getting more energy. You are basically starving yourself by not eating enough carbs.

A good proportion to aim for is 80 percent of calories from carbs, 13 from protein, and 7 from fat.

One thing we can all agree on is that nobody knows anything about nutrition.

Cordain wrote:

Carbs in excess of glycogen use make people fat, not fat. Carbs are NOT your body's main source of fuel, on a run or otherwise. On a steady run, it is about 50/50.

.

WRONG.

You are ALWAYS WRONG on these threads. I've asked you time and time again, but will try one more time: WHY DO YOU THINK YOU KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT THIS??? Because you read blogs and books that tell you what you want to hear, and fit your preconceived ideology? wow, so that makes you an expert? Hardly.

Excess calories make people fat. Excess dietary fat will make you fat a little quicker than excess carb intake because carbs are stored as glycogen first and are an immediate energy source.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but it gets a little frustrating listening to your overly confident BS.

X-Wing @Aliciousness wrote:

One thing we can all agree on is that nobody knows anything about nutrition.

I think that a lot of people do and a lot of people don't. The problem is that each team is great with words and great at persuasion so everyone just gets confused.

More complete BS from the paleo kool aid drinker.

1) whole grains are healthy, and several large studies have shown those with the highest intakes of whole grains to have the lowest all cause mortality, lowest inflammation levels, and lowest infections. Fiber, phytochemicals, low fat, b vitamins, betaine, etc are good for you.

2) who cares if they are "evolutionary novel foods"?? So we are only allowed to eat things that the cavemen ate? That makes a lot of sense. Whole wheat is perfect for those those without gluten intolerances.

What is that actually supposed to mean? What studies are you relying to back up your beliefs??? What is your "better methodology" ?? I bet you any amount of $ that most of these studies are epidemiological in nature? Or you do you have some highly controlled, double blinded clinical 10 year studies showing that those taking super high doses of salt had no negative repercussions on blood pressure?

So what if your ldl is low? I thought you didn't buy into the propaganda of mainstream scientists that state that high ldl is a major CVD risk factor?

You are going to have to endure actual hunger and learn how to manage it. Maintain a feeling of hunger all day long. Eat just enough to stave off hunger like 8 times a day and never let yourself feel full. Its a balancing act. Run while hungry for as long as you can go then stop to replenish when you have to. You'll learn to know the feeling when you are burning fat. Really doesnt matter what you eat. Chris Horner knows how to do it.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/news/chris-horner-says-diet-his-biggest-concern-heading-into-tour-de-france_176735

Cordain wrote:

I used to be the pasta and bread type until I read the non-existant science and politics of how the whole "high carb, healthy whole grain" nonsense came about.

"non-existent science and politics?" Typical paleo/Taubes/ Atkins BS. The only non-existent science is what you read and regurgitate from your paleo blogs.

Cordain wrote: whey protein....

doesn't whey come from dairy? Isn't dairy a "novel evolutionary food" ?? Hmmm.... And were your cavemen heroes shopping at GNC for supplements to make smoothies in their Ninja blenders? Careful, or the paleo people will revoke your membership!

As far as the rest of your diet goes:

a) you eat rice also, which is another "evolutionary novel" food (so between that and the whey, you aren't doing very well on the paleo principles. Hey, you are the one who keep quoting their views...)

b) you eat a lot of healthy fats like olive oil

c) you eat fruits and veggies

d) you eat a lot of nuts and nut oils (between nuts, fruits and veggies and even rice, you are getting some okay fiber, much to your dismay probably)

e) you don't sound like you overdo the sodium

f) you eat dark chocolate

g) you don't eat fast food

h) you don't eat excess added fat and sugar from dessert, and no added trans fats

i) you do eat a lot of meat, and probably more sat fat than recommended

So.... basically you follow MOST of the principles set forth by mainstream nutrition experts that you are trying to and think that you bucking! ( except you eat lower carbs, avoid whole wheat/grains, and eat more meat then recommended)

But you act like you are doing the complete opposite of what all those confounded, corrupt political, government scientists are telling us all to do, and that's why you are so healthy. WRONG. You are following most of the principles (don't eat too many calories, exercise, eats veggies and fruits, eat nuts and seeds, eat healthy fats like Olive oil, nut oil, avacado, eat some grains (Rice for you, but yes, lower than recommended), eat some dairy (you get it form whey), etc... you just eat more than the recommended amount of meat and protein, but many times it is chicken (low fat/low sat fat).

So... I don't know what you really think you are proving. If one follows 90% of the recommendations of mainstream health experts, than diverging in a few areas likely won't sink you. Your diet could be better, but it's not as radically different (or as paleo) as you seem to think.

really?????? wrote:

The calorie in calorie out theory isn't the whole picture. Your body needs insulin to store fat so keeping insulin levels low blocks fat storage and encourages energy expenditure. This is the reason Atkins and South Beach work so well.

1) calories in calories out IS most of the picture, except...

2) excess protein calories are less readily stored as fat, and excess calories as fat or carbs or more likely than protein to be stored as fat, with excess fat the most readily and efficiently stored as fat of the 3 macronutrients

3) protein will produce an insulin response also. so eating a meat will still cause your body to produce sufficient insulin to store fat if you are eating excess calories

4) Atkins or any other high fat low carb diet don't work any better than a high carb diet for weight loss (and are often worse as far as inflammation and ldl/total cholesterol), especially when matched calorie for calorie (but often even when done ad libitum, eating as one pleases). One may initially lose water weight on the low carb diet, and that is often what you see with any initial improved weight loss over a low fat diet. Most of the time, past 6 months, the low carb people end up no better than the other dieters. Increasing protein in place of fat and/or carbs will result, usually, in a little better weight/fat loss, and more muscle. But take this too far, and you will run into all sorts of problems.

Does anyone know if Atkins himself followed his own diet? If he weighed that much, my guess is he didn't.

bumbojumbo wrote:

really?????? wrote:

The calorie in calorie out theory isn't the whole picture. Your body needs insulin to store fat so keeping insulin levels low blocks fat storage and encourages energy expenditure. This is the reason Atkins and South Beach work so well.

If Atkins works so well then why did Robert Atkins himself die from heart attack? By the way he was 258 lbs. That doesn't sound like it worked.