RE: cailtin chock in runners world

girl runner -

Three things for you:

1) I am short.

2) I am fat.

3) I am bald.

In conclusion, I am an obnoxious fag. I AM NOT KIDDING

I am amazed at the ignorance displayed in this thread. The post by "Kate" should have ended this nonsense because it is among the few credible messages written.

As the father of a recovering anorexic, I can speak from direct knowledge and experience. My daughter was placed on a re-feeding diet of 6000 calories. And yes, it is VERY difficult for the sick person to accept this and to fight the battle with the demon telling her that she is fat. It has taken 5 years for her to reach and maintain a healthy weight. This caloric intake is REQUIRED to regain the body fat that is crucial to healthy growth and development. I am happy that Caitlin Chock is apparently getting the therapy that she needs. The dismaying thing about the article is the mention of her race times. Race times are NOTHING when someone is in a fight for her life. Make no mistake, that is exactly what it is.

well, I am wondering how many of these people posting have more than anecdotal evidence. I have a degree in the sciences and have taken many courses in human physiology and Flagpole's equation might not be accurate, but they are not far from the truth.

As many people have pointed out, the equations aren't perfect b/c people have varied internal chemistries. That being said, you can predict on average (ie using some sort of distribution, most likely normal/bell-shaped) to predict what most people will fall under.

Wow: if you drop your mileage significantly or don't run competitively after college your eating habits will surely lead to weight gain. I am a male at 6' 170, run 50 miles a week, and eat about as much as you, probably a bit under.

girl runner: " I DONT believe Caitlin eats 7000 calories a day unless she's got a freakish metabolism, which is hard to believe as well because your metabolism slows down when you're in "starvation mode", and it's hard to get it back up" This is right. When you starve your body, metabolically your cells get an internal signal to start storing energy rather than using it. When you are anorexic it is not uncommon to start breaking down muscle, which are proteins. This is the most inefficient way to get energy. When your body experiences this it is a shock to the system and one of the first responses is not to build back muscle mass, but to store excess energy as fat, which is much easier to break down.

flagpole = know-nothing freak: You are 6'3" and 160. You are already an outlier relative to the majority of the population. I have a friend who is 6'0" and 135 or so. He is the same way. He eats all he wants and even in times of injury does not seem to gain weight. This is not what most people are like.

If you talked to the majority of phsiologists, gave them CC's specs, eating habits, and current training regime probably every single one tells you that if she is doing this she is on course for a train wreck.

I think we have two extremes on this thread: the amount of Ccalories that Caitlin says she eats and the amount that Flgapole Willy thinks people should eat.

First of all, Flagpole's formula IS way off. A sedentary female with a good metabloism at age 20 needs roughly 2000 calories a day to maintain weight. I realize that this is an estimate and a rough one at that, but certainally, a 100 pound girl needs more than 1100 calories a day to maintain wieght with no physcial activity. 1100 calories a day is starvation.

If we assume that Caitlin needs roughly 2000 calories a day to maintain weight, then use the rough estimate of 100 calories burned per mile (I know, this isn't exact either, but it provides a ballpark number), she's looking at anohter 900 per day. Plus calories for any supplemental activities such as weights or plyos, and any other activites done during the day (walking to the store, etc).

Her range would likely be 3000-3500 daily at 60 miles per week running. Obviously, she doesn't take in 7000 calories daily, and maybe she was just exaggerating, as if to say, I eat so much food compared to before that it feels like 7000.

Flagpole, please don't go around preaching your formula to girls; it is really dangerous. Your formula would have a 100 pound girl who runs 50 miles per week taking in under 2000 calories daily.

Flagpole's formula at best encourages undereating and obsessive calorie counting habits. Surely you see the dangers in this.

Try this url. I think it is a decent gague for calorie consumtpion

http://www.nutritiondata.com/calories-burned.html

The first step is called "refeeding," which can be done on an in- or outpatient basis, depending on the severity of your condition and whether or not you're ready to cooperate. Some patients have to be force-fed through nasogastric or intravenous tubes; there are even cases in which courts have ordered such treatment in order to keep the victim alive.

While refeeding goes on, you'll begin to receive behavioral therapy, psychotherapy, and nutritional counseling. You'll be encouraged to develop your eating plans,

**which will start with small amounts of food that you can feel safe with, gradually increasing the number of calories you consume and broadening your selection of foods.**

Your doctor will keep a close watch to avoid potential physical problems that can develop with refeeding such as abdominal bloating, constipation, and swelling. If a slow and gradual approach is taken, these can usually be avoided or lessened.

http://health.yahoo.com/centers/women/_19985.html#anchor5

I have a sister who is still battling after about 20 years. You are right about it being a fight for your life, but you don't increase your diet to the point of insanity.

I am certainly not an advocate of O-C calorie counting, but I also realize that what we think of as "normal" is not at all. It is not common to eat until you "feel" full. There is a gross exaggeration of what healthy is in our country relative to others.

I have no idea what Flagpole's does in his everday diet, not do I really care. I am just pointing out that scientifically this is not far off.

I think that when you deal with people that are smaller in stature anyhow, they simply eat less b/c they are full. This will naturally lead to smaller calorie counts. I don't think you have to sit down and wonder about calories at every meal. In the course of a week, I am sure that some meals will be smaller and others larger. The avg. calories/day will be smoothed out over this time.

Anyhow, I am done with this. I hope that Caitlin does get better, and Boriole was right in that it her running CV should be the least of her concern right now.

yogurt 250

omleat 400

toast 100

bacon 200

hasbrowns 300

oatmeal 150

powerbar 250

sandwich 300

salad 200

pasta 400

powerbar 250

tuna wrap 250

banana 100

steak 250

potatoes 300

veggies 300

ice cream 1500

TOTAL 5500 calories

Flagpole Willy's diet for a 100 pound inactive girl:

breakfast: 1 medium pancake (150 calories)

1 cup of grapes (60 calories)

snack: 1 piece of string cheese (80 calories)

lunch: 2 slices of bread (140 calories)

3 oz turkey (100 calories)

1 serving of raw carrots (40 calories)

snack: 1 apple (80 calories)

dinner: 1 cup pasta (210 calories)

3 oz chicken (100 calories)

1/4 cup tomato sauce (50 calories)

1 cup broccoli (20 calories)

snack: 1 fruit popsicle (80 calories)

Anyone accepting advice from Flagpole Willy has only himself to blame.

MikeM wrote:

I have no idea what Flagpole's does in his everday diet, not do I really care. I am just pointing out that scientifically this is not far off.

Damn straight brother! I never said it was spot on accurate, only that it wasn't far off. You're the only one qualified so far that I can see who has responded, and guess what, you agree that the formula is "not far off".

Anyway, honestly I should have learned by now that people here get too bent out of shape over the mention of calories, and since I don't want people to get all pissed, I will bow out now. I'm certain someone will say it's just because I "took a beating" or some such thing, and if that's what they want to believe, then fine.

I'm off to go spread cool.

Flagpoll Willy-

I wasn't trying to say you were wrong or piss you off, I wasn't even trying to respond to your post....guess what, not everything is about you

Why do all these people even care whether or not Chock, or anyone for that matter, eats 7000 calories a day? If she isn't eating that much and she's lying, SO WHAT? Do you all get to pat yourselves on the back and say "Ha! I knew i was right!". But then what? WHO REALLY CARES? And if she IS eating that many calories per day, that's great because someone is attempting to get her healthy. Either way, it just doesn't seem like something that should be of much concern to people. It's true that when you state something in the media, you throw yourself into the spotlight, so maybe in some ways she indirectly put herself in the position for this scrutiny, but this kid obviously has a lot of mental issues, so why not just leave it at that and move on to something else.

nonetheless, i would hit it. she is hotness.

ummmm, I don't think the word "hotness"is a good adjective for an anorexic.

you see her in RW? looking good.

If she is still in the "refeeding" stage, then why is she training????

agreed