We Bite Back

Adriana Lima's Disordered Weight-loss in US Magazine
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Kaz [ Fri May 07, 2010 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Adriana Lima's Disordered Weight-loss in US Magazine

Ugh. She says she went to the gym from one to two hours every day, sometimes twice a day, cut out carbs completely, and calorie counted. She said losing the weight "was easy." *facepalm*

Author:  ArielleLee [ Fri May 07, 2010 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

This stuff makes me so worried for young girls.

Author:  Wolf [ Sat May 08, 2010 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 

Another woman who starved away the fat contained in brain cells?

Author:  MovingOn [ Sat May 08, 2010 7:40 am ]
Post subject: 

Why are there so many weightloss stories? Today I read that women who crash dieted and lost more than the recommended 1.5lbs a week, after 2 months, had lost more weight in total than those who dieted in a healthy manner...oh wow, REALLY?? Lose more a week and you lose more? OMG, I didn't know that!

Author:  Fame [ Sat May 08, 2010 9:50 am ]
Post subject: 

every where you turn it's celeb diet this and celeb diet that. i hate swimsuit season.

Author:  Blue Decay [ Sat May 08, 2010 9:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Without reading the story I obviously can't accurately judge, but that doesn't sound unhealthy as you've described it. Working out for an hour every day is pretty close to what most guidelines prescribe, and "calorie counting" could just mean that she made sure she stayed around, say, 1600-1700 a day, rather than that she scrutinized every little thing she ate and never went above 700. Even cutting out carbs is fine, as long as she just cut out "bad" carbs (white bread, white pasta, etc.) and replaced them with plenty of "good" carbs from vegetables.

Of course, without the source, it's impossible to make an informed judgment call.

Author:  Seekingnewpastures [ Sat May 08, 2010 10:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Exercising for an hour every day is a lot of exercise. I don't know any sensible guidelines which recommend that. And certainly exercising for an hour a day and only eating 1600-1700kcals is very damaging. If you're exercising that much you need to eat much, much more than that.

And you can't replace carbs from bread and pasta with carbs from veg. To get enough carbs for your body to function properly you'd have to eat tonnes and tonnes of veg, probably more than you could physically consume in a day. And even then, foods like bread and pasta contain other nutrients that vegetables don't.

Sure, wholegrain foods contain more nutrients than refined 'white' foods. But you can't replace carbs with veg and stay healthy. You can't do it.

Author:  Becky [ Sat May 08, 2010 11:57 am ]
Post subject: 

^exactly. It's totally possible to get sick even if you're not like, super restricting to, say under 700 calories a day. It's totally possible to make yourself sick if you're exercising for more than an hour and a half and still not eating enough nutrients.

Author:  Kaz [ Sat May 08, 2010 12:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

I also have to point out that in reality there are no "bad carbs." There are different types but each has their role in nutrition. Calling food bad or good implies that they will always be just that. Would you label a kids who broke a lamp a bad kid for the rest of their life? I should hope not.

Author:  Lauri8 [ Sat May 08, 2010 12:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

a girl in my science class last year did a research presentation on cutting carbs. she found that research shows its healthier to have a low carb diet than a low fat diet, and that its important to not cut out carbs completely, but cut out the bad carbs and make sure to keep good ones. good carbs are simply food that is not processed or changed before consumption. they have high fiber and provide energy. in turn, bad carbs are the food items that are refined and processed before being consumed, mixed with preservatives, coloring and flavorings. in life, its fine to have them now and then, but from an overall health perspective, it couldn't hurt to cut them. no one needs processed things, but im not saying its just awful to have them every now and then.

but anyway, this original post makes me frustrated and a bit upset. i agree with the person who said she could have done it healthy, but judging by her size, i'd put money on the fact that she didnt. lets be honest, most celebs probably dont. they dont have the time. i was going to use the "unless shes naturally very thin" argument, but if she had to go an hour a day to the gym, etc etc, she probably isnt? i could be wrong, of course.

Author:  wickedrache [ Sat May 08, 2010 12:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

I find stories like this kind of out of date somehow. Like, really? OMG, you get obsessed and don't eat and you get thin. Exciting!!!

Can't say as I expect to be enlightened by US magazine, though.
(who is this person, an actress?)

Author:  wickedrache [ Sat May 08, 2010 12:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Blue Decay wrote:
for an hour every day is pretty close to what most guidelines prescribe

"Activity", not "working out". NO guideline would find it acceptable to work out 2 hours "every day" - ie with no day off.

calorie counting" could just mean that she made sure she stayed around, say, 1600-1700 a day

Under 1800 is, by the way, pretty non-negotiable in its restrictiveness unless you're as slight as a whip and extremely short....
And it bothers me to suggest at all (not you, the article/the suggestion in general) that "calorie counting" is a good idea. That kind of calculating, the daily "have i measured up?" - you can't do this without becoming obsessed. what bothers me about this kind of thing is that it implies, in a way that seems frankly antiquated, that it is a good thing to stir yourself into weight-loss obsession. There's no way this woman was thinking about anything other than weight loss.

Even cutting out carbs is fine, as long as she just cut out "bad" carbs (white bread, white pasta, etc.) and replaced them with plenty of "good" carbs from vegetables.

I don't eat a lot of white bread but any time I feel like I've "cut it out", particularly because I believe it to be "bad", I know I'm in dangerous territory. We don't need to be afraid of food. And Alex is quite right - you can't just take machetes to food groups like that ... the attitude that both calories and carbohydrates should be kept to a minimum is absurd. it constructs both into these weird concepts SO far from what they are -measurements of energy, and the building blocks of energy. (doesn't the body turn everything into sugar before it's used as energy? is it not insane to try to minimise one's intake of these measurements?)

It's intrinsically twisted. It's not okay.

Author:  Blue Decay [ Sat May 08, 2010 12:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

How do you think the human race survived before the advent of agriculture? No agriculture = no grains = no bread, no pasta, no rice. It's absolutely fine and quite healthy to get all your carbs from veggies, the way we did for the millions of years that homo sapiens was around and not yet tilling the earth. "An hour of exercise" is a little more problematic, since it could mean a half-hour of light cardio and a half-hour of weight training or an hour of marathon-running; that's why I said that without the link to the source, it's not possible to make an informed judgment.

It's also perfectly possible to "count calories" healthily, as a general awareness of what you're eating. It's easy to freak out about it as an eating disorder sufferer, because to us, it means obsessing over every crumb, thinking "I ate X calories at breakfast, so I need to burn X + Y calories in the gym, only eat Z calories for the rest of the day or I'm nothing but a failure" which is obviously horrible and not a healthy mindset by any stretch of the imagination.

As for calorie requirements...well, it is possible my examples were a little low, because my own requirements aren't that high - I'm only 5'1" and fairly small. Still, my point stands. Everything Kaz described was perfectly fine, and without providing the original source, it's impossible to make an informed judgment call about this woman's experience.

Edited to add: Also, there are a lot of people who "take machetes to food groups." They're called vegetarians and vegans. Are we going to claim all vegetarians and vegans have eating disorders now?

Author:  Recoveredandproud [ Sat May 08, 2010 12:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

Firstly Blue Decay welcome to the site.
I don't think I've seen you post on here before. Why don't you write an introduction in the introduction thread so we can get to know you?

Tbh to me any exercise for an hour a day everyday is excessive beyond just being active (unless you're an athlete) and if you require 1800 to maintain you need more than that when you're doing this exercise to make sure you keep maintaing.

A lot of what you wrote about cutting out carbohydrates and replacing them with vegetables sounds very eating disordered to me. Along with counting calories. Calorie counting leads to obession. There is nothing mentally healthy about that. Food should be about eating what you enjoy and what nourishes you not how much water you could heat up by burning it (as that's where the definition of a calorie comes from)
I think we've got to be extremly careful about making statements like this as we are not dieticians and don't have qualifications or the adequate knowledge to discredit the majority of what modern proffesional nutrition advice suggests.

Yes people survived before the advent of rice, bread pasta etc... but they didn't survive very long. They died young, were more susceptible to disease etc. The average lifespan sky rocketed once nutrition and processed foods (like bread and pasta) were introduced.
Just because people did it in the past does not mean that people should do it now.

Just adding to the point about vegetarians. Vegetarians don't cut out entire food groups. They still eat adequate amounts of protein they just don't eat meat. They eat other substitutes. However you cannot replace carbohydrates with vegetables. It doesn't work like that. You can substitute one carbohydrate for another form but you cannot replace them with a different food group- vegetables.

Author:  Lauri8 [ Sat May 08, 2010 12:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

in my opinion, i don't think you can count without becoming obsessed. i think you can count but "not really count" ie don't really care. but in that case, you're not really counting, are you? i dont find calorie counting and "having a rough estimated idea" to be the same thing. if they were, then yeah, you can do it without the obsession.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 4 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group