question about muscle

"Sarandipidy" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus5751" wrote in message
...
Anorexia is a specific condition that is defined by several signs, not
merely by low weight. I agree that some signs are there, but I am not
sure whether all necessary signs are there, in case of our friend
Sarandipidy.

--
223/172.4/180

Absolutely...in my earlier reply (snipped by MU), I told Sarandipidy that
her weight was an indication of a potential problem, and referred her to
a
couple of websites that discuss the diagnostic criteria for anorexia
nervosa
in detail.

The fact that her BMI (17.3) is in the ballpark for anorexia, and that
her
US weight percentile is around the 3rd or 4th percentile, does not mean
that
she has anorexia.. But, at her weight, height, age, and gender, it's
irresponsible to not address the possibility.


well, Ig and Gary, in retrospect, I would even say that I showed some
signs of
a general ED for a month or two period, during which I was probably too
careful/obsessive about what I was eating. I doubt that 1-2 months is long
enough to constitute a disorder capable of being diagnosed. I raised my
calories about a month ago but apparently I needed more to maintain at
where I
was (which was probably 115). I'm pretty upset about this right now, about
being this thin, and probably the loss of too much muscle, and I just hope
that
I can reverse any damaged caused.

sara

Fortunately, you're young. At your age, your body has rather remarkable
powers of recovery, so you shouldn't worry much about permanent damage.
There are plenty of folks alive now in their 80's who survived starvation
level diets for months and years during World War II. Over millions of
years of evolution, our bodies have become adept at handling periods of low
food intake.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary


hello teacher tell me what's my lesson,
look right through me, look right through me.

"Sarandipidy" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus5751" wrote in message
...
Anorexia is a specific condition that is defined by several signs, not
merely by low weight. I agree that some signs are there, but I am not
sure whether all necessary signs are there, in case of our friend
Sarandipidy.

--
223/172.4/180

Absolutely...in my earlier reply (snipped by MU), I told Sarandipidy that
her weight was an indication of a potential problem, and referred her to
a
couple of websites that discuss the diagnostic criteria for anorexia
nervosa
in detail.

The fact that her BMI (17.3) is in the ballpark for anorexia, and that
her
US weight percentile is around the 3rd or 4th percentile, does not mean
that
she has anorexia.. But, at her weight, height, age, and gender, it's
irresponsible to not address the possibility.


well, Ig and Gary, in retrospect, I would even say that I showed some
signs of
a general ED for a month or two period, during which I was probably too
careful/obsessive about what I was eating. I doubt that 1-2 months is long
enough to constitute a disorder capable of being diagnosed. I raised my
calories about a month ago but apparently I needed more to maintain at
where I
was (which was probably 115). I'm pretty upset about this right now, about
being this thin, and probably the loss of too much muscle, and I just hope
that
I can reverse any damaged caused.

sara

Fortunately, you're young. At your age, your body has rather remarkable
powers of recovery, so you shouldn't worry much about permanent damage.
There are plenty of folks alive now in their 80's who survived starvation
level diets for months and years during World War II. Over millions of
years of evolution, our bodies have become adept at handling periods of low
food intake.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary


hello teacher tell me what's my lesson,
look right through me, look right through me.

Over millions of
years of evolution, our bodies have become adept at handling periods of low
food intake.


It's just a little strange, because I was eating 1200-1300 at 135 lbs at first,
and then the same at 120 and 125. No days did I do a crash diet-thing with
below 1000 or something crazy like that. Without any exercise regimen except
for walking to class and to dinner, that seems reasonable. Why was I still
apparently losing at 1300-1400 when I was probably 115 lbs? Man, I ****ed up
somehow.

sara

hello teacher tell me what's my lesson,
look right through me, look right through me.

Over millions of
years of evolution, our bodies have become adept at handling periods of low
food intake.


It's just a little strange, because I was eating 1200-1300 at 135 lbs at first,
and then the same at 120 and 125. No days did I do a crash diet-thing with
below 1000 or something crazy like that. Without any exercise regimen except
for walking to class and to dinner, that seems reasonable. Why was I still
apparently losing at 1300-1400 when I was probably 115 lbs? Man, I ****ed up
somehow.

sara

hello teacher tell me what's my lesson,
look right through me, look right through me.

"Sarandipidy" wrote in message
...
Over millions of
years of evolution, our bodies have become adept at handling periods of
low
food intake.


It's just a little strange, because I was eating 1200-1300 at 135 lbs at
first,
and then the same at 120 and 125. No days did I do a crash diet-thing with
below 1000 or something crazy like that. Without any exercise regimen
except
for walking to class and to dinner, that seems reasonable. Why was I still
apparently losing at 1300-1400 when I was probably 115 lbs? Man, I ****ed
up
somehow.

sara


The Harris-Benedict formula for metabolic rate indicates that a 25-year old,
5' 7" tall woman weighing 120 lbs would requi

1,620 calories per day, if you are "Sedentary - little or no exercise"

1,856 calories per day, if you are "Lightly Active - light exercise/sports
1-3 days per week"

2,093 calories per day, if you are "Moderately Active - moderate
exercise/sports 3-5 days per week"

This seems to indicate that you were simply not eating quite enough for your
weight to be maintained at your current level of activity. The fact that
you lost weight eating only 1300-1400 calories per day seems to confirm
that.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

"Sarandipidy" wrote in message
...
Over millions of
years of evolution, our bodies have become adept at handling periods of
low
food intake.


It's just a little strange, because I was eating 1200-1300 at 135 lbs at
first,
and then the same at 120 and 125. No days did I do a crash diet-thing with
below 1000 or something crazy like that. Without any exercise regimen
except
for walking to class and to dinner, that seems reasonable. Why was I still
apparently losing at 1300-1400 when I was probably 115 lbs? Man, I ****ed
up
somehow.

sara


The Harris-Benedict formula for metabolic rate indicates that a 25-year old,
5' 7" tall woman weighing 120 lbs would requi

1,620 calories per day, if you are "Sedentary - little or no exercise"

1,856 calories per day, if you are "Lightly Active - light exercise/sports
1-3 days per week"

2,093 calories per day, if you are "Moderately Active - moderate
exercise/sports 3-5 days per week"

This seems to indicate that you were simply not eating quite enough for your
weight to be maintained at your current level of activity. The fact that
you lost weight eating only 1300-1400 calories per day seems to confirm
that.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

On 17 Dec 2004 20:19:23 GMT, Sarandipidy wrote:

well, Ig and Gary, in retrospect, I would even say that I showed some signs of
a general ED for a month or two period, during which I was probably too
careful/obsessive about what I was eating. I doubt that 1-2 months is long
enough to constitute a disorder capable of being diagnosed. I raised my
calories about a month ago but apparently I needed more to maintain at where I
was (which was probably 115). I'm pretty upset about this right now, about
being this thin, and probably the loss of too much muscle, and I just hope that
I can reverse any damaged caused.

I'm going to pass on offering you any suggestions for training until you
get this ED, past or present, resolved. Yes, 1 or 2 months can be
disorderly.

On 17 Dec 2004 20:19:23 GMT, Sarandipidy wrote:

well, Ig and Gary, in retrospect, I would even say that I showed some signs of
a general ED for a month or two period, during which I was probably too
careful/obsessive about what I was eating. I doubt that 1-2 months is long
enough to constitute a disorder capable of being diagnosed. I raised my
calories about a month ago but apparently I needed more to maintain at where I
was (which was probably 115). I'm pretty upset about this right now, about
being this thin, and probably the loss of too much muscle, and I just hope that
I can reverse any damaged caused.

I'm going to pass on offering you any suggestions for training until you
get this ED, past or present, resolved. Yes, 1 or 2 months can be
disorderly.