I've been under the weather for a few days, no appetite, tired, feel awful. But, the weight is falling off. I am definitely eating less than normal.
Before I get too excited, I wonder, am I losing any real weight, i.e. fat, or just water that I will come back once I am well? I have not been sick since I started this, so let me know your experience dieting while sick, hindrance or blessing in disguise?
All weightloss is "real." What you do to maintain it is the key. Since I started IE I've had a couple of bad colds that made me lose about 5lbs and I've kept all of that off so it was real to me. When your appetite comes back just make sure you don't try to make up for what you didn't eat while sick.
I hope you feel better, gets lots of liquids and brothy soups!
Even without vomiting and diarrhea, some of the weight loss during an illness, even a short one, can be dehydration, which is weight you really need to gain back, and should try not to stress over.
If your food plan is a tracking system (some kind of portion or calorie/point counting), anything that comes back will be water weight you need as long as you're sticking to plan.
However, if your food plan is one of intuitive eating or some other other unlimited portion "eat whenever you're hungry" plan (such as some low-carb plans), you might find that your hunger may go into overdrive after an illness rather than simply returning to whatever level is your "normal."
To prevent fat regain on an unportioned food plan you can either switch to a counting plan for a few days to a week (until your hunger returns to normal) or you can be extra vigilant regarding your food choices (try to fill up on the lowest calorie/carb foods such as watery, low cal/carb veggies and fruits such as berries).
However, if your food plan is one of intuitive eating or some other other unlimited portion "eat whenever you're hungry" plan (such as some low-carb plans), you might find that your hunger may go into overdrive after an illness rather than simply returning to whatever level is your "normal."
So the hunger of only the "eat whenever you're hungry" people gets affected? That's a new one.
Location: Home of the Pirates, Steelers and Penguins
Posts: 12,402
S/C/G: 217/179/142
Height: 5'2
I agree that this could be dehydration, unless you are getting lots of liquids which is recommended with a cold. But a loss is a loss. Since you don't have much of an appetite and are eating less than normal, your stomach may have shrunk a bit and it may take some time to get it back where it was. Just be careful how much you eat when you start to get your appetite back.
From what I've heard, dehydration accounts for a lot of the weight loss from a cold or flu. I say "from what I've heard" because I've never experienced significant loss of appetite or weight when sick. Weird, I know.
F.
Last edited by freelancemomma; 01-21-2015 at 06:25 PM.
So the hunger of only the "eat whenever you're hungry" people gets affected? That's a new one.
That's not what I said or meant, at all. I'm kind of surprised that I need to explain this. I guess I thought my point was more clear. Obviously not, so I'll try to clarify:
If you (and I mean the generic you, not you in particular) stick to your food plan when using a counting plan, hunger is uncomfortable but completely irrelevant to weight loss. You'll lose the same amount of weight on 1200 calories whether you're hungry or not on those 1200 calories.
However, if you're on an "eat whenever you're hungry" plan, one that has no calorie limit; the hungrier you are, the more you can and will eat without going off plan.
Now do you see why a post-illness appetite/hunger increase could have a larger negative impact on a person's weight if they weren't calorie-restricting?
The post-illness hunger increase can affect anyone, but it will only affect the weight of a person who eats more in response to it.
The person who has an "eat whenever hungry" plan can be perfectly on plan and still gain weight from a post-illness hunger increase.
The calorie counter experiencing the same hunger, will not gain weight as long as they stick to their calorie limit.
And THAT is why I suggested that if a hunger spike does occur post-illness, it might help someone on an unlimited food plan to switch to a counting plan for a bit, until the hunger settles back to its normal level.
Not everyone will experience a hunger spike after illness. Their appetite will just return to normal and they can immediately resume whichever plan has been working well for them. However, for some of us, our hunger doesn't simply rebound to its normal level, it skyrockets.
For those of us who experience ravenous post-illness hunger, putting hunger in control tends to backfire.
I do track packaged food with printed calories, but for the rest I am guessing, so I hope to avoid the binge when I am well. Thanks for the warning, I will prepare distractions for those ravenous days, evenings are weakest. Binge TV series watching for instance keeps my mind off of food! Too bad I can't binge watch every night
I would love to update the ticker with the weight this morning, but I think I will wait a week just in case. Putting in a low number when sick seems disingenuous to myself, if a lot is water.
If you (and I mean the generic you, not you in particular) stick to your food plan when using a counting plan, hunger is uncomfortable but completely irrelevant to weight loss. You'll lose the same amount of weight on 1200 calories whether you're hungry or not on those 1200 calories.
...
And THAT is why I suggested that if a hunger spike does occur post-illness, it might help someone on an unlimited food plan to switch to a counting plan for a bit, until the hunger settles back to its normal level.
Hunger doesn't return to normal under distress - and if you ignore hunger it intensifies. I don't know why people believe that by ignoring hunger and making it "irrelevant" to weight loss that hunger will just go away. You cannot manipulate hunger to suit you anymore than you can manipulate your body's need to urinate. It's just a bodily function that needs to be addressed - it's when we start to control it that it starts to turn against us.
It is completely normal to be less hungry one day and more hungry another day. It is completely normal to lose your appetite during an illness and completely normal to be ravenous when the illness passes. None of these spikes or lapses in appetite are dangerous or something to be afraid of. Being aware of it helps but cheating your hunger is what leads people yoyoing.
You cannot manipulate hunger to suit you anymore than you can manipulate your body's need to urinate. It's just a bodily function that needs to be addressed - it's when we start to control it that it starts to turn against us.
I think intuitive eating is an amazing way to lose weight, and I applaud those that do it, and do it well.
But I have to disagree with what you've said. I, in fact, manipulate my body's need to urinate all of the time. I drink a lot of fluids, and have to urinate quite a bit. But, for meetings where I know I will not have a break for two or more hours, I drop off my liquid consumption prior to the meeting so that I will be able to resist urination. And I am pretty much always successful, despite having delivered six babies, at manipulating my need to urinate to the extent that I don't pee myself. (Yay for Kegel weights!)
I find that, in my case, hunger is absolutely tied to how I'm choosing to eat. I can't "beat" hunger by never eating, and much of my hunger is tied to hormones and issues beyond my control. But I know that if I binge one day, I will be absolutely ravenous the next day, without exception. I will generally wake up feeling too sick to eat, but by late morning/early afternoon, my hunger will be overwhelming. On the other hand, if I deal with my food addiction by restricting when my hunger is at its peak (regardless of the cause), my hunger decreases. I am not suggesting ignoring hunger altogether or not feeding our bodies. I am not even saying that people shouldn't choose to eat more on "super hungry days." I just know that, for me, hunger is much more than a bodily function that needs to be addressed. It can (and in my case, should) be manipulated to the extent I can manage it. And while I do yo-yo, I am so much happier with the yo-yo than I would be with the constant gain that occurred when I didn't try to manage my hunger.
Last edited by LaurieDawn; 01-22-2015 at 11:13 AM.
I actually agree that "cheating hunger" can be counterproductive in the long run, for many (but not all) of is, but I disagree that a little hunger for a few days is a big deal for everyone.
Also, some of us (like me) either by genetics or conditioning, do not have an "off" switch to our hunger. We're unable to lose, or sometimes even maintain our weight on an "eat whenever we're hungry" approach. Intuitive eating for us means continuous gain, because hunger and appetite feel the same to us.
There's a huge variance between individuals in the degree to which hunger is "relevant" to weight loss, health, and well-being. Some people actually feel best if they're almost always a bit hungry. Some people have almost no tolerance for hunger (like me).
If you reread my post to which you originally responded, you'll see I accounted for those differences. I suggested that intuitive and unlimited dieters EITHER switch to a counting plan OR focus on lower calorie freggies to fill them up ( IF AND ONLY IF THEY DO NOT WISH TO REGAIN FAT LOST THROUGH ILLNESS).
While I did not state the last parenthetical bit, it was implied by the very thread itself, because it's safe to assume that anyone who didn't care to keep post-illness (for a mild, short illness) weight gain off wouldn't be interested in any advice or suggestions as how to do so.
I also would hope (and I actually do believe) that most of us here are also smart enough to realize that my advice wasn't applicable to long, serious illnesses in which post-illness gain is likely to be a good thing.
Even if you do believe that hunger must be addresses completely at all costs, my original advice is still sound, because you do not have to experience hunger on a calorie-limited plan. All you have to do is choose your calorie target carefully and meet that target with higher volume, lower calorie foods. (That is following the advice I suggested for unrestricted eaters - choose more high-volume, low-calorie foods).
Hunger is irrelevant to short-term weight loss. It isn't always relevant to long-term weight-loss, but intuitive and unlimited eating is not the only way to address hunger. You can address hunger within a limited plan just as well as you can with an unlimited plan.
I tried to account for as many types of dieters in my post as possible, because there is no one-suits-all way to lose or maintain weight. There isn't even only one way for any individual. Diets (or WOEs if you prefer) aren't soulmates. We do not have to find the one meant for us, we just have to find and choose the one(s) that work enough and that we like enough to stick with (at least until we choose the next one to try).
Still, there's no way to give a suggestion that will work for, or appeal to everyone.
I think intuitive eating is an amazing way to lose weight, and I applaud those that do it, and do it well.
But I have to disagree with what you've said. I, in fact, manipulate my body's need to urinate all of the time. I drink a lot of fluids, and have to urinate quite a bit. But, for meetings where I know I will not have a break for two or more hours, I drop off my liquid consumption prior to the meeting so that I will be able to resist urination. And I am pretty much always successful, despite having delivered six babies, at manipulating my need to urinate to the extent that I don't pee myself. (Yay for Kegel weights!)
I find that, in my case, hunger is absolutely tied to how I'm choosing to eat. I can't "beat" hunger by never eating, and much of my hunger is tied to hormones and issues beyond my control. But I know that if I binge one day, I will be absolutely ravenous the next day, without exception. I will generally wake up feeling too sick to eat, but by late morning/early afternoon, my hunger will be overwhelming. On the other hand, if I deal with my food addiction by restricting when my hunger is at its peak (regardless of the cause), my hunger decreases. I am not suggesting ignoring hunger altogether or not feeding our bodies. I am not even saying that people shouldn't choose to eat more on "super hungry days." I just know that, for me, hunger is much more than a bodily function that needs to be addressed. It can (and in my case, should) be manipulated to the extent I can manage it. And while I do yo-yo, I am so much happier with the yo-yo than I would be with the constant gain that occurred when I didn't try to manage my hunger.
You totally reminded me that I need to do my kegels lol
I wouldn't describe what you say as manipulation, it's more managing when you urinate. As a teacher I used to have to do that a lot because you can't run out of a classroom full of third graders every hour. I'm not in a full time teaching capacity anymore so that's great for my bladder - it's quite dangerous to try to hold it and can lead to health problems. Hunger can also be managed, like eat breakfast before you go to work that way you don't get hungry and lose energy in the middle of your meeting with no opportunity to eat until a few hours later. That's time management, not hunger management.
I'm not sure what you mean by manipulating your hunger, but I know that ignoring hunger has some dangerous implications. Cravings, appetite and hunger all different things so when I use the word hunger I mean the physical sensation of emptiness in your stomach followed by the impairments of not having enough fuel like dizziness, lack of focus, crankiness, lack of energy. I agree that cravings are tricky and need special attention, some people choose to ignore these but there are other ways to address the presence of cravings that are more effective than ignoring them.
I don't have an addiction to food so I can't say anything about that, but I do know that yoyoing weight is an extremely stressful process on one's heart and metabolism. I find it indicative of a problematic relationship with food and wouldn't find that preferable but that's just my own opinion.
kaplods I understand that you wish to be as inclusive of different types of dieters as you possibly can but why don't you just answer the OP's question with your own experience rather than trying to "account for as many types of dieters as possible?" How can you possibly speak for other kinds of dieters when they can all speak for themselves? I don't think you're in any position to speak on behalf of intuitive eaters especially since you lump us in with "unlimited eaters" (never even heard of such a thing but it sounds derogatory).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods
If you reread my post to which you originally responded, you'll see I accounted for those differences. I suggested that intuitive and unlimited dieters EITHER switch to a counting plan OR focus on lower calorie freggies to fill them up ( IF AND ONLY IF THEY DO NOT WISH TO REGAIN FAT LOST THROUGH ILLNESS).
This statement is just untrue, you probably didn't read my original post which stated that I did lose weight after a couple of bad colds and have kept it off without having to count any calories. So take it from an actual intuitive eater that the information you gave is false. I can't speak for "unlimited dieters" because I have no idea what that even is.
Just because you have never gained post-illness with intuitive eating, does not make my statement untrue. Some Intuitive Eaters do find it beneficial to switch to counting methods in some situations.
Also, I am speaking from my owm experience, 44 years of dieting experience, using almost every method under the sun, including Intuitive Eating. So I was speaking to all of the plans I have had any success with.
I spent several years (at near my highest weight) eating intuitively. It didn't allow me to lose weight, but it did allow me to maintain without gaining (which was miracle enough at the time). Even so, I often had to switch to counting during certain situations (such as illness, but also food holidays like Christmas).
I didn't pull my suggestions out of my arse. I suggested them because I myself, and others I have known using intuitive eating have found them helpful.
The suggestions aren't even of my own invention. I got them from other intuitive eaters, including a woman I met many years ago in Overeaters Anonymous. She was drop-dead, supermodel gorgeous, and had lost over 60 lbs primarily through Intuitive Eating. She shared with the group that she swiched to calorie counting whenever she was ill and/or whenver her mother visited because she found it difficult to tell "true hunger" from "false hunger," in situations in which food pushing was likely (her mother always food-pushed and when she was sick, her live-in boyfriend did so).
Most of the people I have known personally who have had long-term success with Intuitive alone were not overweight as xhildren and generally have never been more than moderately overweight even as an adult.
I've known only a few morbidly obese folks who have had any degree of success with Intuitive Eating (including myself), and most of us have had to modify some aspect of the plan to do so.
Btw, my use of the term unlimited was not derogatory, just my short-hand for "eat when hungry" plans without calorie or portion limits (plans such as South Beach, Volumetrics, Paleo, Atkins and other low-carb.....)
An intuitive eater who goes to OA and counts calories is no longer an intuitive eater, even if she is drop dead gorgeous.
A better way to describe an intuitive eater would be as non-dieter or an anti-dieter. An anti-dieter doesn't arbitrarily diet when the mood strikes. The philosophy of IE is at odds with any dieting method so imposing dieting controls doesn't fit. An intuitive eater who counts calories is like a woman who is slightly pregnant... it doesn't exist.
There is not a lot of information on these boards about IE so I like to put the record straight when I see misinformation being touted as IE. The phrase "eat when you're hungry" is completely taken out of context and is misleading. The statement fails to recognize that understanding one's hunger is a lengthy and important undertaking, but taken out of context it makes one think that IEers are eating whatever, whenever and for whatever reason. That couldn't be further than the truth. More thought and self reflection goes into everything I put in my mouth now than I ever had when I was following dieting guidelines. There is no such thing as false hunger, although maybe your friend might be referring to mouth hunger brought on by stress. There's nothing false about it though, it's a type of hunger that is very compelling and easy to respond to and leads to a lot of weight gain for a lot of people.
If it's not derogatory then maybe the other paleo, volumetrics and whatever other diets you refer to as unlimited eaters wouldn't have a problem with it, but this intuitive eater doesn't like being referred to as such.
Bad cold weight loss, real or not?
