1,200 calories is not enough
Image from: http://www.allaboutyou.com
We’re two weeks into 2010 and New Year’s Resolutions are still fresh in many minds. Year after year the most popular resolution that people make is to get in shape and slim down. While we runners are fitter than the average population, I’m sure there are many of us who wouldn’t mind trading some flab for muscle. Unfortunately most shape up plans are not created with a runner in mind. Recently I was reading about a healthy “eating plan” in one of my favorite women’s magazines. One of the suggested snacks was 8 almonds OR 6 cherries. Excuse me?? Did I just read that correctly – 6 cherries? That’s supposed to keep me full between lunch and dinner?
This article riled me up because I worry that active, young women are going to read this popular magazine and think that 6 cherries (or 8 almonds) is an acceptable snack. The “healthy eating plan” I’m referring to had readers eating less than 1,200 calories per day! Perhaps this amount of food is sufficient for a sedentary woman (although I highly doubt it), but it’s definitely not enough for a runner. I realize that many women don’t exercise to the extent that I do, but there are plenty of active females out there – high school and collegiate athletes, marathoners, spin class aficionados, etc. And these health-minded women are the ones who buy fitness magazines and are influenced by their diet plans and “lose fat fast” tips.
The January-March 2003 issue of the Journal of Athletic Training discusses the female athlete triad: disordered eating, menstrual dysfunction, and osteoporosis. The article states that “the primary cause of the Female Athlete Triad is energy deficiency”. And what exactly is energy deficiency? Not enough calories, plain and simple. An article on Active.com backs up this claim by citing “not eating enough” as the number one reason for lackluster training and racing performance. Sense a pattern here? The energy needs for running are higher than any other endurance sport, so it’s no surprise that we’ll feel tired, drained, and unmotivated about training if our body isn’t being fueled properly.
Besides eating enough calories, it’s also crucial to eat enough carbohydrates. According to the aforementioned article, there are “profound performance benefits associated with high carbohydrate intake, including optimal mental functioning, muscle glycogen saturation, enhanced fat burning, protection against protein/muscle breakdown and improved immune function.” So don’t be afraid of those carbs! When you increase your mileage or begin doing speed workouts, it’s time to bump up your consumption of oatmeal, bread, pasta, and rice. At a minimum athletes should consume 3 grams of carbohydrate per pound of body weight (or about 420 grams for a 140-lb runner). Bacon and eggs might be Dr. Atkin’s breakfast of choice, but they won’t do you any good if you have a long run or tempo run on your calendar.
If you’re jogging 2-3 miles a few times a week, your nutritional requirements probably aren’t so serious. You might even have success on a low-carb or low-calorie diet plan, but if you’re trying to train for an endurance race (like a half or full marathon) now is not the time to focus on losing weight. Running makes you hungry and your hard-working body needs fuel. Rather than taking away or restricting, try to focus on replacing the junk with more whole foods. How about swapping in creamy greek yogurt and honey instead of your nightly bowl of ice cream? Or try adding more veggies (and a little less meat) to your dinner plate. My point is, we’re runners and in order to perform well, we can’t eat (or diet) like the rest. It’s easy to be wooed by the latest and greatest diet plan, but whether we like it or not – 1,200 calories a day (and 6 cherries!) is not enough. So to all the health and fitness magazines out there – how about publishing a healthy eating plan that will give your readers enough energy to run a half-marathon?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
For a while I have been trying to figure out how the calorific value of foods is determined. The answer might shock you – by burning, yes burning it in an enclosed chamber and measuring the amount of heat produced. Anyone who thinks that this ‘accurately’ measures how the human body uses the energy in foods needs to have their head examined. The conclusion to draw is that the stated calories of any food is at best an indicator – a very poor indicator. And this doesn’t even account for the quality of calories. I know enough people who will skip an avocado (275 calories) and have a bottle of processed orange juice (112 calories).
I recently (after reading Thrive, Born-to-run, your, Matt’s and others blogs) started eating what would count as a very high calorie diet (Coconut oil, lots of nuts etc.) – but I just feel better, faster and my weight hasn’t changed. I think comparing foods based on their calorie content is a really bad idea. whfoods.org uses a concept of nutrient density which is better but still not optimal.
gaurav – I agree completely! My daily diet is quite high in “natural fats” – peanut butter, almond butter, avocado, olive oil, etc. and I think it does wonders for my satiety level. I’ll take a spoonful of peanut butter over a processed 100 calorie pack any day!
I totally agree! I went to a nutritionist in early college, and she told me that 1200 calories is enough to just keep your body functioning. So if you laid in your bed and slept all day, didn’t even get up to go to the bathroom – that would be enough calories to keep your heart beating and your nerves functioning. Try to do anything on a regular diet of 1,200 calories and you risk serious complications.
Diets like this are all about quick weight loss. But who can keep eating 1200 calories forever? Better to lose weight more slowly and, you know, not die.
Thank you for posting this!!! Finally another woman “gets it” when it comes to healthy eating!! My friends always criticize me because I’m always hungry…. I RUN and they don’t!