[Bimbleby]

(Original post by Antiaris)
Cherry Gwyn, you aren't in a stage where you MAY go into starvation mode, you're already in it. The only way to properly get out of starvation mode is to up your calories, FAST. The general rule with Eating Disorder recovery is 2500 KCal per day for a woman, 3000 for one 21 or under, until they reach a bmi of 20. 20 is the benchmark due to it being at that point is the lowest risk of relapse.

No amount of metabolism tricks will help (like green tea or cayenne) as much as a good meal honestly.

I'm gonna get personal, but do you still have your period even? Leptin is key to both metabolism and hmhm, so you need to up it.

And yes, weight will gain unevenly and it will be difficult but please, health is more important than nigh on anything else.

I have to beg to differ on this point, however. I got back to my normal weight without upping my calories fast and I now have a higher than normal metabolism (I have to drink like three cartons of full fat milk a day or I can't eat enough to maintain). I gained weight back slowly and it distributed totally evenly. I now have the same figure I had before, but with bigger breasts for some reason, possibly the pill. I never went above 2000 cals. I gained weight on what would be a weight loss amount for other people, but once I got there and my periods returned and I'd been there for a while it went back to normal. There's not need to force your body to gain weight that quickly, to eat that much, and to end up with a body where all your fat's on your stomach etc.

[Antiaris]

(Original post by Bimbleby)
I have to beg to differ on this point, however. I got back to my normal weight without upping my calories fast and I now have a higher than normal metabolism (I have to drink like three cartons of full fat milk a day or I can't eat enough to maintain). I gained weight back slowly and it distributed totally evenly. I now have the same figure I had before, but with bigger breasts for some reason, possibly the pill. I never went above 2000 cals. I gained weight on what would be a weight loss amount for other people, but once I got there and my periods returned and I'd been there for a while it went back to normal. There's not need to force your body to gain weight that quickly, to eat that much, and to end up with a body where all your fat's on your stomach etc.

I'm not gonna post the whole lot of research as this page does so quite succinctly;

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums...tific-research

There are a few reasons why they say to gain quickly. Firstly it means that current health complications disappear faster, as with some of them (like the amenorrhea) they can raise different complications the longer they go on (fertility in later life, etc). If you catch anything in the period that your immune system is down it has a greater risk of taking you down and out too. Operations, if you ever need them, have a greater mortality rate if you are underweight, etc. Another reason is that it gives a person a bit more room if they ever have a 'weak' day.

Another interesting note is that the higher the caloric intake during recovery the higher the ending metabolism. Increased metabolism is not unusual after anorexia (I'm boiling CONSTANTLY.)

The weight gain around the stomach region is more actually a protection mechanism. It DOES redistribute (in essence) but and it is thought it stores around the stomach region when the body feels that the internal organs are in danger of malnutrition.

[Cherry Gwyn]

I don't have time to write my bigger response to people but I will tomorrow..

only that I did have to go to hospital and GP a little while ago for blood pressure things and I did say I was struggling with food and he wasn't concerned he just said come back in 1 month.. which ofc made me feel fat.

(Original post by Bimbleby)
Is it worth living the rest of your life eating 1000 calories a day (which you'll have to to maintain an abnormally low weight) just to avoid a bit of stomach flab that I'll bet noone else can see? Hell, even if they can see it, I'd say it's not worth it. That's not going to help much considering how bad it sounds like you are at the moment, but I can say from experience this: you will gain weight at first when you eat normally. I went a little above my natural weight when I started eating normally after I came out of hospital, but after a while your body becomes normal again. In fact, my body now is irritatingly quick at metabolising food and I really struggle to keep weight on. I never would have thought that was possible after being someone who lost nothing eating 400 cals a day.

Does this mean I have to reduce my calories from 1000 to 400/500 to loose weight now?

[Shawshank]

(Original post by ~Kat~)
Oh hush up, I'ts not supposed to be a work of literary art, it'll do.

No, you can't lose fat off one particular area, but you can tighten one particular area. She doesn't want to drop a dress size, she wants to get rid of some flab, and crunches will do that. That's not false advice.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You've even contradicted yourself here - stop dishing out crap "advice", if you do the slightest bit of research you'll find out that you're wrong.

[~Kat~]

(Original post by Shawshank)
You have no idea what you're talking about. You've even contradicted yourself here - stop dishing out crap "advice", if you do the slightest bit of research you'll find out that you're wrong.

Look, I'm not claiming to be a bloody dietitian, I'm just telling the girl what worked for me.

[Bimbleby]

(Original post by Cherry Gwyn)
I don't have time to write my bigger response to people but I will tomorrow..

only that I did have to go to hospital and GP a little while ago for blood pressure things and I did say I was struggling with food and he wasn't concerned he just said come back in 1 month.. which ofc made me feel fat.


Does this mean I have to reduce my calories from 1000 to 400/500 to loose weight now?

No, but eventually you will. At the moment you'll probably lose on 1000 but if you don't start eating normally your body will preserve energy more and more fiercely. It's just not worth it. I can't predict what your body will do exactly, but I can tell you it's a horrible slope. Basically, if the thought of living off what you're currently living off for the rest of your life makes you feel bad, you need to sort it out now. If you're fine living on 1000 calories forever, maybe you don't have a problem, but I'd hazard a guess that you might not be...

I had that exact same experience with doctors. It doesn't mean you don't have a problem. I was told that I was at a fine weight and to come back another time. Only when my BMI was 15 did they give me a leaflet on a help group. Shortly afterwards I was hospitalized by a different doctor. Doctors can be insensitive and, more importantly, incompetent.

[Bimbleby]

(Original post by Antiaris)
I'm not gonna post the whole lot of research as this page does so quite succinctly;

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums...tific-research

There are a few reasons why they say to gain quickly. Firstly it means that current health complications disappear faster, as with some of them (like the amenorrhea) they can raise different complications the longer they go on (fertility in later life, etc). If you catch anything in the period that your immune system is down it has a greater risk of taking you down and out too. Operations, if you ever need them, have a greater mortality rate if you are underweight, etc. Another reason is that it gives a person a bit more room if they ever have a 'weak' day.

Another interesting note is that the higher the caloric intake during recovery the higher the ending metabolism. Increased metabolism is not unusual after anorexia (I'm boiling CONSTANTLY.)

The weight gain around the stomach region is more actually a protection mechanism. It DOES redistribute (in essence) but and it is thought it stores around the stomach region when the body feels that the internal organs are in danger of malnutrition.

I know a lot of the reasons people are encouraged to gain weight quickly, but there are a few reasons I (and my psychiatrist) disagree that this is the best way to go: first, if you gain slowly it's easier psychologically. You feel in control and you don't have to deal with massive changes in the way you look, or the phase where you're a weird shape. Secondly, there's a much greater chance of you keeping the weight on, according to my counselor and psychiatrist, at least. That's just their experience, but my psychiatrist has seen thousands of anorexic patients (according to him - he is pretty old). Third - not only is my metabolism high despite the fact I gained incredibly slowly, but I find it a real pain. It means I have to drink milk all the bloody time and I get thin and gross if I go through a stressful phase and lose my appetite a bit.

Also, there are two reasons why the health argument doesn't convince me that's the best route. First, as much as the OP has a serious problem and is underweight, she's not deathly ill (at the moment), so her organs aren't going to shut down as she is. Secondly, in order to be anorexic you have to sort of not give a s*** about your health. I would never have been convinced to do something because it was healthy when I was ill, and in fact still wouldn't... hence why I'm currently drinking beer and smoking, and have eaten mainly banana bread and coke today. It's not a good point, but I just feel it's worth pointing out that whilst anorexics often pertain to be concerned about 'health' (the OP keeps saying she wants to be fit etc.), that's usually *******s. I was personally fascinated with my various ill-health symptoms. I took pride in my blood pressure getting lower and my skin bruising. The yellow was less cool, but it all added to the sense of power I got from controlling my body. Ruining is still controlling. I'm not making a very good point... The point about menstruation and osteoporosis is the only health point that I'd say I ever took notice of and which is relevant to the OP.

[Shawshank]

(Original post by ~Kat~)
Look, I'm not claiming to be a bloody dietitian, I'm just telling the girl what worked for me.

Yeah that sounds very scientific.

[Antiaris]

(Original post by Bimbleby)
I know a lot of the reasons people are encouraged to gain weight quickly, but there are a few reasons I (and my psychiatrist) disagree that this is the best way to go: first, if you gain slowly it's easier psychologically. You feel in control and you don't have to deal with massive changes in the way you look, or the phase where you're a weird shape. Secondly, there's a much greater chance of you keeping the weight on, according to my counselor and psychiatrist, at least. That's just their experience, but my psychiatrist has seen thousands of anorexic patients (according to him - he is pretty old). Third - not only is my metabolism high despite the fact I gained incredibly slowly, but I find it a real pain. It means I have to drink milk all the bloody time and I get thin and gross if I go through a stressful phase and lose my appetite a bit.

Also, there are two reasons why the health argument doesn't convince me that's the best route. First, as much as the OP has a serious problem and is underweight, she's not deathly ill (at the moment), so her organs aren't going to shut down as she is. Secondly, in order to be anorexic you have to sort of not give a s*** about your health. I would never have been convinced to do something because it was healthy when I was ill, and in fact still wouldn't... hence why I'm currently drinking beer and smoking, and have eaten mainly banana bread and coke today. It's not a good point, but I just feel it's worth pointing out that whilst anorexics often pertain to be concerned about 'health' (the OP keeps saying she wants to be fit etc.), that's usually *******s. I was personally fascinated with my various ill-health symptoms. I took pride in my blood pressure getting lower and my skin bruising. The yellow was less cool, but it all added to the sense of power I got from controlling my body. Ruining is still controlling. I'm not making a very good point... The point about menstruation and osteoporosis is the only health point that I'd say I ever took notice of and which is relevant to the OP.

I wholeheartedly agree with choosing the means of recovery. Medicine, nutrition and psychology are definitely things which are 'horses for courses'. What works for one may not work for the other. It is very much where you are in your own head. I brought up the research as it brings up the fact that on the health front it is better to recover quickly, but on the psychological front it poses risks unless you become dedicated to recovery. In the OP's case I would have put the fast regain as better as neurological damage is more easily recoverable, meaning the actions seen in the Minnesota experiment are less like to occur due to temporary brain atrophy. (Honestly a fascinating experiment, I'd advise giving a read if you haven't already simply due to how interesting it is.)

I've heard the argument about slow gaining having a lower risk of relapse, but I have heard the exact opposite as well. Horses for courses. Recovery means should be more dependent on how a person works and what their goals are. The roots of eating disorders are fairly complex, with genetics, psychology, environment, age and sociological factors all taking a hand. Personally I went through CBT (Some of it self-conducted, some conducted through a mental health team), which worked in terms of habit but didn't give help with the underlying issues. As the treatment range is very narrow with where I live I had to self-conduct a few points of SCHEMA therapy which helped cut as a few of the causes.

[Bimbleby]

(Original post by Antiaris)
I wholeheartedly agree with choosing the means of recovery. Medicine, nutrition and psychology are definitely things which are 'horses for courses'. What works for one may not work for the other. It is very much where you are in your own head. I brought up the research as it brings up the fact that on the health front it is better to recover quickly, but on the psychological front it poses risks unless you become dedicated to recovery. In the OP's case I would have put the fast regain as better as neurological damage is more easily recoverable, meaning the actions seen in the Minnesota experiment are less like to occur due to temporary brain atrophy. (Honestly a fascinating experiment, I'd advise giving a read if you haven't already simply due to how interesting it is.)

I've heard the argument about slow gaining having a lower risk of relapse, but I have heard the exact opposite as well. Horses for courses. Recovery means should be more dependent on how a person works and what their goals are. The roots of eating disorders are fairly complex, with genetics, psychology, environment, age and sociological factors all taking a hand. Personally I went through CBT (Some of it self-conducted, some conducted through a mental health team), which worked in terms of habit but didn't give help with the underlying issues. As the treatment range is very narrow with where I live I had to self-conduct a few points of SCHEMA therapy which helped cut as a few of the causes.

Yeah, that study's one of the most interesting things I've ever read. I wasn't aware they considered it neurological damage, though. Psychological, yes, but I wasn't aware there was permanent damage to the brain. The brain shrinks in anorexia but that's recovered when weight is restored. If one really took the conclusions of that study as indicative of the possible outcomes of anorexia treatment, I think I'd end up being very pessimistic about it. Weren't almost all of those men f***** up by it? For a long time if not their whole lives? I know a few of them became very overweight or had very persistent difficulties with food. I think in the OPs case any psychological damage has already occurred for her to be posting this thread in the first place. If there is neurological damage I'd guess that it wouldn't occur until she reaches a much lower body weight. I may be entirely wrong there. I think the OP has a big problem, but as much as it's ****ty of doctors not to offer her help because she's not severely underweight, it would be strange, I think, to treat her aggressively when her weight isn't dangerous. It's thin, but you're not going to get problems at 18.5.

Really interesting thing, if you have jstor, is an article I stumbled upon which was a case study of a woman called Mary who had severe anorexia which she associated with being ascetic and religious. It turned out that as a child one of the men from that study had used to visit her house often (he had to bring his own special food in a box) and she viewed him as a semi-religious ascetic idol. How cool is that? I mean, not cool for her, she was really ill, but really interesting when studies merge into each other like that.

[Riku]

OP, did you know that regardless of whether you have an eating disorder or not, you're not supposed to engage in frequent vigorous exercise until at least BMI 20? And you're not supposed to do ANY exercise beyond light walking and light resistance training-ideally supervised-below BMI 18.5. What do you love more, dancing or losing weight? Because I'm sorry, but I'm being cruel to be kind when I say if you carry this on you won't be able to do both.
Won't offer anything re: nutrition as these people have it pretty sound. Love your body, honour your appetite, love your soul. Choose love over fear, love and hope wins every time. All the best.