How long is it recommended that you wait after eating before exercising? I ask because yesterday I grabbed a sandwich on the way to the gym and really regretted it; I was feeling OK during the aerobic work, and was in the middle of a leg press set when I suddenly felt really nauseous. I took a two minute break, but still felt a bit strange afterwards. Immediately after the session, I felt like I’d been beaten up; I could barely stand, felt like I was about to be sick, dizziness etc.

I had to get a lift home and could barely lift a finger for about an hour; after which I was fine. I’ve heard people talking about ‘good workouts’ where they’ve thrown up after working their quads and crawled out of the gym, but this wasn’t anything hardcore – the only difference being the food only twenty minutes beforehand. During exercise, athletes rely on their fat and glycogen storage. The pre-exercise meal donesn’t contribute immediatly unless exercise last longer than an hour. It is probally more important for the feelings of hunger and weakness, which can break your concentration. to avoid any gastro problems, the size of the meals should be reduced the closer to exercise. A small meal of 300 to 400 calories is appropriate an hour before exercise.

A large meal of 700+ can be consumed up to four hours before. Fatty foods should be limited because they delay stomach emptying and can make you feel bloated or sluggish. High fiber should be avoided as well because of possilblity of cramping. The water issue is good. Make sure you are hydrated. then drink 20 oz. one half hour before exercise, then 8 oz. right before the start. Continue with 8-10 oz. every twenty minute or so during your sessions.

I’m skeptical that a reasonable formula for anything has been developed by anyone who obfuscates algebra. After reading the constant drone of “lift weights while dieting, as lean mass raises your metabolism,” I would also be skeptical of any metabolism formula that completely ignores lean mass. Many dieters may agree that 2 pounds is ideal — why hang on to that fat any longer than you have to — but you may find that you lose some muscle along with fat. A lot of sources recommend 1-2 pounds a week as a healthy rate of change, but if a relatively small woman like you, already close to goal weight, tries to lose faster by cutting calories like this, the ratio of fat to muscle could actually get worse even though the scale shows a smaller number.

Now this makes much more sense, and I hope everyone keeps this in >mind when they say taking in 1000-1100 cal/day is not healthy. It >is when you’re trying to lose weight. I don’t understand the link you’ve made between the calculated calorie values and health. I could take your example one step further and say that you could lose *3* pounds a week by dropping to 591 calories a day, but neither one of us has demonstrated anything about health issues by counting on our fingers like this. Here’s why I would advise you *not* to cut your calories down to 1000 or 1100: 1. You may lose muscle tissue along with fat: you’ll look a bit thinner, but also a bit flabbier. 2. You may not have enough energy to keep up your exercise program.

3. Even with vitamin supplements, you will probably find yourself undernourished. Think of the phytochemicals like lycopene and beta-carotene: you won’t find those in most multi-vitamins. 4. Dropping calories too low can depress your metabolic rate and make it harder and harder to lose those last few pounds. While calories in versus calories out is basically a good idea, you can’t continue to get the results you want by cutting intake further and further: your body will rebel.