can you recover fully on 2000 cals? 2500 cals? or do you REALLY need more?? how can I exercise without it being triggering??

I AM DOING IT!! THE UNTHINKABLE!!! F*** MY ED!!!

for the past month, I have eaten 2000 cals a day, and for 2 days now I ate 2500-3000!!! I AM HORRIFIED but I also know that this is probably the only way out of REDS and having disordered thoughts, and a f***ed up metabolism for the rest of my life. 

I am only 20 and I don't want to be 30 and still struggling with relapses and restrictive eating.

anyway, I am 5'2, 20, and currently 120+ lbs I would guess? which puts me around BMI 22??

I have had an ED of some sort since I was 16 - ate 1000 cals for 9 months, dropped from 140 to 105 lbs

but I semi recovered on 1600-2000 cals when I was 17, gained to 130 lbs

then mildly relapsed at age 18 - 1600-2200 cal + intense workouts for a year, lost to 110 lbs

then ACTUALLY relapsed - 1200-1400 cal +  less-intense workouts for a year, yo-yo'd from 110-115-110 and then hurt my knee and couldn't work out for another 2 months...

I gained from 110 to 116-7 in 2 months eating 1400-1600,

then I gained to where I am now, eating 2000 a day.

anyway I JUST started eating the youreatopia.com amounts because I am afraid that if I dont, I wont be able to maintain on a normal amount when I finally recover fully. 

My ED therapist who I talked with when I was 17 for my first "recovery" told me today that 2500-3000 is enough for me, and that I can do 30 minutes of weight training 3-4x a week to help create muscle mass, which will speed my metabolism? she also said i can take a 30 min, brisk daily walk... 

does ANYONE have experience of fully recovering and having a normal metabolism, on less than 3000? why is 3000 such a magic number, and am I causing myself unnecessary stress by forcing myself to eat and eat?

will I REALLY slide back down to set point weight, naturally?? I would say that 115 is my set point, and when I weigh anything lower, I get ED symptoms like obsessiveness, fogginess, and i generally spaz out.

DO you think I will recover sooner, seeing as I had already almost recovered fully once before, ( for 2 months I was eating a LOT and running, but eating a LOT and maintaining 115)...and this time around I didnt restrict as badly, and I am willing to eat more than 2000?? I KNOW I am going to overshoot... I already am in the process of overshooting... but I don't want to overshoot FOREVER and end up like, 130-140 lbs?? and then stay there for a year!! D: THAT IS HORRIFYINGGG

View the original article here

'Nonsmoking' Hotel Rooms May Not Fully Protect Guests

Partial smoking bans still left study participants with signs of tobacco exposure

By Mary Elizabeth Dallas

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, May 14 (HealthDay News) -- People who opt for nonsmoking rooms in hotels with a partial smoking ban are not fully protected from harmful exposure to so-called "thirdhand" smoke, according to a new study.

Smoking in hotels leaves a trail of tobacco pollution in the air and on surfaces in both smoking and nonsmoking rooms, researchers Georg Matt and colleagues at San Diego State University found. New hotels should enforce total smoking bans to protect their guests and employees, said the study authors, who also advised people to avoid hotels that allow smoking in designated areas.

"Our findings demonstrate that some nonsmoking guest rooms in smoking hotels are as polluted with [third-hand smoke] as are some smoking rooms," the researchers wrote. "Moreover, nonsmoking guests staying in smoking rooms may be exposed to tobacco smoke pollutants at levels found among nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke."

The study involved 40 budget-priced to mid-range hotels in San Diego. Of these hotels, 10 had complete smoking bans. Thirty hotels had partial smoking bans with designated nonsmoking rooms. The findings appeared online May 13 in the journal Tobacco Control.

The researchers examined the hotel rooms' surfaces and air quality for evidence of nicotine and 3EP, a marker of tobacco smoke. Urine and finger wipe samples were also taken from nonsmokers who spent the night at any of the hotels to assess their exposure to nicotine and a carcinogen found in tobacco smoke known as NKK.

Nonsmoking rooms in hotels with partial smoking bans had evidence of air pollution. These designated nonsmoking rooms had levels of surface nicotine that were more than twice as high as rooms in hotels with total smoking bans, according to a journal news release.

These nonsmoking rooms had air levels of 3EP that were more than seven times as high as the rooms in hotels that did not permit any smoking.

In rooms designated as smoking areas, the researchers found that surface and air nicotine levels were 35 and 22 times higher than the rooms in hotels that had total smoking bans. The air nicotine levels in smoking rooms were also much higher than nonsmoking rooms.

Even the nonsmoking rooms of hotels with partial smoking bans had air nicotine levels that were 40 percent higher than in rooms in hotels with total smoking bans.

The effects of smoking were not confined to the hotel rooms. The study also showed that hallway surfaces outside of smoking rooms had higher nicotine levels than the surfaces outside nonsmoking rooms.

The samples taken from nonsmokers who stayed in hotels with partial smoking bans had higher levels of nicotine and NKK than those staying in nonsmoking hotels.

"Guests who wish to protect themselves from exposure to tobacco smoke should avoid hotels that permit smoking and instead stay in completely smoke-free hotels," the researchers wrote.

View the original article here

Doctors: Clinton Should Recover Fully From Clot

Jan. 2, 2013 -- Medical experts say Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is extremely lucky that her medical team found the blood clot they are now treating with blood thinners.

The rare clot in a vein between her brain and skull was discovered during a follow-up exam Sunday, weeks after she reportedly sustained a concussion after a fall in her home during a bout of stomach flu.

The experts agreed that Clinton’s clot could have threatened her life if it had been missed during the routine exam.

Where is Secretary Clinton’s blood clot exactly?

The clot is in a vein between her brain and skull behind her right ear. The bleeding was reportedly contained within the vein, and there was no bleeding within the brain, which could have led to stroke or brain damage.

So why was the clot so dangerous if left untreated?

If the clot had grown large enough to cause a major blockage of blood, it could have led to serious swelling and even death, says Keith Black, MD, who is head of neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“I think Secretary Clinton is very lucky that this clot was caught early and treated early,” he says.

How rare are these blood clots?

Blood clots occurring in the legs are very common, especially among older people, but clots occurring in the head are pretty rare, says Jack Ansell, MD, who chairs the Department of Medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. Ansell says the clots occur in about 1 in 100,000 people and that women experience them about three times more often than men.

Ansell suspects that Clinton’s fall-related head injury along with flu-related dehydration caused her blood clot.

“I would have to assume that if she didn’t fall and hit her head this would not have happened,” he says.

Secretary Clinton had a previous blood clot in the 1990s. Could the earlier clot be related to the new one?

Both doctors agree that it could. In 1998, when Bill Clinton was in his second term as president, then first lady had a deep vein clot behind her right knee. Some people do have a genetic predisposition to develop blood clots, but it is not publicly known if Hillary Clinton does.

Isn’t it dangerous to treat someone who has sustained a concussion with blood thinners?

It is true that brain bleeds are a concern after a blow to the head, and that blood thinners like the anti-coagulant Coumadin (warfarin) increase the risk for bleeding. But Black says Secretary Clinton’s brain has undoubtedly healed enough in the three weeks since her fall to allow safe treatment with the clot-targeting drugs.

“At this point enough time has elapsed between the fall and the use of blood thinners so that I would not worry about this,” he says.

What’s next for Secretary Clinton?

Both doctors expect her to be out of the hospital as soon as her blood-thinning medications have been regulated, and she will be followed closely by her medical team while she is on them. That could be a few months or longer. After that, both doctors say she should require no further special medical care involving the clot.

“I would expect her to make a full recovery,” Ansell says.

View the original article here