If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
"jmk" wrote in message ... Nunya B. wrote: "Willow" wrote in message . net... To each their own, many many of my members tell me that the WW snacks are one of the thing that keeps them on track.. Better a 2 pts bar than a snicker one.. I'd rather see them eat an apple, but I didn't make the world.. I tried the mixed berry bars last week because I had a coupon for a free box. Didn't care for them. The only WW snacks I get are the whole grain cheddar twists. They sub for my former doritos fix on my drive to the gym (with a piece of fruit). Odwalla has a mulipack of bars available in a few flavors at SuperTarget. I think that Whole Foods may have them as well. I've had he chocolate chip peanut butter and the carrot and both are good. It also comes in a berry flavor. They run about 110-130 calories per bar. They are handy to bring to hockey games -- certainly better than anything from the concession stand ;-) I like the Kashi Go Lean chocolate peanut butter bliss in a pinch. I can't eat at or before hockey games. Our arena is so cold and eating always makes me colder. -- the volleyballchick |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
jmk wrote:
Nunya B. wrote: "Willow" wrote in message . net... To each their own, many many of my members tell me that the WW snacks are one of the thing that keeps them on track.. Better a 2 pts bar than a snicker one.. I'd rather see them eat an apple, but I didn't make the world.. I tried the mixed berry bars last week because I had a coupon for a free box. Didn't care for them. The only WW snacks I get are the whole grain cheddar twists. They sub for my former doritos fix on my drive to the gym (with a piece of fruit). Odwalla has a mulipack of bars available in a few flavors at SuperTarget. I think that Whole Foods may have them as well. I've had he chocolate chip peanut butter and the carrot and both are good. It also comes in a berry flavor. They run about 110-130 calories per bar. They are handy to bring to hockey games -- certainly better than anything from the concession stand ;-) Would you mind sharing the numbers (protein, carbs, fat)? Also if they have HFCS, trans-fats or artificial sweeteners. If you're real bored I'd love to know the percentage of carbs that are complex too but perhaps that's asking too much. -- Cheese http://cheesensweets.com/contact/cheese |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
Sorry, I got into trouble by not eating enough, and I have found that by not
eating to little, I eat every point daily,weekly and activity or I gain, it is NOT phony and a hard concept but at least for me it is very true, Lee Ignoramus20878 wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:58:09 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote: With all this talk about avoiding metabolism slowdowns by eating too little, etc., I wonder... I am 174 cm (5'8") and weigh 103.8 kg this morning (227.5 lb). I'm 49 years old. I've lost about 47 lb over the last 25 weeks on a low-calorie diet. Some people here are saying I should be sure not to eat too few calories or my metabolism will slow down making it even harder to lose weight. A few people are saying I should eat fewer calories. I have not heard the latter recommendation. But the idea that weight loss slows down with eating less, is phoney baloney. That does not mean that one should eat as little as possible, but the fact is that metabolism slows down only by a tiny amount. -- 223/174.5/180 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
Odd about the meetings, I don't even like people that much but I NEED my
meetings, Lee Willow wrote in message m... I won't give you numbers because one I don't have them.. and two I'm not a number person.. ) Guess I'm more the intuitive type as opposed to the calculating type.. Which is probably why I like points.. Besides, I'm in California.. from what I've heard we're supposed to be the "lets be happy with the flowers and angels all over the place" kinda persons right?? ;op~~~~ You've got to be a engineer or a IT guy.. ;op Seriously though, I tend to preach and I'm sorry. I love the WW program..it changed my life so completely.. I just want everybody to be successful too and get to know what "being alive" really means.. ) Does that make sense? To me it's the way to loose weight, maintain, and get back on track when you stray without having to put your life on the break while you get back to shape. I know what works for me might not work for somebody else.. I know some people don't want or need the meetings.. to me they are essentials... I tend to forget that I'm a member here.. not the group's leader.. I don't have to have all the answers.. or to guide everybody.. I try to remind myself of that when I'm here.. but sometimes I forget.. guess is a good lesson to learn.. makes me a better leader in the end ;o) By the way love the email addy ! doug@persevering! Hehehe Be good! -- Will~ "... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause." Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth. "Doug Lerner" wrote in message ... On 11/30/05 1:47 PM, in article , "Willow" 2- The points are not based only on calories.. but also on the amount the fat grams and fiber grams the food contains.. so there's not a set number of calories to it.. Technically that is true, but for all practical purposes it is basically 50 calories per point. I've seen the equation (it's a copyrighted equation, so it's listed with the government in a publicly accessible area!). No matter how little fat a serving of food has, or how much fiber, the points never vary much from basically 50 calories per point. The number of points you are allowed depends on how much you weight.. so again there isn't a set number of calories. 227lbs means 28 pts as a daily target(minimum in a day) plus 35 pts a week.. 231 pts per week plus your activity pts which you earn by being physically active.. That averages to 33 points per day, or about 1650 calories per day. That is very close to the 1700 calories per day I have been aiming for. I don't think you're undereating so much as overthinking.. hahaha. I can't help you with the calories counting.. because I don't do it, and I think it's a very bad system.. it doesn't take account of the quality of the foods you're eating.. only the calories.. Maybe. But I really don't think it is all that different from WW points. I think they are statistically indistinguishable. I would rethink using calories and use WW points instead if there were some numbers showing I am wrong though. I can tell you that the Weight Watchers system works as is.. and that to me, it's the easiest and healthiest way to go. plateaus happens, slow downs happens, gain happens.. it's all part of loosing weight.. there's no perfect solution.. but there's only two things that will bring you to long lasting success, patience and perseverance.. Thanks. doug@persevering! |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
there are healthy guidelines, and while you can eat whatever you want, they
encourage 2/3 servings of milk and 5 servings of fruits and vegetables, have you considered WW on line for a period of time to get you more familiar with the program? Lee Doug Lerner wrote in message ... On 11/30/05 9:32 PM, in article , "kmd" wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:21:03 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote: [...] I think I fashioned my diet in a way that ended up following the ideas of WW very closely. I just use straight calories instead of points. But I think, mathematically, they really are statistically equivalent. By the numbers they might be. By the nutrition value, they definitely are not. Does WW say you must eat certain kinds of foods, other than just watching your flex points? doug |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
no we do not, 12 gm of fat adds a point to a food, Lee
Ignoramus5455 wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:12:07 -0500, kmd wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:05:25 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote: On 11/30/05 9:32 PM, in article , "kmd" wrote: On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:21:03 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote: [...] I think I fashioned my diet in a way that ended up following the ideas of WW very closely. I just use straight calories instead of points. But I think, mathematically, they really are statistically equivalent. By the numbers they might be. By the nutrition value, they definitely are not. Does WW say you must eat certain kinds of foods, other than just watching your flex points? Yes. But you're missing the point. The calculation for points incorporates a low-fat, high-fiber bias. Some of that will show up in calorie counts, some of it will not. While it is true, I hope that we would agree that the impact of this bias is relatively minor for regular eating. -- 223/174.5/180 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
I think it is a YMMV thing my metabolism was messed up by medication and bad
eating, so I must be extra careful, we all have biological anomalies that make us individuals, I have also found that in order for me to lose I must eat meat, this was hard for me as I am not fond of it except in the most processed of forms, and cheese and lentil protein doesn't help much, I have had limited success with soy but my best losing is when I increase meat, Lee Doug Lerner wrote in message ... Just an aside here... From the responses here my impression of peoples' opinions on the topic seem to be: 1. A few people believe strongly in the starvation mode theory and think it kicks in relatively early so you have to constantly think about eating more calories if you are having trouble losing weight. 2. A few people completely dismiss the starvation mode theory as nonsense. 3. Most people think there is a starvation mode but that (a) it is a very minor effect and (b) if it exists it takes place at really, really low calorie levels - much less than any of us are eating. That's what the consensus seems to be here. doug |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
bummer the first thing we don't agree on Willow, but I am anecdotal and I
can see that for some it is an easy scapegoat. It is also only 1 item that must be considered when losses slow not the only one, Lee Willow wrote in message . com... Hey we agree on something !! ;op -- Will~ "... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause." Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth. "Ignoramus5455" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:17:16 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote: Just an aside here... From the responses here my impression of peoples' opinions on the topic seem to be: 1. A few people believe strongly in the starvation mode theory and think it kicks in relatively early so you have to constantly think about eating more calories if you are having trouble losing weight. 2. A few people completely dismiss the starvation mode theory as nonsense. 3. Most people think there is a starvation mode but that (a) it is a very minor effect and (b) if it exists it takes place at really, really low calorie levels - much less than any of us are eating. That's what the consensus seems to be here. k I would agree with item 3. i |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
cool I have wishfully thought off lots of pounds, from 251.6 to 167, Lee
Ignoramus607 wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:49:18 GMT, Willow wrote: Hey we agree on something !! ;op Yep... The "starvation mode" statements are based on wishful thinking. -- 223/174.5/180 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" andWeight Watchers | Doug Lerner | General Discussion | 120 | January 4th, 2006 02:08 PM |