A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" andWeight Watchers

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:35:03 GMT, rmr wrote:

kmd wrote:

My personal experience from Atkins and other diets demonstrates that
low-fat, high-fiber matters for every health metric (weight,
cholesterol, blood pressure, energy levels i.e. metabolism) more than
calories or low carb.

This is not true for others. A recent study (some of which was
televised by the BBC) showed that all the diets studied worked equally
well (Atkins/ww/slimfast/an other). They concluded that only calories
are important in losing weight, and even in cholesterol and blood
pressure and a few other pointers.

Yeah? Well my study can beat up your study.

Seriously, there is no such thing as the Definitive Study on What
Works for Nutrition. Mostly because there is no such thing as a
one-size-fits-all answer.

In other words it doesn't matter how you lower calories so long as you
do.

That's nice, dear.

--
Kristen
343/249/142

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:04:27 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

On 12/1/05 12:12 AM, in article ,
"kmd" wrote:

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.

"You're missing the point" is always one of those "push your button"
statements that turns me off.

Watching you solicit feedback and then refuse to consider anything
that doesn't fit into What You Already Know kinda turns me off, too.
grin Guess we'll never date.

I'm definitely NOT missing the point here. Look at the point equation and
you'll see what I mean - varying the fat and fiber components simply does
not affect the point value much. It's almost entirely calories.

Proof by vigorous assertion is always so convincing.

Seriously, Doug, whatever works for you is what you should do. You've
said over and over and over and over again that what you're doing is
not working for you the way you'd like it to. You've rejected every
response that doesn't fit into your IT'S ALL ABOUT CALORIES AND
NOTHING ELSE worldview. So why are you still looking for more
feedback, if you already know the Only Right Answer?

--
Kristen
343/249/142

On 12/1/05 12:23 AM, in article
, "jojo"
wrote:

I'll tag this here.
I want to mak a point about the calorie thing (no pun intended)

lets look at 100 calories.

100 calories
0 grams fiber
3 grams fat
= 2 points

100 calories
4 grams fiber
3 grams fat
= 1 point

Just for reference, the equation is

Points = (Calories / 50) - (Fiber * 0.2) + (Fat * 0.083)

with a maximum of 4 gm of Fiber.

So that example is sort of "rigged" to use the maximum fiber value, with a
high-fat and low calorie value. In other words, that example is designed to
demonstrate maximum effect.

If you think of real day-to-day items I don't think you end up with
variations that are off by a factor of two like that.


Another problem with points in day-to-day life is that most packaged
products, or menu items, etc. (at least here) simply don't list fiber
separately. In restaurants you usually get only calories, not fat OR fiber,
so you are really in the dark.

So in PRACTICAL terms if you need to refer to values on menus you really
only have calories to work with.

Another practical day-to-day example. This morning, for variety, I decided
to pick up something at the convenience store and heat it up for breakfast.
It was a "grilled potato" something in a tray with a creamy sauce. It was
only 334 calories, which is less than what I usually have for breakfast, so
I figured "why not"?

There are 19.7 gm of fat in it and fiber is not listed.

So lets consider the maximum and minimum points here, with or without fiber:

With 4 gm of fiber it would be 6 points (if you truncate, like you did in
your example).

Without 4 gram of fiber it would also be 6 points (also, if you truncate,
like you did in your example).

If you take it to the nearest point and round it would be the difference
between 6 and 7 points.

Now I just use calories, and I say that basically "a point is 50 calories" -
and it is. Taking the maximum rounded point values you get "between 300 and
350 calories" - and that's what it is - 334 calories.

So that's what I mean when I say it doesn't really make a statistical
difference whether I use calories or points. And it is easier to use
calories because all the fiber and fat information is not always available
when you need it the most.



You aquire points by exercise as well. it is also not straight forward.
30 min at high intensity if you weight 100 pounds = 2 points
30 min at high intensity if you weight 300 pounds = 7 points

I do something similar with exercise type vs time.

Have you considered joining online?

The neck for me is the points. Maybe it's easier in the U.S. but living here
in Japan makes counting points extremely difficult except for foods I
prepare for myself at home. It's the lack of fiber/fat values on things you
buy outside...

doug

It sounds like your net calories are about the same as mine.

What's a polar heart rate monitor?

doug



On 12/1/05 1:04 AM, in article ,
"Lesanne" wrote:

This is a little complex, because WW allows flex points and activity points,
and based upon the makeup of your diet (if you eat high fiber low fat you
get more calories) you may get more or less.

An average for where you are now, taking into account the average calorie
count per point plus an addition of the flex points for the week comes out
to about 1800 daily. At goal, on maintenance since you are my height yours
would be the same as mine, which is still around 1800. As you lose, the
program cuts you back to reflect your new size. When you consider that I eat
my flex points and my exercise points that I earn I maintain on around 2,000
to 2,200 with no problems. I have been looking at this in detail because of
all these posts. When I look at a period of an entire month that I kept
records early on, when I maintained my weight within a pound or two of my
goal, the average day came out to 2,194. Around 250 calories of that were
exercise related. I work out HARD for an hour to burn 250 calories.

Which brings up the other thing. Invest in a polar heart rate monitor, have
it calculate your fitness level, and it will tell you much more accurate
estimates of calories burned in your workout.

I have been taking my own advice this week since I am taking off about 4
pounds I gained over Thanksgiving. I mixed up my workout, got off the bike
and suffered power walking/jogging one day, cut back my calories to offset
the really high days I had Thursday through Sunday, and 3 of the 4 are
already gone. When I say cut back, I am eating around 1,800. Not net of
exercise. Total, 1,800.

On 12/1/05 1:14 AM, in article ,
"Lesanne" wrote:

They have guidelines that they suggest you follow for good health. Water,
Fruits and veggies, dairy and healthy fats as well as activity.

I admit that having overall dietary guidelines would be better than just
using a single calorie metric.

doug

On 12/1/05 1:21 AM, in article ,
"Lesanne" wrote:

Also one other minor point. If you are eating the same foods more or less
day after day and taking the packaged calorie count, this can also be a
problem. They are sometimes not accurate. If something that you eat daily
has an error on the label it could be a big deal. The most obvious of these
sorts of things is a local muffin we have here, labeled at 240 calories.
Someone in my group doubted it and sent it for analysis with some Houston
relative who had access to equipment. It was actually a 385 calorie bomb.

Now this is an excellent point. I too have been worried about maybe relying
on a mislabeled product because I don't vary what I eat enough.

doug

On 12/1/05 3:38 AM, in article
, "nkd_one"
wrote:

doug...what does it matter what ww says?...47/25 is about two pounds a
week and is great!


Yes - I am not really "complaining". It's just that these last two weeks
I've barely changed weight so I get nervous during these times.

My weight this morning is back down now to where it was last Friday, so I
still have an outside chance of showing a small loss this week...

doug

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

On 12/1/05 8:46 AM, in article ,
"kmd" wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:04:27 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

On 12/1/05 12:12 AM, in article ,
"kmd" wrote:

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.

"You're missing the point" is always one of those "push your button"
statements that turns me off.

Watching you solicit feedback and then refuse to consider anything
that doesn't fit into What You Already Know kinda turns me off, too.
grin Guess we'll never date.

After an uncalled for and untrue remark like that I suspect we should not
communicate with each other at all.

Some people just can't seem to take even minor disagreement with a post and
end up unfairly interpreting it as "refusal to consider anything". I guess
you are one of those people. Oh well.


doug

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:57:19 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

Some people just can't seem to take even minor disagreement with a post and
end up unfairly interpreting it as "refusal to consider anything". I guess
you are one of those people. Oh well.

I'm really not. My own disagreement wasn't even what prompted me to
post. I looked at your responses over several days, to several
different people. But I'll be happy to be proven wrong. I hope I am.

--
Kristen
343/249/142