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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" andWeight Watchers
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. What I wonder is... what does Weight Watchers recommend? I was under the impression that WW recommended points for an adult male of my height, weight and age only came to about 1500 calories per day. Is that not the case? Thanks, doug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
1- People make way too much out of starvation mode.. for that to happen you
have to really starve.. it DOES happen.. happened to me, but that was beyond what is called starving. Out of stupidity I returned to my anorexic ways instead of just following the program. Some people do that, but not many. Generally when people don't loose or gain it's because they eat too much, not too little. What DOES happen is, they eat too little.. get really hungry and then go overboard.. 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.. 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.. I don't think you're undereating so much as overthinking.. 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.. 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.. -- Will~ "... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause." Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth. "Doug Lerner" wrote in message ... 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. What I wonder is... what does Weight Watchers recommend? I was under the impression that WW recommended points for an adult male of my height, weight and age only came to about 1500 calories per day. Is that not the case? Thanks, doug |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
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! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
I also think WW is a great program. It's certainly the most common-sense
approach. They don't have meetings here in Japan, though. 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. And I do enjoy your notes! doug On 11/30/05 3:08 PM, in article , "Willow" wrote: 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! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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. -- Kristen 343/249/142 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
"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? Yes. 5 servings of fruit/vegetables a day 2 healthy oils 2-3 milk (dairy) 6 water -- the volleyballchick |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
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. Well, there is some truth to that. I didn't have a goal weight, I had a goal size when I started. I just thought that I'd really be disappointed if I changed my lifestyle and couldn't get down to an 8/10. Well, I got there and I started to increase my caloric intake and I lost an additional 10+ pounds. It's stayed off for the past two years so I figure that's where my body wants to be. -- jmk in NC |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
Doug,
I may have mentioned this before, sorry if this is a repeat. Like most people, I had several plateaus while in weight loss mode. Two things kept me motivated throughout the process -- my logs, which clearly showed that I was doing things right; and my tanita scale. You see, my scale measures both weight and body fat percentage (yes, we are into the accuracy versus precision thing again but whatever). At times that my weight loss didn't budge, my bf% went in the right direction. This really helped me because I felt like my body was still working on "it," just not in weight loss mode but in other forms of, uh, reconfiguration. For other people, they might have a pair of pants or something that helps them through. For me, the bf% on the scale did the trick. BTW, I do have a pair of "reminder jeans" that I wear on occassions that food might be an issue. The rest of my jeans are a bit on the low rise side and don't do such a good job "reminding" me ;-) -- jmk in NC |
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 |