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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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. 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. Any healthy lifestyle program, when implemented well, is about what *works*, not about one-size-fits-all. You are saying that you feel like your current program is *not* *working* for you. so this would be a time when your WW leader would sit down with you and go over your tracker. Are you eating enough whole grains? Lean proteins? Vegetables? Are too many of your (points/calories) being used up with high-calorie, low-nutrition value foods? And if a thorough review shows that your nutrition is sound, and your exercise level is good, then you may just be in a plateau. As Willow wrote, plateaus happen. There are lots of strategies to break free of them, if you're interested. You do know that you can join Weight Watchers online if there's no meeting near you, right? I do both online and meetings. Many of the discussion boards (but definitely not all of them!) are very very helpful. I have gotten a tremendous amount of information, guidance and inspiration there. But I'm not a WW pusher. I'm all about what works for you. -- Kristen 343/249/142 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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 so, fiber and fat content make a difference as well. How and why...well, I just don't know (or care) That's why I like ww, I don't have to know or care, just stick to my points. 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 see...and again..I do not understand it and i don't have to. I have all the tools provided by the program to figure it out quickly and easily. Doug, not preaching, just prying to expain for all who don't understand why WW is so different (and so easy) Have you considered joining online? Great loss and motivation to you! jojo "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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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. 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. Keeping the fiber count at the recommended level certainly helps me. Here's an article on the benefits of fiber in our diets. http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...trient&dbid=59 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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. -- Lesanne "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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
Not true. A nonfat item with 4 gms of fiber can have up to 110 calories and
be one point. A high fat item, with no fiber, can have a little as 30 calories and be a point. I have the WW official thing here on my desk. My average calories per point is 60, because I tend to prefer high fiber foods by choice. .. 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
Weight watchers, followed the way it is designed including the tools for
living, is really the only program that addresses all those things people need for long term success. Empowerment Tools for changing behavior Support and to a lesser degree, sensible dietary advice (not counting their own junk food sales pitches, just the guidelines). -- Lesanne "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! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
They have guidelines that they suggest you follow for good health. Water,
Fruits and veggies, dairy and healthy fats as well as activity. -- Lesanne "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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
That can be true or not. Some people tend to really lean into the low fat
high fiber thing, eat more calories and lose slower or not.... again depending on the 20 million other factors that happen. While it is true, I hope that we would agree that the impact of this bias is relatively minor for regular eating. -- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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. -- Lesanne |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
Beverly wrote:
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. 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. Keeping the fiber count at the recommended level certainly helps me. Here's an article on the benefits of fiber in our diets. http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...trient&dbid=59 Me too. Actually, DH has made some requests for higher fiber foods as well. We both find that eating a diet high in fiber helps with satiety. -- 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 |