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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Concordia wrote in alt.support.diet on Sat, 14 Aug 2004:
Well, even my naturally thin friends (*) generally all tell me that they do consciously watch what they eat when I quiz them a bit. I was thinking about this last night; yesterday, we went out for brunch, and then out to dinner in the evening. My husband, a naturally thin person, was genuinely not very hungry in the evening, and contented himself with one course, where I had two (although I didn't finish my main course), which I didn't really need. (All the same, I seem to have lost another lb, which is brilliant considering we've had guests!) That's what I'm going on. That, and observation. Certainly it is easier to varying degrees for some people to do this, though. Not disputing that. Having struggled quite a bit in the past with controlling appetite myself, I certainly do understand how difficult it can be! (It has gotten much easier over time, though) It does get easier. PS interesting website, btw. The pics are quite charming. How kind, thank you! -- Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88.5/80kg |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Annabel Smyth wrote: You wrote at 22:33:53 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. The latter, I think. The point is that to count the precise amount of calories needed for your personal metabolism, you need to eat foods whose calorific value can be determined very precisely. While this is easy if you eat bought food, out of a packet, it is far less easy if you cook for yourself - you can estimate, certainly, but at best it will only be an estimate. -- If you use a scale and don't cheat you can be very accurate in counting calories for home-prepared foods. Further, if you do the above in conjunction with a nutrition analysis website or software or even a logbook you can tweak your intake ratios very easily. I use Fitday and find it extremely helpful in tailoring my diets to whatever stage of training I'm in, i.e., cutting, bulking, etc. People who say that calorie counting doesn't work aren't doing it right or are cheating or both. Outside of crap fad diet books no one says that it's easy. It takes discipline and commitment for the long haul. And as an aside I'll add that every calorie requirement estimator I've ever seen has been way off. I'd start by knocking 500 off whatever number they give you and even at that it's a safe bet that it'll still be too high. Paul Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/89/70kg |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Annabel Smyth wrote: You wrote at 22:33:53 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. The latter, I think. The point is that to count the precise amount of calories needed for your personal metabolism, you need to eat foods whose calorific value can be determined very precisely. While this is easy if you eat bought food, out of a packet, it is far less easy if you cook for yourself - you can estimate, certainly, but at best it will only be an estimate. -- If you use a scale and don't cheat you can be very accurate in counting calories for home-prepared foods. Further, if you do the above in conjunction with a nutrition analysis website or software or even a logbook you can tweak your intake ratios very easily. I use Fitday and find it extremely helpful in tailoring my diets to whatever stage of training I'm in, i.e., cutting, bulking, etc. People who say that calorie counting doesn't work aren't doing it right or are cheating or both. Outside of crap fad diet books no one says that it's easy. It takes discipline and commitment for the long haul. And as an aside I'll add that every calorie requirement estimator I've ever seen has been way off. I'd start by knocking 500 off whatever number they give you and even at that it's a safe bet that it'll still be too high. Paul Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/89/70kg |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" wrote in message
... If you use a scale and don't cheat you can be very accurate in counting calories for home-prepared foods. I don't think so. You're assuming the values for the base components are accurate when they're not. Does your calorie table distinguish between a Golden apple and a Granny Smith? Does it make a difference between spring-summer beef (fed with thick grass, hence fatter) and winter beef (slimmer)? Does it list both American corn and traditionnal corn (less sugar)? Does it differenciate between African and Carribean bananas? If it doesn't, you can't claim to have much accuracy, you're just getting a rough estimate. Moreover, the calories per gram are themselves estimates, rounded to the nearest digit. A gram of protein is not 4 calories, it's 4.2. A gram of carbs is 3.74, not 4. Likewise, fat is 9.3 per gram. A lot of sources do not even take that into account, and that's almost a 10% margin of error already. Obviously, some people do not understand that. I mean, I see people posting their daily diet down to the single digit. That's a level of precision that is just impossible to get. Further, if you do the above in conjunction with a nutrition analysis website or software or even a logbook you can tweak your intake ratios very easily. I use Fitday and find it extremely helpful in tailoring my diets to whatever stage of training I'm in, i.e., cutting, bulking, etc. This means you have to plan your meal in advance. It makes it hard to eat daily at the restaurant or at friends. It means weighting your food precisely. Otherwise, you will only have a very rough estimate of the calories you ate. Compared to the brain natural ability to count calories, it's a very very weak substitute. Your taste buds are able to distinguish sugar content down to the single calorie (like, sorting several tea cups per sugar content). Your brain has a four way feedback to adjust for your food intake (real-time estimation, 15 minutes mark during the meal, from meal to meal, from week to week). I would rather devote energy to restore proper function of that fantastic tool rather than waste it on trying to make a shaky substitute work. People who say that calorie counting doesn't work aren't doing it right or are cheating or both. Outside of crap fad diet books no one says that it's easy. It takes discipline and commitment for the long haul. Calorie counting works to lose weight, because the deficit is high enough to absorb the lack of precision. If you burn 2400 calories a day and are trying to eat 1500, even a +30% error keeps you in deficit. So, it does work during that phase. The problem comes when you're tying to maintain weight. That 30% margin of error then becomes enormous. It does take more discipline and commitment to tune your own brain; there is no software to help you and you can't press F1 for help. But I still feel the reward is worth the extra troubles compared to calorie counting, in terms of results, stability and flexibility. And as an aside I'll add that every calorie requirement estimator I've ever seen has been way off. I'd start by knocking 500 off whatever number they give you and even at that it's a safe bet that it'll still be too high. That's precisely what I have been saying... As you have noticed, the whole process has a wide margin of error. The "correction" you're making doesn't correct that error, it just makes sure you always end up in deficit. That's fine for losing weight, but you can't count on it for maintaining. If you did any chemistry or physics, you know what to think of these experiments where you "just add/substract random number, and it works exactly as in the formula, so it's a success"... |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" wrote in message
... If you use a scale and don't cheat you can be very accurate in counting calories for home-prepared foods. I don't think so. You're assuming the values for the base components are accurate when they're not. Does your calorie table distinguish between a Golden apple and a Granny Smith? Does it make a difference between spring-summer beef (fed with thick grass, hence fatter) and winter beef (slimmer)? Does it list both American corn and traditionnal corn (less sugar)? Does it differenciate between African and Carribean bananas? If it doesn't, you can't claim to have much accuracy, you're just getting a rough estimate. Moreover, the calories per gram are themselves estimates, rounded to the nearest digit. A gram of protein is not 4 calories, it's 4.2. A gram of carbs is 3.74, not 4. Likewise, fat is 9.3 per gram. A lot of sources do not even take that into account, and that's almost a 10% margin of error already. Obviously, some people do not understand that. I mean, I see people posting their daily diet down to the single digit. That's a level of precision that is just impossible to get. Further, if you do the above in conjunction with a nutrition analysis website or software or even a logbook you can tweak your intake ratios very easily. I use Fitday and find it extremely helpful in tailoring my diets to whatever stage of training I'm in, i.e., cutting, bulking, etc. This means you have to plan your meal in advance. It makes it hard to eat daily at the restaurant or at friends. It means weighting your food precisely. Otherwise, you will only have a very rough estimate of the calories you ate. Compared to the brain natural ability to count calories, it's a very very weak substitute. Your taste buds are able to distinguish sugar content down to the single calorie (like, sorting several tea cups per sugar content). Your brain has a four way feedback to adjust for your food intake (real-time estimation, 15 minutes mark during the meal, from meal to meal, from week to week). I would rather devote energy to restore proper function of that fantastic tool rather than waste it on trying to make a shaky substitute work. People who say that calorie counting doesn't work aren't doing it right or are cheating or both. Outside of crap fad diet books no one says that it's easy. It takes discipline and commitment for the long haul. Calorie counting works to lose weight, because the deficit is high enough to absorb the lack of precision. If you burn 2400 calories a day and are trying to eat 1500, even a +30% error keeps you in deficit. So, it does work during that phase. The problem comes when you're tying to maintain weight. That 30% margin of error then becomes enormous. It does take more discipline and commitment to tune your own brain; there is no software to help you and you can't press F1 for help. But I still feel the reward is worth the extra troubles compared to calorie counting, in terms of results, stability and flexibility. And as an aside I'll add that every calorie requirement estimator I've ever seen has been way off. I'd start by knocking 500 off whatever number they give you and even at that it's a safe bet that it'll still be too high. That's precisely what I have been saying... As you have noticed, the whole process has a wide margin of error. The "correction" you're making doesn't correct that error, it just makes sure you always end up in deficit. That's fine for losing weight, but you can't count on it for maintaining. If you did any chemistry or physics, you know what to think of these experiments where you "just add/substract random number, and it works exactly as in the formula, so it's a success"... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Annabel Smyth | General Discussion | 25 | August 13th, 2004 10:24 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Cheri | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | August 9th, 2004 06:50 PM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | ClabberHead 4.01 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | August 9th, 2004 03:17 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | LucaBG | General Discussion | 0 | August 8th, 2004 08:16 AM |
Saturday Night Live Atkins Mention | Pook! | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | October 22nd, 2003 08:56 AM |