A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old January 3rd, 2006, 01:56 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers

HUGE SNORT, Lee, reminds me of Fred
Tayra wrote in message
...
In article , Doug Lerner
wrote:

But along with bottom posting comes a responsibility to snip out

unnecessary
parts of the thread to avoid excessively long posts that force people to
scroll down just to see "me too" after 500 lines.


It can also be argued that just because you're posting above all that,
doesn't mean you don't still have a responsibility to snip. Leave enough
for context, of course, but if you're just going to agree, you don't need
the whole thing, regardless of whether it's top or bottom.

When I post, I snip out the stuff I'm not addressing, because either way,
nobody wants to scroll through it. Don't forget, there're still people
out there who page through usenet, and have to scroll through everything a
top-poster leaves on just to get to the next post, not even to a 'me too'
in the post they're currently reading.

Tops, bottoms, and swinging both ways. We better watch it or this will
become *very* off-topic

-Tay



  #112  
Old January 3rd, 2006, 02:08 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvationmode"and Weight Watchers

yes but the best example is next time you are in the grocery look at the
same flavor of ice-cream in regular and low fat versions, also where I
noticed it was in prepackaged pudding, it worked out that regular full fat
full sugar pudding was 3 and 4 points, take out the fat down to 2 and take
out the sugar down to one, the fat acts as a double penalty, sorta counting
the fat twice, Lee, who thinks generally 50 per point is a good ballpark but
when counting points accuracy is everything, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...



On 1/3/06 9:12 PM, in article , "Stormmee"
wrote:

Doug,

I can't explain it but the effect of the fiber can be big, so can the

fat,
if you could get a look at a point slide you being good with numbers

could
see this,


I have the equation...

points = calories / 50 - fiber * 0.2 + fat * 0.083

with a maximum of 4 fiber grams allowed

It still seems to me that this is basically 50 points per calorie for

almost
everything realistic, though you an stretch and find certain exceptions of
course.

doug



  #113  
Old January 3rd, 2006, 02:10 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvationmode"and Weight Watchers

perhaps write the WW people, I know the English program only considers the
saturated fat, and the European program is different again, this is in large
part due to their labeling practices, maybe WW headquarters could give
guidance on which program is best for where you are, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...



On 1/3/06 8:46 PM, in article , "Stormmee"
wrote:

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


It seems so expensive "just to check out". Especially since points info
would be hard to come by for here in Tokyo.

I'd like more information on it beforehand. Otherwise I'll just stick with
calories for now.

doug



  #114  
Old January 4th, 2006, 01:29 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and"starvationmode"and Weight Watchers

If they had fat-free icecream - or fat free cheeses here I would.

Unfortunately they don't...

sigh

Just another reason why counting points really wouldn't be helpful here in
Tokyo.



doug



On 1/3/06 10:08 PM, in article , "Stormmee"
wrote:

yes but the best example is next time you are in the grocery look at the
same flavor of ice-cream in regular and low fat versions, also where I
noticed it was in prepackaged pudding, it worked out that regular full fat
full sugar pudding was 3 and 4 points, take out the fat down to 2 and take
out the sugar down to one, the fat acts as a double penalty, sorta counting
the fat twice, Lee, who thinks generally 50 per point is a good ballpark but
when counting points accuracy is everything, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...



On 1/3/06 9:12 PM, in article
, "Stormmee"
wrote:

Doug,

I can't explain it but the effect of the fiber can be big, so can the

fat,
if you could get a look at a point slide you being good with numbers

could
see this,


I have the equation...

points = calories / 50 - fiber * 0.2 + fat * 0.083

with a maximum of 4 fiber grams allowed

It still seems to me that this is basically 50 points per calorie for

almost
everything realistic, though you an stretch and find certain exceptions of
course.

doug




  #115  
Old January 4th, 2006, 03:08 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and"starvationmode"and Weight Watchers

go to the baskin robbins web site or to the tcby site and compare, Lee, who
thinks there will be no fat free anything in heaven,
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...
If they had fat-free icecream - or fat free cheeses here I would.

Unfortunately they don't...

sigh

Just another reason why counting points really wouldn't be helpful here in
Tokyo.



doug



On 1/3/06 10:08 PM, in article , "Stormmee"
wrote:

yes but the best example is next time you are in the grocery look at the
same flavor of ice-cream in regular and low fat versions, also where I
noticed it was in prepackaged pudding, it worked out that regular full

fat
full sugar pudding was 3 and 4 points, take out the fat down to 2 and

take
out the sugar down to one, the fat acts as a double penalty, sorta

counting
the fat twice, Lee, who thinks generally 50 per point is a good ballpark

but
when counting points accuracy is everything, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...



On 1/3/06 9:12 PM, in article
,
"Stormmee"
wrote:

Doug,

I can't explain it but the effect of the fiber can be big, so can the

fat,
if you could get a look at a point slide you being good with numbers

could
see this,

I have the equation...

points = calories / 50 - fiber * 0.2 + fat * 0.083

with a maximum of 4 fiber grams allowed

It still seems to me that this is basically 50 points per calorie for

almost
everything realistic, though you an stretch and find certain exceptions

of
course.

doug






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.