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

"jmk" wrote in message
...
Nunya B. wrote:
"Willow" wrote in message
. net...

To each their own, many many of my members tell me that the WW snacks are
one of the thing that keeps them on track..

Better a 2 pts bar than a snicker one.. I'd rather see them eat an apple,
but I didn't make the world..


I tried the mixed berry bars last week because I had a coupon for a free
box. Didn't care for them. The only WW snacks I get are the whole grain
cheddar twists. They sub for my former doritos fix on my drive to the
gym (with a piece of fruit).


Odwalla has a mulipack of bars available in a few flavors at SuperTarget.
I think that Whole Foods may have them as well. I've had he chocolate
chip peanut butter and the carrot and both are good. It also comes in a
berry flavor. They run about 110-130 calories per bar. They are handy to
bring to hockey games -- certainly better than anything from the
concession stand ;-)

I like the Kashi Go Lean chocolate peanut butter bliss in a pinch. I can't
eat at or before hockey games. Our arena is so cold and eating always makes
me colder.
--
the volleyballchick

jmk wrote:
Nunya B. wrote:
"Willow" wrote in message
. net...

To each their own, many many of my members tell me that the WW snacks
are
one of the thing that keeps them on track..

Better a 2 pts bar than a snicker one.. I'd rather see them eat an
apple,
but I didn't make the world..


I tried the mixed berry bars last week because I had a coupon for a
free box. Didn't care for them. The only WW snacks I get are the
whole grain cheddar twists. They sub for my former doritos fix on my
drive to the gym (with a piece of fruit).


Odwalla has a mulipack of bars available in a few flavors at
SuperTarget. I think that Whole Foods may have them as well. I've had
he chocolate chip peanut butter and the carrot and both are good. It
also comes in a berry flavor. They run about 110-130 calories per bar.
They are handy to bring to hockey games -- certainly better than
anything from the concession stand ;-)


Would you mind sharing the numbers (protein, carbs, fat)? Also if they
have HFCS, trans-fats or artificial sweeteners. If you're real bored
I'd love to know the percentage of carbs that are complex too but
perhaps that's asking too much.
--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contact/cheese

Sorry, I got into trouble by not eating enough, and I have found that by not
eating to little, I eat every point daily,weekly and activity or I gain, it
is NOT phony and a hard concept but at least for me it is very true, Lee
Ignoramus20878 wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:58:09 +0900, 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.

I have not heard the latter recommendation.

But the idea that weight loss slows down with eating less, is phoney
baloney. That does not mean that one should eat as little as possible,
but the fact is that metabolism slows down only by a tiny amount.

--
223/174.5/180

Odd about the meetings, I don't even like people that much but I NEED my
meetings, Lee
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!

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
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

I believe that what works for each individual is what they should do but I
have to be honest, sometimes I feel like a WW evangelist, Lee
kmd wrote in message
...
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

no we do not, 12 gm of fat adds a point to a food, Lee
Ignoramus5455 wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:12:07 -0500, 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.

While it is true, I hope that we would agree that the impact of this
bias is relatively minor for regular eating.

--
223/174.5/180

I think it is a YMMV thing my metabolism was messed up by medication and bad
eating, so I must be extra careful, we all have biological anomalies that
make us individuals, I have also found that in order for me to lose I must
eat meat, this was hard for me as I am not fond of it except in the most
processed of forms, and cheese and lentil protein doesn't help much, I have
had limited success with soy but my best losing is when I increase meat, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...
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

bummer the first thing we don't agree on Willow, but I am anecdotal and I
can see that for some it is an easy scapegoat. It is also only 1 item that
must be considered when losses slow not the only one, Lee
Willow wrote in message
. com...
Hey we agree on something !! ;op

--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Ignoramus5455" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:17:16 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote:
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.
k

I would agree with item 3.

i

cool I have wishfully thought off lots of pounds, from 251.6 to 167, Lee
Ignoramus607 wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:49:18 GMT, Willow
wrote:
Hey we agree on something !! ;op


Yep... The "starvation mode" statements are based on wishful thinking.

--
223/174.5/180