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

I once ate 4/6 hundred calories a day for 8 days, I gained 1/2 pound, The
term isn't the best, conservation mode would better describe it I think, Lee
Nunya B. wrote in message
...

"Matthew Venhaus" wrote in message
...

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Just an aside here... From the responses here my impression of peoples'
opinions on the topic seem to be:

I don't think there is too much disagreement actually. The term
"starvation mode" is stupid; those who insist on using it should take a
look at some pictures of concentration camp survivors. I find it hard to
believe that anyone thinks if you stop eating altogether you will gain
or
maintain weight.


I couldn't agree more. Having lost weight on an 800 cal/day diet I can
vouch that it's pretty difficult to starve yourself if you're eating
regularly. I think there's too much drama in the use of the word
"starvation." Those who are experiencing a 500-1000 cal/day deficit
should
not be comparing themselves to true starvation victims (including the ones
in that prisoner study).
--
the volleyballchick

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,

Lee, wishing she were better with numbers
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...



On 12/1/05 12:12 AM, in article
,
"kmd" wrote:

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.

"You're missing the point" is always one of those "push your button"
statements that turns me off.

I'm definitely NOT missing the point here. Look at the point equation and
you'll see what I mean - varying the fat and fiber components simply does
not affect the point value much. It's almost entirely calories.


doug

bought the cheddar, won't again, are too good, bought the ranch, won't buy
again, not good enough, DH says he hopes I feel one of these two ways about
all of them, and that chocolate Carmel thing is also too good to get
regularly, Lee
Nunya B. wrote in message
...

"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).

--
the volleyballchick

can be bought from the website I think, and not sure about the sugar either
way but most are 1 or 2 points, Lee
kmd wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 09:17:02 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

On 12/3/05 2:13 AM, in article , "Nunya
B." wrote:

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).

How many calories are WW bars? Do they have sugar alcohols in them? My
body
can't seem to tolerate those. I'd rather have less of something with real
sugar in it than twice as much of something with fake sugar in it.

Are you able to get WW bars in Japan?

--
Kristen
343/249/142

I can tell you this, if you really want good chocolate, tell your DH to
forgo jewelry on your next anniversary and to get you gediva, now mind it is
almost #30.00 a pound but you can buy it by the piece, and it is very worth
the money, Lee
Willow wrote in message
. com...
I use the 1pts chewy oatmeal bars (with raisins).. Cause they yummy.. and
practical.. now that bars don't have the bad evil fats anymore.. great
improvement I think... I also use the fruities sometimes when I'm driving
around a lot.. I have days where I drive for hours.. in the Bay area !
AARG
talk about stress..

I'm with you about the chocolate.. if I give in.. it's gonna be the real
yummy stuff.. and it'll take me sooooooooooo long to eat it that it'll be
all over my fingers... *grin* I've been making an effort to eat more
fruits
and I have to say it helps not only to curb the apetite, but to boost the
energy.. so there..

--
Will~

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

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Lesanne" wrote in message
news
I don't mind what other people eat, but boy do I guard the food that
goes
into ME. I don't get to eat enough to put anything like that in there.
If
I
want chocolate I save points for something really evil.
But, like you, I know people who use that stuff. Even a couple at goal.

--
Lesanne
"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..

For myself I don't eat the chocolate ones, but if it'll help a member,
than
fine.

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

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

the fat alone is almost 2 points, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...



On 12/1/05 12:23 AM, in article
, "jojo"
wrote:

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

Just for reference, the equation is

Points = (Calories / 50) - (Fiber * 0.2) + (Fat * 0.083)

with a maximum of 4 gm of Fiber.

So that example is sort of "rigged" to use the maximum fiber value, with a
high-fat and low calorie value. In other words, that example is designed
to
demonstrate maximum effect.

If you think of real day-to-day items I don't think you end up with
variations that are off by a factor of two like that.


Another problem with points in day-to-day life is that most packaged
products, or menu items, etc. (at least here) simply don't list fiber
separately. In restaurants you usually get only calories, not fat OR
fiber,
so you are really in the dark.

So in PRACTICAL terms if you need to refer to values on menus you really
only have calories to work with.

Another practical day-to-day example. This morning, for variety, I decided
to pick up something at the convenience store and heat it up for
breakfast.
It was a "grilled potato" something in a tray with a creamy sauce. It was
only 334 calories, which is less than what I usually have for breakfast,
so
I figured "why not"?

There are 19.7 gm of fat in it and fiber is not listed.

So lets consider the maximum and minimum points here, with or without
fiber:

With 4 gm of fiber it would be 6 points (if you truncate, like you did in
your example).

Without 4 gram of fiber it would also be 6 points (also, if you truncate,
like you did in your example).

If you take it to the nearest point and round it would be the difference
between 6 and 7 points.

Now I just use calories, and I say that basically "a point is 50
calories" -
and it is. Taking the maximum rounded point values you get "between 300
and
350 calories" - and that's what it is - 334 calories.

So that's what I mean when I say it doesn't really make a statistical
difference whether I use calories or points. And it is easier to use
calories because all the fiber and fat information is not always available
when you need it the most.



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

I do something similar with exercise type vs time.

Have you considered joining online?

The neck for me is the points. Maybe it's easier in the U.S. but living
here
in Japan makes counting points extremely difficult except for foods I
prepare for myself at home. It's the lack of fiber/fat values on things
you
buy outside...

doug

and I am glad she is so there, Lee
Matthew Venhaus wrote in message
...

Lesanne wrote in message
...
I took my own advice and changed my behavior when what I was doing
was
counterproductive.

So you are saying that Doug's current approach is counterproductive?

And frankly I wasn't fretting, needlessly or otherwise,
just stating that I wanted the results of Thanksgiving gone quickly

Considering the results of Thanksgiving was mostly an increase in
water weight that seems pretty pointless.

so I did
everything that I know to do short of cutting my calories to an
unacceptable
level to cause it to leave in a hurry.

And it did.

But water isn't fat. I don't think Doug is looking to lose water
weight.

Doug will do whatever Doug will do, but he could do worse than
follow advice from someone who has lost over 200 pounds and kept it
off for
over two years. And yeah, slow and steady wins the race, but doing
it smart
so you don't unnecessarily waste time is not a bad idea either.

Fat loss doesn't happen quickly. My sig says what is says because
countless newbies come in expecting to lose 5lbs of fat each week.
This thread itself was started by someone who has proven that he is in
the game for the long haul, but still has some unreasonable
expectations when it comes to losing scale weight every week. I'll bet
in the process of losing 200lbs, even you had a week or two where you
didn't lose scale weight even though you stuck to your new way of
life.

The point I am trying to make is that Doug should realize most short
term weight changes are caused by changes in hydration level, and that
water is not fat. He doesn't need to worry so much about short term
fluctuations. I was under the impression that most people posting to
this thread agreed with this sentiment. But your reaction to
Thanksgiving weight gain followed Doug's pattern, not a more sensible
long-term approach.

There is plenty of nonsense in this thread, but very little of it is
coming
from this front.

Well you are still top-posting.
--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.

do what makes you comfortable, I will quit posting altogether before I do it
otherwise, long time members have been bored with my reasons before, and as
long as they don't mind if I do it then fine, and if it bothers you that I
do it, please place me in your kill file, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...



On 12/2/05 8:53 AM, in article ,
"Ignoramus607" wrote:


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Hahaha. That is sort of funny.

I often top-post too though. I will reconsider.

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.

doug