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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |