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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Week 17 report - a "so so" week. Down 1.3 lb, but still higher thanI was on 9/9
I haven't changed anything yet on my diet - I just keep plugging away.
This week I did show a week-to-week loss of 0.6 kg = 1.3 lb. But even so, I've essentially remained at a dead stall since September 9th, when I actually weighed 0.2 kg less than I do today. I am worried that this means that my basic metabolism is simply slower than I originally thought it was. That instead of needing the standard 12 calories per pound per day that I really only need 10 calories - or even less... The numbers seem to suggest that. This past week I ate "net calories" (calories after deducting exercise) of 11,668 calories - an average of 1667 calories/day. I lost 1.3 lb. If 1 lb is equivalent to 3500 calories that means I ate 1.3 x 3500 = 4550 calories less than my body needed to maintain my weight. So to maintain my weight I could have eaten 11,668 + 4,550 = 16,218 calories for the week, which is 2317 calories per day. If my average weight for the week was (242.9 + 241.6) / 2 = 242.3 lb, that means that at my current weight I need 2317 calories / 242.3 lb = just 9.56 calories/lb per day for maintenance. That is about 20% fewer calories than I assumed I needed. sigh What this means in practical terms is that my true maintenance net calories (after exercise) at my goal weight of 79 kg is just 1662 calories per day, not 2086 calories, like I thought. That is *forever*. That is also almost exactly what I ate, on the average, last week. On the other hand, what if I've stalled and my base metabolism is even lower? Using these formulas, if I wanted to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight I would need to have a shortfall of 7000 calories instead of 4550 calories. That is 2450 less calories per week, or 350 less calories per day. Just 1312 net calories per day! The bottom line (if you will excuse the pun) is that this means in order to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight it seems I need to change my daily limit from 1700 calories/day + 1000 bonus calories to around 1200 calories/day + 1000 weekly bonus calories. That is a huge change - like 500 calories less per day than I have gotten used to budgeting for. This could be done either by eating less or exercising like an extra 40 minutes per day on my exercise bike. Or a combination of both. In either case, it requires a big ramp up of my diet somehow. The psychological problem, of course, is that I barely limped into finding "just the right" balance of a diet that I can stay on as is. I'm worried that if the conditions get too restrictive I will be setting myself up for problems with sticking with it. But you can't fight conservation of energy. Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's metabolism? doug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Doug
I know on WW as you loose your points lower so I'm sure calories would be the same. Sounds like your going to get control of it though. Try to increase your exercise a little to. Good Luck and keep on keeping us posted. Lori -- Message posted via WeightAdviser.com http://www.weightadviser.com/Uwe/For.../diet/200509/1 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I am going to say this and hope I don't offend you, you are not giving your
body resting time, these formulas work over the long haul, I mean several months, not weeks, Before I started WW in order for me to lose a half a pound in a week my metabolic rate was so slow I had to average less than 500 calories a day for ten days, then when I ate my body packed it right back on, I actually increased my rate by figuring out what was reasonable eating it and dealing with a couple of gains and some very small losses and even now I lose slow but I feel lots better, do not sabotage all your hard work by insisting on an artificial time table or a particular amount to lose each week, you ARE eating healthy, you are able to do it eating what you are eating, and in the worse case situation, eating as you are you will NOT gain back to where you were so just hang in there, and honestly if I had to guess I would say you are overestimating calories burned, or what I think is more probably the case you are not eating enough, if you think about it, the body tends to act on what happened a couple weeks back so think and see what if anything you did differently and remember, this is a way of life, it is forever so getting in a hurry doesn't gain you anything if you give up, good luck, Lee Doug Lerner wrote in message ... I haven't changed anything yet on my diet - I just keep plugging away. This week I did show a week-to-week loss of 0.6 kg = 1.3 lb. But even so, I've essentially remained at a dead stall since September 9th, when I actually weighed 0.2 kg less than I do today. I am worried that this means that my basic metabolism is simply slower than I originally thought it was. That instead of needing the standard 12 calories per pound per day that I really only need 10 calories - or even less... The numbers seem to suggest that. This past week I ate "net calories" (calories after deducting exercise) of 11,668 calories - an average of 1667 calories/day. I lost 1.3 lb. If 1 lb is equivalent to 3500 calories that means I ate 1.3 x 3500 = 4550 calories less than my body needed to maintain my weight. So to maintain my weight I could have eaten 11,668 + 4,550 = 16,218 calories for the week, which is 2317 calories per day. If my average weight for the week was (242.9 + 241.6) / 2 = 242.3 lb, that means that at my current weight I need 2317 calories / 242.3 lb = just 9.56 calories/lb per day for maintenance. That is about 20% fewer calories than I assumed I needed. sigh What this means in practical terms is that my true maintenance net calories (after exercise) at my goal weight of 79 kg is just 1662 calories per day, not 2086 calories, like I thought. That is *forever*. That is also almost exactly what I ate, on the average, last week. On the other hand, what if I've stalled and my base metabolism is even lower? Using these formulas, if I wanted to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight I would need to have a shortfall of 7000 calories instead of 4550 calories. That is 2450 less calories per week, or 350 less calories per day. Just 1312 net calories per day! The bottom line (if you will excuse the pun) is that this means in order to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight it seems I need to change my daily limit from 1700 calories/day + 1000 bonus calories to around 1200 calories/day + 1000 weekly bonus calories. That is a huge change - like 500 calories less per day than I have gotten used to budgeting for. This could be done either by eating less or exercising like an extra 40 minutes per day on my exercise bike. Or a combination of both. In either case, it requires a big ramp up of my diet somehow. The psychological problem, of course, is that I barely limped into finding "just the right" balance of a diet that I can stay on as is. I'm worried that if the conditions get too restrictive I will be setting myself up for problems with sticking with it. But you can't fight conservation of energy. Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's metabolism? doug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Miss Violette wrote:
I am going to say this and hope I don't offend you, you are not giving your body resting time, these formulas work over the long haul, I mean several months, not weeks, Before I started WW in order for me to lose a half a pound in a week my metabolic rate was so slow I had to average less than 500 calories a day for ten days, then when I ate my body packed it right back on, I actually increased my rate by figuring out what was reasonable eating it and dealing with a couple of gains and some very small losses and even now I lose slow but I feel lots better, do not sabotage all your hard work by insisting on an artificial time table or a particular amount to lose each week, you ARE eating healthy, you are able to do it eating what you are eating, and in the worse case situation, eating as you are you will NOT gain back to where you were so just hang in there, and honestly if I had to guess I would say you are overestimating calories burned, or what I think is more probably the case you are not eating enough, if you think about it, the body tends to act on what happened a couple weeks back so think and see what if anything you did differently and remember, this is a way of life, it is forever so getting in a hurry doesn't gain you anything if you give up, good luck, Lee Thanks for your note, Lee. I will stick with it and not change anything drastically. About the calories burned in exercise though, I think I am being conservative if anything. If I do extra daily activity, like long walks, or using my bicycle to go shopping instead of my scooter, etc., I don't count that. The *only* exercise I count is on my exercise bike. There my height, weight, age are entered into the computer, and my heart rate and speed, etc. are measure during the exercise and all I count is the calories the bike's computer said I burned. doug |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug Lerner" wrote in message ... I haven't changed anything yet on my diet - I just keep plugging away. This week I did show a week-to-week loss of 0.6 kg = 1.3 lb. But even so, I've essentially remained at a dead stall since September 9th, when I actually weighed 0.2 kg less than I do today. I am worried that this means that my basic metabolism is simply slower than I originally thought it was. That instead of needing the standard 12 calories per pound per day that I really only need 10 calories - or even less... It is possible that you overestimated your metabolism, but you have quite a bit more data than the one week that you used so I think you should go back and use all the data you have since you started your diet. Your calculations assume that the scale is measuring only changes in fat weight, and over a one week time horizon that is not a very good assumption. That is also almost exactly what I ate, on the average, last week. On the other hand, what if I've stalled and my base metabolism is even lower? Using these formulas, if I wanted to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight What is so magical about 2lbs per week? Assuming the numbers are correct, why not reduce calories and/or incease exercise more gradually. But you can't fight conservation of energy. Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's metabolism? Yes, you can read all about thermogenic products at www.drumlib.com. Matthew |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lori via WeightAdviser.com wrote:
Doug I know on WW as you loose your points lower so I'm sure calories would be the same. Sounds like your going to get control of it though. Try to increase your exercise a little to. Good Luck and keep on keeping us posted. Thanks for your note, Lori. I will try to increase my exercise. doug@fighting against decades of natural laziness |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Venhaus wrote:
What is so magical about 2lbs per week? It just seems like a reasonable not-too-fast-not-too-slow rate that will let me reach goal within my lifetime. Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's metabolism? Yes, you can read all about thermogenic products at www.drumlib.com. Hmmm... I'll take a look. Can't hurt to check it out... In addition to diet and exercise of course! doug |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I am so very glad you aren't giving up, perhaps you could separately track
the exercise you don't count for a couple of weeks and then you might judge if you are in fact not eating enough, Lee, pleased you are sticking with it Doug Lerner wrote in message ... Miss Violette wrote: I am going to say this and hope I don't offend you, you are not giving your body resting time, these formulas work over the long haul, I mean several months, not weeks, Before I started WW in order for me to lose a half a pound in a week my metabolic rate was so slow I had to average less than 500 calories a day for ten days, then when I ate my body packed it right back on, I actually increased my rate by figuring out what was reasonable eating it and dealing with a couple of gains and some very small losses and even now I lose slow but I feel lots better, do not sabotage all your hard work by insisting on an artificial time table or a particular amount to lose each week, you ARE eating healthy, you are able to do it eating what you are eating, and in the worse case situation, eating as you are you will NOT gain back to where you were so just hang in there, and honestly if I had to guess I would say you are overestimating calories burned, or what I think is more probably the case you are not eating enough, if you think about it, the body tends to act on what happened a couple weeks back so think and see what if anything you did differently and remember, this is a way of life, it is forever so getting in a hurry doesn't gain you anything if you give up, good luck, Lee Thanks for your note, Lee. I will stick with it and not change anything drastically. About the calories burned in exercise though, I think I am being conservative if anything. If I do extra daily activity, like long walks, or using my bicycle to go shopping instead of my scooter, etc., I don't count that. The *only* exercise I count is on my exercise bike. There my height, weight, age are entered into the computer, and my heart rate and speed, etc. are measure during the exercise and all I count is the calories the bike's computer said I burned. doug |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, While I was dieting about 20 years ago, someone told me about 'set
point' which IS what we all fight against !! A doctor told me about this so I found a book at my library. It helped me!!! This showed me what I was fighting against! I researched so much to change my weight forever!!! I'm fighting ths stupid MS battle so I can't exercise like I WAS a while ago! But STILL I will keep my battle for better eating & weight loss! I EAT better! You are really doing well !!! Keep with this! GOOD ATTITUDE!!! glo |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, Gloria. You keep up with it too!
doug Gloria wrote: Doug, While I was dieting about 20 years ago, someone told me about 'set point' which IS what we all fight against !! A doctor told me about this so I found a book at my library. It helped me!!! This showed me what I was fighting against! I researched so much to change my weight forever!!! I'm fighting ths stupid MS battle so I can't exercise like I WAS a while ago! But STILL I will keep my battle for better eating & weight loss! I EAT better! You are really doing well !!! Keep with this! GOOD ATTITUDE!!! glo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Week 14 Report - a new major milestone! | Doug Lerner | Weightwatchers | 11 | September 12th, 2005 01:39 PM |
Day 48 Report - down 1.5 kg so far this week - and a skeptical noteabout Diet Coke | Doug Lerner | General Discussion | 9 | September 5th, 2005 03:41 PM |
Day 46 Report - down another 1.0 kg so far this week - and a milestonereport! | Doug Lerner | Weightwatchers | 2 | July 25th, 2005 07:02 PM |
Week 2 - update | Elly | General Discussion | 5 | August 3rd, 2004 01:48 PM |
After our 1st week - Report | Guy Smiley | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 10 | February 15th, 2004 10:44 PM |