Frustration and calories

Nearing the end of my first month of low-carb, I am experiencing the
slowdown in weight loss that comes after the initial "whoosh." In
fact, my weight is essentially unchanged over the past week. Now, I
know this is hardly a stall, but it does seem unfair, after all the
goodies I passed up this week - the latkes, the Krispy Kremes, the
apple pie - not to see a reward at the scale.

It has me thinking about some of the things I've learned in my month
lurking and (ultimately) participating here, regarding the appropriate
levels of caloric intake. As I've said here before, my relationship
with food is such that I cannot trust myself on an "eat until you're
satiated" plan, and I have therefore adopted a low-carb way of eating
in which I also count calories carefully. I have found, much to my
surprise, that I can avoid hunger through the day by eating as few as
1500-1700 calories. Such is the beauty of the low-carb way of eating
- eating at that calorie level on a low-fat diet I'd be starving all
day long.

I have observed dissent here on ASDLC, however, about the appropriate
number of calories one should be eating to lose weight. The rule of
thumb numbers thrown around here, ten times body weight, strike me as
improbable - I could easily eat 2200 calories a day, but it's hard for
me to believe I'd lose weight doing so. By the same token, it's hard
for me to believe that 1500-1700 calories is few enough to trigger any
kind of metabolism-slowing starvation response. However, I recognize
that I am fighting against a lifetime of low-calorie dieting
indoctrination, so I appreciate the opportunity to be "reprogrammed"
by some of you folks who have spent a lot of time thinking about these
questions.

Ultimately, then, my question is - am I sabotaging myself by staying
below 1700 calories a day, given that I weigh over 220 pounds? For
some additional data, the distribution of those calories is averaging
about 55% fat, 32% protein, and 13% carbs. I get some exercise -
cardio and/or moderate weighlifting three times a week or so.

Looking forward to hearing your views on calories.

carla
237/224/165?

Try maintaining your current caloric intake and increasing your exercise
volume. Combine that with some patience.

To answer your question, you're not sabotaging your weightloss efforts at
1700 calories as long as you don't feel overly deprived.

If hunger is not driving you crazy, one tactic that can work is to switch
back and forth between 1700 and 1200 calories every day.

YMMV (for the lawnmower dude).

--
JC

Eat less, exercise more.

--
"carla" wrote in message
m...
Nearing the end of my first month of low-carb, I am experiencing the
slowdown in weight loss that comes after the initial "whoosh." In
fact, my weight is essentially unchanged over the past week. Now, I
know this is hardly a stall, but it does seem unfair, after all the
goodies I passed up this week - the latkes, the Krispy Kremes, the
apple pie - not to see a reward at the scale.

It has me thinking about some of the things I've learned in my month
lurking and (ultimately) participating here, regarding the appropriate
levels of caloric intake. As I've said here before, my relationship
with food is such that I cannot trust myself on an "eat until you're
satiated" plan, and I have therefore adopted a low-carb way of eating
in which I also count calories carefully. I have found, much to my
surprise, that I can avoid hunger through the day by eating as few as
1500-1700 calories. Such is the beauty of the low-carb way of eating
- eating at that calorie level on a low-fat diet I'd be starving all
day long.

I have observed dissent here on ASDLC, however, about the appropriate
number of calories one should be eating to lose weight. The rule of
thumb numbers thrown around here, ten times body weight, strike me as
improbable - I could easily eat 2200 calories a day, but it's hard for
me to believe I'd lose weight doing so. By the same token, it's hard
for me to believe that 1500-1700 calories is few enough to trigger any
kind of metabolism-slowing starvation response. However, I recognize
that I am fighting against a lifetime of low-calorie dieting
indoctrination, so I appreciate the opportunity to be "reprogrammed"
by some of you folks who have spent a lot of time thinking about these
questions.

Ultimately, then, my question is - am I sabotaging myself by staying
below 1700 calories a day, given that I weigh over 220 pounds? For
some additional data, the distribution of those calories is averaging
about 55% fat, 32% protein, and 13% carbs. I get some exercise -
cardio and/or moderate weighlifting three times a week or so.

Looking forward to hearing your views on calories.

carla
237/224/165?

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message

Try maintaining your current caloric intake and increasing your
exercise volume. Combine that with some patience.

To answer your question, you're not sabotaging your weightloss
efforts at 1700 calories as long as you don't feel overly deprived.

If hunger is not driving you crazy, one tactic that can work is to
switch back and forth between 1700 and 1200 calories every day.

YMMV (for the lawnmower dude).

--
JC

Eat less, exercise more.

Nearing the end of my first month of low-carb, I am experiencing the
slowdown in weight loss that comes after the initial "whoosh." In
fact, my weight is essentially unchanged over the past week. Now, I
know this is hardly a stall, but it does seem unfair, after all the
goodies I passed up this week - the latkes, the Krispy Kremes, the
apple pie - not to see a reward at the scale.

It has me thinking about some of the things I've learned in my month
lurking and (ultimately) participating here, regarding the
appropriate levels of caloric intake. As I've said here before, my
relationship with food is such that I cannot trust myself on an "eat
until you're satiated" plan, and I have therefore adopted a low-carb
way of eating in which I also count calories carefully. I have
found, much to my surprise, that I can avoid hunger through the day
by eating as few as 1500-1700 calories. Such is the beauty of the
low-carb way of eating - eating at that calorie level on a low-fat
diet I'd be starving all day long.

I have observed dissent here on ASDLC, however, about the appropriate
number of calories one should be eating to lose weight. The rule of
thumb numbers thrown around here, ten times body weight, strike me as
improbable - I could easily eat 2200 calories a day, but it's hard
for me to believe I'd lose weight doing so. By the same token, it's
hard for me to believe that 1500-1700 calories is few enough to
trigger any kind of metabolism-slowing starvation response.
However, I recognize that I am fighting against a lifetime of
low-calorie dieting indoctrination, so I appreciate the opportunity
to be "reprogrammed" by some of you folks who have spent a lot of
time thinking about these questions.

Ultimately, then, my question is - am I sabotaging myself by staying
below 1700 calories a day, given that I weigh over 220 pounds? For
some additional data, the distribution of those calories is averaging
about 55% fat, 32% protein, and 13% carbs. I get some exercise -
cardio and/or moderate weighlifting three times a week or so.

Looking forward to hearing your views on calories.

carla
237/224/165?


http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

Since I don't know your height and age or activity level, it's not as
accurate as it could be, but you are still within the 'zone' for losing,
so to speak. 1700 looks to be above your bmr, but only barely.

--
revek
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls
and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

Carla,

There's only one way to find out if you can eat at 2200 calories and still
lose. Do it for two weeks and see what happens.

If you are really into changing your way of eating for life, two weeks is a
very small amount of time. You aren't going to put weight back on eating at
10 times body weight. At worst, you'll see no change. At best, you'll find
you can eat at a comfortable level that allows you to lose weight in a way
you can maintain.

Remember, you're looking at doing this way of eating for years and years. So
you want to craft the most flexible plan--the one that leaves you less
likely to crash off of it when the novelty wears off

When you get stuck with a sense of urgency that makes you go to dietary
extremes, you may lose more quickly, but you may set up a situation that
makes it a lot harder to maintain your weight loss when you get to goal, or
when things slow down, as they usually do after a few months.

So look at this as a long, ongoing process that will become second nature to
you, not as a rush to the finish line. And eat at the highest calorie level
that lets you lose 2 to 4 lbs a month--a healthy pace for weight loss.

As far as the specific calorie level goes, I'm a very slow loser, but I lost
weight to goal very successfully at a level close to 1400 calories. I'm much
smaller than you and now I am contending with what sure seems like a slowed
down metabolism. So I would advise you NOT to eat at that low a level, since
it is likely that you are very close to the BMR (Basic Metabolic
Requirement) level. When you drop below that level you do tend to spark off
a famine response that makes your body get much more efficient with much
less food so that when you go back to what used to be maintenance, you gain.
..

Best wishes for continued success!

-- Jenny

Cut the carbs to respond to my new email address!
New photo: http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm
Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998 -
HBa1c 5.2 10/03
Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean
How to calculate your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low Carb Treats *
Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? * Curing Ketobreath * Exercise
Starting from Zero * Do Starch Blockers Work? * NEW! Why the Low Carb Diet
is Great for Diabetes * NEW! Low Carb Strategies for People with Diabetes


"carla" wrote in message
m...
Nearing the end of my first month of low-carb, I am experiencing the
slowdown in weight loss that comes after the initial "whoosh." In
fact, my weight is essentially unchanged over the past week. Now, I
know this is hardly a stall, but it does seem unfair, after all the
goodies I passed up this week - the latkes, the Krispy Kremes, the
apple pie - not to see a reward at the scale.

It has me thinking about some of the things I've learned in my month
lurking and (ultimately) participating here, regarding the appropriate
levels of caloric intake. As I've said here before, my relationship
with food is such that I cannot trust myself on an "eat until you're
satiated" plan, and I have therefore adopted a low-carb way of eating
in which I also count calories carefully. I have found, much to my
surprise, that I can avoid hunger through the day by eating as few as
1500-1700 calories. Such is the beauty of the low-carb way of eating
- eating at that calorie level on a low-fat diet I'd be starving all
day long.

I have observed dissent here on ASDLC, however, about the appropriate
number of calories one should be eating to lose weight. The rule of
thumb numbers thrown around here, ten times body weight, strike me as
improbable - I could easily eat 2200 calories a day, but it's hard for
me to believe I'd lose weight doing so. By the same token, it's hard
for me to believe that 1500-1700 calories is few enough to trigger any
kind of metabolism-slowing starvation response. However, I recognize
that I am fighting against a lifetime of low-calorie dieting
indoctrination, so I appreciate the opportunity to be "reprogrammed"
by some of you folks who have spent a lot of time thinking about these
questions.

Ultimately, then, my question is - am I sabotaging myself by staying
below 1700 calories a day, given that I weigh over 220 pounds? For
some additional data, the distribution of those calories is averaging
about 55% fat, 32% protein, and 13% carbs. I get some exercise -
cardio and/or moderate weighlifting three times a week or so.

Looking forward to hearing your views on calories.

carla
237/224/165?

"revek" wrote in message ...
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

Since I don't know your height and age or activity level, it's not as
accurate as it could be, but you are still within the 'zone' for losing,
so to speak. 1700 looks to be above your bmr, but only barely.

This was helpful, thanks. Entering my own numbers, I find my BMR is
1780 or so. I think I'll aim for 1800 a day now, with my current
level of exercise (I don't anticipate being able to exercise more in
the near future), and see what happens for a few weeks.

I appreciate Jenny's suggestion of running the 2200 a day experiment.
Of course, Jenny, you are right - there is only one way to know for
sure if I can lose at that calorie level. I will consider trying such
experiments. A concern I have is that if I can lose at that level
now, I'll have to drop it down as the weight comes off. That won't be
any fun! :-)

Finally, to some of Ig's points - thanks for the suggestions on
nutritional variety. This is not, as it happens, much of a problem
for me. I don't eat pork products at all so I'm not getting too much
bacon. :-) And I absolutely adore vegatables, raw or cooked, so I
always eat plenty of them.

As an interesting aside, the combination of low-carb and kosher has an
unexpected self-limiting effect on the calories I consume in one meal
- if I am having a big hunk of meat, I can't have any dairy at that
meal, so I'm not eating a zillion calories in cheese or cream along
with the meat. One result is I eat more tofu than some low-carbers
would, because sometimes I want cheese with my meal!

thanks again,
carla
237/223/165?

Carla,

If you can lose at a higher lever, but confine yourself to a lower level,
you'll find it harder, not easier to lose as you get towards your goal!

The higher the level you eat at, the more robust your metabolism will be.
The lower it is, the faster your body will decide you are starving to death
and start taking steps to make itself more efficient at storing fat.

This is why so many people who go on stringent diets gain back not only the
weight they originally wanted to lose, but a whole lot more. By cutting way
doww on food they have trained their body to be far more efficient.
Unfortunately, some studies I have seen suggest that once this happens, your
metabolism NEVER gets back to its earlier, less efficient state. That's one
reason that "yo-yo" dieting is such a problem for many people.

Since you are very early in the process, you have a chance to avoid causing
unnecessary metabolic slow down.



-- Jenny

Cut the carbs to respond to my new email address!
New photo: http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/jennypics.htm
Weight: 168.5/137
Diabetes Type II diagnosed 8/1998 -
HBa1c 5.2 10/03
Low Carb 9/1998 - 8/2001 and 11/10/02 - Now

http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean
How to calculate your need for protein * How much people really lose each
month * Water Weight Gain & Loss * The "Two Gram Cure" for Hunger Cravings
* Characteristics of Successful Dieters * Indispensible Low Carb Treats *
Should You Count that Low Impact Carb? * Curing Ketobreath * Exercise
Starting from Zero * Do Starch Blockers Work? * NEW! Why the Low Carb Diet
is Great for Diabetes * NEW! Low Carb Strategies for People with Diabetes


"carla" wrote in message
m...
"revek" wrote in message
...
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

Since I don't know your height and age or activity level, it's not as
accurate as it could be, but you are still within the 'zone' for losing,
so to speak. 1700 looks to be above your bmr, but only barely.

This was helpful, thanks. Entering my own numbers, I find my BMR is
1780 or so. I think I'll aim for 1800 a day now, with my current
level of exercise (I don't anticipate being able to exercise more in
the near future), and see what happens for a few weeks.

I appreciate Jenny's suggestion of running the 2200 a day experiment.
Of course, Jenny, you are right - there is only one way to know for
sure if I can lose at that calorie level. I will consider trying such
experiments. A concern I have is that if I can lose at that level
now, I'll have to drop it down as the weight comes off. That won't be
any fun! :-)

Finally, to some of Ig's points - thanks for the suggestions on
nutritional variety. This is not, as it happens, much of a problem
for me. I don't eat pork products at all so I'm not getting too much
bacon. :-) And I absolutely adore vegatables, raw or cooked, so I
always eat plenty of them.

As an interesting aside, the combination of low-carb and kosher has an
unexpected self-limiting effect on the calories I consume in one meal
- if I am having a big hunk of meat, I can't have any dairy at that
meal, so I'm not eating a zillion calories in cheese or cream along
with the meat. One result is I eat more tofu than some low-carbers
would, because sometimes I want cheese with my meal!

thanks again,
carla
237/223/165?

carla wrote:
Nearing the end of my first month of low-carb, I am experiencing the
slowdown in weight loss that comes after the initial "whoosh." In
fact, my weight is essentially unchanged over the past week. Now, I
know this is hardly a stall, but it does seem unfair, after all the
goodies I passed up this week - the latkes, the Krispy Kremes, the
apple pie - not to see a reward at the scale.
...

If you have a calorie deficit of 500 calories a day you would be losing
say 1 pound a week.

The trouble is that your weight can fluctuate by 2-3 pounds just from
fluid retention. Menstrual cycles, minor illnesses, eating more salt;
all sorts of things can cause fluid retention. So even weighing a week
apart can be a very frustrating experience.

If you have a spreadsheet program on your PC, see if you can set up, or
have someone set up, a graph of your 14 day moving average weight. This
will give you a better and more encouraging picture of your rate of
weight loss.

There is a book "The Hacker's Diet" available for free at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html which discusses this
in detail. The aithor provides a free app for the palm pilot which you
can use to track your weight.

His basic approach to weight loss is calorie restriction but it is not
inconsistent with low carb approaches.

Tim Josling