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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
"jmk" wrote in message ... Beverly wrote: 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. 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. Keeping the fiber count at the recommended level certainly helps me. Here's an article on the benefits of fiber in our diets. http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...trient&dbid=59 Me too. Actually, DH has made some requests for higher fiber foods as well. We both find that eating a diet high in fiber helps with satiety. Personally I've never done better than I'm doing now keeping the hunger to a minimum, excellent health metrics, feeling great - all thanks to the higher fiber, lower fat bias of WW. -- the volleyballchick |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
doug...what does it matter what ww says?...47/25 is about two pounds a
week and is great! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
Here's what confuses me a little bit about this point system. I hope that you can forgive my ignorance and resolve my question. Oh Ask By all means, when I am not busy like now this is my favorite type of brain play. By the way, I am puzzled by the screen name, since you think quite well, and the tendency to assign ignorance to yourself .... I find it very easy to eat large quantity of vegetables like cabbage or tomatoes. For example, a 2 lbs dinner salad. Me too, if I am especially hungry it makes the meal I have a more satisfying experience. Crunch factor + time to consume. Limits the higher calorie space on the table too. Eating that stuff is kind of fun and healthy, but does not, as such, really prevent me from overeating on high calorie foods. Same here. Frankly when I overeat, it is rarely due to actual physical hunger. More often boredom. Or something else. Oddly enough when I am in a place where I overeat, it is always something high calorie. I rarely overeat. When I do, I am sure to not do it for long. If getting a lot of fiber this way allows me to eat more calories, would I not gain weight compared to eating at maintenance, but at lower calorie and fiber level. Most people do not eat enough "more" calories of this sort of thing (these are not the most appealing foods from an overeating standpoint as above..). Who binges on oatmeal or cabbage or pinto beans without the bacon fat? The fiber involved does cut down on transit time, which in a minor but important way cuts down on absorption, particularly of some of those things that on their own would sit in your system, such as your pork fat. Pork fat plus a head of cabbage finds the exit faster than pork fat alone The whole theory behind the new "no count" or "core" plan is that people don't tend to overeat the allowed foods, which tend to be a bit more boring. Piling these low fat high fiber items into your diet also limits the room on your plate for the other stuff. Were you around when that guy was on the boards who advocated a boring diet? Wonder what happened to him. If so, what is the "point of the point system" (pun intended)? To encourage eating that conforms to a certain healthy eating standard? That is the "main" point of the point system ( a fairly healthy diet that promotes both weight loss and eventual habit change leading to weight maintenance ). The honcho's at WW central have their eye on the latest research all the time, including that which comes from the NWLR. They claim people who eat lower fat and exercise maintain better. So WW tries to figure out ways to incorporate that into their program. The program changes, and now that I am involved with NAASO I can see the early news about why some of the changes happen. A year or so after something looks good, it ends up somewhere in WW. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
Nunya B. wrote:
Personally I've never done better than I'm doing now keeping the hunger to a minimum, excellent health metrics, feeling great - all thanks to the higher fiber, lower fat bias of WW. kudos! -- jmk in NC |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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. This is not true for others. A recent study (some of which was televised by the BBC) showed that all the diets studied worked equally well (Atkins/ww/slimfast/an other). They concluded that only calories are important in losing weight, and even in cholesterol and blood pressure and a few other pointers. In other words it doesn't matter how you lower calories so long as you do. Ray |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
Yes. Yes. Exactly.
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
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. here are a couple of articles that I found very helpful http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/art.../different.php http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/art...bolic_rate.php there's a whole load more stuff there too. Ray |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
"Ignoramus5455" wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:04:27 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote: 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. I mostly agree with you, and logically speaking, it should be about calories. The rest is simply some fudging that serves two goals, making people eat vegs and marketing purposes. You can have 50 calories that are mostly fat such as half a pat of butter and they won't do the same thing for your body as 50 calories that are protein. Audrey -- 223/174.5/180 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers
On 30 Nov 2005 08:01:35 -0800, "Beverly"
wrote: Keeping the fiber count at the recommended level certainly helps me. Ayup. And I need to add that, for me, this fiber is helpful mostly when it is from actual foods, and not from added synthetic fiber. Lots of "diet" foods now are adding fiber to lower their net carbs. Feh. Here's an article on the benefits of fiber in our diets. http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...trient&dbid=59 Cool. Thanks! -- Kristen 343/249/142 |
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 |