Allowed calorie intake...?

"GaryG" wrote in message ...
BTW - if you do decide to download and try WeightWare, I would welcome your
feedback on it. You can contact me via email at garyg -at-
shastasoftware -dot- com.

oops too late; see my other post...

I'll install it tomorrow and send any more feedback privately...

"Heywood Mogroot" wrote in message
om...
"GaryG" wrote in message
...
Funny, I've been thinking of marketing a diet program too, and
checking over your site for the first time I see a lot of common
ideas! (I like your calendar layout idea -- very smart).

Thanks...the calendar is a custom control that I designed myself. I
tried
to find a third-party control for that feature, but couldn't find
anything
that met my needs.

Certainly doesn't look bad, for a Win32 app (which all tend to look
like crap IMO).


In my best John Wayne impersonation..."Them's fightin' words, pilgrim".



Can't wait for Longhorn so you windows people will finally have a
proper GUI API...

It's a weight and health diary called "WeightWare"
(http://www.WeightWare.com).

I also must say the overall quality of design of your work is very
apparent. Bravo! (and this is coming from a full-time programmer / UI
designer!).

Thanks! I take a great deal of pride in the quality of my user
interface
design. There's far too much software out there that is dreck from this
perspective.

I was very impressed with the breadth of your design. I had spent a
week or so on & off thinking about the program, but your app really
covered all the bases well.

If you're working on a point release, I'd recommend:

+ plotting the expected loss rate on the graph too. This is what I use
most to correlate progress (or lack thereof) with calorie deficts.

Yes, a graph showing goal vs. actual should be in the next version.


+ if you plot the expected rate loss, you will have to support
variable loss rates, since it is common to switch gears on a diet
(partway in I went from 875 kcal/day deficit to 1000 kcal/day, but
perhaps later I might want to start backing off a bit in a month or
two).

+Your trend plotting is very linear; I think too much information is
being lost with your function. I prefer John Walker's formula (with a
0.75 smoothing factor), since it is more usable on a day-to-day basis.

It's linear by design. The weight trend shown (for whatever time period you
select) is based on "least squares linear regression". The same technique
is mentioned on page 294 of the Hacker's Diet.

During development, I experimented with also displaying an exponentially
smoothed moving average, but it didn't seem to add much value. Now that I
think about it, I think it depends on the time frame you're looking at. For
shorter time frames (say, 1-3 months) I think the linear "weight trend"
provides more useful information. For longer time frames, I think the
moving average would give a better view of changes in weight. I'll probably
add a "Moving Average" view to the graphs in the next version.

I'm also thinking of adding a "30-day Weight Trend" view...this would show
the 30-day linear regression value for each date (i.e., the 30-day least
squares daily caloric deficit). Changes in this graph would allow you to
quickly see if your rate of weight loss is increasing or decreasing.


+ minor UI thing on the calendar, the weekly summary cells should not
be so similar to the out-of-month cells. I'd also color-code 'up' days
in red, to better signal them.

I'm hesitant to color-code like that, for several reasons. Firstly, the
monthly min/max weights are already color coded (green and red,
respectively). I also don't want to overemphasize the "up" days like that
because they occur naturally, even during a successful weight loss
program...coloring them red could add unnecessary stress to the weigh-ins
(the status panel at the bottom of the month shows how many days were Up vs.
Down, however).

Thanks again for your comments...I always welcome feedback, suggestions, and
bug reports.

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

"GaryG" wrote in message ...
+ if you plot the expected rate loss, you will have to support
variable loss rates, since it is common to switch gears on a diet
(partway in I went from 875 kcal/day deficit to 1000 kcal/day, but
perhaps later I might want to start backing off a bit in a month or
two).

+Your trend plotting is very linear; I think too much information is
being lost with your function. I prefer John Walker's formula (with a
0.75 smoothing factor), since it is more usable on a day-to-day basis.

It's linear by design. The weight trend shown (for whatever time period you
select) is based on "least squares linear regression". The same technique
is mentioned on page 294 of the Hacker's Diet.

All the "hacker's diet" followers on the web use the moving average
method of graphing, AFAIK.

During development, I experimented with also displaying an exponentially
smoothed moving average, but it didn't seem to add much value.

The least squares just seems like it is drawing a single line to fit
the data. As I tried to imply, this is fine for looking back at a
period of time, but doesn't seem to provide any useful information
going forward, since important recent trends are apparently getting
chopped off with the single best fit curve fitting.

The eye can determine the linear trend easily enough, but when I look
at my chart, it's the bumps and dips in the moving average that tell
me how things were going at that period of the diet.

By fitting all the datapoints to a single line, you've basically
reduced all information for that period down to a single datum: the
average rate of loss over the entire period.

Now that I
think about it, I think it depends on the time frame you're looking at. For
shorter time frames (say, 1-3 months) I think the linear "weight trend"
provides more useful information.

Disagree. See above. The most important thing is what's happening this
week, and what the weight will likely be tomorrow if present trends
continue.

For longer time frames, I think the
moving average would give a better view of changes in weight. I'll probably
add a "Moving Average" view to the graphs in the next version.

recommended

I'm also thinking of adding a "30-day Weight Trend" view...this would show
the 30-day linear regression value for each date (i.e., the 30-day least
squares daily caloric deficit). Changes in this graph would allow you to
quickly see if your rate of weight loss is increasing or decreasing.

yeah 2nd order trends are useful. In my spreadsheet I color-code the
daily gain/loss red if it is less than planned (0.286 lbs/day in my
case). My other (sooper sekrit proprietary LOL) numbers are also
2nd-order related, and similarly color-coded. Too many reds in a row
and I know something's not working.

+ minor UI thing on the calendar, the weekly summary cells should not
be so similar to the out-of-month cells. I'd also color-code 'up' days
in red, to better signal them.

I'm hesitant to color-code like that, for several reasons. Firstly, the
monthly min/max weights are already color coded (green and red,
respectively).

yeah I saw that and first assumed you we're color-coding like me :0

I also don't want to overemphasize the "up" days like that
because they occur naturally, even during a successful weight loss
program...coloring them red could add unnecessary stress to the weigh-ins
(the status panel at the bottom of the month shows how many days were Up vs.
Down, however).

Here's where I think you're missing the crux of the Hacker's Diet...
the exponential smoothing function filters this up & down business
already, so if & when you're in an "up" situation it means the
trending is pretty out of control. Of the 75 days (rows) in my diet
worksheet, the daily gain/loss column's got 7 "red" figures (days
where I the daily scale weight exceeded the previous calculated
average) located in 3 groups.

In fact, none of my calculations (other than the averaging function)
even refer to the scale weights, everything is using the weighted
averages. And when I post here I always refer to the weighted average
as my current weight. The purpose of the weighted average is to buffer
noise, and at least for my weight loss pattern seems to be working
well.


Heywood
232/208/182

Thankyou again to those that have replied.

I am left wih an understanding that the question that I posed does not allow
an exact answer that can be applied to each and every person. Maybe I should
not have expected one although there does seem to be many "professional"
bodies of people insisting that they have one...!!!

I don't want to become too obssessed or focussed on this diet as I do
recognised that I can have certain traits which means for me that I will
either feast or famine. I do though want to have an understanding of the
balance of nutrients needed within a daily calorific intake, I was
underestimating the value of protein, and be aware of the nutritional value
of the food that I am eating.

If I had already got that right then I wouldn't have become almost 17st.


.........both in term of hunger and weight loss
(3lbs per week is a max), only doing *little* changes at a time.

Is there an "agreed" maximum weight loss per week that is ideal and why..?
In the UK there was a programme (Celebrity fit club) with one person who
weighed around 22st and she was given a target of 4lbs to lose over two
weeks following a diet and extensive physical exercise. A doctor,
psychologist and physical trainer monitored their progress each week. Now
her, and the other people on that show, were there to lose weight and they
were filmed over many months but I could not understand that if you have the
potential to lose that much weight then surely you would expect it to "fall"
off you if your calorie intake is them modified to only what you "need" and
not what you desire....?

Understanding the above did not surprise me on my initial weight loss from
eating around 3500 to 4000 calories a day that I was having to the 1200 or
so that I have now been on for the last 11 days and increased physical
work - as I can do it.

It's a weight and health diary called "WeightWare"
(http://www.WeightWare.com). It includes tools to assess your current
weight, set reasonable weight goals, and track your progress. The key
feature, however, is the automatic calculation of your "Weight Trend".

I will have a look at that and if I try it out I will post my feedback and
thoughts. My wife too is dieting with me and she has read through the
information already.


You can do a free assessment in this site (no need to be a member or to
submit your e-mail address to the site). The results are displayed in a
java-script pop-up window.

Thankyou I am having a good read of the site and I will try that out.


That site game me a number of 2727 calories that I could eat to
maintain weight. I can barely eat 2,200 and not regain.

If you don't mind explaing that why would it happen....?


Bob

Nice site. Thanks for the pointer!

On 4/29/2004 1:17 AM, Vlupina wrote:
You can do a free assessment in this site (no need to be a member or to
submit your e-mail address to the site). The results are displayed in a
java-script pop-up window.

http://www.caloriescount.com/

That's where I found out how many calories I needed to consume a day in
order to lose weight.

Good luck.

Vlupina

Bob wrote:

Hello again

Thank you to those that have helped me so far but can anyone advice me a
little more now on this....
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/h...rie_guide.html

I seem to find different opinions on the amount of calories needed to
sustain a person.
For instance according to the above I should have 3100 calories and
yet on
other websites I have found information varying from 2100 to 2500.
So although I assume "averages" are being used is there a concensus of
opinion on what a persons daily calorific intake should amount to...?

Thanks


Bob







--
jmk in NC

On 4/29/2004 10:58 PM, Ignoramus8917 wrote:
In article , Vlupina wrote:

You can do a free assessment in this site (no need to be a member or to
submit your e-mail address to the site). The results are displayed in a
java-script pop-up window.

http://www.caloriescount.com/

That's where I found out how many calories I needed to consume a day in
order to lose weight.


That site game me a number of 2727 calories that I could eat to
maintain weight. I can barely eat 2,200 and not regain.

Maybe you didn't select the right activity level -- or else maybe it is
more accurate for women than men. I tried "moderate" and it gave me
2000 which is more or less accurate since I am maintaining in the
1800-2150 range. By the written description I am probably "heavy"
though. Alternatively, you maybe underestinating your caloric intake.

--
jmk in NC

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:12:01 -0400, jmk wrote:

On 4/29/2004 10:58 PM, Ignoramus8917 wrote:
In article , Vlupina wrote:

You can do a free assessment in this site (no need to be a member or to
submit your e-mail address to the site). The results are displayed in a
java-script pop-up window.

http://www.caloriescount.com/

That's where I found out how many calories I needed to consume a day in
order to lose weight.


That site game me a number of 2727 calories that I could eat to
maintain weight. I can barely eat 2,200 and not regain.

Maybe you didn't select the right activity level -- or else maybe it is
more accurate for women than men. I tried "moderate" and it gave me
2000 which is more or less accurate since I am maintaining in the
1800-2150 range. By the written description I am probably "heavy"
though. Alternatively, you maybe underestinating your caloric intake.

Well, for me "moderate" gives 2000 calories per day for maintenance,
and "heavy" gives 2300. By their descriptions, there's no question
that my activity level falls into the heavy category. My guess is
that my maintenance level is no more than 1600-1700, if that. I am
currently averaging around 1400 and losing **very** slowly -- which is
my intent at this point.

Everyone's metabolism is different.

Chris
262/153/ (145-150)

On 4/30/2004 8:22 AM, Chris Braun wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:12:01 -0400, jmk wrote:


On 4/29/2004 10:58 PM, Ignoramus8917 wrote:

In article , Vlupina wrote:


You can do a free assessment in this site (no need to be a member or to
submit your e-mail address to the site). The results are displayed in a
java-script pop-up window.

http://www.caloriescount.com/

That's where I found out how many calories I needed to consume a day in
order to lose weight.


That site game me a number of 2727 calories that I could eat to
maintain weight. I can barely eat 2,200 and not regain.


Maybe you didn't select the right activity level -- or else maybe it is
more accurate for women than men. I tried "moderate" and it gave me
2000 which is more or less accurate since I am maintaining in the
1800-2150 range. By the written description I am probably "heavy"
though. Alternatively, you maybe underestinating your caloric intake.


Well, for me "moderate" gives 2000 calories per day for maintenance,
and "heavy" gives 2300. By their descriptions, there's no question
that my activity level falls into the heavy category. My guess is
that my maintenance level is no more than 1600-1700, if that. I am
currently averaging around 1400 and losing **very** slowly -- which is
my intent at this point.

Everyone's metabolism is different.

Certainly. I mean, the best these tools can do is give us a ballpark
figure and/or starting point (if you didn't already have a good starting
point).

--
jmk in NC

"Bob" wrote in message
s.com...

Is there an "agreed" maximum weight loss per week that is ideal and why..?
In the UK there was a programme (Celebrity fit club) with one person who
weighed around 22st and she was given a target of 4lbs to lose over two
weeks following a diet and extensive physical exercise. A doctor,
psychologist and physical trainer monitored their progress each week. Now
her, and the other people on that show, were there to lose weight and they
were filmed over many months but I could not understand that if you have
the
potential to lose that much weight then surely you would expect it to
"fall"
off you if your calorie intake is them modified to only what you "need"
and
not what you desire....?

The "maximum" weight loss per week is based on the fact that the more weight
you tend to lose at one time, the more lean body mass (LBM) you lose rather
than only fat and water. The more LBM you lose, the fewer calories you need
in the long run to sustain your weight (resting metabolism). Since muscle
burns approx 3x more cal/hr than fat just by its sheer existence, it's a
good thing to try and maintain existing muscle and even build more while
losing fat.

I'm trying to recall this info from memory and may be off a bit in the
numbers. Anyway, slower weight loss is normally better in the long run and
for the long term. Rapid weight loss has its place too, especially for
people who are morbidly obese with an immediate health threat (ie heart
disease, diabetes) that can be relieved by weight loss. Rapid weight loss
(usually through VLCD) has also been shown to be more successful long term
for some morbidly obese people with the theory that getting to one's goal
weight faster helps maintain motivation. There are definitely drawbacks &
risks to this method as there are to almost any method of weight loss.

Only you can decide what is best for you.

Jenn

"Heywood Mogroot" wrote in message
om...
"GaryG" wrote in message
...
+ if you plot the expected rate loss, you will have to support
variable loss rates, since it is common to switch gears on a diet
(partway in I went from 875 kcal/day deficit to 1000 kcal/day, but
perhaps later I might want to start backing off a bit in a month or
two).

+Your trend plotting is very linear; I think too much information is
being lost with your function. I prefer John Walker's formula (with a
0.75 smoothing factor), since it is more usable on a day-to-day basis.

It's linear by design. The weight trend shown (for whatever time period
you
select) is based on "least squares linear regression". The same
technique
is mentioned on page 294 of the Hacker's Diet.

All the "hacker's diet" followers on the web use the moving average
method of graphing, AFAIK.

During development, I experimented with also displaying an exponentially
smoothed moving average, but it didn't seem to add much value.

The least squares just seems like it is drawing a single line to fit
the data. As I tried to imply, this is fine for looking back at a
period of time, but doesn't seem to provide any useful information
going forward, since important recent trends are apparently getting
chopped off with the single best fit curve fitting.

The eye can determine the linear trend easily enough, but when I look
at my chart, it's the bumps and dips in the moving average that tell
me how things were going at that period of the diet.

By fitting all the datapoints to a single line, you've basically
reduced all information for that period down to a single datum: the
average rate of loss over the entire period.


OK...you've convinced me. I'll add moving average soon (probably in version
1.3). I would have worked on it this weekend, but I got stuck fixing some
bugs reported by a user in Norway (it wasn't handling European/Scandinavian
date and numeric formats constitently).



Now that I
think about it, I think it depends on the time frame you're looking at.
For
shorter time frames (say, 1-3 months) I think the linear "weight trend"
provides more useful information.

Disagree. See above. The most important thing is what's happening this
week, and what the weight will likely be tomorrow if present trends
continue.

For longer time frames, I think the
moving average would give a better view of changes in weight. I'll
probably
add a "Moving Average" view to the graphs in the next version.

recommended

I'm also thinking of adding a "30-day Weight Trend" view...this would
show
the 30-day linear regression value for each date (i.e., the 30-day least
squares daily caloric deficit). Changes in this graph would allow you
to
quickly see if your rate of weight loss is increasing or decreasing.

yeah 2nd order trends are useful. In my spreadsheet I color-code the
daily gain/loss red if it is less than planned (0.286 lbs/day in my
case). My other (sooper sekrit proprietary LOL) numbers are also
2nd-order related, and similarly color-coded. Too many reds in a row
and I know something's not working.

+ minor UI thing on the calendar, the weekly summary cells should not
be so similar to the out-of-month cells. I'd also color-code 'up' days
in red, to better signal them.


Agreed...I changed the weekly summary cells in version 1.1 so they are more
obvious. You can see the new look of the Calendar he
http://www.shastasoftware.com/Weight...alendarTab.htm

Thanks again for your feedback...I really appreciate it!



I'm hesitant to color-code like that, for several reasons. Firstly, the
monthly min/max weights are already color coded (green and red,
respectively).

yeah I saw that and first assumed you we're color-coding like me :0

I also don't want to overemphasize the "up" days like that
because they occur naturally, even during a successful weight loss
program...coloring them red could add unnecessary stress to the
weigh-ins
(the status panel at the bottom of the month shows how many days were Up
vs.
Down, however).

Here's where I think you're missing the crux of the Hacker's Diet...
the exponential smoothing function filters this up & down business
already, so if & when you're in an "up" situation it means the
trending is pretty out of control. Of the 75 days (rows) in my diet
worksheet, the daily gain/loss column's got 7 "red" figures (days
where I the daily scale weight exceeded the previous calculated
average) located in 3 groups.

In fact, none of my calculations (other than the averaging function)
even refer to the scale weights, everything is using the weighted
averages. And when I post here I always refer to the weighted average
as my current weight. The purpose of the weighted average is to buffer
noise, and at least for my weight loss pattern seems to be working
well.


Heywood
232/208/182