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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, I meant to say "less than 1000/day" in reference to calorie intake.
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:07:19 GMT, Bev-Ann wrote: I've seen several people on this ng who claim to have lowered their calories to ridiculous levels (less than 1200/day) and then come here asking why they've stopped losing weight, so it does appear to be a problem. ----- Bev |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
It really all depends on metabolism. When I first started lc, I never
counted calories and I lost weight, eating 3-5 meals daily, not counting anything but carbs, but as I got closer to goal, I had to watch calories as well. Now I am starting over and like others, I am fearing the big CALORIE count thing. I know better, but I am less active now, I have a very bad knee and a desk job. Just eat until you are satisfied, load in the salads and enjoy. Gweebles |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... "Saffire" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Janet" wrote in message ... I have been experimenting with a low calorie diet and have been able to drop 15 lbs rather quickly, along with exercise. I have been eating primarily fruit, veggies and fish. I want to go back to my low carb living, maybe trying induction again, but wanted to ask what the daily calorie intake is for most of you?? I have read in order to loose weight, you need to eat 15x your body weight in calories if you are active and 13x your body weight if you inactive. Do any of you live by that?? I seem to average 1800-2300ish/day; the only reason I know this is because fitday tells me but I don't count them or base my food intake on them at all...and I'm inactive...if that helps any . I think the rule of thumb is to eat 10-12 times your current body weight if you want to lose weight and down to 8 if THAT doesn't work. For myself, I need to eat between 1200-1400/day in order to lose weight, and even then it takes some time. I am also more inactive than average. Saffire, You look great!! Wow, totally different. A question, though---do you have more than one size of the same outfit? I cannot believe how different your side profile is. You don't look like you weigh 137---more like 125. Wow, thanks for the GREAT compliments! No, I don't have the same outfit in different sizes (you're not the first person to ask that :-) I'm handy with a sewing machine and I just keep taking them in, although I REALLY have to buy some new pants soon because after a certain point, taking in the bigger ones just doesn't work anymore because they pooch out oddly where the thighs meet the torso :-) I've been putting it off for a long time because I REALLY want to get to 125 (or at least less than 130) before I do that; otherwise I'll just have to take the NEW ones in. Maybe for my "goal" shots I'll wear something different so people won't think I'm just PhotoShopping the same photo to make it LOOK smaller (I AM PhotoShopping it, but that's for cosmetic changes (literally -- I add extra eyelashes, for instance), not fat manipulation :-) -- Saffire 205/137/125 Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I strongly suspect that these reports are just plain wrong. A person who is
sufficiently calorie restricted for a time goes a bit crazy. A third party check of the food consumption would likely show that the period of low calories was followed by a period of high calories. The measurement method of the calories is suspect too. At times there have been calorie claims where there was no measurement at all. They guess at what they felt they were doing. Calorie restriction is immensely unpopular. People will rationalize anything to get more food in their mouths. "Bev-Ann" wrote in message ... Sorry, I meant to say "less than 1000/day" in reference to calorie intake. on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:07:19 GMT, Bev-Ann wrote: I've seen several people on this ng who claim to have lowered their calories to ridiculous levels (less than 1200/day) and then come here asking why they've stopped losing weight, so it does appear to be a problem. ----- Bev |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
So you're in the group that doesn't believe the body will go into
"starvation mode" and hold onto fat reserves when calories drop too low for extended periods of time? on Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:39:02 GMT, "Cubit" wrote: I strongly suspect that these reports are just plain wrong. A person who is sufficiently calorie restricted for a time goes a bit crazy. A third party check of the food consumption would likely show that the period of low calories was followed by a period of high calories. The measurement method of the calories is suspect too. At times there have been calorie claims where there was no measurement at all. They guess at what they felt they were doing. Calorie restriction is immensely unpopular. People will rationalize anything to get more food in their mouths. ----- Bev |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Right.
I see "starvation mode" as a myth used to rationalize eating more food. It has some bad science behind it, that seems to be based on a change of T3 (thyroid) levels at an average of 600 calories per day. The reality is dieters eating 3000 calories per day, and moaning that they are stalled because of starvation mode. "Bev-Ann" wrote in message ... So you're in the group that doesn't believe the body will go into "starvation mode" and hold onto fat reserves when calories drop too low for extended periods of time? on Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:39:02 GMT, "Cubit" wrote: I strongly suspect that these reports are just plain wrong. A person who is sufficiently calorie restricted for a time goes a bit crazy. A third party check of the food consumption would likely show that the period of low calories was followed by a period of high calories. The measurement method of the calories is suspect too. At times there have been calorie claims where there was no measurement at all. They guess at what they felt they were doing. Calorie restriction is immensely unpopular. People will rationalize anything to get more food in their mouths. ----- Bev |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
There's a huge difference between 1000 calories/day and 3000/day. I highly
doubt that's happening. There are also the reports from people in this ng that got a whoosh when they added more fat, thus more calories, to their diet. on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:12:54 GMT, "Cubit" wrote: Right. I see "starvation mode" as a myth used to rationalize eating more food. It has some bad science behind it, that seems to be based on a change of T3 (thyroid) levels at an average of 600 calories per day. The reality is dieters eating 3000 calories per day, and moaning that they are stalled because of starvation mode. ----- Bev |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
hmmm maybe this is why the flatbread fills me up.. could I not be eating
enough fat? no really I dont add fat to protien but the flatbread required 1/4 cup oil I think and then to be fried in oil.. just a thought.. yeah yeah yeah flatbread is not low carb even if you make it with soy flour and flax seed. Tori -- Xavier- 10/27/05 "Oooohh whats that on the floor? a dime? Yummy!" Bonnie- 03/20/02 "Mommy look a cloud worm is eating the care bears" 349.5/319/135 "JC Der Koenig" wrote in message . .. 1. Correlation does not equal causation. 2. More fat does not automatically mean more calories. 3. You're an idiot. -- Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW "Bev-Ann" wrote in message ... There's a huge difference between 1000 calories/day and 3000/day. I highly doubt that's happening. There are also the reports from people in this ng that got a whoosh when they added more fat, thus more calories, to their diet. on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:12:54 GMT, "Cubit" wrote: Right. I see "starvation mode" as a myth used to rationalize eating more food. It has some bad science behind it, that seems to be based on a change of T3 (thyroid) levels at an average of 600 calories per day. The reality is dieters eating 3000 calories per day, and moaning that they are stalled because of starvation mode. ----- Bev |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
thats what I mean.. I can not stomack the idea of adding fat to protien..
dont know why.. just makes my tummy do flips.. Maybe it is residual from low fat diets or something.. Other then bacon and sardines most things I eat are relatively low fat. It seems like 4 eggs alone are not enough to call it a meal but one round of the flatbread and I feel stuffed quickly. Tori -- Xavier- 10/27/05 "Oooohh whats that on the floor? a dime? Yummy!" Bonnie- 03/20/02 "Mommy look a cloud worm is eating the care bears" 349.5/319/135 "JC Der Koenig" wrote in message . .. The added fat in your diet can replace some of the protein, and that's why the calories don't necessarily have to be greater. -- Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW "Tori M" wrote in message ... hmmm maybe this is why the flatbread fills me up.. could I not be eating enough fat? no really I dont add fat to protien but the flatbread required 1/4 cup oil I think and then to be fried in oil.. just a thought.. yeah yeah yeah flatbread is not low carb even if you make it with soy flour and flax seed. Tori -- Xavier- 10/27/05 "Oooohh whats that on the floor? a dime? Yummy!" Bonnie- 03/20/02 "Mommy look a cloud worm is eating the care bears" 349.5/319/135 "JC Der Koenig" wrote in message . .. 1. Correlation does not equal causation. 2. More fat does not automatically mean more calories. 3. You're an idiot. -- Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW "Bev-Ann" wrote in message ... There's a huge difference between 1000 calories/day and 3000/day. I highly doubt that's happening. There are also the reports from people in this ng that got a whoosh when they added more fat, thus more calories, to their diet. on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:12:54 GMT, "Cubit" wrote: Right. I see "starvation mode" as a myth used to rationalize eating more food. It has some bad science behind it, that seems to be based on a change of T3 (thyroid) levels at an average of 600 calories per day. The reality is dieters eating 3000 calories per day, and moaning that they are stalled because of starvation mode. ----- Bev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Weight Loss Diets with Negative Calorie Foods | pcm19 | General Discussion | 1 | October 8th, 2004 10:59 PM |
Is fat discrimination really so different... | NR | General Discussion | 5 | July 15th, 2004 03:07 AM |
Is fat discrimination really so different... | NR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | July 15th, 2004 03:07 AM |
Calorie intake. | Ian | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | September 20th, 2003 04:40 PM |