A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Calorie Intake



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 9th, 2005, 12:44 AM
Bev-Ann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 9th, 2005, 03:45 AM
gweebles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 9th, 2005, 09:06 AM
Saffire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 11th, 2005, 12:39 AM
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 11th, 2005, 01:45 AM
Bev-Ann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 11th, 2005, 02:12 AM
Cubit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 11th, 2005, 02:20 AM
Bev-Ann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 11th, 2005, 04:31 AM
Tori M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 11th, 2005, 05:04 AM
Tori M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.