Week 17 report - a "so so" week. Down 1.3 lb, but still higher thanI was on 9/9

I haven't changed anything yet on my diet - I just keep plugging away.
This week I did show a week-to-week loss of 0.6 kg = 1.3 lb. But even
so, I've essentially remained at a dead stall since September 9th, when
I actually weighed 0.2 kg less than I do today.

I am worried that this means that my basic metabolism is simply slower
than I originally thought it was. That instead of needing the standard
12 calories per pound per day that I really only need 10 calories - or
even less...

The numbers seem to suggest that. This past week I ate "net calories"
(calories after deducting exercise) of 11,668 calories - an average of
1667 calories/day.

I lost 1.3 lb. If 1 lb is equivalent to 3500 calories that means I ate
1.3 x 3500 = 4550 calories less than my body needed to maintain my
weight. So to maintain my weight I could have eaten 11,668 + 4,550 =
16,218 calories for the week, which is 2317 calories per day.

If my average weight for the week was (242.9 + 241.6) / 2 = 242.3 lb,
that means that at my current weight I need 2317 calories / 242.3 lb =
just 9.56 calories/lb per day for maintenance.

That is about 20% fewer calories than I assumed I needed. sigh

What this means in practical terms is that my true maintenance net
calories (after exercise) at my goal weight of 79 kg is just 1662
calories per day, not 2086 calories, like I thought. That is *forever*.

That is also almost exactly what I ate, on the average, last week.

On the other hand, what if I've stalled and my base metabolism is even
lower?

Using these formulas, if I wanted to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight
I would need to have a shortfall of 7000 calories instead of 4550
calories. That is 2450 less calories per week, or 350 less calories per
day. Just 1312 net calories per day!

The bottom line (if you will excuse the pun) is that this means in order
to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight it seems I need to change my
daily limit from 1700 calories/day + 1000 bonus calories to around 1200
calories/day + 1000 weekly bonus calories.

That is a huge change - like 500 calories less per day than I have
gotten used to budgeting for.

This could be done either by eating less or exercising like an extra 40
minutes per day on my exercise bike. Or a combination of both. In either
case, it requires a big ramp up of my diet somehow. The psychological
problem, of course, is that I barely limped into finding "just the
right" balance of a diet that I can stay on as is. I'm worried that if
the conditions get too restrictive I will be setting myself up for
problems with sticking with it.

But you can't fight conservation of energy.

Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's
metabolism?

doug

I am going to say this and hope I don't offend you, you are not giving your
body resting time, these formulas work over the long haul, I mean several
months, not weeks, Before I started WW in order for me to lose a half a
pound in a week my metabolic rate was so slow I had to average less than 500
calories a day for ten days, then when I ate my body packed it right back
on, I actually increased my rate by figuring out what was reasonable eating
it and dealing with a couple of gains and some very small losses and even
now I lose slow but I feel lots better, do not sabotage all your hard work
by insisting on an artificial time table or a particular amount to lose each
week, you ARE eating healthy, you are able to do it eating what you are
eating, and in the worse case situation, eating as you are you will NOT gain
back to where you were so just hang in there, and honestly if I had to guess
I would say you are overestimating calories burned, or what I think is more
probably the case you are not eating enough, if you think about it, the body
tends to act on what happened a couple weeks back so think and see what if
anything you did differently and remember, this is a way of life, it is
forever so getting in a hurry doesn't gain you anything if you give up, good
luck, Lee
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...
I haven't changed anything yet on my diet - I just keep plugging away.
This week I did show a week-to-week loss of 0.6 kg = 1.3 lb. But even
so, I've essentially remained at a dead stall since September 9th, when
I actually weighed 0.2 kg less than I do today.

I am worried that this means that my basic metabolism is simply slower
than I originally thought it was. That instead of needing the standard
12 calories per pound per day that I really only need 10 calories - or
even less...

The numbers seem to suggest that. This past week I ate "net calories"
(calories after deducting exercise) of 11,668 calories - an average of
1667 calories/day.

I lost 1.3 lb. If 1 lb is equivalent to 3500 calories that means I ate
1.3 x 3500 = 4550 calories less than my body needed to maintain my
weight. So to maintain my weight I could have eaten 11,668 + 4,550 =
16,218 calories for the week, which is 2317 calories per day.

If my average weight for the week was (242.9 + 241.6) / 2 = 242.3 lb,
that means that at my current weight I need 2317 calories / 242.3 lb =
just 9.56 calories/lb per day for maintenance.

That is about 20% fewer calories than I assumed I needed. sigh

What this means in practical terms is that my true maintenance net
calories (after exercise) at my goal weight of 79 kg is just 1662
calories per day, not 2086 calories, like I thought. That is *forever*.

That is also almost exactly what I ate, on the average, last week.

On the other hand, what if I've stalled and my base metabolism is even
lower?

Using these formulas, if I wanted to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight
I would need to have a shortfall of 7000 calories instead of 4550
calories. That is 2450 less calories per week, or 350 less calories per
day. Just 1312 net calories per day!

The bottom line (if you will excuse the pun) is that this means in order
to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight it seems I need to change my
daily limit from 1700 calories/day + 1000 bonus calories to around 1200
calories/day + 1000 weekly bonus calories.

That is a huge change - like 500 calories less per day than I have
gotten used to budgeting for.

This could be done either by eating less or exercising like an extra 40
minutes per day on my exercise bike. Or a combination of both. In either
case, it requires a big ramp up of my diet somehow. The psychological
problem, of course, is that I barely limped into finding "just the
right" balance of a diet that I can stay on as is. I'm worried that if
the conditions get too restrictive I will be setting myself up for
problems with sticking with it.

But you can't fight conservation of energy.

Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's
metabolism?

doug

Miss Violette wrote:
I am going to say this and hope I don't offend you, you are not giving your
body resting time, these formulas work over the long haul, I mean several
months, not weeks, Before I started WW in order for me to lose a half a
pound in a week my metabolic rate was so slow I had to average less than 500
calories a day for ten days, then when I ate my body packed it right back
on, I actually increased my rate by figuring out what was reasonable eating
it and dealing with a couple of gains and some very small losses and even
now I lose slow but I feel lots better, do not sabotage all your hard work
by insisting on an artificial time table or a particular amount to lose each
week, you ARE eating healthy, you are able to do it eating what you are
eating, and in the worse case situation, eating as you are you will NOT gain
back to where you were so just hang in there, and honestly if I had to guess
I would say you are overestimating calories burned, or what I think is more
probably the case you are not eating enough, if you think about it, the body
tends to act on what happened a couple weeks back so think and see what if
anything you did differently and remember, this is a way of life, it is
forever so getting in a hurry doesn't gain you anything if you give up, good
luck, Lee

Thanks for your note, Lee. I will stick with it and not change anything
drastically.

About the calories burned in exercise though, I think I am being
conservative if anything. If I do extra daily activity, like long walks,
or using my bicycle to go shopping instead of my scooter, etc., I don't
count that. The *only* exercise I count is on my exercise bike. There my
height, weight, age are entered into the computer, and my heart rate and
speed, etc. are measure during the exercise and all I count is the
calories the bike's computer said I burned.

doug

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...

I haven't changed anything yet on my diet - I just keep plugging away. This
week I did show a week-to-week loss of 0.6 kg = 1.3 lb. But even so, I've
essentially remained at a dead stall since September 9th, when I actually
weighed 0.2 kg less than I do today.

I am worried that this means that my basic metabolism is simply slower
than I originally thought it was. That instead of needing the standard 12
calories per pound per day that I really only need 10 calories - or even
less...


It is possible that you overestimated your metabolism, but you have quite a
bit more data than the one week that you used so I think you should go back
and use all the data you have since you started your diet. Your calculations
assume that the scale is measuring only changes in fat weight, and over a
one week time horizon that is not a very good assumption.

That is also almost exactly what I ate, on the average, last week.

On the other hand, what if I've stalled and my base metabolism is even
lower?

Using these formulas, if I wanted to lose 2 lb/week at my current weight


What is so magical about 2lbs per week? Assuming the numbers are correct,
why not reduce calories and/or incease exercise more gradually.


But you can't fight conservation of energy.

Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's
metabolism?

Yes, you can read all about thermogenic products at www.drumlib.com.

Matthew

Matthew Venhaus wrote:


What is so magical about 2lbs per week?

It just seems like a reasonable not-too-fast-not-too-slow rate that will
let me reach goal within my lifetime.

Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's
metabolism?


Yes, you can read all about thermogenic products at www.drumlib.com.

Hmmm... I'll take a look. Can't hurt to check it out... In addition to
diet and exercise of course!

doug

I am so very glad you aren't giving up, perhaps you could separately track
the exercise you don't count for a couple of weeks and then you might judge
if you are in fact not eating enough, Lee, pleased you are sticking with it
Doug Lerner wrote in message
...
Miss Violette wrote:
I am going to say this and hope I don't offend you, you are not giving
your
body resting time, these formulas work over the long haul, I mean
several
months, not weeks, Before I started WW in order for me to lose a half a
pound in a week my metabolic rate was so slow I had to average less than
500
calories a day for ten days, then when I ate my body packed it right
back
on, I actually increased my rate by figuring out what was reasonable
eating
it and dealing with a couple of gains and some very small losses and
even
now I lose slow but I feel lots better, do not sabotage all your hard
work
by insisting on an artificial time table or a particular amount to lose
each
week, you ARE eating healthy, you are able to do it eating what you are
eating, and in the worse case situation, eating as you are you will NOT
gain
back to where you were so just hang in there, and honestly if I had to
guess
I would say you are overestimating calories burned, or what I think is
more
probably the case you are not eating enough, if you think about it, the
body
tends to act on what happened a couple weeks back so think and see what
if
anything you did differently and remember, this is a way of life, it is
forever so getting in a hurry doesn't gain you anything if you give up,
good
luck, Lee

Thanks for your note, Lee. I will stick with it and not change anything
drastically.

About the calories burned in exercise though, I think I am being
conservative if anything. If I do extra daily activity, like long walks,
or using my bicycle to go shopping instead of my scooter, etc., I don't
count that. The *only* exercise I count is on my exercise bike. There my
height, weight, age are entered into the computer, and my heart rate and
speed, etc. are measure during the exercise and all I count is the
calories the bike's computer said I burned.

doug

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:11:39 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

I haven't changed anything yet on my diet - I just keep plugging away.
This week I did show a week-to-week loss of 0.6 kg = 1.3 lb. But even
so, I've essentially remained at a dead stall since September 9th, when
I actually weighed 0.2 kg less than I do today.

Doug,

You are losing, thats great

Don't be so anal though. Calorie counts aren't accurate. BMR is an
estimate. Very few people can lose at 2 lb/wk consistently. It's just
not going to happen. To maintain a net deficit of 1000 calories is
hard work. and it's about as much as the average joe can manage. I can
manage it for 2-3 weeks then I relapse.

Keep going at what you are doing now for a while longer. You have a
winning combination so don't change it. You will eventually have to go
to 10 calories/lb but not yet while the weight is still coming off.

Your metabolism will have slowed a little if you've been dietting for
some time, so you might want to do a week or two at maintenance or
just above to get it going again - but not yet.

Aren't there any safe herb/medical ways of tweaking up your body's
metabolism?

There are some complex diets that work really well, and even some
safish supplements that will help, but don't even think about them
until more 'standard' diets atart to fail for you.

Ray