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 » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" andWeight Watchers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 30th, 2005, 02:58 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" andWeight Watchers

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.

What I wonder is... what does Weight Watchers recommend? I was under the
impression that WW recommended points for an adult male of my height, weight
and age only came to about 1500 calories per day. Is that not the case?

Thanks,

doug

  #2  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:47 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers

1- People make way too much out of starvation mode.. for that to happen you
have to really starve.. it DOES happen.. happened to me, but that was beyond
what is called starving. Out of stupidity I returned to my anorexic ways
instead of just following the program. Some people do that, but not many.
Generally when people don't loose or gain it's because they eat too much,
not too little. What DOES happen is, they eat too little.. get really hungry
and then go overboard..

2- The points are not based only on calories.. but also on the amount the
fat grams and fiber grams the food contains.. so there's not a set number of
calories to it..

The number of points you are allowed depends on how much you weight.. so
again there isn't a set number of calories. 227lbs means 28 pts as a daily
target(minimum in a day) plus 35 pts a week.. 231 pts per week plus your
activity pts which you earn by being physically active..

I don't think you're undereating so much as overthinking.. I can't help you
with the calories counting.. because I don't do it, and I think it's a very
bad system.. it doesn't take account of the quality of the foods you're
eating.. only the calories..

I can tell you that the Weight Watchers system works as is.. and that to me,
it's the easiest and healthiest way to go. plateaus happens, slow downs
happens, gain happens.. it's all part of loosing weight.. there's no perfect
solution.. but there's only two things that will bring you to long lasting
success, patience and perseverance..

--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
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.

What I wonder is... what does Weight Watchers recommend? I was under the
impression that WW recommended points for an adult male of my height,

weight
and age only came to about 1500 calories per day. Is that not the case?

Thanks,

doug



  #3  
Old November 30th, 2005, 06:04 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers




On 11/30/05 1:47 PM, in article
, "Willow"

2- The points are not based only on calories.. but also on the amount the
fat grams and fiber grams the food contains.. so there's not a set number of
calories to it..


Technically that is true, but for all practical purposes it is basically 50
calories per point. I've seen the equation (it's a copyrighted equation, so
it's listed with the government in a publicly accessible area!). No matter
how little fat a serving of food has, or how much fiber, the points never
vary much from basically 50 calories per point.


The number of points you are allowed depends on how much you weight.. so
again there isn't a set number of calories. 227lbs means 28 pts as a daily
target(minimum in a day) plus 35 pts a week.. 231 pts per week plus your
activity pts which you earn by being physically active..


That averages to 33 points per day, or about 1650 calories per day. That is
very close to the 1700 calories per day I have been aiming for.



I don't think you're undereating so much as overthinking..


hahaha.

I can't help you
with the calories counting.. because I don't do it, and I think it's a very
bad system.. it doesn't take account of the quality of the foods you're
eating.. only the calories..


Maybe. But I really don't think it is all that different from WW points. I
think they are statistically indistinguishable. I would rethink using
calories and use WW points instead if there were some numbers showing I am
wrong though.


I can tell you that the Weight Watchers system works as is.. and that to me,
it's the easiest and healthiest way to go. plateaus happens, slow downs
happens, gain happens.. it's all part of loosing weight.. there's no perfect
solution.. but there's only two things that will bring you to long lasting
success, patience and perseverance..


Thanks.

doug@persevering!


  #4  
Old November 30th, 2005, 07:08 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers

I won't give you numbers because one I don't have them.. and two I'm not a
number person.. ) Guess I'm more the intuitive type as opposed to the
calculating type..

Which is probably why I like points..

Besides, I'm in California.. from what I've heard we're supposed to be the
"lets be happy with the flowers and angels all over the place" kinda persons
right?? ;op~~~~

You've got to be a engineer or a IT guy.. ;op

Seriously though, I tend to preach and I'm sorry. I love the WW program..it
changed my life so completely.. I just want everybody to be successful too
and get to know what "being alive" really means.. ) Does that make sense?

To me it's the way to loose weight, maintain, and get back on track when you
stray without having to put your life on the break while you get back to
shape. I know what works for me might not work for somebody else.. I know
some people don't want or need the meetings.. to me they are essentials... I
tend to forget that I'm a member here.. not the group's leader.. I don't
have to have all the answers.. or to guide everybody..

I try to remind myself of that when I'm here.. but sometimes I forget..
guess is a good lesson to learn.. makes me a better leader in the end ;o)

By the way love the email addy ! doug@persevering!

Hehehe Be good!

--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...



On 11/30/05 1:47 PM, in article
, "Willow"

2- The points are not based only on calories.. but also on the amount

the
fat grams and fiber grams the food contains.. so there's not a set

number of
calories to it..


Technically that is true, but for all practical purposes it is basically

50
calories per point. I've seen the equation (it's a copyrighted equation,

so
it's listed with the government in a publicly accessible area!). No matter
how little fat a serving of food has, or how much fiber, the points never
vary much from basically 50 calories per point.


The number of points you are allowed depends on how much you weight.. so
again there isn't a set number of calories. 227lbs means 28 pts as a

daily
target(minimum in a day) plus 35 pts a week.. 231 pts per week plus your
activity pts which you earn by being physically active..


That averages to 33 points per day, or about 1650 calories per day. That

is
very close to the 1700 calories per day I have been aiming for.



I don't think you're undereating so much as overthinking..


hahaha.

I can't help you
with the calories counting.. because I don't do it, and I think it's a

very
bad system.. it doesn't take account of the quality of the foods you're
eating.. only the calories..


Maybe. But I really don't think it is all that different from WW points. I
think they are statistically indistinguishable. I would rethink using
calories and use WW points instead if there were some numbers showing I am
wrong though.


I can tell you that the Weight Watchers system works as is.. and that to

me,
it's the easiest and healthiest way to go. plateaus happens, slow downs
happens, gain happens.. it's all part of loosing weight.. there's no

perfect
solution.. but there's only two things that will bring you to long

lasting
success, patience and perseverance..


Thanks.

doug@persevering!




  #5  
Old November 30th, 2005, 07:21 AM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers

I also think WW is a great program. It's certainly the most common-sense
approach.

They don't have meetings here in Japan, though. 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.

And I do enjoy your notes!

doug



On 11/30/05 3:08 PM, in article
, "Willow"
wrote:

I won't give you numbers because one I don't have them.. and two I'm not a
number person.. ) Guess I'm more the intuitive type as opposed to the
calculating type..

Which is probably why I like points..

Besides, I'm in California.. from what I've heard we're supposed to be the
"lets be happy with the flowers and angels all over the place" kinda persons
right?? ;op~~~~

You've got to be a engineer or a IT guy.. ;op

Seriously though, I tend to preach and I'm sorry. I love the WW program..it
changed my life so completely.. I just want everybody to be successful too
and get to know what "being alive" really means.. ) Does that make sense?

To me it's the way to loose weight, maintain, and get back on track when you
stray without having to put your life on the break while you get back to
shape. I know what works for me might not work for somebody else.. I know
some people don't want or need the meetings.. to me they are essentials... I
tend to forget that I'm a member here.. not the group's leader.. I don't
have to have all the answers.. or to guide everybody..

I try to remind myself of that when I'm here.. but sometimes I forget..
guess is a good lesson to learn.. makes me a better leader in the end ;o)

By the way love the email addy ! doug@persevering!

Hehehe Be good!


  #6  
Old November 30th, 2005, 01:32 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers

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.

--
Kristen
343/249/142
  #9  
Old November 30th, 2005, 02:44 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers

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.



Well, there is some truth to that. I didn't have a goal weight, I had a
goal size when I started. I just thought that I'd really be
disappointed if I changed my lifestyle and couldn't get down to an 8/10.
Well, I got there and I started to increase my caloric intake and I
lost an additional 10+ pounds. It's stayed off for the past two years
so I figure that's where my body wants to be.




--
jmk in NC
  #10  
Old November 30th, 2005, 02:54 PM posted to alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode"and Weight Watchers

Doug,

I may have mentioned this before, sorry if this is a repeat.

Like most people, I had several plateaus while in weight loss mode. Two
things kept me motivated throughout the process -- my logs, which
clearly showed that I was doing things right; and my tanita scale. You
see, my scale measures both weight and body fat percentage (yes, we are
into the accuracy versus precision thing again but whatever). At times
that my weight loss didn't budge, my bf% went in the right direction.
This really helped me because I felt like my body was still working on
"it," just not in weight loss mode but in other forms of, uh,
reconfiguration. For other people, they might have a pair of pants or
something that helps them through. For me, the bf% on the scale did the
trick.

BTW, I do have a pair of "reminder jeans" that I wear on occassions that
food might be an issue. The rest of my jeans are a bit on the low rise
side and don't do such a good job "reminding" me ;-)

--
jmk in NC
 




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
A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" andWeight Watchers Doug Lerner General Discussion 120 January 4th, 2006 03:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 PM.


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