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

here try this one
http://www.heartratemonitorsusa.com/...M-choices.html

--
Lesanne
"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
It's a bit hard to figure out exactly what the product is and how much it
costs at their page, isn't it?

doug



On 12/1/05 10:16 AM, in article
,
"Lesanne" wrote:

I think this is probably true, more or less, we are similar height. Here
is
a link for a polar monitor. I have used mine several times over the years
to
recalculate what I burn in exercise as I got more fit and lighter.

http://www.polar.fi/polar/channels/eng/

or

http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/coa...er/coaches.asp

They are pricey, but I have found it to be pretty indestructible and very
useful.

Doug Lerner wrote:

What's a polar heart rate monitor?

It's a heart rate monitor brand:
http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/default.asp

When I was looking, this particular brand was highly recommended by
everyone from peers at the gym to instructors at the gym to the person
behind the counter at REI (which also carries other brands). DH is
looking at getting a model F11 in the near future. I hope that helps.



--
jmk in NC

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:24:28 GMT, Ignoramus20878
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:58:09 +0900, 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.

I have not heard the latter recommendation.

But the idea that weight loss slows down with eating less, is phoney
baloney. That does not mean that one should eat as little as possible,
but the fact is that metabolism slows down only by a tiny amount.

It absolutely in my experience that when I do not eat enough my weight
loss is lower. It is a scientific fact that the body hold onto fat
when it senses starvation. In the cases of anorexia, the eating
cessation is much more dramatic with very long periods of sustained
cessation from eating food at all. When I eat all my calories via the
points system, I lose weight.

Week 25 Loss 48.2

"jmk" wrote in message
...
Doug Lerner wrote:

What's a polar heart rate monitor?

It's a heart rate monitor brand:
http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/default.asp

When I was looking, this particular brand was highly recommended by
everyone from peers at the gym to instructors at the gym to the person
behind the counter at REI (which also carries other brands). DH is
looking at getting a model F11 in the near future. I hope that helps.

I'm looking at the M32.
--
the volleyballchick

"Matthew Venhaus" wrote in message
...

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Just an aside here... From the responses here my impression of peoples'
opinions on the topic seem to be:

I don't think there is too much disagreement actually. The term
"starvation mode" is stupid; those who insist on using it should take a
look at some pictures of concentration camp survivors. I find it hard to
believe that anyone thinks if you stop eating altogether you will gain or
maintain weight.


I couldn't agree more. Having lost weight on an 800 cal/day diet I can
vouch that it's pretty difficult to starve yourself if you're eating
regularly. I think there's too much drama in the use of the word
"starvation." Those who are experiencing a 500-1000 cal/day deficit should
not be comparing themselves to true starvation victims (including the ones
in that prisoner study).
--
the volleyballchick

"Nunya B." wrote in message
...

"Matthew Venhaus" wrote in message
...

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
Just an aside here... From the responses here my impression of peoples'
opinions on the topic seem to be:

I don't think there is too much disagreement actually. The term
"starvation mode" is stupid; those who insist on using it should take a
look at some pictures of concentration camp survivors. I find it hard to
believe that anyone thinks if you stop eating altogether you will gain or
maintain weight.


I couldn't agree more. Having lost weight on an 800 cal/day diet I can
vouch that it's pretty difficult to starve yourself if you're eating
regularly. I think there's too much drama in the use of the word
"starvation." Those who are experiencing a 500-1000 cal/day deficit
should not be comparing themselves to true starvation victims (including
the ones in that prisoner study).

I need to amend this to add that the real importance of eating enough while
trying to lose weight is really in the maintenance aspect. You need to eat
at a level that is easily sustainable and that wards of hunger - a major
binge trigger for many people. I do not recommend eating 800 cal/day to
anyone except those in extreme circumstances.

I also find that if I drop below a certain level, my weight loss is slower,
but I tend to vary my days pretty wildly - 24 pts one day, 30 pts another.
Depends on what I'm doing or not doing, how I'm feeling, and what TOM it is.
I do make a point of eating my activity points lately. I'm not in a major
hurry to get to my goal as I don't have to be. Losing even .25-.5 lb/wk is
fine with me because the trend is in the right direction. My water intake
is more closely related to how I do on the scale.
--
the volleyballchick

Nunya B. wrote:
"jmk" wrote in message
...

Doug Lerner wrote:


What's a polar heart rate monitor?

It's a heart rate monitor brand:
http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/default.asp

When I was looking, this particular brand was highly recommended by
everyone from peers at the gym to instructors at the gym to the person
behind the counter at REI (which also carries other brands). DH is
looking at getting a model F11 in the near future. I hope that helps.


I'm looking at the M32.

DH wanted the F11 because that's what Concept2 recommends and I think
that his primary purpose is to use it with the rowing machine. I
suspect that he'll use it for other things after but that's good. I'm
glad that he's getting into it. He really loves the rowing machine --
as well as kayaking (yes, a completely different paddling action) -- and
I'm glad that he's found some activities that he enjoys as much as I
like cycling.

--
jmk in NC

Hey we agree on something !! ;op

--
Will~

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

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Ignoramus5455" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:17:16 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote:
Just an aside here... From the responses here my impression of peoples'
opinions on the topic seem to be:

1. A few people believe strongly in the starvation mode theory and think
it
kicks in relatively early so you have to constantly think about eating
more
calories if you are having trouble losing weight.

2. A few people completely dismiss the starvation mode theory as
nonsense.

3. Most people think there is a starvation mode but that (a) it is a
very
minor effect and (b) if it exists it takes place at really, really low
calorie levels - much less than any of us are eating.

That's what the consensus seems to be here.
k

I would agree with item 3.

i

rmr wrote:
My personal experience from Atkins and other diets demonstrates that
low-fat, high-fiber matters for every health metric (weight,
cholesterol, blood pressure, energy levels i.e. metabolism) more than
calories or low carb.


This is not true for others. A recent study (some of which was
televised by the BBC) showed that all the diets studied worked equally
well (Atkins/ww/slimfast/an other). They concluded that only calories
are important in losing weight, and even in cholesterol and blood
pressure and a few other pointers.

In other words it doesn't matter how you lower calories so long as you
do.

Ray

Are you referring to the Tufts study discussed here?
http://www.washingtonian.com/health/diets_skinny.html

--
jmk in NC

Lesanne wrote in message
...
"Matthew Venhaus" wrote in message
...


"Lesanne" wrote in message
...

I have been taking my own advice this week since I am taking off
about 4
pounds I gained over Thanksgiving. I mixed up my workout, got off
the
bike and suffered power walking/jogging one day, cut back my
calories to
offset the really high days I had Thursday through Sunday, and 3
of the 4
are already gone.

Do you really think you gained 4 pounds of fat in 4 days? The
weight gain
was mostly water; the quick loss is no suprise.

Well DUH, but if I had let the gain discourage me and gotten all
down about
it then I would possibly have wanted to eat about THAT. I know it
wasn't all
fat, at the same time 3 or 4 days of overeating could have been
turned into
fat if I didn't get back to my routine.

So how does this relate to your "taking your own advice"? IIRC you
have given some sane advice in this thread, and then share your
example of fretting needlessly about an uptick in water weight. I
rather think Doug would be better off not following such nonsense.
--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.