Where are all the thin poeple from Atkins first book?

Perhaps a longer period of experimentation and analysis is needed. My body
often cycles from mini-stalls to whooshes through periods where my eating
was unchanged. The body's cycles may be juxtaposed with the short term
changes cited in your examples.

I find your posts to be some of the best.

Cubit
311/224.6/165

Having experienced a near overnight shift in metabolic numbers I am
willing to believe in this.

Those particular numbers I used from myself. I did a backwards
calulcation using two week averages to figure out how many calories
per pound my body was using. While I dropped 3-4 pounds a week I was
between 10x-14x--varies depending upon activity level. Then I upped my
carbs to 70/day and right on cue that number dove for a few weeks to
6x-9x. I went from losing 3-4 pounds a week to losing ZERO pounds for
three weeks--and my calorie count was actually decreasing at the time.
I then dropped carbs back down and lost 7.5 lbs in 7 days. My
multipler of course went through the roof. So it seems my body can
vary just how many calories it needs by a great deal by adjusting my
"metabolism". I won't pretend to understand all the mechanics, but I'm
convinced that the body has the ability to conserve or burn greater
than most give it credit for.

Perhaps a longer period of experimentation and analysis is needed. My body
often cycles from mini-stalls to whooshes through periods where my eating
was unchanged. The body's cycles may be juxtaposed with the short term
changes cited in your examples.

I find your posts to be some of the best.

Cubit
311/224.6/165

Having experienced a near overnight shift in metabolic numbers I am
willing to believe in this.

Those particular numbers I used from myself. I did a backwards
calulcation using two week averages to figure out how many calories
per pound my body was using. While I dropped 3-4 pounds a week I was
between 10x-14x--varies depending upon activity level. Then I upped my
carbs to 70/day and right on cue that number dove for a few weeks to
6x-9x. I went from losing 3-4 pounds a week to losing ZERO pounds for
three weeks--and my calorie count was actually decreasing at the time.
I then dropped carbs back down and lost 7.5 lbs in 7 days. My
multipler of course went through the roof. So it seems my body can
vary just how many calories it needs by a great deal by adjusting my
"metabolism". I won't pretend to understand all the mechanics, but I'm
convinced that the body has the ability to conserve or burn greater
than most give it credit for.

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 04:21:47 GMT, Cubit wrote:

As you can see on the chart, I have been almost exactly at 1400 calories per
day, when averaged a month at a time. I sure as hell didn't do that
intentionally. My original goal was 1600 calories per day. Something else
picked 1400.

Truthfully, you have no real idea whether or not you are eating 1,400 or
1,600 cals per day since cal measurements are elusive and nearly
impossible, outside of a lab, to determine with any reasonable accuracy.

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 04:21:47 GMT, Cubit wrote:

As you can see on the chart, I have been almost exactly at 1400 calories per
day, when averaged a month at a time. I sure as hell didn't do that
intentionally. My original goal was 1600 calories per day. Something else
picked 1400.

Truthfully, you have no real idea whether or not you are eating 1,400 or
1,600 cals per day since cal measurements are elusive and nearly
impossible, outside of a lab, to determine with any reasonable accuracy.

While I did not do a laboratory analysis of my food, the guys who made the
nutrition labels did.

The specific foods I have eaten have varied quite a bit since January, yet
the calorie chart stayed the same.

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate. I feel the key
is my weighing the specific foods on my digital scale before eating and
logging.


"MU" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 04:21:47 GMT, Cubit wrote:

As you can see on the chart, I have been almost exactly at 1400 calories
per
day, when averaged a month at a time. I sure as hell didn't do that
intentionally. My original goal was 1600 calories per day. Something
else
picked 1400.

Truthfully, you have no real idea whether or not you are eating 1,400 or
1,600 cals per day since cal measurements are elusive and nearly
impossible, outside of a lab, to determine with any reasonable accuracy.

In article ,
"Cubit" wrote:

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate.

That's exactly what the other poster said - you don't know whether you
are getting 1400 or 1600 calories. Math is your friend.

KeS

Kevin Stevens wrote:

In article ,
"Cubit" wrote:

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate.

That's exactly what the other poster said - you don't know whether you
are getting 1400 or 1600 calories. Math is your friend.

The whole problem with these intake-usage equations is that both sides
are approximations. Calorie charts are generally derived from the USDA
figures which are accurate within the criteria they report. It's how
much energy is used that poses the real question. It will vary from
day to day.

The best answer for the question is the results. In this case, is the
OP losing weight? If yes, then it's accurate enough.

These aren't lab games where variables can be controlled and systems
can be established to test only one thing. This is real-life,
walking-around calculations to a purpose rather than to do arithmetic
for its own sake. Close enough is close enough.

Pastorio

Kevin Stevens wrote:

In article ,
"Cubit" wrote:

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate.

That's exactly what the other poster said - you don't know whether you
are getting 1400 or 1600 calories. Math is your friend.

The whole problem with these intake-usage equations is that both sides
are approximations. Calorie charts are generally derived from the USDA
figures which are accurate within the criteria they report. It's how
much energy is used that poses the real question. It will vary from
day to day.

The best answer for the question is the results. In this case, is the
OP losing weight? If yes, then it's accurate enough.

These aren't lab games where variables can be controlled and systems
can be established to test only one thing. This is real-life,
walking-around calculations to a purpose rather than to do arithmetic
for its own sake. Close enough is close enough.

Pastorio

JC Der Koenig wrote:

Where are those jpegs?



Hope this link works.

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/che...&.dnm=ba73.jpg

JC Der Koenig wrote:

Where are those jpegs?



Hope this link works.

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/che...&.dnm=ba73.jpg