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
  #11  
Old November 30th, 2005, 04:12 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 22:05:25 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

On 11/30/05 9:32 PM, in article ,
"kmd" wrote:


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.


Does WW say you must eat certain kinds of foods, other than just watching
your flex points?


Yes.

But you're missing the point. The calculation for points incorporates
a low-fat, high-fiber bias. Some of that will show up in calorie
counts, some of it will not.

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.

Any healthy lifestyle program, when implemented well, is about what
*works*, not about one-size-fits-all. You are saying that you feel
like your current program is *not* *working* for you. so this would be
a time when your WW leader would sit down with you and go over your
tracker. Are you eating enough whole grains? Lean proteins?
Vegetables? Are too many of your (points/calories) being used up with
high-calorie, low-nutrition value foods? And if a thorough review
shows that your nutrition is sound, and your exercise level is good,
then you may just be in a plateau. As Willow wrote, plateaus happen.
There are lots of strategies to break free of them, if you're
interested.

You do know that you can join Weight Watchers online if there's no
meeting near you, right? I do both online and meetings. Many of the
discussion boards (but definitely not all of them!) are very very
helpful. I have gotten a tremendous amount of information, guidance
and inspiration there.

But I'm not a WW pusher. I'm all about what works for you.

--
Kristen
343/249/142
  #12  
Old November 30th, 2005, 04:23 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

I'll tag this here.
I want to mak a point about the calorie thing (no pun intended)

lets look at 100 calories.

100 calories
0 grams fiber
3 grams fat
= 2 points

100 calories
4 grams fiber
3 grams fat
= 1 point

so, fiber and fat content make a difference as well.
How and why...well, I just don't know (or care) That's why I like ww, I
don't have to know or care, just stick to my points.

You aquire points by exercise as well. it is also not straight forward.
30 min at high intensity if you weight 100 pounds = 2 points
30 min at high intensity if you weight 300 pounds = 7 points

see...and again..I do not understand it and i don't have to. I have all the
tools provided by the program to figure it out quickly and easily.

Doug, not preaching, just prying to expain for all who don't understand why
WW is so different (and so easy)

Have you considered joining online?

Great loss and motivation to you!
jojo


"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



  #14  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:04 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

This is a little complex, because WW allows flex points and activity points,
and based upon the makeup of your diet (if you eat high fiber low fat you
get more calories) you may get more or less.

An average for where you are now, taking into account the average calorie
count per point plus an addition of the flex points for the week comes out
to about 1800 daily. At goal, on maintenance since you are my height yours
would be the same as mine, which is still around 1800. As you lose, the
program cuts you back to reflect your new size. When you consider that I eat
my flex points and my exercise points that I earn I maintain on around 2,000
to 2,200 with no problems. I have been looking at this in detail because of
all these posts. When I look at a period of an entire month that I kept
records early on, when I maintained my weight within a pound or two of my
goal, the average day came out to 2,194. Around 250 calories of that were
exercise related. I work out HARD for an hour to burn 250 calories.

Which brings up the other thing. Invest in a polar heart rate monitor, have
it calculate your fitness level, and it will tell you much more accurate
estimates of calories burned in your workout.

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. When I say cut back, I am eating around 1,800. Not net of
exercise. Total, 1,800.

--
Lesanne
"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



  #15  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:09 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

Not true. A nonfat item with 4 gms of fiber can have up to 110 calories and
be one point. A high fat item, with no fiber, can have a little as 30
calories and be a point.

I have the WW official thing here on my desk. My average calories per point
is 60, because I tend to prefer high fiber foods by choice.

..

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.



  #16  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:12 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

Weight watchers, followed the way it is designed including the tools for
living, is really the only program that addresses all those things people
need for long term success.

Empowerment
Tools for changing behavior
Support

and to a lesser degree, sensible dietary advice (not counting their own junk
food sales pitches, just the guidelines).

--
Lesanne
"Willow" wrote in message
m...
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!






  #17  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:14 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

They have guidelines that they suggest you follow for good health. Water,
Fruits and veggies, dairy and healthy fats as well as activity.

--
Lesanne
"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...



On 11/30/05 9:32 PM, in article
,
"kmd" wrote:

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.


Does WW say you must eat certain kinds of foods, other than just watching
your flex points?

doug



  #18  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:17 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

That can be true or not. Some people tend to really lean into the low fat
high fiber thing, eat more calories and lose slower or not.... again
depending on the 20 million other factors that happen.


While it is true, I hope that we would agree that the impact of this
bias is relatively minor for regular eating.

--



  #19  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:21 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

Also one other minor point. If you are eating the same foods more or less
day after day and taking the packaged calorie count, this can also be a
problem. They are sometimes not accurate. If something that you eat daily
has an error on the label it could be a big deal. The most obvious of these
sorts of things is a local muffin we have here, labeled at 240 calories.
Someone in my group doubted it and sent it for analysis with some Houston
relative who had access to equipment. It was actually a 385 calorie bomb.
--
Lesanne


  #20  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:29 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

Beverly wrote:
kmd wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:05:25 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:


On 11/30/05 9:32 PM, in article ,
"kmd" wrote:


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.


Does WW say you must eat certain kinds of foods, other than just watching
your flex points?


Yes.

But you're missing the point. The calculation for points incorporates
a low-fat, high-fiber bias. Some of that will show up in calorie
counts, some of it will not.

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.



Keeping the fiber count at the recommended level certainly helps me.
Here's an article on the benefits of fiber in our diets.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...trient&dbid=59


Me too. Actually, DH has made some requests for higher fiber foods as
well. We both find that eating a diet high in fiber helps with satiety.

--
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 01:11 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.