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
  #21  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:41 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


"jmk" wrote in message
...
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.


Personally I've never done better than I'm doing now keeping the hunger to a
minimum, excellent health metrics, feeling great - all thanks to the higher
fiber, lower fat bias of WW.

--
the volleyballchick


  #22  
Old November 30th, 2005, 07:38 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...what does it matter what ww says?...47/25 is about two pounds a
week and is great!

  #23  
Old November 30th, 2005, 07:40 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


Here's what confuses me a little bit about this point system. I hope
that you can forgive my ignorance and resolve my question.


Oh Ask By all means, when I am not busy like now this is my favorite type of
brain play. By the way, I am puzzled by the screen name, since you think
quite well, and the tendency to assign ignorance to yourself ....

I find it very easy to eat large quantity of vegetables like cabbage
or tomatoes. For example, a 2 lbs dinner salad.


Me too, if I am especially hungry it makes the meal I have a more satisfying
experience. Crunch factor + time to consume. Limits the higher calorie space
on the table too.


Eating that stuff is kind of fun and healthy, but does not, as such,
really prevent me from overeating on high calorie foods.


Same here. Frankly when I overeat, it is rarely due to actual physical
hunger. More often boredom. Or something else. Oddly enough when I am in a
place where I overeat, it is always something high calorie. I rarely
overeat. When I do, I am sure to not do it for long.


If getting a lot of fiber this way allows me to eat more calories,
would I not gain weight compared to eating at maintenance, but at
lower calorie and fiber level.


Most people do not eat enough "more" calories of this sort of thing (these
are not the most appealing foods from an overeating standpoint as above..).
Who binges on oatmeal or cabbage or pinto beans without the bacon fat? The
fiber involved does cut down on transit time, which in a minor but important
way cuts down on absorption, particularly of some of those things that on
their own would sit in your system, such as your pork fat. Pork fat plus a
head of cabbage finds the exit faster than pork fat alone The whole
theory behind the new "no count" or "core" plan is that people don't tend to
overeat the allowed foods, which tend to be a bit more boring. Piling these
low fat high fiber items into your diet also limits the room on your plate
for the other stuff. Were you around when that guy was on the boards who
advocated a boring diet? Wonder what happened to him.

If so, what is the "point of the point system" (pun intended)? To
encourage eating that conforms to a certain healthy eating standard?


That is the "main" point of the point system ( a fairly healthy diet that
promotes both weight loss and eventual habit change leading to weight
maintenance ). The honcho's at WW central have their eye on the latest
research all the time, including that which comes from the NWLR. They claim
people who eat lower fat and exercise maintain better. So WW tries to figure
out ways to incorporate that into their program. The program changes, and
now that I am involved with NAASO I can see the early news about why some of
the changes happen. A year or so after something looks good, it ends up
somewhere in WW.


  #24  
Old November 30th, 2005, 07:46 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

Nunya B. wrote:

Personally I've never done better than I'm doing now keeping the hunger to a
minimum, excellent health metrics, feeling great - all thanks to the higher
fiber, lower fat bias of WW.

kudos!

--
jmk in NC
  #25  
Old November 30th, 2005, 08:35 PM posted to alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" and Weight Watchers

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
  #26  
Old November 30th, 2005, 08:49 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

Yes. Yes. Exactly.

"Ignoramus20878" wrote in message
...
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.

--
223/174.5/180



  #27  
Old November 30th, 2005, 11:33 PM posted to 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 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.


here are a couple of articles that I found very helpful
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/art.../different.php
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/art...bolic_rate.php
there's a whole load more stuff there too.

Ray
  #30  
Old December 1st, 2005, 12:38 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 30 Nov 2005 08:01:35 -0800, "Beverly"
wrote:

Keeping the fiber count at the recommended level certainly helps me.


Ayup. And I need to add that, for me, this fiber is helpful mostly
when it is from actual foods, and not from added synthetic fiber. Lots
of "diet" foods now are adding fiber to lower their net carbs. Feh.

Here's an article on the benefits of fiber in our diets.

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


Cool. Thanks!

--
Kristen
343/249/142
 




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 11:37 AM.


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