The less I eat the more I seem to lose
in [Weight Watchers]
|
Prev: core no more
Next: the less I eat the more I lose
From: Doug Lerner on 4 Apr 2006 17:49 I'm sure that completely obvious title was an attention-grabber, with most people rolling their eyes and going, "well, duh?":) But there really is a point behind this note. Up until now I have only counted my "net calories" each day - the calories I actually ate minus the exercise calories I earned on my exercise bike. The exercise bike shows my calories burned on a little computer read-out, and it all depends on my input weight, time, distance, etc. It also measures my heartbeat during the exercise. So, thinking just in terms of conservation of energy if I used up 300 calories on the bike then I deducted 300 calories from what I ate so far today, which is a great incentive to exercise! Using this method I've lost over 70 lb in about 300 days so far. But, I wonder... Lately it seems to me that the less I actually *eat* - not just the net calories, but the calories I actually eat (ignoring exercise) - the more I actually lose. Technically it should not make a difference whether I eat 1500 calories in a day and do zero exercise, or whether I eat 1800 calories in day and do 300 calories worth of exercise, right? But I think I lose more when I actually eat just 1500 calories. (I assume I would lose even more if I just ate 1500 calories and did extra exercise but didn't deduct it at all.) So - I wonder. What is going on here? What are other peoples' experience with the numerical value of exercise towards weight loss? Could it be that my "net calorie" theory is correct but I'm just getting bad calorie counts to use? Sometimes I just do 15 minutes of exercise and still count those calories. Should I require myself to do a minimum number of minutes before the calories become "countable"? Should I limit the number of calories I am allowed to use against food (like WW does with activity points)? Any thoughts would be welcome! doug
From: Stormmee on 4 Apr 2006 18:27 I know squat about math will leave that up to you but... WW seems to make you burn 100 calories to get an activity point so this indicates in your program you should only eat half of what you burn, also on the big exercise weeks I imagine there is water retention going on, interesting thread, Lee, who would worry if you cut back too much Doug Lerner <doug(a)lerner.net> wrote in message news:C05918FD.1E85E%doug(a)lerner.net... > I'm sure that completely obvious title was an attention-grabber, with most > people rolling their eyes and going, "well, duh?":) > > But there really is a point behind this note. > > Up until now I have only counted my "net calories" each day - the calories I > actually ate minus the exercise calories I earned on my exercise bike. The > exercise bike shows my calories burned on a little computer read-out, and it > all depends on my input weight, time, distance, etc. It also measures my > heartbeat during the exercise. > > So, thinking just in terms of conservation of energy if I used up 300 > calories on the bike then I deducted 300 calories from what I ate so far > today, which is a great incentive to exercise! > > Using this method I've lost over 70 lb in about 300 days so far. > > But, I wonder... > > Lately it seems to me that the less I actually *eat* - not just the net > calories, but the calories I actually eat (ignoring exercise) - the more I > actually lose. > > Technically it should not make a difference whether I eat 1500 calories in a > day and do zero exercise, or whether I eat 1800 calories in day and do 300 > calories worth of exercise, right? But I think I lose more when I actually > eat just 1500 calories. > > (I assume I would lose even more if I just ate 1500 calories and did extra > exercise but didn't deduct it at all.) > > So - I wonder. What is going on here? What are other peoples' experience > with the numerical value of exercise towards weight loss? > > Could it be that my "net calorie" theory is correct but I'm just getting bad > calorie counts to use? > > Sometimes I just do 15 minutes of exercise and still count those calories. > Should I require myself to do a minimum number of minutes before the > calories become "countable"? > > Should I limit the number of calories I am allowed to use against food (like > WW does with activity points)? > > Any thoughts would be welcome! > > doug >
From: Lesanne on 4 Apr 2006 18:41 I would not get in a hurry. The less you eat to lose the weight the less you will have to eat to maintain the loss. I get to maintain on a nice satisfying amount of food. I have done this weight loss of a lot of weight at least three other times, all the times besides this I did it faster, eating less. I gained it back three times. This time I am coming up on three years maintenance at a normal weight. Why? Because I took it slow, and ate enough to not burn any of my muscle mass. Burn your muscle at your own risk. Research backs this up. Lesanne "Doug Lerner" <doug(a)lerner.net> wrote in message news:C05918FD.1E85E%doug(a)lerner.net... > I'm sure that completely obvious title was an attention-grabber, with most > people rolling their eyes and going, "well, duh?":) > > But there really is a point behind this note. > > Up until now I have only counted my "net calories" each day - the calories > I > actually ate minus the exercise calories I earned on my exercise bike. The > exercise bike shows my calories burned on a little computer read-out, and > it > all depends on my input weight, time, distance, etc. It also measures my > heartbeat during the exercise. > > So, thinking just in terms of conservation of energy if I used up 300 > calories on the bike then I deducted 300 calories from what I ate so far > today, which is a great incentive to exercise! > > Using this method I've lost over 70 lb in about 300 days so far. > > But, I wonder... > > Lately it seems to me that the less I actually *eat* - not just the net > calories, but the calories I actually eat (ignoring exercise) - the more I > actually lose. > > Technically it should not make a difference whether I eat 1500 calories in > a > day and do zero exercise, or whether I eat 1800 calories in day and do 300 > calories worth of exercise, right? But I think I lose more when I actually > eat just 1500 calories. > > (I assume I would lose even more if I just ate 1500 calories and did extra > exercise but didn't deduct it at all.) > > So - I wonder. What is going on here? What are other peoples' experience > with the numerical value of exercise towards weight loss? > > Could it be that my "net calorie" theory is correct but I'm just getting > bad > calorie counts to use? > > Sometimes I just do 15 minutes of exercise and still count those calories. > Should I require myself to do a minimum number of minutes before the > calories become "countable"? > > Should I limit the number of calories I am allowed to use against food > (like > WW does with activity points)? > > Any thoughts would be welcome! > > doug >
From: ahmward on 4 Apr 2006 19:54 "Lesanne" <larnim48(a)nothotmail.com> wrote in message news:FCCYf.57$yy4.53(a)tornado.texas.rr.com... >I would not get in a hurry. The less you eat to lose the weight the >less you will have to eat to maintain the loss. I get to maintain on a >nice satisfying amount of food. I have done this weight loss of a lot >of weight at least three other times, all the times besides this I did >it faster, eating less. I gained it back three times. This time I am >coming up on three years maintenance at a normal weight. Why? Because I >took it slow, and ate enough to not burn any of my muscle mass. Burn >your muscle at your own risk. Research backs this up. > > Lesanne Lesanne, is, of course, so right. You have to allow yourself enough food to be able to handle good maintenance. I just finished reding an article in Vogue about Portia de Rossi. When she was on the Ally McBeal tv show she was down to well below 100 pounds and sometimes ate just 300 calories a day. I have never understood how someone can be so anorexic and not be extremely ill. I have never been one to worry much about activity points because the first time I lost on WW I did it quickly and without any exercise. Now I walk about 2 miles a day and 3 miles when I have more time. You have to decide on what will be a normal sustainable amount of food that you will eat daily for the rest of your life. Audrey
From: Doug Lerner on 4 Apr 2006 20:30
On 4/5/06 7:27 AM, in article 49ga76FohbvgU1(a)individual.net, "Stormmee" <rgrass(a)consolidated.net> wrote: > I know squat about math will leave that up to you but... WW seems to make > you burn 100 calories to get an activity point so this indicates in your > program you should only eat half of what you burn, also on the big exercise > weeks I imagine there is water retention going on, interesting thread, Lee, > who would worry if you cut back too much Ah. I was wondering about that. So they count half. Interesting... doug |