Anyone else on the "Why We Get Fat" (Taubes) diet? (Alli, smoking)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ive been on WW, which tracks eating and activity points. On weight loss mode, I got 29 points a day (fruits and veggies are zero points, so you cant just divide) They round to the nearest half point, and activity to the nearest point. A lot of the time I was sloppy about exact measurements. Over time, it balances out.
"Listen I dont know if cals in vs cals out works, because I really dont know how many cals my body burns in a day. I can tell you that when restricting cals, you end up hitting times when your body just stalls. If it were as simple as cals in vs cals out, why would that happen?? "
I havent found that on WW. I pretty much lost from December to May, when I hit goal weight. I had stalled earlier, pre WW - thats probably because as my weight declined, my calorie burn for my activity level declined.
ok I just did 2 of those estimates, one came to 1975 the other to 1853... if its easily cals in vs cals out, thats a diff of over 100 cals... lets say thats 100 even... so a different of 36,000cals a year, or more then 10 pounds in one year.
That's just slightly over a 5% margin of error. That's plenty acceptable for a baseline.
Quote:
Yeah, there isnt an accurate estimate out there... and even if I did track my heart rate at all times a day, that wouldnt even be 100% accurate.
Actually, these are pretty accurate provided the inputs you give are close to correct.
Quote:
There is no way to truely know how much your body is burning in any given day. "eat less, move more" may work... but we cant calculate how much less, or how much more... and theres no way to accuratly track it. I have no clue how many cals my body is burning, and I dont know how much starvation mode my retract... when does motabolism come into effect? theres really, no way to track it unless we're hooked up to a machine 24x7
You're far too obsessed with having a 100% accurate number. Sorry man, but short of taking the complicated and likely expensive tests the thread mentioned, you're not going to get a 100% accurate number. That said, even a 5% margin of error is plenty acceptable and these formulas are the same ones used by athletes and everyday people for years. If it's accurate enough to help them reach their goals, it's accurate enough for you.
That's just slightly over a 5% margin of error. That's plenty acceptable for a baseline.
Actually, these are pretty accurate provided the inputs you give are close to correct.
You're far too obsessed with having a 100% accurate number. Sorry man, but short of taking the complicated and likely expensive tests the thread mentioned, you're not going to get a 100% accurate number. That said, even a 5% margin of error is plenty acceptable and these formulas are the same ones used by athletes and everyday people for years. If it's accurate enough to help them reach their goals, it's accurate enough for you.
but... a 5% error for a 2000 cal a day recommendation comes out to be 100 cals... which equals over 10 pounds a year. 100 pounds over a decade. A 5% error when it comes to cals, if you feel this calculation is true, and its all cals in vs cals out, is a pretty substantial error IMO.
It also doesnt explain why, after just 4 weeks of a very restricted diet of 1000 cals a day, where I dropped from 220 to 195 did I stall out for the next full 2 weeks, not losing a pound... and then, when changing back to a normal diet, I ended right back at the same weight within 4 or 5 months. I'm sure it is cals in vs cals out... but i dont think its as easy as you think to accurately assume how many cals the body is using, and how certain types of food effect how many cals the body needs to or doesnt need to expend
but... a 5% error for a 2000 cal a day recommendation comes out to be 100 cals... which equals over 10 pounds a year. 100 pounds over a decade. A 5% error when it comes to cals, if you feel this calculation is true, and its all cals in vs cals out, is a pretty substantial error IMO.
Seriously dude, quibbling over that number is just a little ridiculous. Not only is 10lbs in a year a rather irrelevant number (even assuming that you hit that number) but it's not real hard to get yourself squared away on this thing. Pick the formula that is regarded as the most accurate, input the most accurate numbers you can and go. If you're not losing weight or losing it too fast or slow for your tastes then you simply add or subtract calories until you're where you want to be.
This is the same way people have been doing it for decades now. You're making it much more complicated than it needs to be.
Quote:
It also doesnt explain why, after just 4 weeks of a very restricted diet of 1000 cals a day, where I dropped from 220 to 195 did I stall out for the next full 2 weeks, not losing a pound... and then, when changing back to a normal diet, I ended right back at the same weight within 4 or 5 months. I'm sure it is cals in vs cals out... but i dont think its as easy as you think to accurately assume how many cals the body is using, and how certain types of food effect how many cals the body needs to or doesnt need to expend
You're asking for the unexplainable. No one conclusively knows what causes plateaus. Lots of theories, but nothing concrete, so you might as well remove that mental block as well. Depending on which type of diet your on, there are plenty of methods to break plateaus. Again, don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
but... a 5% error for a 2000 cal a day recommendation comes out to be 100 cals... which equals over 10 pounds a year. 100 pounds over a decade. A 5% error when it comes to cals, if you feel this calculation is true, and its all cals in vs cals out, is a pretty substantial error IMO.
It also doesnt explain why, after just 4 weeks of a very restricted diet of 1000 cals a day, where I dropped from 220 to 195 did I stall out for the next full 2 weeks, not losing a pound... and then, when changing back to a normal diet, I ended right back at the same weight within 4 or 5 months. I'm sure it is cals in vs cals out... but i dont think its as easy as you think to accurately assume how many cals the body is using, and how certain types of food effect how many cals the body needs to or doesnt need to expend
The "normal diet" is what caused you to gain weight in the first place. Did you measure your food when you went "back to a normal diet?" Or only while you were on a diet? If you didn't measure your food OFF your diet, then it's entirely possible (and most likely) that you ate MORE than a "normal diet" when you went "off your diet." This is the usual suspect with regards to yo-yo dieting. You slowly gain weight til you get to a point where you want/need to do something about it. So you go on a diet, and lose weight a lot faster than you gained it. You decide you're done dieting, and eat more than you did before you went on it, and gain it back a lot quicker than the years it took you to gain it the first time.
And then, you go on another diet to lose -that- batch of fat. And then you go off the diet, and eat even more than ever, not realizing that you probably weren't eating that much before you ever started dieting in the first place. You don't realize it, because - you're off the diet. So you don't feel the need to measure your intake and have absolutely no idea what you're eating anymore.
This is exactly what yo-yo-dieting IS. It's typical among people who don't learn how to -maintain- a healthy weight, or who choose not to try to maintain.
You're asking for the unexplainable. No one conclusively knows what causes plateaus. Lots of theories, but nothing concrete, so you might as well remove that mental block as well. Depending on which type of diet your on, there are plenty of methods to break plateaus. Again, don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.
but thats the point... its more complicated then a simple formula of calories in vs calories out...
I dont need any specific diet, I'm doing very well. No more tracking cals for me ever again...
The "normal diet" is what caused you to gain weight in the first place. Did you measure your food when you went "back to a normal diet?" Or only while you were on a diet? If you didn't measure your food OFF your diet, then it's entirely possible (and most likely) that you ate MORE than a "normal diet" when you went "off your diet." This is the usual suspect with regards to yo-yo dieting. You slowly gain weight til you get to a point where you want/need to do something about it. So you go on a diet, and lose weight a lot faster than you gained it. You decide you're done dieting, and eat more than you did before you went on it, and gain it back a lot quicker than the years it took you to gain it the first time.
And then, you go on another diet to lose -that- batch of fat. And then you go off the diet, and eat even more than ever, not realizing that you probably weren't eating that much before you ever started dieting in the first place. You don't realize it, because - you're off the diet. So you don't feel the need to measure your intake and have absolutely no idea what you're eating anymore.
This is exactly what yo-yo-dieting IS. It's typical among people who don't learn how to -maintain- a healthy weight, or who choose not to try to maintain.
how can someone maintain a healthy weight when the way they were eating, the only way to stay there is by eating 1000 cals a day? Thats just not possible.
And no, I wasnt overeating enough to gain that much in such a short time if you assume my cal number to maintain at that weight was close to 2000. The fact is, my body stopped using as much energy in a day, and did need as many calories to get by... because it got used to the way I was eating. It seems our bodies do that. This seems to be the reason for intermediate fasting, and upping your cals for a day or 2 and dropping them again, so your body is reprogrammed to use more cals in a day. This is why I think cal counting just isnt worth the time. Its a constant race with your body on some estimate of a number that may or may not be correct +/- 100 cals, trying to find the right balance, weighing your boneless chicken breasts, and deciding if the banana you just ate was medium or large...
Its pointless and obsessive... just never want to do it again. It makes more sense to eat when you're hungry, eat what fills you up, and stay away from things that dont make sense to consumer anyway.
but thats the point... its more complicated then a simple formula of calories in vs calories out...
You're drawing a connection here that doesn't exist. Plateaus are not a problem in only some diets. Every diet, even low carb ones, will eventually hit a plateau. That's why every diet has ways of dealing with them.
Quote:
I dont need any specific diet, I'm doing very well. No more tracking cals for me ever again...
And I bet it's a low carb variant which helps remove the guesswork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highwyre237
how can someone maintain a healthy weight when the way they were eating, the only way to stay there is by eating 1000 cals a day? Thats just not possible.
You're drawing a connection here that doesn't exist. Plateaus are not a problem in only some diets. Every diet, even low carb ones, will eventually hit a plateau. That's why every diet has ways of dealing with them.
And I bet it's a low carb variant which helps remove the guesswork.
Who has that low of a maintenance intake?
I know they exist, which puts some question into how exactly do understand how many cals your body needs to stay the same, whats a 500 deficit? Low carb does help take the guess work out, but I can also assure you I'm eating closer to 1900-2000 right now(I have tracked a few days to have a point of ref), and when I would diet before I would eat around 1600-1700 every day... sure I lost, but I equate that more to being in a healthy frame of mind, and avoiding sugar and beer (for the most part). But, that diet wasnt sustainable, I would be hungry too often. I really think, when I get enough fat in my diet, and dont consume empty cals, I have 0 reason to overeat. I listen to my body. Some days I'll have 3 meals, some days 2, some days I'll have a snack, some days I wont. The 1000 cal comment was in ref to my earlier post
If you arent addicted to food, or have an eating distorter in general... I think this should be the best way for everyone.
Trying to stay in some weird range, making sure you eat exactly 4oz of chicken, or 1oz of nuts or buy yogurt because it says "100 calories" on it is crazy...
It just makes more sense to me to listen to my body, because I dont think a random formula will give a more accurate determination of what my body needs.
Cal counting is great for those who really have an addiction they need to break, and need such a precise way to look at food... but thats really never been me.
I grew up chubby, because we ate pizza and pasta waaay too often. I lost weight in HS because I played football, and was told to eat more protein after working out, so I did. I gained it back in college, because beer and pizza were the norm.
In college I started cal counting, and went up and down with that for about 4 years. I blame that on not knowing what to eat... now that I do, I'm not hungry all the time, and dont need to bother counting
Last edited by Highwyre237; 08-11-2011 at 06:13 PM..
Sorry dude, but calories and plateaus are not linked together. If you "know" different, feel free to show us the proof.
Quote:
which puts some question into how exactly do understand how many cals your body needs to stay the same
You do the same thing that people have been doing for decades. You pick a formula and figure it out. Adjust calories up or down to suit your needs.
It's not hard man. Simple ****ing arithmetic.
Quote:
, whats a 500 deficit? Low carb does help take the guess work out, but I can also assure you I'm eating closer to 1900-2000 right now(I have tracked a few days to have a point of ref), and when I would diet before I would eat around 1600-1700 every day... sure I lost, but I equate that more to being in a healthy frame of mind, and avoiding sugar and beer (for the most part). But, that diet wasnt sustainable, I would be hungry too often. I really think, when I get enough fat in my diet, and dont consume empty cals, I have 0 reason to overeat. I listen to my body. Some days I'll have 3 meals, some days 2, some days I'll have a snack, some days I wont. The 1000 cal comment was in ref to my earlier post
If you were drinking lots of beer, there is your problem right there most likely. Alcohol in general will inhibit weight loss, ESPECIALLY on low carb diets.
Quote:
Trying to stay in some weird range, making sure you eat exactly 4oz of chicken, or 1oz of nuts or buy yogurt because it says "100 calories" on it is crazy...
Why is it crazy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
