 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004Perhaps alot dumb questions about a general LC lifestyle...
How many carbs is still considered low carb if a person is working out 3 days a week, and generally is still watching what they eat. I started Atkins induction back in late October, and in about two months lost visible weight on my body, and perhaps 20lbs on the scale. At 5ft 7in, at 168lbs, I am now not really heavy, and not thin, however my focus has been shifted from trying to lose weight on just a diet, to trying to lose with work in the gym. As Roger Zoul has suggested, I have started to incorporate a sort of HIIT regimen, and also lift when I go to the gym. I am finding that after a few weeks in the gym, I am eating less (and eating more freely when it comes to carbs), and am being fuller for a longer period. Even on a low carb diet, I was always "grazing", however I can now eat one or two things and go several hours without being hungry. I ate a triple burger at A&W today, I ate all of it... I am up to 70g of carbs most days, but I am not wanting to go much over that. If I get up to 100g of carbs, then I consider it a high day, and on an extreme (like if I am going to work out the next morning), I will go that high. I eat alot of tuna, and alot of cheese still. Also eggs, beef, and chicken. Not so much chicken, because chicken costs alot more than beef. According to fitday, I am eating around 1800 calories each day. This seems to be ok for me, however with my lifestyle, it tells me I should be eating alot more (more like 2400), however I cannot see that happening lol. I should reiterate that I am not hungry either, and I am not avoiding meals, etc. Also according to fitday, I am eating alot of protein still, and am getting most of my calories from fat and protein. So here are my questions: 1. How much stock should I put in the BMI (basal metabolic index??) 2. If I stay at half the RDA for carbs or lower, or try and stick to 75-100g, will this work in general? Also, you want to know something strange. I am dreaming ALOT more since I started hitting the gym. I mean, I will dream right up until I wake up in the morning. Very vivid stuff, and very much pertinent to the last days happenings. Strange, huh? Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote: > 1. How much stock should I put in the BMI (basal metabolic index??) I thought BMI stood for body mass index??? Marsha/Ohio > Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote: > > 1. How much stock should I put in the BMI (basal metabolic index??) > > I thought BMI stood for body mass index??? > > Marsha/Ohio yes, I am thinking BMR. Sorry about that. Basal Metabolic Rate, I believe. Thanks for catching that Marsha. Much appreciated. :-) Steve >Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote: >> 1. How much stock should I put in the BMI (basal metabolic index??) > >I thought BMI stood for body mass index??? lol http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031111.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. Steven C (Doktersteve) <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote: > How many carbs is still considered low carb if a person is working out 3 > days a week, and generally is still watching what they eat. 100 grams a day or less is generally considered a ketogenic (low carb) diet. > Steven C (Doktersteve) <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 100 grams a day or less is generally considered a ketogenic (low carb) > diet. Thank you. "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Ba1Kb.79071$6b2.46629@edtnps84 > How many carbs is still considered low carb if a person is working > out 3 days a week, and generally is still watching what they eat. 100 or less per day is the technical def. Of course you might not be able to eat that many and maintain your new weight. > I started Atkins induction back in late October, and in about two > months lost visible weight on my body, and perhaps 20lbs on the scale. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I ate a triple burger at A&W today, I ate all of it... I am up to 70g > of carbs most days, but I am not wanting to go much over that. Then don't. If I > get up to 100g of carbs, then I consider it a high day, and on an > extreme (like if I am going to work out the next morning), I will go > that high. If it works for you. > I eat alot of tuna, and alot of cheese still. Also eggs, beef, and > chicken. Not so much chicken, because chicken costs alot more than [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 1. How much stock should I put in the BMI (basal metabolic index??) BMI stands for Body Mass index. Your overall size. This is not very accurate for non-average people. Athletes, usually. I have seen some web sites that use that to mean BMR, and I suspect that's what you meant. BMR stands for Basal Metabolic Rate. The amount you need for survival. Most calculators actually do more than calculate the BMR, they also calculate the amount needed to maintain current body weight (assuming you input the correct amount of activity). There are two different formulas (Harris-Benedict Formula, Katch-McArdle Formula) The Harris-Benedict equation is a calorie formula using the factors of gender, weight, height, and age to determine basal metabolic rate (BMR). There is a shortcoming to this formula though -- it does not take into consideration lean body mass (LBM). Therefore, this equation will be very accurate in all but the extremely muscular (formula will underestimate calorie needs) and the extremely overweight (formula will overestimate calorie needs). This is the most popular one on the net, found everywhere. Like here: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html If you know your lean body mass, then you can use the Katch-McArdle formula to get the most accurate BMR estimate available. This formula takes into account lean body mass and is therefore more accurate than the Harris- Benedict formula which is based on total body weight. By the way, the Harris-Benedict formula uses different formulas for men and women because men generally have a higher LBM and this is factored into the men's formula. Since the Katch-McArdle formula accounts for LBM, this single formula applies equally to both men and women. BMR (men/women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean body mass in kg) OR BMR (men/women) = 370 + (9.8 X lean body mass in lbs) a quick way to find your lean body mass http://www.intmed.mcw.edu/clincalc/body.html While the Katch-McArdie is more accurate, they are both merely estimates. How much you should rely on either, is your decision. hth  Signaturerevek By the time they had diminished from 50 to eight, the other dwarves began to suspect "Hungry". > "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in > message news:Ba1Kb.79071$6b2.46629@edtnps84 [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > BMR stands for Basal Metabolic Rate. The amount you need for survival. Yes, that is what i meant. I just got the last letter wrong... > Most calculators actually do more than calculate the BMR, they also > calculate the amount needed to maintain current body weight (assuming [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > hth Thanks for all the good info revek, as always. Check your email :-) "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Fr2Kb.79262$6b2.19821@edtnps84 > Check your email :-) Ok. Signaturerevek Is no rat! Is rare siberian hamster! Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote: > How many carbs is still considered low carb if a person is working out 3 > days a week, and generally is still watching what they eat. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 100g of carbs, then I consider it a high day, and on an extreme (like if I > am going to work out the next morning), I will go that high. A triple burger at A&W sounds like a show stopper if you are still trying to lose weight, unless you are doing a lot of high calorie aerobic work every day. > I eat alot of tuna, and alot of cheese still. Also eggs, beef, and chicken. > Not so much chicken, because chicken costs alot more than beef. Chicken costs more than beef? Not in Norway, but let that pass. Again, if you are eating a lot of each of these things and still trying to lose weight, you will have to do a lot of hard exercising each day. > According to fitday, I am eating around 1800 calories each day. This seems > to be ok for me, however with my lifestyle, it tells me I should be eating > alot more (more like 2400), however I cannot see that happening lol. > I should reiterate that I am not hungry either, and I am not avoiding meals, > etc. I don't see how you can be eating triple burgers plus a lot of tuna, eggs, cheese, and all those other things but only getting 1800 calories per day. > Also according to fitday, I am eating alot of protein still, and am getting > most of my calories from fat and protein. > > So here are my questions: > > 1. How much stock should I put in the BMI (basal metabolic index??) As a fixed point, not much. Plotted as a trend, I think it is useful. > 2. If I stay at half the RDA for carbs or lower, or try and stick to > 75-100g, will this work in general? Will it work for what? Are you trying to lose weight or maintain? Use the scale to decide. If your weight does what you want it to do on that amount of carbs, then it works. > Also, you want to know something strange. > I am dreaming ALOT more since I started hitting the gym. I mean, I will > dream right up until I wake up in the morning. > Very vivid stuff, and very much pertinent to the last days happenings. > Strange, huh? What is strange is that you can detect that you are dreaming a lot more, because I think one only remembers the last dream, ie the one you were having while you were waking. martin > > Chicken costs more than beef? In the US, yes. That's been true for about 10 years, and the price differential has increased since the most recent "mad cow" kerfluffle. T. >> >> Chicken costs more than beef? > >In the US, yes. That's been true for about 10 years, and the price >differential has increased since the most recent "mad cow" kerfluffle. It depends on the cut of beef, though. Steaks are still more expensive than most chicken parts. Frank Lynch The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page is at: http://www.samueljohnson.com/ > >> > >> Chicken costs more than beef? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It depends on the cut of beef, though. Steaks are still more expensive > than most chicken parts. And what part of the chicken. I prefer dark meat and find legs and thighs to be quite inexpensive. Martha SignatureBegin where you are - but don't end there. >>>>Chicken costs more than beef? >>> >>>In the US, yes. That's been true for about 10 years, and the price >>>differential has increased since the most recent "mad cow" kerfluffle. This is simply wrong. At retail, chicken leg quarters are less than 45 cents a pound (in 10 pound bags) all day long all over the US and I've paid as little as 29 cents. Whole chickens usually cost between 89 cents and 1.29 a pound. Breasts from 2.99 to 4.50 if boneless. Thighs around 69 cents and boneless thighs (I bought them today) for 1.69. The cheapest beef I saw today was 2.09 and that was a sirloin tip roast; barely good enough for a roast beef. Any decent grilling cuts were upwards of 5.99 a pound all the way to 14.99 for filet (6 months ago, it was 9.99). Beef prices have already declined and will go considerably lower. But they'll go as low in cost per pound as chicken. >>It depends on the cut of beef, though. Steaks are still more expensive >>than most chicken parts. All good beef cuts are more expensive than any chicken parts unless the poultry butcher has a pegleg, an eyepatch and a parrot on his shoulder. > And what part of the chicken. I prefer dark meat and find legs and thighs > to be quite inexpensive. I don't know where you are, but in operations like Costco and Sam's Club the white meat is *always* more expensive because of greater demand. In the general run of American supermarkets, bone-in thighs can run 1/3 the price of bone-in breasts. And boneless thighs are often about 1/4 the price per pound of boneless breasts. Boneless thighs were 1.69 and bone-in thighs were 89 cents a pound today at Costco. Pastorio > Any decent grilling cuts > were upwards of 5.99 a pound all the way to 14.99 for filet (6 months > ago, it was 9.99). Beef prices have already declined and will go > considerably lower. But they'll go as low in cost per pound as chicken. > > Pastorio I am confused over this post. You state that filet is 14.99 a pound and was 9.99 a pound 6 months ago. Then you go on to say that beef prices have gone down and will keep going down? I hope they will go down, but I don't see why they would. The beef producers are licking their chops (no pun...well maybe a little). Curt Signature211/haven't weighed in a while/185 . . 6'2" Started low carb May 18, 2003...this time Highest weight 250 >>Any decent grilling cuts >>were upwards of 5.99 a pound all the way to 14.99 for filet (6 months [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > why they would. The beef producers are licking their chops (no pun...well > maybe a little). Prices have dropped significantly since the first American cow with BSE was found. I said it clumsily, sorry. My neighbor beef-producers are trying to sell what they have as soon as possible to catch the prices on the way down but before they hit bottom and put them back into negative earnings like they've had for the past few years. Most likely, the prices will drop significantly now that we're not exporting beef anywhere near what was happening just a few weeks ago. But prices will stabilize, say some of the ag forecasters, at where they were about three or four months ago. The reduced beef demand might make pork and chicken prices move although they have pretty much held steady for the better part of a year. Lots of different and even conflicting estimates coming from the agricultural community now. We'll all have to wait and see. Before BSE, the forecast was for a 2-billion pound shortfall, largely because of exports. That's at least temporarily gone, and all guesses are welcome. In the meantime, I wouldn't be buying beef futures. Pastorio Steve, The only way you'll really know what works for your body is by testing a new regimen and seeing what happens. I've found that takes about 2 weeks for the results of any dietary change to show up in a way that makes it really clear to me if it is helping or hurting. When I do this I keep very good track of my food intake (using software and occasionally measuring portions sizes ) and what I did during my exercise sessions. That way I don't fall prey to the "I only ate . . " syndrome where you way underestimate your intake and I can compare actual intake, calorie expenditure, and weight result. Learning how your particular body works and what it can and cannot handle lets you go beyond the necessarily generic advice in diet books and come up with a diet that really works for you. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > How many carbs is still considered low carb if a person is working out 3 > days a week, and generally is still watching what they eat. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Very vivid stuff, and very much pertinent to the last days happenings. > Strange, huh? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.