 |
 | 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 2004too low an appetite?
I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too quickly. I'm 350/342/200 and most sources guestimate that I would need 3420 calories or more to maintain my current weight. Yesterday I ate only 1644 calories. I ate too much salad yesterday and no large amounts of beef, but I ate 3 meals and 2 snacks and each time I ate I was satisfied. But 1600 is a huge reduction for someone my size. Today it happened again. I am full on 3 oz of chicken in a creamy mustard sauce and some scallions. I was a little concerned yesterday because I got incredibly sleepy in the afternoon(only 500 calories consumed in first 8 hours of day). I ate some deviled eggs and the sleepiness wore off but returned slightly in the evening. My calorie count for today is only 1200 (at 7:30 PM). My lowest before these two was 1800. Of those of you that really count calories on induction do you go too low(drastic reduction from normal) and are still full? In this newsgroup I've seen people talk about minimu calories being 80% of maintainance (2700+ for me) or else you're metabolism drops and you won't lose weight. Anyone have sources for such info? I'm wondering if it has any truth. I don't recall Atkins warning about this at all. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) Don't worry about it. If you keep eating like that, you'll get hungry soon enough.  SignatureJC Eat less, exercise more. -- > I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 > meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > this at all. > DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) > I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 > meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > wondering if it has any truth. I don't recall Atkins warning about > this at all. ketosis masks your appetite, which is great when you're trying to lose weight. i would think that eating five times a day would keep your metabolism up, but you can always add some exercise, which will definitely keep it up. -kelly > I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 > meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too > quickly. > > I'm 350/342/200 and most sources guestimate that I would need 3420 > calories or more to maintain my current weight. Who exactly, is telling you this. If you are eating 3420 calories a day, you are eating far too much. How active are you? What do you do for a living? With a weight of 200lbs, your BMR (basal metabolic rate - as in if you laid in bed all day, what your body would burn just to support you) would be around 2000-2200 calories. > Yesterday I ate only > 1644 calories. That is ok. As long as you felt ok, and are getting proper nutrients from what you eat. > I ate too much salad yesterday and no large amounts of > beef, but I ate 3 meals and 2 snacks and each time I ate I was > satisfied. But 1600 is a huge reduction for someone my size. Again, "says who". I am 172 lbs, and i take in about 1800 calories a day. I need more calories if i work out hard at the gym, but this is what i need for my body to function without me being weak all the time. Try and eat some calorie rich foods if this bothers you that much. Eat some cottage cheese (about 150 calories for 1/4 cup) and you will be taking in arounb 4g carbs. Reduce your salad a little to compensate for this, and you can get some quick low carb calories. You can take in 2 jumbo eggs (use half the yolk so you can avoid alot of the cholesterol) and have about 150 calories more. Put some shredded cheese on the eggs (about 1 oz contains around 110 calories), and we have now taken in a bunch more calories. Just cut the salad down a little. Suppliment with a multivitamin, and psyllium husk for fiber and nutrients, and UP the ammount of calorie rich foods you take in. >Today it > happened again. I am full on 3 oz of chicken in a creamy mustard sauce [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My calorie count for today is only 1200 (at 7:30 PM). My lowest before > these two was 1800. There is a good chance that you are also underestimating your calorie intake. Plenty of people do this. Make sure you weigh your food to get accurate results. > Of those of you that really count calories on induction do you go too > low(drastic reduction from normal) and are still full? I counted when i did LC. It is important to weight loss. > In this newsgroup I've seen people talk about minimu calories being > 80% of maintainance (2700+ for me) or else you're metabolism drops and > you won't lose weight. Anyone have sources for such info? I'm > wondering if it has any truth. I don't recall Atkins warning about > this at all. > DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) Don't take in enough calories, you start to have problems. Your body needs calories to live, for your heart to beat, your brain to function properly, your body to break down food and nutrients and fuel you. I suspect however that you are not counting your calories properly. Sorry, but from what you said, eating 3 oz chicken and all the other stuff, only 500 calories? sounds strange to me. Anyhow, there are very low calorie diets (VLCD's) out there that restrict to 600 calories sometimes. The risks of these diets are exhaustion, as well as the body adapting to low calorie counts. When the body adapts, you are in trouble, because as your body adapts to functioning off this level of calories, you cannot easily increase calorie intake without a bunch of weight gain, unless you do massive amounts of exercise. its a catch 22. But really, don't fret. I think you are fine. >> I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 >> meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Who exactly, is telling you this. It is a commonly quoted ratio that depending upon activity your caloric intake should be 10-12 times your weight. I was 350 pounds just 12 days ago, which means 3500 claories is the low end. I have a sit down job and no major sports activities/exercise. This google search shows this is a commonly bandied about ratio. It has been posted here repeatedly. http://www.google.com/search?q=calories+per+pound+weight+maintain&hl=en&lr=&ie=U TF-8&oe=UTF-8 Here's one of many http://www.lifeclinic.com/focus/weight/calories.asp >If you are eating 3420 calories a day, you are eating far too much. >How active are you? What do you do for a living? >With a weight of 200lbs, your BMR (basal metabolic rate - as in if you laid I already noted my 350/342/200 range (started/current/goal weight) >in bed all day, what your body would burn just to support you) would be >around 2000-2200 calories. So you agree with my 3500 calorie estimate since you are quoting the 10x-11x range. >> Yesterday I ate only 1644 calories. > >That is ok. How can you say that when you don't realize what I said my weight was. A 500 pound person is okay with 1600 calories? sounds like a starvation diet to me. >As long as you felt ok, and are getting proper nutrients from >what you eat. People here have posted that reducing your caloric intake to lower than 80% of maintenance will slow metabolism down. And I did get excessively sleepy around 3PM. I ate deviled eggs (even though not hungry) and bounced back about 20 minutes after eating. That makes me wonder if I'm not getting enough--but I didn't feel hunger. BTW I lost 1 pound of weight in that 24 hour period. >> I ate too much salad yesterday and no large amounts of >> beef, but I ate 3 meals and 2 snacks and each time I ate I was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >need more calories if i work out hard at the gym, but this is what i need >for my body to function without me being weak all the time. You didn't understand my weight posting. I weight almost 200% as much as you and I ate less than you do. >Try and eat some calorie rich foods if this bothers you that much. Eat some >cottage cheese (about 150 calories for 1/4 cup) and you will be taking in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> My calorie count for today is only 1200 (at 7:30 PM). My lowest before >> these two was 1800. >There is a good chance that you are also underestimating your calorie >intake. Plenty of people do this. Make sure you weigh your food to get >accurate results. I am loggin absolutely everything in a db-based system I setup in excel. I have been very exact(I'm anal and detail oriented-my bosses love me). Even creating new entries in the food db for each specific brand of food I use. The spreadsheet looks up each item in the database and multiplies it out by the portion number I set and does all the calculations and summation for me. The only thing I have to focus on is counting every ingredient. Since I'm doing 100% of my own cooking I know every ingredient. Only minor herbs go unlisted. I'm fairly anal. In fact the dietary values for meats have way too high fat numbers based upon the way I eat (drain things a lot and cut off fat). My calories from fat counts explode on some days--I know it is much less, but it is difficult to suss out a way to be more exact without measuring the fat I drain and cut off wehen cooking. >> Of those of you that really count calories on induction do you go too >> low(drastic reduction from normal) and are still full? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Sorry, but from what you said, eating 3 oz chicken and all the other stuff, >only 500 calories? sounds strange to me. SOrry confusing different days. Today I ate 3oz of chicken for dinner and was done. I made 6 oz. I ate the other 3oz around 9 PM, again..not terribly hungry but these portions seem way too small compared to my life from two weeks ago. Anyway here is Friday's entries: http://members.aol.com/digitalvinyl66/friday.rtf It is in RIch Text Format which most word processors can read. Posting it here makes a mess. You will have to save it to the Desktop and double clik on it to open. RTF files have no macros capabilities so it is a safer format than WORD for the Internet. >Anyhow, there are very low calorie diets (VLCD's) out there that restrict to >600 calories sometimes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >massive amounts of exercise. >its a catch 22. that is what i'm concerned about. >But really, don't fret. I think you are fine. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) > >> I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 > >> meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just 12 days ago, which means 3500 claories is the low end. I have a > sit down job and no major sports activities/exercise. I am familiar with the calculation, thanks. You expressed your weight as 350/342/200, which lead me to believe that you had gone from 350 to 342 to 200 lbs, not an UNcommon thing to see here. > This google search shows this is a commonly bandied about ratio. It > has been posted here repeatedly. http://www.google.com/search?q=calories+per+pound+weight+maintain&hl=en&lr=& ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 > Here's one of many > http://www.lifeclinic.com/focus/weight/calories.asp Yes, thank you for understanding that since i assumed you were 200 lbs now, that the rest of my post doesnt make much sense ;-) > >If you are eating 3420 calories a day, you are eating far too much. > >How active are you? What do you do for a living? [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > > DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) >I am familiar with the calculation, thanks. >You expressed your weight as 350/342/200, which lead me to believe that you >had gone from 350 to 342 to 200 lbs, not an UNcommon thing to see here. ? 200 is for a goal weight. This is the same way everybody posts their stats. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/234/140 & hubby- 310/262/180 > ... > It is a commonly quoted ratio that depending upon activity your > caloric intake should be 10-12 times your weight. I was 350 pounds > just 12 days ago, which means 3500 claories is the low end. I have a > sit down job and no major sports activities/exercise. IMHO, these types of measures are confusing and result in this sort of error (and I think it *is* an error). I reckon you can't use their multipliers, even with their "muscular" ranges", if you are obese. With that amount of fat, the percentage of tissue you have that can actually burn calories is way below the "nonmuscular" level. So their multipliers are far too high. Assuming your target weight is within a normal BMI range for your age/sex/height then it corresponds to a 2000-ish basal metabolic rate, and so your *current* basal metabolic rate isn't going to be that much higher than that. The main reason it would be higher at all, is if you were lugging all the extra fat around in a non-sedentary job. And you aren't. So a 3500+ diet is way too much. I have a friend who is a 6'2", *big* competitive bodybuilder, and he eats at that level. Basially, you (and I) are thin bodies carrying around dead-weight, metabolically fairly-inactive, overcoats of fat. Take the overcoat off, put it on, sling it over your shoulder; it doesn't change the fact that your nutritional needs are those of the inner thin person. > >> Yesterday I ate only 1644 calories. > >That is ok. > How can you say that when you don't realize what I said my weight was. > A 500 pound person is okay with 1600 calories? sounds like a > starvation diet to me. A 500 pound person who should really be 160 pounds is fine with 1600 calories. But if they were to eat 4,500 calories, say, (i.e. the 500-500), in the expectation of having a 500cal/day deficit and so losing 1lb a week, they'd be disappointed. (They'd actually continue to gain weight.) slr >Basially, you (and I) are thin bodies carrying around dead-weight, >metabolically fairly-inactive, >overcoats of fat. Take the overcoat off, put it on, sling it over your >shoulder; it doesn't change >the fact that your nutritional needs are those of the inner thin person. I have to think about that more. Seems mostly right, although you're still walking around during the day, going up stairs in the house, bending, and the weight affects all of these actions. So even though I have an averae sit-down job, it will affect it some. >> >> Yesterday I ate only 1644 calories. >> >That is ok. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >in the expectation of having a 500cal/day deficit and so losing 1lb a week, >they'd be disappointed. (They'd actually continue to gain weight.) Well I got a headache later that night and ate another two strips of chicken breast. I NEVER get headaches. I've thrown out almost full bottles of aspirin because they expire before I use them. Although I hadn't worn my glasses much yesterday--so that could have an effect. The scale this morning told me I lost 0.8 lbs yesterday. To be safe, this morning I started out with a larger breakfast and I'm planning a nice piece of meat with lunch. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) > Well I got a headache later that night and ate another two strips of > chicken breast. I NEVER get headaches. I've thrown out almost full > bottles of aspirin because they expire before I use them. Although I > hadn't worn my glasses much yesterday--so that could have an effect. I had a belter of a headache during the first week of induction. I put it down to coming off sugar and caffeine. Also, I wasn't very strict about drinking the 700 gallons of water per day you're supposed to have so that may have contributed. Now, in my third week and easing off the induction restrictions, the weight is still falling off - 1.5lbs down since yesterday - but the headaches have gone completely. slr (248/230/164/68/m) >> Well I got a headache later that night and ate another two strips of >> chicken breast. I NEVER get headaches. I've thrown out almost full [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >drinking the 700 gallons of water per day you're supposed to have so that >may have contributed. In the first 5 days I did have some light headaches too. I was prepared for that, but yesterday was day 13 and addiction headaches should be gone. I'm happy to say that almost two hours after a big breakfast I'm still having a slight headache. I'm confident that it is because I'm not wearing my glasses -- still trying to find them! >Now, in my third week and easing off the induction restrictions, the weight >is still falling off - 1.5lbs down since yesterday - but the headaches have >gone completely. > >slr (248/230/164/68/m) (350/341/200/37/m) DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) Another thing to consider is that when you are looking at your caloric intake it can be better to look at it over the course of a week instead of daily. I frequently have days where I am either too busy to think about food or not hungry and end up eatingg less than 1000 calories, but the next day I usually am hungry and eat more. If I average my calories for the week, they usually come out to about what I should be eating per day. Some people say that zig-zagging like that leads to the most fat-loss, so maybe you don't need to worry unless you are consistently undercalorie-ing (that's not a word, is it?) Robyn >Another thing to consider is that when you are looking at your caloric intake >it can be better to look at it over the course of a week instead of daily. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If I average my calories for the week, they usually come out to about what I >should be eating per day. Last week was 2700, this week looks to be 2300, and there are some overestimates on fat calories with beef. I haven't been substracting the bits of fat'/meat left uneaten nor the pan-fulls of grease on some low-quality meats that goes in the sink. Since USDA numbers often refer to the raw/sold quantity, cooked values always have less fat for beef. I've had some ridiculous fat numbers generated. (Steak-Umm products are 25% fat that pools in the frying pan--I recall now why i stopped buying them and switched to Dutch Maid) >Some people say that zig-zagging like that leads to the most fat-loss, so maybe >you don't need to worry unless you are consistently undercalorie-ing (that's >not a word, is it?) It accurately conveys a meaning--so it is a valid word despite the lack of Webster's stamp of approval! >Robyn DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) > I haven't been substracting >the bits of fat'/meat left uneaten nor the pan-fulls of grease on some >low-quality meats that goes in the sink. Ack! You pour it into the sink? I hope you like cleaning out clogged traps. It's not pretty. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/234/140 & hubby- 310/262/180 > Another thing to consider is that when you are looking at your caloric intake > it can be better to look at it over the course of a week instead of daily. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Robyn I do the same thing Robyn, once or twice a week I'm under 1000 calories, and then a couple of other days I'll be over 1600, but my weekly average is 1300 - 1400. I wonder if there's any truth to this "zig-zag" theory, because I have lost weight every month since I started LC in May of last year, even though some months it's slower than others. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > Another thing to consider is that when you are looking at your caloric intake > > it can be better to look at it over the course of a week instead of daily. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > because I have lost weight every month since I started LC in May of last > year, even though some months it's slower than others. "Zig-zag" has worked for many people. Dr. Fred Hatfield supports this type of dieting. He's also known as Dr. Squat. > > > Another thing to consider is that when you are looking at your caloric > intake [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Dr. Fred Hatfield supports this type of dieting. He's also known as Dr. > Squat. I don't think I can officially say I'm doing any kind of "zig-zag" diet though, because I'm not doing it on purpose. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > > > Another thing to consider is that when you are looking at your caloric > > intake [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I don't think I can officially say I'm doing any kind of "zig-zag" diet > though, because I'm not doing it on purpose. That's ok, Michelle. Really. >> > Another thing to consider is that when you are looking at your caloric >intake [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Dr. Fred Hatfield supports this type of dieting. He's also known as Dr. >Squat. One of the best power lifters I ever saw........definately the best squatter. His articles have taught quite a bit. A legend in the sport of the lift. Obsidian. ::: ... ::: It is a commonly quoted ratio that depending upon activity your [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] :: the fact that your nutritional needs are those of the inner thin :: person. That is true, to a point. ::::: Yesterday I ate only 1644 calories. :::: That is ok. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: losing 1lb a week, they'd be disappointed. (They'd actually :: continue to gain weight.) Keep in mind that a 500 lbs person as to carry around 500 lbs. That means this person will have a strong lower body and will NOT be like a 160 lb person -- unless they can't move. However, the 10x rule would also likely not be right for a 500 lb person. That person could survive on a lot less than 5000 kcals per day. Hence, 10x can be used a starting point, but the right number for good weight loss will likely be use 6x or something like that. ::: If you are eating 3420 calories a day, you are eating far too much. ::: How active are you? What do you do for a living? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: So you agree with my 3500 calorie estimate since you are quoting the :: 10x-11x range. The larger you are, the less you need to follow this rule. You can easily do 8 or 7x bodyweight and be fine. I would suggest you start at 10x and see how that goes. If you don't get results, drop 1x until you get to a good place -- 1 to 3 lbs a week (it should be less as you get lighter. > >> I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 > >> meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just 12 days ago, which means 3500 claories is the low end. I have a > sit down job and no major sports activities/exercise. That's true. But there's also some opinion that people who are carrying a lot of body fat don't actually need 10x their current weight in calories. The reason being that fat is calorie cheap. Yes, you do have to expend more energy moving around than someone who weighs less, but other than that it doesn't take your body all that much to maintain it. On the other hand, if you're over 300 lbs because you're really tall and massively muscular, then yes you might need that many calories to meet your body's calorie requirements. > This google search shows this is a commonly bandied about ratio. It > has been posted here repeatedly. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > >> Yesterday I ate only 1644 calories. That probably is too low. Have more oil on your salads and butter on your brocolli. Also, don't go wild on the protein. Figure out what you need and then try to stay in that range. Also, be aware that for some people the appetite suppression comes and goes. I've had times when 1000 calories a day would be plenty and others when I was lucky to bring it in under 2000. Given that you're about 142 lbs over your goal weight, I doubt that you really need to worry about starvation mode any time soon (that isn't a crack, but my experience and what I've read suggests that the body doesn't freak out too much about low calories when there are still quite large reserves) and you might find that your hunger picks up as you start getting closer to goal. But I'm not the expert. Anyone? Martha SignatureBegin where you are - but don't end there. > > >> I'm on day 13 of induction. Yesterday and today I am eating 4-5 > > >> meals/snacks a day, but I am getting full quickly.. almost too [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > This google search shows this is a commonly bandied about ratio. It > > has been posted here repeatedly. http://www.google.com/search?q=calories+per+pound+weight+maintain&hl=en&lr=&ie=U TF-8&oe=UTF-8 > > Here's one of many > > http://www.lifeclinic.com/focus/weight/calories.asp [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > But I'm not the expert. Anyone? You have it right. >Of those of you that really count calories on induction do you go too >low(drastic reduction from normal) and are still full? Induction rules say nothing about counting calories. Eat when you are hungry and eat until you are satisfied (not stuffed.) All the fine tuning comes later, IF you should have a problem losing. Connie ***************************************************** My mind is like a steel...um, whatchamacallit. No prob, your body will adjust....just follow what your hunger dictates....you my good man is in ketosis! |
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.