 |
 | 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 / General Topics / July 2004Blankness of mind!
I am suddenly blank - how many calories should a reasonably-active woman in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? I know the amount will have to go down as I lose weight, but to start with, what is a realistic goal? Using the "Fitday" site, I seem to have eaten less than I thought, today (despite the mini-pork pie), but oh, that site is so awkward to use! They seem to put all the possible recipe ideas first, and the plain food last, so you have to wade through pages and pages of "chicken a la King" or "X's chicken pot pie" and even then they don't seem to know about plain boiled chicken, skin removed prior to cooking...... And pages and pages of potato recipes before you finally find plain boiled new potatoes! And the only fresh melon they seem to know about is Honeydew, where's the Charentais or other orange-fleshed types?  SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 > I am suddenly blank - how many calories should a reasonably-active woman > in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? I > know the amount will have to go down as I lose weight, but to start > with, what is a realistic goal? http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bridge/7836/luc1.index.html > Using the "Fitday" site, I seem to have eaten less than I thought, today > (despite the mini-pork pie), but oh, that site is so awkward to use! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > potatoes! And the only fresh melon they seem to know about is Honeydew, > where's the Charentais or other orange-fleshed types? What I do is substitute foods that are not there for similar foods that are there. Surely this leads to imprecise results, but I can live with lack of precision. i >> I am suddenly blank - how many calories should a reasonably-active woman >> in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? I >> know the amount will have to go down as I lose weight, but to start >> with, what is a realistic goal? > >http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bridge/7836/luc1.index.html Thanks. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 Have you tried being more specific in Fitday -- i.e. entering "boiled chicken" instead of just "chicken" in the search area? Mary M > I am suddenly blank - how many calories should a reasonably-active woman > in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > potatoes! And the only fresh melon they seem to know about is Honeydew, > where's the Charentais or other orange-fleshed types? >Have you tried being more specific in Fitday -- i.e. entering "boiled chicken" >instead of just "chicken" in the search area? Yes, and it came up with a nil return. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >I am suddenly blank - how many calories should a reasonably-active woman >in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? I >know the amount will have to go down as I lose weight, but to start >with, what is a realistic goal? That is subjective to who you are and what your physical stats are. But the *general* figures are for someone to eat at 10 x body weight to lose weight. So, if you weigh 150lbs, to lose weight you consume 1500 calories. (10x150 = 1500) >Using the "Fitday" site, I seem to have eaten less than I thought, today >(despite the mini-pork pie), but oh, that site is so awkward to use! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >potatoes! And the only fresh melon they seem to know about is Honeydew, >where's the Charentais or other orange-fleshed types? "No. No. Our private conversations have not been such that I'm anxious to continue them. Forgive me for speaking so bluntly, but it is the truth." --as Joel Cairo in THE MALTESE FALCON (1941). >>I am suddenly blank - how many calories should a reasonably-active woman >>in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >So, if you weigh 150lbs, to lose weight you consume 1500 calories. >(10x150 = 1500) it's true that this varies a lot for different individuals, but the chances are that Annabel, being in her 50s (particular if in menopause) might need fewer calories than that to lose weight. That has been my experience, certainly. (I'm 56, menopausal, also quite active.) I'd recommend setting a target amount (pick 10x bodyweight if you like, but you might try more like 8x or 9x to start), do it for a couple of weeks, see what happens, adjust upward or downward as appropriate until it seems to be working. Then adjust over time if your weighloss grinds to a long halt (over 3-4 weeks) or if you lose too fast (I'd say over 2 lbs./week for someone who's not extremely overweight). Chris 262/143/ (145-150) >I am suddenly blank - how many calories should a reasonably-active woman >in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >potatoes! And the only fresh melon they seem to know about is Honeydew, >where's the Charentais or other orange-fleshed types? Annabel I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products available here. The only snag is you have to pay, but they let you try it for 3 days free. janice 233/183/133 > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:51:15 +0100, Annabel Smyth > janice > 233/183/133 you're halfway there! >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:51:15 +0100, Annabel Smyth > >> janice >> 233/183/133 > >you're halfway there! Thanks for noticing, but I don't post my numbers every time I contribute nowadays because they fluctuate so much. Last year I was quite a bit more than half way there, but at least I've been travelling in the right direction for some weeks now:) janice > Thanks for noticing, but I don't post my numbers every time I > contribute nowadays because they fluctuate so much. Last year I was > quite a bit more than half way there, but at least I've been > travelling in the right direction for some weeks now:) Good for you janice! You're doing something right :-) SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 >>> 233/183/133 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > quite a bit more than half way there, but at least I've been > travelling in the right direction for some weeks now:) Maybe you could consider your present condition as maintaining your weight at around something reasonable. You were around 166 last year, 183 now, maybe if you keep it in perspective, there would be less concern. Maybe you are not "meant to be" 133, somehow. How tall are you? i >>>> 233/183/133 >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >i Gosh, ig, do you keep track of everyone:) I'm 5ft 6in, but am very pear-shaped. When I was down into the 160s my hips were still over 40" and I had a lot to lose on my thighs, even though I looked quite gaunt around my face and neck, arms, etc. I certainly felt I needed to lose a bit more to get my body into more proportion, despite the amount of loose wrinkled skin. I chose 133 as an arbitrary goal as I remember being there years ago. I'll be the first to admit if it seems too low as I get closer, and would re-set my goal to something more realistic. janice >>>>> 233/183/133 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Gosh, ig, do you keep track of everyone:) I simply remember, I don't have a file on you or anything:) > I'm 5ft 6in, but am very pear-shaped. When I was down into the 160s > my hips were still over 40" and I had a lot to lose on my thighs, even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first to admit if it seems too low as I get closer, and would re-set > my goal to something more realistic. Sure, numbers are hard to argue with, you are overweight, but if maintaining around 160-180 is easier, maybe that would be a goal that creates less anguish and anxiety. Being 180 is a hell of a lot better than 250. I am glad that you are open minded about this. I have similar choices in front of me, should I continue losing weight or not, something I have not yet decided. i i > >>>> 233/183/133 > >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > my hips were still over 40" and I had a lot to lose on my thighs, even > though I looked quite gaunt around my face and neck, arms, etc. You sound like me! I could still stand to lose another ~20lbs between my abdomen and upper legs, but 168 would leave me looking like a scarecrow -- at my thinnest at this height I was 175. I'm worried too that I will slip up and not keep my current losses ratcheted. I think having a scale in the bathroom helps, but then again I had one in the bathroom when I went from 211->230 over 2 years. I've now been weighing and recording my weight daily for nearly 6 months, and I credit that for some large part of my consistent progress. It helps that I keep to a relatively simple, consistent menu too though. It's hard to gain weight if you eat consistently between 1500 and 2000 kcal/day. It's those 2000 kcal *meals* that get you I think. That and extra 300 kcal snackfoods that add up over a day. Heywood 232/187.5/182 >> I'm 5ft 6in, but am very pear-shaped. When I was down into the 160s >> my hips were still over 40" and I had a lot to lose on my thighs, even [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >232/187.5/182 Well, in one thing you couldn't be less like me! I don't think I will ever become someone who weighs themselves daily. I know I'll lose weight if I stick to my WOE, so it's totally beyond me to understand why I would need to consult the scale every single day, or probably even every week. Just my own experience - I've probably been at this game for too long:( janice 233/183/133 >I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I >find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products >available here. The only snag is you have to pay, but they let you >try it for 3 days free. I had a look at that yesterday. Mind you, as a friend said this morning, *all* calorie-counters seem to be geared to bought foods, very little said about fresh foods..... SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I >>find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > morning, *all* calorie-counters seem to be geared to bought foods, very > little said about fresh foods..... I eat very little processed foods, and fitday has everything I need. i >>>I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I >>>find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I eat very little processed foods, and fitday has everything I need. Then would you be kind enough, please, to tell me how to find: poached chicken, no skin mange-tout peas, fresh, steamed new potatoes, boiled cabbage, Sweetheart, steamed melon, charentais melon, galia None of which I can find! SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>>>I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I >>>>find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Then would you be kind enough, please, to tell me how to find: > poached chicken, no skin Chicken, broilers or fryers, meat only, roasted, would that be close? Amount Per 1 cup, chopped or diced Calories 266 Calories from Fat 93.37 % Daily Value * Total Fat 10.37g 16% Saturated Fat 2.86g 14% Polyunsaturated Fat 2.37g Monounsaturated Fat 3.72g Cholesterol 124.6mg 42% Sodium 120.4mg 5% Potassium 340.2mg 10% Total Carbohydrate 0g 0% Dietary Fiber 0g 0% Protein 40.5g 81% Alcohol 0g > mange-tout peas, fresh, steamed I have no idea what that is, but, how about this Peas, green, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt Nutrition Facts Amount Per 1 cup Calories 134.4 Calories from Fat 3.17 % Daily Value * Total Fat 0.352g 1% Saturated Fat 0.0624g 0% Polyunsaturated Fat 0.163g Monounsaturated Fat 0.0304g Cholesterol 0mg 0% Sodium 382.4mg 16% Potassium 433.6mg 12% Total Carbohydrate 25.02g 8% Dietary Fiber 8.8g 35% Protein 8.58g 17% Alcohol 0g > new potatoes, boiled Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, with salt Nutrition Facts Amount Per 0.5 cup Calories 67.08 Calories from Fat 0.702 % Daily Value * Total Fat 0.078g 0% Saturated Fat 0.0203g 0% Polyunsaturated Fat 0.0335g Monounsaturated Fat 0.00156g Cholesterol 0mg 0% Sodium 187.98mg 8% Potassium 255.84mg 7% Total Carbohydrate 15.61g 5% Dietary Fiber 1.56g 6% Protein 1.33g 3% Alcohol 0g > cabbage, Sweetheart, steamed Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, with salt Nutrition Facts Amount Per 1 leaf Calories 4.62 Calories from Fat 0.396 % Daily Value * Total Fat 0.044g 0% Saturated Fat 0.00572g 0% Polyunsaturated Fat 0.0209g Monounsaturated Fat 0.0033g Cholesterol 0mg 0% Sodium 53.68mg 2% Potassium 30.8mg 1% Total Carbohydrate 1.02g 0% Dietary Fiber 0.44g 2% Protein 0.231g 0% Alcohol 0g (I greatly prefer raw cabbage, eat about 1 lb per day) > melon, charentais > melon, galia I have no idea what these melons are, are "watermelons, raw" a good substitute? Nutrition Facts Amount Per 1 cup, NFS Calories 48.64 Calories from Fat 5.88 % Daily Value * Total Fat 0.654g 1% Saturated Fat 0.073g 0% Polyunsaturated Fat 0.222g Monounsaturated Fat 0.163g Cholesterol 0mg 0% Sodium 3.04mg 0% Potassium 176.32mg 5% Total Carbohydrate 10.91g 4% Dietary Fiber 0.76g 3% Protein 0.942g 2% Alcohol 0g > None of which I can find! You know, if you find something close (say boiled instead of steamed), it is a good start. i >> Then would you be kind enough, please, to tell me how to find: >> poached chicken, no skin > >Chicken, broilers or fryers, meat only, roasted, would that be close? Something like that. >> mange-tout peas, fresh, steamed > >I have no idea what that is, but, how about this > >Peas, green, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt No, it's more like peas, edible-podded, and no salt. >> new potatoes, boiled > >Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, with salt Without salt. Which I couldn't find - without salt, I mean. >> cabbage, Sweetheart, steamed > >(I greatly prefer raw cabbage, eat about 1 lb per day) I don't think I physically *could*! Raw cabbage is seldom eaten in this country, actually, except white cabbage shredded, mixed with grated carrot and onion and usually a vile dressing, and sold as "coleslaw", but those stringy green jobs would be totally indigestible raw! >> melon, charentais >> melon, galia > >I have no idea what these melons are, are "watermelons, raw" a good >substitute? No; I used honeydew melon, but the flesh is denser. >You know, if you find something close (say boiled instead of steamed), >it is a good start. Indeed yes. But I'm sure it's making my calorie count far lower than it actually is. (Those bran tablets are marvellous; I could hardly finish my soup at lunch-time and am not even beginning to think of being hungry yet at 4.30! Just as well since if the daughter's fiance comes this evening, which he might, we may well not eat until 9.00 pm or later). SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>> Then would you be kind enough, please, to tell me how to find: >>> poached chicken, no skin >> >>Chicken, broilers or fryers, meat only, roasted, would that be close? >> > Something like that. ok... >>> mange-tout peas, fresh, steamed >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, it's more like peas, edible-podded, and no salt. Okay, so you found those also. >>> new potatoes, boiled >> >>Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, with salt >> > Without salt. Which I couldn't find - without salt, I mean. How about Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt Nutrition Facts Amount Per 0.5 cup Calories 67.08 Calories from Fat 0.702 % Daily Value * Total Fat 0.078g 0% Saturated Fat 0.0203g 0% Polyunsaturated Fat 0.0335g Monounsaturated Fat 0.00156g Cholesterol 0mg 0% Sodium 3.9mg 0% Potassium 255.84mg 7% Total Carbohydrate 15.61g 5% Dietary Fiber 1.4g 6% Protein 1.33g 3% Alcohol 0g >>> cabbage, Sweetheart, steamed >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "coleslaw", but those stringy green jobs would be totally > indigestible raw! Well, I also eat "coleslaw mix", which is cabbage, a bit of carrots, and a bit of red cabbage, all shredded. I eat it without dressing or with whatever I like at the moment. >>> melon, charentais >>> melon, galia [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > No; I used honeydew melon, but the flesh is denser. Okay, it is probably going to be close nutritionally, just a guess. >>You know, if you find something close (say boiled instead of steamed), >>it is a good start. >> > Indeed yes. But I'm sure it's making my calorie count far lower than it > actually is. Why, because some nutrients leech out of the food during boiling and remain in the food due to steaming?Is that your logic? > (Those bran tablets are marvellous; I could hardly finish my soup at > lunch-time and am not even beginning to think of being hungry yet at > 4.30! Just as well since if the daughter's fiance comes this evening, > which he might, we may well not eat until 9.00 pm or later). That's great... Wheat bran tastes great in soup. i >> Without salt. Which I couldn't find - without salt, I mean. > >How about > >Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt >Nutrition Facts Thanks >Well, I also eat "coleslaw mix", which is cabbage, a bit of carrots, >and a bit of red cabbage, all shredded. > >I eat it without dressing or with whatever I like at the moment. I quite like that, but I wouldn't want it every day. Rather have a lettuce salad. >>>> melon, charentais >>>> melon, galia [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Okay, it is probably going to be close nutritionally, just a guess. I rather suspect the Charentais and Galen (not sure which is which - the green-skinned, orange-fleshed jobs, the ones that you cut in half) are more energetic, since they are sweeter. >>>You know, if you find something close (say boiled instead of steamed), >>>it is a good start. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Why, because some nutrients leech out of the food during boiling and >remain in the food due to steaming?Is that your logic? No, because I am sure I'm eating more than that..... I'm not eating much less than I was, but the calorie count seems too low. I'm probably doing something wrong.... SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 18 July 2004 >>Well, I also eat "coleslaw mix", which is cabbage, a bit of carrots, >>and a bit of red cabbage, all shredded. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I quite like that, but I wouldn't want it every day. Rather have a > lettuce salad. To each his own. I eat cabbage about 5 days a week, not every day. > I rather suspect the Charentais and Galen (not sure which is which - the > green-skinned, orange-fleshed jobs, the ones that you cut in half) are > more energetic, since they are sweeter. I would agree. >>Why, because some nutrients leech out of the food during boiling and >>remain in the food due to steaming?Is that your logic? >> > No, because I am sure I'm eating more than that..... I'm not eating much > less than I was, but the calorie count seems too low. I'm probably > doing something wrong.... Could it be that the idiotic US measurements are getting in the way? The "cups", ounces, servings etc? I wish they standardized all labels for 100 grams of product. I am sure that they do not do that due to food industry lobbying. i > I wish they standardized all labels for 100 grams of product. > > I am sure that they do not do that due to food industry lobbying. Or perhaps due to the fact that we actually measure our food in cups and ounces? I'm just not giving in on this. *serving* however, ticks me off SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 >>I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I >>find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >morning, *all* calorie-counters seem to be geared to bought foods, very >little said about fresh foods..... When I tried Fitday, my impression was that it was far more geared to the US, despite having a UK option. This may explain why you can't find some of the foods you're looking for. janice > how many calories should a reasonably-active woman > in her 50s wishing to lose about 20 kg (slowly) be eating per day? There are several guidelines going around. The lowest one that I see regularly is 8-10 calories per pound of goal. The highest one that I see regularly is 10-12 calories per pound of current weight. Quite a mish-mash of metric and obsolete measurement systems! Note the conflict between the two. One is based on goal and if there's too much to lose using it could trigger starvation mode. It's a brute force approach. Skilled approaches can always beat brute force approaches. The other is based on current so it would require regular adjustments as you progress. Where to target within those ranges is a matter of judgement. Do you want the most to eat for loss to be slow (and slow loss seems to be more sustainable) or the least to eat to blast through any resistance? Your question suggests you will want to select near the top of the ranges and adjust down gradually as you lose. |
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.