> The South Beach doc was on tv - he said "calorie counting never
> works." I found I lost more weight when I started counting. I like
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 400 calories I need only count meals which is easier than counting
> calories.
Counting calories has become second nature to me, for better or for
worse. It's only hard until you learn to do it (just like anything
else). I just do it automatically, even on Christmas: the one day a
year when I always try to tell myself everything is "fat-free,
sugar-free, and contains extra protein and a full days supply of
Vitamin C".
> The South Beach doc was on tv - he said "calorie counting never
> works." I found I lost more weight when I started counting. I like
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 400 calories I need only count meals which is easier than counting
> calories.
Personally, calorie counting was essential to weight loss. I ate way more
than I thought! Now, I only count calories when I'm trying to lose or
trying to gain (muscle).
det
TrackYourDiet.com - 04 Nov 2003 18:02 GMT
Counting calories can be difficult at times, even if you have the
proper tools to make is easier. I became interested in counting
calories because I found it difficult to add the lean muscle I was
looking for. After keeping track of my calories for a while, I soon
discovered that I wasn't eating as many calories as I had thought. I
was taking in the proper amount of protein, but too few calories. Now
that I discovered this, I continue to keep track of my calories to
ensure that I am eating enough each day. Sometimes discovering that I
have to down some extra shakes or food prior to bed. Although I know
that most people have issues eating too many calories, it all comes
down to personal goals and what type of body you want. Very few people
can eat what they want and have the body they want without some work,
so I feel that counting is worth the effort.
Regards,
Robert Merriott
http://www.TrackYourDiet.com
Let us do the number crunching for you!
> > The South Beach doc was on tv - he said "calorie counting never
> > works." I found I lost more weight when I started counting. I like
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> det
Calorie counting worked for me.
Not only did I lose 40 pounds at a rate of just over 1 pound a week, but
when I stopped counting a few weeks short of reaching my target (figuring
that after months of developing good habits I would be able to coast the
rest of the way) I immediately stopped losing weight, even though I didn't
think I was eating any more. I started counting again and the last few
pounds came off.
The good news is that having reached my target more than six months ago, and
stopped counting, my weight has not gone up again. (Well apart from a couple
of pounds on one holiday which I soon got rid of again.)
> The South Beach doc was on tv - he said "calorie counting never
> works."
Everyone has to have a schtick. It's the nature of the business.
We all know that calories count, but you don't necessarily have to count
them... as long as you use SOME form of portion/calorie control.
But I'm back to calorie counting these days - I leave it for a few months
and go back to it for a week or so from time to time just to keep myself
honest. I thought I was eating around 1800 calories and was surprised to
find myself in the 1500-1700 range each day. I had no idea I was eating
less food. (I also discovered that most of my calories are coming from
fat - I've been on a kick lately to add EFAs to my diet - and between
salmon and flaxseed and sesame oil and peanutbutter I'm hovering around
35-40% of my calories from fat.) Even after years and years of dieting I
can get surprised when I actually start counting/logging calories.
Wendy
Crafting Mom - 31 Oct 2003 12:13 GMT
>honest. I thought I was eating around 1800 calories and was surprised to
>find myself in the 1500-1700 range each day. I had no idea I was eating
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>35-40% of my calories from fat.) Even after years and years of dieting I
>can get surprised when I actually start counting/logging calories.
I also, was stunned when I discovered I was eating less than I thought.
Having come from a "fat is bad" mindset, and adding olive oil to salads,
and eating salmon, etc, I was surprised to find out that the calories
themselves were a lot less.
That's because [in my opinion of course, for my own body yada yada]
the good fats seem to scratch where it itches. A lot of people think
fat is so high calorie, but *per serving* it's not too bad. I put
a whole tablespoon (120 calories) of olive oil on a salad with vinegar
and seasonings, and I won't want a second salad.
I used to think it was just all in my head, until someone served me
fat-free dressing on a salad [I thought It was full fat], and I kept
wondering why I had 3 helpings. I was miserably doing mental math
calculation in my head, and then my mother in law tells me it's a fat
free salad dressing.
CM

Signature
Drop everything and do it my way :)
Brad Sheppard - 31 Oct 2003 17:01 GMT
I agree - for me, always eating 400 calories, the higher fat meals
seem to satisfy longer. I have to watch "cheating" - it's hard to
measure tablespoons of peanut butter and almond butter.
> >honest. I thought I was eating around 1800 calories and was surprised to
> >find myself in the 1500-1700 range each day. I had no idea I was eating
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> CM
SuzyQ - 05 Nov 2003 13:31 GMT
> >honest. I thought I was eating around 1800 calories and was surprised to
> >find myself in the 1500-1700 range each day. I had no idea I was eating
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> CM
I've had the same experience using oil. It's worth the 3 points for a
tablespoon of oil as it keeps me from being hungry so soon. I use sunflower
oil instead of olive oil now as it has more Omega 6. I take Flax oil
capsules for the Omega 3. there is a table here:
http://qualitycounts.com/fpfats.htm
that shows the % of each type of EFA in the various oils. Apparently olive
oil is 76% omega 9, which is not really an EFA. Also olive oil has more
saturated fat than sunflower oil or canola oil.

Signature
SuzyQ
Weight 124
WW Lifetime Membership Feb 03
Brad Sheppard - 05 Nov 2003 19:02 GMT
Olive oil has several virtues:
1. Extra virgin is delicious (on bread, etc)
2. Has anti-oxidants
3. Is the key fat in the "Mediterrean Diet", which may reduce heart
disease by up to 80%. It's possible, but unproven that canola oil
and/or flaxseed oil may do the same. For omega 3's, oily fish is
superior to veggie sources.
> > >honest. I thought I was eating around 1800 calories and was surprised to
> > >find myself in the 1500-1700 range each day. I had no idea I was eating
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> oil is 76% omega 9, which is not really an EFA. Also olive oil has more
> saturated fat than sunflower oil or canola oil.
jmk - 31 Oct 2003 13:51 GMT
>>The South Beach doc was on tv - he said "calorie counting never
>>works."
Remember high school geometry? Did you do sometimes-always-never
questions? I wouldn't say that it ALWAYS works. Then again, I wouldn't
say that calorie counting NEVER works either.
> Everyone has to have a schtick. It's the nature of the business.
Right, can anyone say food exchanges? Weight Watchers points? That's
not a criticism. Really, whatever works for you...
> We all know that calories count, but you don't necessarily have to count
> them... as long as you use SOME form of portion/calorie control.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> 35-40% of my calories from fat.) Even after years and years of dieting I
> can get surprised when I actually start counting/logging calories.
I also find it very interesting to see where the calories are coming
from (fat/protein/carbohydrates) and what nutritional deficiencies, etc.
I might be able to correct easily. I find that I need to watch calcium
and I found that I was low in iron as well.

Signature
jmk in NC