 |
 | 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 / March 2005How do you stay calorically neutral?
I saw a Frontline show not long ago on obesity. One of the things they talked about was having a slight caloric in-balance. It was considered a factor for many adults who had developed overweight problems in later life. They said eating a mere 10 calories a day too much, i.e. more than you're burning, will over 10 or 20 years cause a rising BMI eventually putting you in the overweight or obese categories. Alright, just say this happened to you, and you went calorically negative for a while and eventually succeeded to lose the weight you wanted. Or say you never were overweight but are conscious of the problem a slight caloric in-balance can cause over time. So you need to develop a way of eating and a way of life that will basically keep you calorically neutral. But my question is how do you deal with the little bumps life throws your way? You might live calorically neutral day to day most of the time. But every now and then there's a dinner party or a night out where we'll spluge a bit calorie wise. There are times when we don't exercise, when we're sick, or have an injury, or the weather is no good, or we just need a break from it. It's all too easy for us to slip into that few extra calories until we realize we've gained weight and need to diet (go calorically negative). The only way I can think around this problem is we need to eat slightly less than we need on a day-to-day basis to compensate for the few days when we do overeat a bit or take a break from the exercise. Do you think this is reasonable? Are there any other solutions or perspectives on this problem of remaining calorically neutral? > But my question is how do you deal with the little bumps life throws > your way? Remember what your mother told you? Don't eat fast food crap. Don't drink caffienated drinks. Don't believe Frontline, drink lots of water, learn portion control, etc... Andy  Signature"Ladies and gentlemen, The Beatles!" - Ed Sullivan (1964) >Remember what your mother told you? >Don't eat fast food crap. Don't drink caffienated drinks. Don't believe Frontline, drink lots of water, learn portion control, etc... hehe well my mother would only score about 50% on those things. But seriously, I do occassionly eat fast food and it's high cal stuff. But you're right. I should still be able to portion control it so I don't have to go hungry the next day to compensate. >I saw a Frontline show not long ago on obesity. One of the things they >talked about was having a slight caloric in-balance. It was considered a >factor for many adults who had developed overweight problems in later life. >They said eating a mere 10 calories a day too much, i.e. more than you're >burning, will over 10 or 20 years cause a rising BMI eventually putting you >in the overweight or obese categories. If you eat an extra 10 cals/day you'll gain around a pound in a year. At this rate, you'd probably be obese by the time you turn 70, but that's provided you're on a desert island with no scale, no mirrors, no measuring tape & no clothes that no longer fit ;-) > Alright, just say this happened to you, and you went calorically negative > for a while and eventually succeeded to lose the weight you wanted. Or say > you never were overweight but are conscious of the problem a slight > caloric in-balance can cause over time. So you need to develop a way of > eating and a way of life that will basically keep you calorically neutral. Caloric neutrality is impossible for 2 reasons: 1) You don't always know exactly how many calories you eat. If you eat out or go to s/one's house you won't always know the caloric value of the dishes you're eating 'coz you don't know how they were prepared, how much fat, sugar, etc. was used. Any figure you come up with will be a *guesstimate*. 2) There is no way to accurately measure how many calories you burn. There are tables, databases, online calculators, spreadsheets & a number of devices but not one of them will tell you exactly how many calories you did burn over a period of time. Any numbers will just be an *educated guess*. > But my question is how do you deal with the little bumps life throws your > way? You might live calorically neutral day to day most of the time. But [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > this is reasonable? Are there any other solutions or perspectives on this > problem of remaining calorically neutral? * Apply common sense - you know what foods are high in calories, if in doubt, there's plenty of info online. * Try to compensate for excesses either before or after the fact. Study Chris's posts & you'll see something like "...xxxx calories today, a bit low but tomorrow I'll have a splurge dinner..." * Monitor your weight on a regular basis. This way you'll know if you've gained a few pounds long before becoming obese. >* Apply common sense - you know what foods are high in calories, if in doubt, there's plenty of info online. * Try to compensate for excesses either before or after the fact. Study Chris's posts & you'll see something like "...xxxx calories today, a bit low but tomorrow I'll have a splurge dinner..." * Monitor your weight on a regular basis. This way you'll know if you've gained a few pounds long before becoming obese. Yes that's good advice. I have noticed how Chris as lower and higher days. I guess the trick is not to let it swing too far either way. My way of staying calorically neutral when I was simply "eating less" was to watch the scale, and to eat less if the weight started going up. There probably was not a day when my calories in perfectly equated calories out, but it worked out on average. Right now, I am on a low carb diet and somehow, by magic, my weight stays stable without me making any effort whatsoever. That's unless I eat something salty. I still do not understand why that is happening. Signature223/173.3/180 >My way of staying calorically neutral when I was simply "eating less" was to watch the scale, and to eat less if the weight started going up. Well that's what I was thinking to do. Weigh myself once a week and if it rises make a conscious effort to reduce portion size a bit. (actually I do a caliper test which I think is more accurate than a scale because I do some weight lifting) >Right now, I am on a low carb diet and somehow, by magic, my weight stays stable without me making any effort whatsoever. That's even better. I'm glad that's working for you. I am careful with carbs but I don't follow any kind of low carb diet. I believe you said you didn't track your calories or nutrients Ig. So what kind of low carb diet is it? What rules do you follow? >>My way of staying calorically neutral when I was simply "eating less" > was to watch the scale, and to eat less if the weight started going [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > caliper test which I think is more accurate than a scale because I do some > weight lifting) That makes full sense, and is relatively easy. >>Right now, I am on a low carb diet and somehow, by magic, my weight > stays stable without me making any effort whatsoever. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > track your calories or nutrients Ig. So what kind of low carb diet is it? > What rules do you follow? One thing that I must say right away is that I am much fatter than you, BMI 23-24 or so. So, my higher weight must be easier to maintain. My low carb diet is simply not eating any starches, sugar, and very little fruits and dairy. I eat vegs. That works out to a sensible carb count, by itself. So far, it is quite okay as I do like eating fatty things and no longer want sweet things. Signature223/173.3/180 >My low carb diet is simply not eating any starches, sugar, and very little fruits and dairy. I eat vegs. That works out to a sensible carb count, by itself. So far, it is quite okay as I do like eating fatty things and no longer want sweet things. Starches, does that include bread? You don't eat any bread? Do you eat eggs? What about alcohol? The only people I know who don't eat sweet things are diabetics. Don't you miss chocolate? I could more or less give up most sweet things - cakes, cookies, candy, deserts, but chocolate .... that'd be like coming off heroin. >>My low carb diet is simply not eating any starches, sugar, and very > little fruits and dairy. I eat vegs. That works out to a sensible carb > count, by itself. So far, it is quite okay as I do like eating fatty > things and no longer want sweet things. > > Starches, does that include bread? You don't eat any bread? Do you eat eggs? yes, it includes bread. I do eat eggs. > What about alcohol? For some reason I am unable to drink much anymore (unrelated to dieting), although I was able to drink 2/3 of a bottle of vodka when I was about 17. > The only people I know who don't eat sweet things are diabetics. I am not a diabetic, but chances are, I will be one day, especially if I let myself become fat and sedentary. I have a bad family history. > Don't you miss chocolate? > I could more or less give up most sweet things - cakes, cookies, > candy, deserts, but chocolate .... that'd be like coming off heroin. I do eat chocolate actually. Here in the US, they sell "unsweetened chocolate" in the baking aisles of grocery stores. I want chocolate, not sugar. It is pretty potent stuff. This low carb is sort of an experiment for me actually, I am quite open minded to the possibility that it may be a wrong diet for me etc. So far, though, things are going okay. Signature223/173.3/180 >unsweetened chocolate I've asked about that at some local health food stores but I just get strange looks. They have low cal chocolate and they have carob chocolate but that has as much sugar as regular chocolate. My supermarket has what's called coco. It's a chocolate powder unsweetened which you use to make chocolate frosting. But you're not meant to eat coco on it's own. It's very bitter - maybe that is similar to what you get. >>unsweetened chocolate > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > which you use to make chocolate frosting. But you're not meant to eat coco > on it's own. It's very bitter - maybe that is similar to what you get. They spell it cocoa here, I think, and it is hard to eat that. It's not the same as unsweetened chocolate in bars. Signature223/173.3/180 >>unsweetened chocolate > > I've asked about that at some local health food stores but I just get > strange looks. They have low cal chocolate and they have carob chocolate but > that has as much sugar as regular chocolate. Look for "Cooking Chocolate" in supermarkets. Although unsweetened, most cooking chocolates have a low percentage of both cocoa solids and cocoa butter (replaced with low-grade vegetable fats). Better are Lindt blocks with 70% and 85% cocoa solids, also available at supermarkets and discount stores like Big W. > My supermarket has what's called coco. It's a chocolate powder unsweetened > which you use to make chocolate frosting. But you're not meant to eat coco > on it's own. It's very bitter - maybe that is similar to what you get. If you want a chocolate hit without the vegetable fats try disolving some cocoa powder in a little hot water, add milk and unflavoured protein powder to make a chocolate protein drink. The sweetness of the milk and powder should obviate the need to add any sugar. >>>unsweetened chocolate >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 70% and 85% cocoa solids, also available at supermarkets and discount stores > like Big W. That is not what is the unsweetened chocolate that I buy (Hershey and Baker's). See pictures and ingredients and nutrition facts at http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/food/unsweetened-chocolate/ None of them contains vegetable fats, as far as I could tell. Signature223/173.3/180 > That is not what is the unsweetened chocolate that I buy (Hershey and > Baker's). See pictures and ingredients and nutrition facts at > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/food/unsweetened-chocolate/ > > None of them contains vegetable fats, as far as I could tell. Interesting. I've not seen anything like this on sale here in Australia. The Hershey Unsweetened packet states that it only contains chocolate and cocoa. This sounds like the super-chocolate that a friend told me how to make: stir cocoa powder into melted chocolate until it gets super thick. On one trip to the US I got a Hershey chocolate bar from a store and thought it was the worst chocolate I'd ever tasted. Bitter and gritty. I referred to it as "Victory Chocolate" (a la 1984). I would hope the Hershey Unsweetened tastes less like this and more like the very dark Lindt chocolate. Your Baker's Chocolate has milk solids, so it's really a form of milk chocolate, though it doesn't have any more carbs than the Hershey, and looks just as dark. >> That is not what is the unsweetened chocolate that I buy (Hershey and >> Baker's). See pictures and ingredients and nutrition facts at [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > would hope the Hershey Unsweetened tastes less like this and more > like the very dark Lindt chocolate. I never tried very dark Lindt chocolate, but the hershey is bitter, but not gritty. > Your Baker's Chocolate has milk solids, so it's really a form of > milk chocolate, though it doesn't have any more carbs than the > Hershey, and looks just as dark. Yep. Baker's is a little grittier. All in all, Hershey tastes a little better. Signature223/173.3/180 > I never tried very dark Lindt chocolate, but the hershey is bitter, > but not gritty. The type I ate was not the unsweetened version you use but a small bar bought from a San Fransicso convenience store. Quite possibly different, but I did wonder at the time why the Hershey brand is so popular in the US. A bit like a friend's report of "american" "cheese". Have you or anyone else tried Mars' CocoaVia chocolate, made from their Cocoapro super-cocoa that is supposed to both improve heart health and make you think better by improving blood flow to the brain? I read about it in the NY Times, and I think they're still only trialing it. They process the cocoa more carefully to get a much higher concentration of anti-oxidants. http://www.cocoavia.com/ http://www.cocoapro.com > The only people I know who don't eat sweet things are diabetics. I eat sweet things all the time. No rim shot, but it's a question of quantity. >Don't you miss chocolate? You can have chocolate. I have a couple of big squares of 85% chocolate every night. >I could more or less give up most sweet things - cakes, > cookies, candy, deserts, but chocolate .... that'd be like coming off > heroin. You can still take heroin too. >You can still take heroin too. Well that's one way I guess. Heroin addicts are almost always slim. Food's not such a priority with them. >>You can still take heroin too. > > Well that's one way I guess. Heroin addicts are almost always slim. Food's > not such a priority with them. Their dopamine system is being activitated by heroin, which is much more potent than food, so food literally isn't important. >>>You can still take heroin too. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Their dopamine system is being activitated by heroin, which is much > more potent than food, so food literally isn't important. Wow, didn't this subject take a cheery turn?!!! ;) Andy > I could more or less give up most sweet things - cakes, > cookies, candy, deserts, but chocolate .... that'd be like coming off > heroin. I hear ya! Just kill me - I'd rather die. SignatureOn the BIKE again !!! Laurie in Maine 207/115 Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > My way of staying calorically neutral when I was simply "eating less" > was to watch the scale, and to eat less if the weight started going [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stays stable without me making any effort whatsoever. That's unless I > eat something salty. I still do not understand why that is happening. Eating salty stuff increases water retention. You are never going to be able to perfectly balance on an ongoing basis, unless you are one of those lucky people who just have a terrific built in set point that keeps them stable without any thought on their parts. Since your caloric needs will vary daily, even if your routine is completely unchanged, you will either creep up, or creep down - unless you do some conscious monitoring and adjusting. After all, being under the weather is going to change everything, getting older means your metabolism is slowing down every year, etc. etc. So...you weigh yourself regularly - weekly, monthly - whatever interval works best for you - and you take steps to make minor tweeks in the equation, so you stay within your selected margin around your chosen goal weight. Going on my daily weight doesn't do it for me, since even at 135, my weight can still fluctuate several pounds due to fluid retention. I need the aggregate picture over several days to see if its actually a real change in what I weigh or just a blip in the up and down of water weight. Mary G. 195/135/135..ish > You are never going to be able to perfectly balance on an ongoing > basis, unless you are one of those lucky people who just have a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Mary G. > 195/135/135..ish As a self-described geek, I've thought about this question quite a bit. As the OP points out, weight loss or gain can be a matter of just a few calories per day one way or the other. So, how do you keep "on target"? Counting calories is difficult and error-prone, and only takes into account one half of the energy balance equation. Estimating the other side of the equation (calories burned) is even more error-prone. Fortunately, your weight itself holds the answer. All you need to do is record your weight once each day, and then apply some statistical analysis to your weight history. Specifically, a technique called "linear regression" applied to your daily weight history can accurately determine your "energy balance" - without counting calories. Unfortunately, the math for this is rather complex. Which is one reason (in addition to fame and fortune :-) ), that I created a program to do this for you. It's called "WeightWare", and it's primarily a weight, health, and exercise diary. Each day when you weigh yourself, you can instantly see how your current energy balance is doing, and get advanced warning when your weight program is getting off track. For anyone interested, you can download a free, fully functional, 30-day trial version from my website: http://www.WeightWare.com Sorry if this comes across as spammy, but I truly believe in the value of this approach, and it is relevant to the OP's question. GG > As a self-described geek, I've thought about this question quite a bit. > As the OP points out, weight loss or gain can be a matter of just a few [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > account one half of the energy balance equation. Estimating the other > side of the equation (calories burned) is even more error-prone. Absolutely. It is so imprecise that, I think, calories alone (without using the scale) cannot be a long term answer to maintaining weight. > Fortunately, your weight itself holds the answer. All you need to do > is record your weight once each day, and then apply some statistical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Unfortunately, the math for this is rather complex. Come on Gary, it is not really complex. > Which is one reason (in addition to fame and fortune :-) ), that I > created a program to do this for you. It's called "WeightWare", and > it's primarily a weight, health, and exercise diary. Each day when you > weigh yourself, you can instantly see how your current energy balance > is doing, and get advanced warning when your weight program is getting > off track. Very nice. i > For anyone interested, you can download a free, fully functional, > 30-day trial version from my website: http://www.WeightWare.com [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > GG Signature223/173.3/180 > > As a self-described geek, I've thought about this question quite a bit. > > As the OP points out, weight loss or gain can be a matter of just a few [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Come on Gary, it is not really complex. While I respect your opinions and your contributions to this ng, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Ig. While "moving average weight" is fairly easy to calculate, calculating energy balance requires "least squares linear regression" analysis which is not that easy. It's not rocket science, but it's certainly tedious for the average person. And to get it right requires some careful attention to the data points. For instance, to get an accurate "daily energy balance" using linear regression, you must first decide how long of a time period to use in the analysis. Too short a time, and the numbers bounce around too much to be meaningful. Too long a time frame and you don't have a good picture of your current state. Plus, since the data points are daily, you have to make allowances for missed daily weigh-ins (WeightWare assumes straight-line changes between weigh-ins, and uses that to fill in estimates for any missing days). > > Which is one reason (in addition to fame and fortune :-) ), that I > > created a program to do this for you. It's called "WeightWare", and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Very nice. Thanks. I actually kind of stumbled into that one (it might have been due to something you or someone else said about "second order analysis"). By graphing the 30-day energy trends for each date in the graph, you can easily get a 1 or 2 week advance notice before weight loss goes off track. It's not always possible to avoid going "above the line", but it does a pretty good job of letting you know that weight loss is slowing down, and may soon turn into weight gain unless you get serious about exercise and diet (something I have to do, because my own trend just went positive a few days ago :-( ). GG > i > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > GG Looks interesting and relevant to the topic of discussion - thank you. >I saw a Frontline show not long ago on obesity. One of the things they >talked about was having a slight caloric in-balance. It was considered a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >it. It's all too easy for us to slip into that few extra calories until we >realize we've gained weight and need to diet (go calorically negative). Well, if you weigh regularly you aren't going to have any serious weight gain before you realize it. My weight doesn't deviate from my intended range in the 130s because I weigh regularly and adjust my eating as needed. If I'm trending toward the top of the range I will eat a bit less; if toward the bottom, a bit more (or I'll allow myself more splurge meals). >The only way I can think around this problem is we need to eat slightly less >than we need on a day-to-day basis to compensate for the few days when we do >overeat a bit or take a break from the exercise. Do you think this is >reasonable? Are there any other solutions or perspectives on this problem of >remaining calorically neutral? I suppose this may be what I do, since I do have some splurge days. Since I stay steady in weight, that would imply other days are below a strict maintenance level. But you don't need to be figure it out ahead of time; just keep tabs on what's happening with your weight -- or your measurements and clothing fit -- and adjust your eating in response to changes. It isn't as complicated as you make it sound. Basically, be reactive instead of figuring out how to be proactive. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 >It isn't as complicated as you make it sound No doubt you are right. It's just, like a lot of people, I've been in 'weight loss mode' for many many years. Maintenance is new territory for me. The body's regulation of calories is quite remarkable. You are asking how to make an adjustment in a process that is not controlled by the conscious mind. Imagine running your car down the freeway on cruise control. You open the door and drag your boot on the pavement. The car adjusts to the extra drag and you end up at the same speed. Many approaches to dieting are like this. It is the key to the ubiquity of diet failure. If I perfect a solution, I'll write a book. Cubit 311/184.9/165 > I saw a Frontline show not long ago on obesity. One of the things they > talked about was having a slight caloric in-balance. It was considered a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > reasonable? Are there any other solutions or perspectives on this problem of > remaining calorically neutral? |
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.