Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why I love calorie counting!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by little vase View Post
    Calee,
    I hear you on being afraid to increase calories. What is working for me right now (as usual, "right now" is always subject to change ) is having approx. 1200 calories a day for 4 or 5 days, and then upping the intake for a day or two to 2000, and then going back to 1200. I'm a short female so 1200 is a decent amount of calories for me. I up the intake every 4 or 5 days just to assure my metabolism that I'm not going into starvation mode, and of course to treat myself a bit. I lose 1.50-2 lbs a week this way right now and could lose more but honestly don't want to.....I think slow and steady wins the race. You're definitely approaching Primal the right way if you're willing to "trust the process". It's such a healing way of eating, and the weight loss will come when the time is right.
    Thank you for this. I am only 5'4 so generally eat in the 1200 range. I am finding that I can eat around 1200-1300 and maintain if it's all primal. I am within 5-15 pounds of where I would like to be. Last year I hit a 45 year low of 142. Now at 147 I would like to get back to that as my jeans feel better at 142. I think 132- 136 would be optimal for me.

    I've been experimenting with more fat, less fat, more carbs (50-75), more calories, less calories. It can be crazy making so I just want to let go of all that and focus on whether my plate is balanced primal healthful foods and whether I am really hungry when I eat.

    Comment


    • #17
      LOVE the graph! so cool!!
      ‎"I've heard tell that what you imagine sometimes comes true " - Roald Dahl

      “Keep making things and treating people well.”- Jason Gregory

      "Don’t try to be different. Just be good. To be good is different enough."- Arthur Freed


      5'6"
      24 year old female
      Current: Always between 115 and 119.
      Goal: Get ripped.
      My Journal

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        What your graph shows is as you transitioned more and more into the primal lifestyle, your metabolic rate increased. This is surely because you became more nutritionally replete. This is likely due to many factors - repletion in fat soluble vitamins, increased mineral content, less toxic fats, less inflammatory lectins from grains and legumes
        sounds like "a calorie isn't a calorie"...
        "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

        In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

        - Ray Peat

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          I don't think you eat a ton. Your average daily calories are around 1,500. What your graph shows is as you transitioned more and more into the primal lifestyle, your metabolic rate increased....I'm sure your thyroid picked up.
          You're right that my average daily calories aren't that high. I was actually surprised to see how low they were considering the number of days I was eating over 2000 calories. But I don't think most women who "eat a ton" really eat a ton either. I strongly suspect that they eat quite modestly most days and that allows them to eat like a pig (and maybe drink like a fish) often enough that they just don't feel deprived.

          As far as my metabolic rate, I'm not sure the data shows it increasing. My rate of weight loss did slow over time as my caloric intake increased. I debated about trying to plot that correlation, but I'm not sure I see anything there that suggests I will find any surprises. But if you really disagree, I'm willing to hear the argument. I'm sure that my low nutrient density diet prior to March 2012 made it easy to over eat calorie-wise. I just don't see that anything magic in regard to weight loss happened as I transitioned to primal. My conclusion that grains are a big-ass calorie sucker that will make you starving actually happened prior to that. The fact that my body fat was approaching a more normal % in that time frame is another confounding variable, imo. I do think my reduction in chronic, whole body pain was probably due to primal foods though, also my unbelievable mood stabilization.

          I had a standard blood panel done about 5 years ago and my thyroid measure (whatever that was) was in the normal range. Actually, everything was normalish. It was quite a bummer to discover I had no detectable excuse for being fat, lol. I am overdue for a physical and all the associated testing, so that's on the agenda.

          Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
          50yo, 5'3"
          SW-195
          CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
          GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

          Comment


          • #20
            I decided to pick up LoseIt after this thread and I like it SO much more than MFP already. :P I like graphs and charts!
            yay!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by qqemokitty View Post
              I decided to pick up LoseIt after this thread and I like it SO much more than MFP already. :P I like graphs and charts!
              I never tried anything else, but DH is also a scientist and he liked everything in LoseIt but the food database better than MFP. As long as you're OK with adding a bunch of custom foods to your personal database, you shouldn't mind the limited database in LoseIt.
              50yo, 5'3"
              SW-195
              CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
              GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

              Comment


              • #22
                I eat almost no packaged food so 9/10 I have to add my own foods anyway. >.< Lol.
                yay!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                  sounds like "a calorie isn't a calorie"...
                  A calorie is only a measure of the burning value of the food, so yes a calorie is still a calorie, similar to the fact that a hundred gram of fat have the same weight as a hundred gram of water...
                  "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                  - Schopenhauer

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                    sounds like "a calorie isn't a calorie"...
                    Nope. A calorie is always a calorie. What varies is the health of a person's metabolism. That often is determined by vitamin and mineral repletion and proper hormonal balances. Get your soluble vitamins and minerals (from whole foods, not supplements), avoid toxins, make sure you're eating enough but not too much, exercise regularly, sleep well. CW has this idea right. The OP's issue wasn't calories but rather lack of nutrition.
                    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LauraSB View Post
                      You're right that my average daily calories aren't that high. I was actually surprised to see how low they were considering the number of days I was eating over 2000 calories. But I don't think most women who "eat a ton" really eat a ton either. I strongly suspect that they eat quite modestly most days and that allows them to eat like a pig (and maybe drink like a fish) often enough that they just don't feel deprived.
                      It's pretty well documented that underweight people overestimate calorie intake and overweight people underestimate calorie intake. It goes as high as 50% in each direction in some studies. That's no shocker - if you're overweight, you eat too much and if you're underweight, you don't eat enough. The problem is people don't track their food intake properly.

                      Originally posted by LauraSB View Post
                      As far as my metabolic rate, I'm not sure the data shows it increasing. My rate of weight loss did slow over time as my caloric intake increased. I debated about trying to plot that correlation, but I'm not sure I see anything there that suggests I will find any surprises. But if you really disagree, I'm willing to hear the argument. I'm sure that my low nutrient density diet prior to March 2012 made it easy to over eat calorie-wise. I just don't see that anything magic in regard to weight loss happened as I transitioned to primal. My conclusion that grains are a big-ass calorie sucker that will make you starving actually happened prior to that. The fact that my body fat was approaching a more normal % in that time frame is another confounding variable, imo. I do think my reduction in chronic, whole body pain was probably due to primal foods though, also my unbelievable mood stabilization.
                      The way I interpreted your graph, you eat more calories now but weigh less. If that is true, there are two explanations:

                      1.) You exercises more (or smarter) now, so your average daily calorie burn is higher.
                      2.) Your metabolic rate has increased due to nutrient repletion or optimized hormonal profiles, so your average daily calorie burn is higher.

                      Either way, if you're eating more than before and losing weight, even if it's slowly, you're burning more calories now than when you started. The only other option is you tracked your calories incorrectly.

                      Originally posted by LauraSB View Post
                      I had a standard blood panel done about 5 years ago and my thyroid measure (whatever that was) was in the normal range. Actually, everything was normalish. It was quite a bummer to discover I had no detectable excuse for being fat, lol. I am overdue for a physical and all the associated testing, so that's on the agenda.

                      Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
                      Most doctors don't know how to read a thyroid test. Truthfully, I can't either. It's complicated. Normal range isn't normal because the average person in this country is hypothyroid. The TRUE average for blood glucose should be around 73-80, but you'll be in the normal range if you're in the 90's. Truthfully, a fasting blood glucose in the 90's is really bad. Being in the "normal" range of the most unhealthy country ever to grace Planet Earth...not sure I want to be there. I want to excel!

                      Get your CO2 checked. Do you have a before and after? CO2 production is an indicator of mitochondrial respiration. If you're in the low to mid 20's, you likely have a slower metabolism. Climbing up toward 30, now you're looking good.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        Nope. A calorie is always a calorie. What varies is the health of a person's metabolism. That often is determined by vitamin and mineral repletion and proper hormonal balances. Get your soluble vitamins and minerals (from whole foods, not supplements), avoid toxins, make sure you're eating enough but not too much, exercise regularly, sleep well. CW has this idea right. The OP's issue wasn't calories but rather lack of nutrition.
                        Well, you've just said that eating nutritious food (calories) enhances metabolic health. If a calorie from real foods nourishes your body and causes it to function optimally, and a calorie from say, trans fat does the opposite, then logically not all calorie are the same.

                        In a literal sense, sure: they have the same amount of energy, but in terms of how this energy is used by the body, they are not equal. After being on this WOE for nearly a year I've come full circle to thinking that there was some truth in Taubes.
                        "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                        In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                        - Ray Peat

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          The TRUE average for blood glucose should be around 73-80, but you'll be in the normal range if you're in the 90's. Truthfully, a fasting blood glucose in the 90's is really bad.
                          Can you cite scientific studies, facts or even anecdotal evidence to support this assertion? Thanks.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                            Well, you've just said that eating nutritious food (calories) enhances metabolic health. If a calorie from real foods nourishes your body and causes it to function optimally, and a calorie from say, trans fat does the opposite, then logically not all calorie are the same.

                            In a literal sense, sure: they have the same amount of energy, but in terms of how this energy is used by the body, they are not equal. After being on this WOE for nearly a year I've come full circle to thinking that there was some truth in Taubes.
                            A calorie is a calorie. It takes a long time to screw up a metabolism - for many of us, decades. The person is the outlier, not the calories.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
                              Can you cite scientific studies, facts or even anecdotal evidence to support this assertion? Thanks.
                              When your “normal” blood sugar isn’t normal (Part 1)
                              When your “normal” blood sugar isn’t normal (Part 2)
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Don't you wish you had all the data in the graphs for your entire life? Now that would be cool! Good job! You worked it out for you--that's the best thing anybody can do!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X