Reality check: Counting calories page 5

[sanepsycho]

I think we can all agree that PB is not "one size fits all". What works for some, doesn't work for others, and we all have to tweak to see what works best in our own situation.

I have been lucky I guess - I went full PB 1/21, kept dairy, nuts, the occasional wine and cadbury egg, eat an average of around 1700 calories/day ( lots more than I ever ate on a CW calorie restricted diet), don't IF at all unless you count the 7-8 hours I sleep, still eat potatoes at least 2 meals a week, rice at least one meal a week, am 46 and perimenopausal, and went from 135 to 125 lbs. I did start regularly doing fitness 2 weeks ago which I had never regularly done. I have tons more energy and feel better mentally and emotionally than I have in years.

Do you have any idea how much calorie-wise you eat now? I am wonder if, especially since there are so many days that you IF, if you are on the whole undereating (maybe days you don't IF you are getting 1500, days you do IF only getting 500, which doesn't average to a lot of calories/day overall). From experience and from stories I have heard from others, when I underate doing CW type diets, I would lose a few lbs. then stop. I think there are some people's bodys that reset their metabolism to expect X amount of calories when they only eat X amount of calories, thereby stalling weight loss. Just like some can't lose unless they do VLC, or some don't lose unless they take out dairy, I think some can't lose is they restrict calories too much.

Maybe you could eat like you are right now and track to see how much the average over say the period of a week you are actually eating, just to get of how much you are actually taking in. If the numbers average to say 2500/day over the course of a week, I would say yeah you may could restrict some. If you are coming up with 1300, I would say you may want to slowly increase the calories and give it at least a few weeks to see what happens. You may notice an increase in weight when you increase calories, but you body may realize it's going to keep getting more and start burning again.

Edited to clarify: the increase in calories may temporarily cause a small increase in weight, but given time your body may realize it's going to keep getting X more calories and will start burning again.

[Paleobird]

Def. agree to try calorie restriction if you want to. If it doesn't work for you, you could try vlc (under 20 net grams) for a couple of weeks--can't hurt!

Wow. Under 20. That is hardcore. I have been shooting for under 50 to get into ketosis. Do you think there are degrees of ketosis? Do you go "farther" into it at a lower carb level or is it like an on/off switch, either in it or out?

[profdjj]

I know that I lose weight at around 30g of carbs / 70g protein.

[Dragonfly]

Wow. Under 20. That is hardcore. I have been shooting for under 50 to get into ketosis. Do you think there are degrees of ketosis? Do you go "farther" into it at a lower carb level or is it like an on/off switch, either in it or out?

All I know is I maintain when I let my carbs creep up to 30-70. I lose when my carbs are under 20. Just very insulin-resistant at the moment! Taubes describes this in WWGF.

[Paleobird]

Paleobird, Except for the "IF for 24 hours about 3-4 times a week" this is ME. I do a daily IF (eating my "breakfast" at noon) I've been here since September. I have lost 2 lbs. I need to loose 30. I've gradually restricted items until last month, when I did a 30 DONN. End result? I lost a few inches, but no weight.
Again, this is ME
Again. ME. There is no way anyone can tell me that 148 lbs is a healthy weight for a 5' 1/2" 46 year old woman.
I'm maintaining very well. I never gained over Christmas or during my Jamaican vacation, BUT I never lost during my 30 DONN.
I used to do this too (but I had a few more glasses of wine). I cut them out last month. There was no magic.
That's how I was eating. My 30 DONN didn't "change my life". It just proved that I could say "No" to certain foods for a set amount of time.
Same.
If you discover the "answer" I'd LOVE to know what it is...

Hah! Thanks, W'n'C. It's good to know I'm not alone in this. It just seems like we get so busy re-inforcing each other with, "Yay you lost an inch off your waist. Don't even look at a scale, it lies. You are gaining muscle, really you are." And everybody wants to believe this can be done without even thinking about counting anything but, let's not kid ourselves, the weight loss is not as "effortless" as the book cover says.

[Paleobird]

I think it's very important to get copies of all test results. It allows you (general) to track trends over time. It also gives a medical record, in case you move, change doctors, etc

And, I will say it again-- Fine, does not mean optimal. It generally means the results can be found within the "normal range" given by the lab.

Case in point-- my lab's normal range is 11-152. If my result is 15 I can be seen as fine by " the normal range. However that doesn't mean I'm optimal or without symptoms of low ferritin. In fact, many believe ferritin needs to be over 50 and closer to 100 for optimal health.

Sorry Paleobird, my years of being "in the normal range" fine, yet suffering, makes me get on my soapbox about test results. I'm stepping down now.

I hope you find your solution.

I can get any results if I want on my HMOs website. I'm glad you found the answers to your suffering. The thing is, I'm not "suffering" at all. I'm heathy. I'm just healthy with 30 extra pound on me.

I just got home from running wind sprints on the beach in a jogbra and shorts with my dog. I think I have the D covered for today. Talk about multitasking. Play, exercise, and vitamin treatment all at the same time.

[HazelH]

I don't know if I have much of worth to add here, but I'll chime in with my experience nonetheless. I just spent the past 13 months on a zero carb diet, not tracking my calories whatsoever, eating til I was full every day. Generally that was about 2,500 calories a day on average. I am also a 5'10" female, but I am 21. I am around 170-175, and I know I look best around 145, though I would be happy with 150. In the entire time I had no carbs whatsoever, I did not lose weight at all. Thus, I am a little skeptical that carbs are the ONLY thing important in weight loss. Now I have transitioned back to primal eating and for some reason I am naturally wanting a lot less calories. The most I've had in one day was 1,500, but for the most part I've been a lot less than that. It's too early to tell what will happen, but I will be sure to update.

An idea I've been tossing around in my head is that some people fare better on higher carb, which I know has been said here before. I can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with our natural inclinations towards foods. I was revolted by meat from a very early age. I never ever wanted to eat it, not once. I transitioned to a zero carb diet though, and I had to get used to it. I eventually became ok with eating meat, but still not much of a fan. I actually love to just eat vegetables, and feel really good doing that. Meat makes me feel lazy and tired. I don't really know if this is a valid train of thought or anything, just what I've been toying with. Maybe my natural aversion to meat reflects my body's needs for plant sources to be healthy. I never ate meat until a couple years ago. My mom has been a vegetarian for 30 years, so I was even a veg in the womb.

I don't know. Just thoughts.

[Paleobird]

I've become a major fan of Dr. Michael Eades. Here's a post on low carb/calories: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/w...nd-calories-2/ He says you can eat low carb and as many calories as you want and not gain weight, but to lose weight, most people have to calorie restrict at least a little (there are some lucky folks who don't).

Here's another post of his regarding IF: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/i...ttent-fasting/

I've also become a fan of Fast-5: http://www.fast-5.com/ I suggest you download his e-book (it's free if you register) where he talks about losing weight via IF. His is a 5 hour eat window / 19 hour fast.

I'm not a big fan of leangains - he's a little too hard core body builder for me. But I am enjoying this man's paleo/IF blog: www.theleansaloon.com Very good writer.

I know for me that I HAVE to calorie restrict to lose weight. I've also found that IFing (I have a 6 hour eat window - breakfast/lunch, skip dinner) and slight calorie restriction works like a charm for me.

Interesting articles, thank you. Hmmm. I generally skip b& L. Perhaps skipping dinner instead would work better. Perhaps I tend to overload more there than I would with an earlier meal.

[kandc88]

I don't think diet is one size fits all. I can maintain and lose super slowly with a good bit of fruit, carbs under 100. This with almost no exercise. I can add in maybe a potato per week and a cup of rice and a couple servings of sake or red wine (bad me, I know) This has put an extra 4 lbs or so on my frame from 104 to 108. I would like to add that hormones make a big difference. Between PMS and water gains, I can plus up 2-4 lbs monthly for a week or more. Since you've posted your medical history, I hope it's OK for me to suggest that that could have something to do with it? I'd ask you to look at any maintenance meds also, especially anything hormone regulating, such as estrogen suppressing drugs? I'm not a fan of deprivation for deprivation or calorie counting sake, but if you're not hungry and don't eat, I don't see it being a problem. I wore a bodybugg for awhile in the summer and think I will dig it out as I'm finding myself spending too much time this winter sitting in front of my computer, I need to get off my rump more and am hoping this will help with that. I found the calorie expenditure of moving slowly all day vs sitting around shocking, just FYI. Maybe just ramping up your slow activity level will help?

[Paleobird]

In the entire time I had no carbs whatsoever, I did not lose weight at all. Thus, I am a little skeptical that carbs are the ONLY thing important in weight loss. Now I have transitioned back to primal eating and for some reason I am naturally wanting a lot less calories.

An idea I've been tossing around in my head is that some people fare better on higher carb, I was revolted by meat from a very early age. Maybe my natural aversion to meat reflects my body's needs for plant sources to be healthy.

Yeah, I think things tend to get too polarized. Either 0carb/gazillion cal or starvation calories/carb heavy. I'm trying to find a god balance point in between. That is interesting about your aversion to meat. I, on the other hand love the stuff. I also really like veggies. I never had a "sweet tooth" even as a kid.