The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 17

[sakura_girl]

Like I said, the charts telling you what you "should" be doing are worthless. You seem to have found a good level that works for you. I would love to be able to eat that much but I can't.

I just don't believe eating so little can be healthy in the long term, especially for those who wish to lose a lot of weight and have to go prolonged periods of eating <1,000 calories to do it. I feel like eating few calories is a band-aid to some other issue that needs to be addressed, if one wanted to achieve fat loss.

[Paleobird]

This is one of the resons I stopped counting calories; because I find that if I'm focusing on eating really healthy foods, as in meats from the farmer's market, bone broth that I made myself, etc...there really is no way to measure accurately. So I end up having the debate, "Do I want to cook up that pastured oxtail (calorie and micronutrient count unknown) or should I eat a can of sardines (which has the nutrtional info clearly labeled)?"

If I want to be a calorienazi, which petite women need to be, then I'd have to go with the packaged food, because it's measurable. But the grass-finished farmers market stuff is so much healthier, maybe I should just suck it up and put on some fat in the name of health?

Counting was leading me to eat in an itemized way, too, and I don't think that ultimately that is a healthy way to approach eating. So I made a choice to stop counting and just focus on eating what I considered to be small but adequate portions of healthy food. While this may be good for my health, it's only led to increased fat gain. Pretty disheartening.

I'm sorry but I think this is a cop out. Sure it is easier if there is a label to read but there is nutrition info about everything on the web including grass fed meats and oxtail (I found livestrong.com has a good data base). Also there are programs like the SparkRecipes section of SparkPeople which help you calculate all the ingredients in say a stew and then divide that by portion sizes that you choose.

Yes, it's a little more work but it's doable.

[sjmc]

If I want to be a calorienazi, which petite women need to be, then I'd have to go with the packaged food, because it's measurable. But the grass-finished farmers market stuff is so much healthier, maybe I should just suck it up and put on some fat in the name of health?

OK so this is something that's bothering me: as petite women we need less energy (all else being equal), so why wouldn't our desire to intake match that? I was led to a similar question by the posts from magnolia, et al. If someone really has a slower metabolism, i.e. they need fewer calories, why doesn't she feel good eating that small amount of calories? I suppose the former could be social pressure to eat a certain amount, but anyway I'm genuinely confused that the body could be sustained by an amount that feels unnatural to eat and makes you miserable. I mean it's just lousy that we can get out of whack in that way.

I lost weight in high school and stayed that way by being fat-phobic. That's the easiest way to reduce your calories. I even felt totally satiated. I love that I'm not literally afraid to eat fat anymore, but I do know that I eat too much now. For a while in college I would run at least 50 miles a week (felt bad doing less than 8 a day, would run like 16 on a saturday). I wasn't primal then, but I remember thinking to myself "What the hell would happen to my weight if I didn't run this much?" I'd have more interesting results to share if my loss of exercise obsession hadn't coincided with a year of emotional eating, so, too many variables.

[Paleobird]

I just don't believe eating so little can be healthy in the long term, especially for those who wish to lose a lot of weight and have to go prolonged periods of eating <1,000 calories to do it. I feel like eating few calories is a band-aid to some other issue that needs to be addressed, if one wanted to achieve fat loss.

Well, I ate 98/2 perfectly primal for five months and gained weight. Then I started counting and lost 35 lbs in five months. It wasn't a band aid. It was a means to an end.

Also, I lost 30lbs before going Primal just by going general low carb with no calorie counting. The first pounds seem to come off easier than the last ones.

[camel]

So after reading and posting on this thread, the answer that is appearing is that I must have lower calorie needs than I am calculating for. And like many others have posted-- it's super depressing to think about eating less, when I'm already battling hunger and white knuckling through it and calorie counting like a mad scientist.
So I should eat less, and less? My family already thinks I barely eat. I get more and more obsessed about it and become anorexic? Is that where this is headed?

Well the last few weeks I've been trying something different: no calorie counters and no weighing. Try to listen to body and not stress about it. Eat real food. I haven't weighed but I can tell from my clothes that I'm increasing a bit. But it's been a nice break from the constant roller coaster of feeling good because I've stayed well under my calories, and then disappointment at seeing zero change in the scale, day after day, week after week.

I've been reading at the smarter science of slim after he had a guest post on MDA the latest article talks about that continually cutting calories down and down is counterproductive. Ep.5 - Eating Less Doesn&#039;t Cause Long-Term Fat Loss (Side Effects of Starvation) - The Smarter Science of Slim with Jonathan Bailor and Carrie Brown

Like other have said, If my metabolism is already slow, do I want to damage it further?

[Tribal Rob]

. The first pounds seem to come off easier than the last ones.

Second that x 1000. 3 stone down easy (42 lbs) been stuck for about 2 months, gaining some muscle and scales staying put. 25 lbs left to go. I really don't want to count calories, but if I have to I guess I will, bloody hate it, measuring and weighing GRRRRRR!

Ulitmatly you have to find a way that works for you, all 'diets' work as long as you stick to them, I know people who are as skinny as rakes on high carb diets, and people stuggling to lose on low carb diets, and others who have issues with food.

Personally I need to go start a thread on why I can't lose weight even though I've only eaten one meal today, I mean I can't be the coconut oil chocolate with cream and toasted hazel nuts I had for pudding, which I'm still feeling a bit sick from, but you can't turn coconut oil into body fat so it can't be that, and I only had a stir fry before that *burp*

[sakura_girl]

Well, I ate 98/2 perfectly primal for five months and gained weight. Then I started counting and lost 35 lbs in five months. It wasn't a band aid. It was a means to an end.

Also, I lost 30lbs before going Primal just by going general low carb with no calorie counting. The first pounds seem to come off easier than the last ones.

Huh, that is interesting. Well I'll let the next month ride out and if I don't see any improvements to fat loss (currently I'd estimate myself to be ~25%?), then I guess you would have been right and I'll give restriction a shot

[camel]

Another thing I've noticed about this thread: if calorie charts are mostly bunk and calorie counting programs are so wildly unprecise what the heck ?? How on earths a person supposed to follow CICO anyways, GOSH!
Stop ruining my life and eating all my steak!

[Paleobird]

So after reading and posting on this thread, the answer that is appearing is that I must have lower calorie needs than I am calculating for. And like many others have posted-- it's super depressing to think about eating less, when I'm already battling hunger and white knuckling through it and calorie counting like a mad scientist.
So I should eat less, and less? My family already thinks I barely eat. I get more and more obsessed about it and become anorexic? Is that where this is headed?

Well the last few weeks I've been trying something different: no calorie counters and no weighing. Try to listen to body and not stress about it. Eat real food. I haven't weighed but I can tell from my clothes that I'm increasing a bit. But it's been a nice break from the constant roller coaster of feeling good because I've stayed well under my calories, and then disappointment at seeing zero change in the scale, day after day, week after week.

I've been reading at the smarter science of slim after he had a guest post on MDA the latest article talks about that continually cutting calories down and down is counterproductive. Ep.5 - Eating Less Doesn't Cause Long-Term Fat Loss (Side Effects of Starvation) - The Smarter Science of Slim with Jonathan Bailor and Carrie Brown

Like other have said, If my metabolism is already slow, do I want to damage it further?

If this is going on, my guess would be that you are not fat adapted yet. Give your body some time to get used to burning fat, then reduce the calories.
Also I don't know how much you still have to lose.

Yes, you can damage your metabolism if you are still a sugar burner by extreme dieting and yo-yo ing. But a fat burning metabolism is not going to be harmed by calorie restriction unless you are down to rail thin. This is because your body is getting the calories it needs, just from the extra on your rear instead of from your fork.

[Paleobird]

Huh, that is interesting. Well I'll let the next month ride out and if I don't see any improvements to fat loss (currently I'd estimate myself to be ~25%?), then I guess you would have been right and I'll give restriction a shot

The calorie restriction I did started when I was about 25% and took me down to 20% where I am perfectly happy to stay.