Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Why I love calorie counting! page 3

  1. #21
    LauraSB's Avatar
    LauraSB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Delaware Valley
    Posts
    717
    Primal Fuel
    Quote 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

  2. #22
    qqemokitty's Avatar
    qqemokitty is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    LBC, California
    Posts
    381
    I eat almost no packaged food so 9/10 I have to add my own foods anyway. >.< Lol.

  3. #23
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    4,203
    Quote 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...

  4. #24
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.

  5. #25
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  6. #26
    YogaBare's Avatar
    YogaBare is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    . . .
    Posts
    4,540
    Quote 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

  7. #27
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    572
    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.

  10. #30
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    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!

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •