Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 62

Thread: Why I love calorie counting! page 6

  1. #51
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Primal Fuel
    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.
    Oh, Choco, my dear, a person could get whiplash watching you change your stance on things.

    First you fought me tooth and nail through the two monster calorie counting threads insisting that it was diet composition that mattered, not calories. If I would only see it your way and eat tons of sweet potatoes, the weight would fall off effortlessly.

    Then lately, you have been the ultimate hardline CICO advocate, acting like you invented the concept of calorie counting, all the while dismissing anyone who talked about metabolism and hormones as "just making excuses".

    Now, it does my heart good to see you working your way back toward some kind of middle ground. <snif>My baby's growing up.

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraSB View Post
    ChocoTaco, Mr. CICO himself, going on about my metabolism goaded me into crunching some numbers to see if my data actually support a faster metabolism on a more nutrient dense diet. At 1st pass it looks like the opposite. But I have to cook some local pastured pork chops, so I'll be back later.
    Hah!

  2. #52
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Oh, Choco, my dear, a person could get whiplash watching you change your stance on things.

    First you fought me tooth and nail through the two monster calorie counting threads insisting that it was diet composition that mattered, not calories. If I would only see it your way and eat tons of sweet potatoes, the weight would fall off effortlessly.

    Then lately, you have been the ultimate hardline CICO advocate, acting like you invented the concept of calorie counting, all the while dismissing anyone who talked about metabolism and hormones as "just making excuses".

    Now, it does my heart good to see you working your way back toward some kind of middle ground. <snif>My baby's growing up.
    My stance has been exactly the same for probably the past 18 months (after I stopped believing all the keto/low carb lies promoted by the religious wing of the Church of Paleo):

    1.) Eat real, whole foods.
    2.) If you're not losing weight, you're eating too much.

    How exactly is any of this different? I know the only point of your post is to try and start a fight and contribute nothing constructive to the topic at hand, but I'm still curious how you'll try and answer this.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  3. #53
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I know the only point of your post is to try and start a fight and contribute nothing constructive to the topic at hand, but I'm still curious how you'll try and answer this.
    Untwist the knickers, kiddo. Just funnin' ya.

  4. #54
    LauraSB's Avatar
    LauraSB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Delaware Valley
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    Another thought here on LauraSB's amazing success:

    She was not counting calories in the traditional sense, she was tracking her calories--two completely different things! In a normal calorie counting scheme, one aims for a specific calorie target each day, clearly she did not do that, she followed her "inner grokkette" and ate what turned out to be approximately 1500 calories per day.

    I think the problem with traditional calorie counting, is that if you aim to eat 1500 calories per day, you will, and often more, due to poor labels and misjudgment, but you will rarely eat under 1500 calories a day, because you have a target in mind.

    Does that make sense?
    Except that I did have a target in mind. I had a daily target and a weekly target and I knew that if I was going to make my weekly target, a bunch of my days had to be under-budget in order to make up for the inevitable days over-budget. I also knew that breakfast and lunch had to be as small as I could bear to make them, because having a little more calorie freedom at dinner was going to make my life a lot easier. Calories drove everything. They drove me to nutrient dense foods.

    I suppose the explosion in days over 2000 calories that occurred in the last 4 months may be evidence that I gave into my "inner grokette". But I wasn't very happy with her. I kept thinking I really needed to get control of my appetite before my weight started drifting upward. During those long plateaus, I was sure I was headed for something bad. I was just so darn hungry. And then I'd get on the scale one morning and my weight would be down another pound.

    I do agree that eating up to a specific target every single day isn't a good weight loss strategy. I don't think it's natural to eat almost exactly the same number of calories every day and it doesn't leave you any wiggle room for when you're starving.
    50yo, 5'3"
    SW-195
    CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
    GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

  5. #55
    LauraSB's Avatar
    LauraSB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Delaware Valley
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    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.
    I wasn't really buying that my data supported that I was burning more total calories now, so I went back to this graph:

    I compared the 1st 3 months and the last 3 months.

    Last April-June, I lost 29 lbs. If you figure 3500cal/lb, I was burning (my body was eating) 1103 cals of body fat per day. I was eating an average of 1400 food cals/day. So my total calories consumed was 2503. My average BMR during that time was 1482. 2503-1482=1021 calories burned beyond my BMR.

    Dec-Feb of this year, I lost 6 lbs. I was burning 233 cals of body fat per day. I was eating an average of 1750 food cals/day. So my total calories consumed was 1983. My average BMR, due to being smaller, was 1299. 1983-1299=684 calories burned beyond my BMR.

    Now I'm not saying this proves my metabolism is slower now. I'm just saying that when you factor in the rate of weight loss, there's nothing in the data I have that supports the conclusion that my metabolism is faster than it was before. I do think I might conclude that my metabolism is faster than average for a woman my size and age. When I use online calculators to determine maintenance calories, I get numbers in the 1500-1800 range for a lightly active person. I'm eating 1750 cals and losing 233 cals of body weight each day. In the beginning, I was losing weight faster than my calorie budget predicted I would, as well. Kind of crazy to think my whole life I thought my metabolism must just be slow.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    The only other option is you tracked your calories incorrectly.
    Bite your tongue!
    50yo, 5'3"
    SW-195
    CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
    GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

  6. #56
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    979
    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.
    I was not aware that CICO came with qualifiers or confounding variables, if this is the case then this makes CICO completely irrelevant to real world experiences.
    How can we possibly apply CICO at distance to an individuals end result without a full medical examination, a raft of testing and a metabolic ward?

  7. #57
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    I was not aware that CICO came with qualifiers or confounding variables, if this is the case then this makes CICO completely irrelevant to real world experiences.
    How can we possibly apply CICO at distance to an individuals end result without a full medical examination, a raft of testing and a metabolic ward?
    CICO works perfectly for me.

  8. #58
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    979
    And more power to you, but it doesn't seem to work for everyone, the issue is with the blanket rule philosophy.

    Personally I don't count anything, never have, sometimes I gorge like a pig other times near on fast for days, my body maintains it's own paramaters as required.

  9. #59
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    And more power to you, but it doesn't seem to work for everyone, the issue is with the blanket rule philosophy.

    Personally I don't count anything, never have, sometimes I gorge like a pig other times near on fast for days, my body maintains it's own paramaters as required.
    Well then, more power to you as well!

  10. #60
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    4,167
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by LauraSB View Post
    I do agree that eating up to a specific target every single day isn't a good weight loss strategy. I don't think it's natural to eat almost exactly the same number of calories every day and it doesn't leave you any wiggle room for when you're starving.
    Maybe a weekly calorie budget could work better for some persons? So if a person eats too much for some days he could take a day off from eating to make sure that he maintain the weekly deficit… Anyway, the dieter must have some control about the amount of food he is eating, and counting calories is meant to make dieting easier and more predicable, but portion control works well also, if you eat the same things over and over again…

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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
  •