12
   

Low Calories Vs. Nutritional Balance

 
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 06:38 pm
@littlek,
littlek wrote:
But the potassium vs. calories thing still has me stumped.

I'm sure you'll figure it out. As I said, the trick is to work from the results backwards, where "results" encompass your blood picture, your weight, and your mood.

Talk about mood: In my experience, eating too little or working out too hard throws me into depression, whereas combining moderate diet and exercise intensity improves my mood a lot. Long workouts work fine for me as long as intensity stays moderate. So I think your starting point of 1400-1900 calories and two-hour hikes is very reasonable. Just keep it up for a few weeks, see where it takes you, and adjust as necessary.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 06:48 pm
@Thomas,
1400 is fine?

For littleK? you are getting into deprivation and its aftereffects.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 07:02 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
1400 is fine? For littleK?

If she wants to lose some weight, which she does---yes.

ossobuco wrote:
you are getting into deprivation and its aftereffects.

I don't think I am. The last time I was about her weight, the diet that got me there had 1000 calories a day. (That was a long time ago.) I wouldn't go that low today; the reason I bring it up is that even this diet didn't deprive me in any serious way. That said, if 1400 calories should prove too little for littlek, she'll know it because she'll feel low on energy---literally and figuratively. And then I'm sure she'll adjust by eating a little more, and compensating for it with hiking.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 07:08 pm
@Thomas,
We disagree on this. You are tuning the bod to low calories, promoting or turning a healthy woman into a data twit, or at least adding to that.

Oh, look, another forty years of staying at 1400.. when little k has gotten, apparently, slightly puffy.

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 07:27 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
Oh, look, another forty years of staying at 1400..

Nobody said anything about 40 years @ 1400 calories per day. Littlek won't be wanting to lose weight for 40 years. Once she's lost whatever she wants to lose, she'll be eating more again. Just to work an example: To maintain a body-mass index of, say, 24 at a height of 165cm (I'm guessing), she'd have to eat around 1950 calories a day. That's the rule of thumb we used back in Germany anyway: 30 calories a day for every kilogram you wish to maintain. And just like every rule of thumb, this one comes with a major fudge factor reflecting the fact that no two persons' metabolisms are the same.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 07:38 pm
@Thomas,
The body tries to set, or so I think, although it tends to take a bit.

Littlek trying to stay at 1400 only annoys me as an idea, what are any of you thinking? but of course, that is not my business. 1950, do you see me arguing on that?

CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 08:27 pm
@ossobuco,
To lose 1 lb. per week you need to reduce your calorie intake by 3500/week.
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 08:32 pm
@littlek,
Hi littlek,
I use my food scale to pre-measure 100 calories worth of almonds ( 16-17 grams)
and pre-package a half dozen or more servings in little snack bags.
you can do the same with other calorically dense but otherwise healthy foods like dried apricots and raisins. I also take small packets of raw baby carrots with me during the day for when I get a craving to chew on something but don't want to use up significant calories.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 08:36 pm
@jjorge,
OK, I think you are all nuts.
jjorge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 08:45 pm
@ossobuco,
nuts?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 08:51 pm
@jjorge,
Nuts are good..
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 08:53 pm
@jjorge,
Ok, I take you all as persnicketey in vain.

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 08:56 pm
@ossobuco,
And besides, such sites as I have seen are very stupid, so I apologize.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 09:34 pm
i know for everyone things are different...

but Im telling you..

i went from 280 to 191 ( right now) in just a few short weeks because I got rid of chemicals and ate an almost raw diet.
Raw does not mean uncooked for ME. though I do know that in google and other places people are reportedly squawking about not cooking your food and calling that a raw diet. Bah. no thank you. But I did eat some of their recipies.. just cooked. Raw to me means REAL fruits, veggies, grains .. basically, if you could pull it out of the ground AS IS and eat it.. i did.
I turned off the public television thinking and ate real live food.

and I lost a metric ton by eating a LOT of nuts. I do mean a LOT. Easily, I was topping the 3000 calorie a day maximum because of my nuts. Lost weight hand over fist.

Real fat, from nuts, avacadoes etc.. doesnt 'make' you fat. you get fat from foods your body can not process coupled with a lack of activity. Yes, you can eat your way to being obese, but with natural real foods, thats pretty difficult. so long as it is eaten in a pure form.

But the reason why people have to lower caloric intake to meager portions 1000-1,400 on the SAD ( standard american diet) is because a large portion of that is chemical based processed foods . ( Think boxed foods, breads, dressings, juices, dehydrated stuff too not just fast food) So you have to take into account your calories can not be used properly, there for you have to take in less.

Our liver goes after the bad things first. Thats its job. When it only filters chemicals and has no place to put them, they dont turn to energy, they dont provide our muscles anything, voila.. its fat. Its your bodies natural go to state, natural storage state, and the quick catch all answer to things it does not quite know what to do with. Your liver KNOWS what to do with an apple.. Bread? Not so much. Cut out the chemicals and your body processes only vitamins and minerals from your food . It USES fat, doesnt store it.

My diet, or daily food for example -
water melon for breakfast ( the small 'personal' ones, ) cashews, a banana and a slice of avacado.
lunch salmon , and salad.
No dressing. Salad topped with pine nuts, strawberries, dates and tomatos, oranges, pears.. you name it. I take the big lettuce leaves and roll up all those other good things inside of it and eat it that way. Who needs dressing. Seriously. If it doesnt taste good by itself, then add something else too it .

my favorite dinner was steel cut oats, about 4 or 5 dates cut into tiny pieces, cinnamon and more nuts.
straight popcorn with cinnamon was an awesome snack.

No butters. No salts. No dressings. No breads. No processed anything.
I felt fantastic. More energy then I knew what to do with and the weight came off with no thought. I had no calorie counting.. just fresh real foods.
I ate a lot of beans, rice, squash, you name it my groceries came from the produce section. For meat I ate fish , shrimp and bison. My taste buds are different now too. I crave those things when I get hungry, I have no need for 'will power' because I dont think of fast food, cereals or anything else. It really is easier now. I eat what I am hungry for.

I still eat that way about 60% of the time now in fact. No weight gain, though i dont feel as good. My entire body has changed though , and in a very good way.

You dont have to live by strict calorie intake if you eat what your body can process easily. Just eat til you are full and be done.


The bmi is something I take issue with.
The BMI was constructed as a scan for a group, city or area of people determining food supply, effects on foods and general health. It is used as an over view for MANY people.. not at all intended, calculated or meant for the individual body. I dont know how that was ever taken as such a false standard and run with. But it has. And it has told countless people that they are incorrect in their body weight.

The man im dating for example.. thick as a rock. Solid muscle. The guy builds airplanes for christs sake. That stuff is not light. BMI says he is morbidly obese.. Yet he hardly has any fat on his body.. I dont get it. If it was made for individuals, there would not be the " oh , but you have to make provisions... " clause at the end of it.
its wrong and a tool that is being misused.

As i tell a lot of people, are you comfortable? can you DO the things you want to do with out getting winded? Dont change clothing sizes every other month? Not tired all the time? Have energy? Relatively balanced moods? Then you are healthy. Never mind that society says you should look like a rack of bones. If you feel GOOD, and you can do what you want to do and your body cooperates.. enjoy your life Smile

Bah
too late to rant. sorry yall Smile
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2011 11:05 pm
I get where Osso's coming from - it's sort of like the whole germ thing. If you really stopped and studied and ruminated upon every little piece of bacteria that could be occupying the same space as you, you'd develop an unhealthy obsession about cleanliness. Same thing can happen with food.

Having said that, if you are someone who does struggle with a chronic illness that can be affected by just minute variations in what you put into your system, I can understand the concern.

But if someone is a reasonably healthy person, I'd forego all the measuring and angst in favor of eating as healthily as I could while maintaining enjoyment.

I don't even know how many calories I eat a day. Yesterday I ate an apple and a small piece of cheese for breakfast (early - about 6:00 am). Then I ate half a sandwich at my breaktime at 10 am. Then I ate the other half of the sandwich at noon. Then I ate a small package of doritos at 3:00. Then I ate some tuna and pasta with celery and tomatoes at 7:00. Then I ate almost half a fresh pineapple and three oatmeal cookies while I watched a movie at about 9:00.

How many calories would that be? I have no idea. But I was never hungry throughout the day and I walked probably about six or seven miles all told between walking to the wings to do education at my job and walking my dog for an hour last night.
And my weight has been stable - the same - except for when I was pregnant -for thirty years.
But most people would probably think I'm lax as far as check-ups and things go. I haven't been to the doctor - any doctor - in three years. My motto is - if it aint broke - don't fix it (or worry about it).
I don't have any symptoms of anything being wrong so I figure it probably isn't.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 03:50 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
To lose 1 lb. per week you need to reduce your calorie intake by 3500/week.

So if you and I are both right about our respective rules of thumb, littlek's diet should be losing her just a little over a pound per week. (Because her 1400 calories a day will induce a weekly energy deficit of 7 * (1950-1400) = 3850 calories.) That would be perfect.
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:38 am
@Thomas,
Yes, Thomas! However, those 1400 calories should come mainly from a low carb diet, lots of protein, vegetables, fiber, nuts, carbs in form of some fruits (blueberries, strawberries). Once littlek has reached her goal weight, she slowly can add some more carbs back.
As we (women) get older, carbohydrates are not as easily digested, especially when our metabolism has slowed down considerably which comes with menopause and continues thereafter.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 08:50 am
@shewolfnm,
I too am trying to go more raw. I'm sprouting lentils (LOVE THEM!!!) and garbanzo beans, mung beans, etc., like crazy and really enjoying them.

Agreeing with P_dog back on page 1 that ff feta is an easy swap out. I'm a full fat cheese-o-holic, but Trader Joes FF Feta crumbles are delicious.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 12:14 pm
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:

i know for everyone things are different...

but Im telling you..

i went from 280 to 191 ( right now) in just a few short weeks


ok - losing 90 pounds in a few short weeks is seriously brutal on just about every organ on your body

beyond dangerous for your heart

a year. ok. but weeks or months to lose 90 pounds / 30% of your starting weight. that's asking for health problems.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 12:47 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

To lose 1 lb. per week you need to reduce your calorie intake by 3500/week.



Or increase caloric output. Which is by FAR the best way to go - not only do you lose weight, you tone and strengthen your muscles.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 02:57:33