How to keep my calories adequate?

[Juliette1]

What's the safe and sensible amount of calories on the bottom line (calories eaten minus calories exercised), available for just being alive?

I've noticed that the amount of calories I use for exercising has been increasing lately. I've tried to eat 1700-1900 cals a day aiming for 146 grams of protein and 73 grams of fat. My average for the last 24 days is 1870 calories eaten and 612 cals exercised a day, leaving me with an average of 1259 cals a day for living and breathing. That seemed a little low when I saw it in my spreadsheet. At the moment I don't necessarily want to limit the amount of exercise, since it's really enjoyable, but I would be willing to eat more.
In the last few days I've wondered about a few symptoms I recognize from the few (and short) periods of undereating in my life: feeling cold most of the time, otherwise uncommon memory lapses, headache.
I have by no means wanted to undereat, quite the opposite. While I understand that the weight-loss process requires using more calories than I eat, I am wondering, where is the limit under which I should not go? I originally thought I could not go under that limit when eating about 1800 cals a day (instead of 1200), but was I wrong? The cals I use for exercise vary from maybe 300 (on a walking day) to 600 (weights day) to 900 (cardio day), so I'm wondering if there's a way to calculate a number of calories I need to reserve for basic needs and then just plan my eating according how much I've used (especially for the 900 days)?

My stats
age 33
height 5'5"
current weight 146 lbs
body fat % depending on source 25-27,5%

What I've done so far
I started my active effort for losing weight in January 07 and lost the first pounds by eating too little. Then I revised my eating plan, added more protein and fats and tried to balance between my life and weight-loss for most of the spring. January-March I exercised by walking, nordic-walking, swimming and some weight-training at home. I took part in a 25 mile walk in May, for which I trained, walking and running for almost 300 miles in April-May. After the walk in the end of May I returned to the gym and weight-training which I had previously done from Oct 06 to Jan 07.

Diet (exact calories and macros for last 24 days in attachment)
Protein turkey, chicken, lean beef, fish, eggs, cottage cheese, other dairy products (I'm allergic to nuts, beans, tofu)
Fats avocado, fish, olive oil, almonds, seeds
Carbs fruit, veg, whole grain rye bread

Exercise routine (calories used per day for last 24 days in attachment)
Weight training 2-3 times a week
Cardio 3-4 times a week, at the gym or walking/running/biking outdoors
Rest 1-2 days a week (often walking on those days)

Recent weight-loss
During the last 24 days I've lost 4 pounds and 1.4 inches from my waist.
From Jan 07 I've lost a total of 15 pounds and 4 inches from my waist.

Goals
Starting weight (Jan 07) 161 lbs
Current weight (Jun 07) 146 lbs
Goal weight (?) 133-138 lbs maybe, it's less important than the overall goal
Overall goal to be healthy and strong (I'm a musician, so the work requires both good condition and decent appearance.)

I have no medical problems that are relevant to this subject.

Leigh, Steve, somebody else, I'd be really interested to hear what you think.

Juliette

 

[~Jolie~]

I'm really curious about this, too. I thought you had to create a calorie deficit in order to lose weight. I am burning about 1000 a day through exercise, eating about 1500 a day, and my basic living calories to maintain is 2800 (according to the tool on sparkpeople). Confusing!

 

[corndogggy]

1700-1900... 146... 73... 24... 1870... 612... 1259...1800... 1200... 300... 600... 900... 900... 146... 25-27... 5... 25... 300... 24... 24... 2-3... 3-4... 1-2... 24... 4... 1.4... 15... 4... 161... 146... 133-138

This is a totally unauthorized opinion and will be jumped on by Steve and God knows who else, but regardless, when it comes to this subject, I completely agree with what the Men's Health guys say, which is... STOP COUNTING!!!

Your dietary analysis looks like a college algebra problem more than a weight loss problem. I mean, holy crap, who needs that?

Their opinion is that if you eat as healthily and cleanly as possible without any of the highly processed BS, and stretch your eating out over 5-6 times a day while divying up your protein consumption evenly, and you exercise and all that jazz, that your calories consumed per day will simply take care of itself. Pretty simple, but I've seen it work. I don't count anything except protein. I have no idea how many calories I consume. I could care less. As long as I'm meeting my goals, which, I'm more than meeting... who cares? I know that I'm just one person, but obviously it's working for others or else they'd quit getting positive feedback and would quit publishing their stuff.

 

[Steve]

This is a totally unauthorized opinion and will be jumped on by Steve and God knows who else, but regardless, when it comes to this subject, I completely agree with what the Men's Health guys say, which is... STOP COUNTING!!!

Your dietary analysis looks like a college algebra problem more than a weight loss problem. I mean, holy crap, who needs that?

Their opinion is that if you eat as healthily and cleanly as possible without any of the highly processed BS, and stretch your eating out over 5-6 times a day while divying up your protein consumption evenly, and you exercise and all that jazz, that your calories consumed per day will simply take care of itself. Pretty simple, but I've seen it work. I don't count anything except protein. I have no idea how many calories I consume. I could care less. As long as I'm meeting my goals, which, I'm more than meeting... who cares? I know that I'm just one person, but obviously it's working for others or else they'd quit getting positive feedback and would quit publishing their stuff.

Please realize that I did not read the original post yet before making this post.

Corn, hate to surprise you, but I am not going to jump on you at all. The only thing I can say negatively about what you said here is you are backing your info with info from magazines. Don't do that. But that's of little importance to the topic at hand here.

To count, or not to count?

Calories.

How important are they?

First let's touch on your perspective, Corn. To recap on what you seem to do...... you make sure you are getting adequate protein, staying away from highly processed stuff, sticking with the "healthy" stuff. You don't count calories and your goals are being obtained. Right?

I have a few things to say with your approach:

1. You are 100% right in your approach. You are right because it works for YOU. There is no right or wrong way to do things. The secret is finding the way that works for YOU. And if someone said you HAD to count calories, you probably wouldn't reach your goals. Because that doesn't work for you. So props to you.

2. You say you make sure you are getting in adequate protein. Just a pointer: Not only should you track your protein but you should also track your EFAs.

3. The logic behind this approach is very simple. Protein and efas are the only ESSENTIAL components of a diet, so once you make sure you get them in with regards to baseline levels.... you can pretty much expect that you will remain within your caloric limits as long as you stick with "healthy" foods for the rest of your diet: Reason being, healthy foods are not as calorically dense as the processed crap. The diet basically self-regulates itself. Right?

Again, this is all fine and dandy if it works for you.

However, the way you say it, you make it seem like everyone would succeed with it. This fallacious reasoning is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1. Some people need the "control factor" of calorie counting. Just as you succeed b/c you don't worry about cals, others succeed because they DO count cals.

2. You assume the "self-regulatory" component of your ideology will be sufficient for the masses. You say you've seen it work. Guess what? From my experience, a vast majority of the time, it doesn't. This isn't to say it is worthless. But it certainly is not optimal for the average individual looking for long term success. Most people overeat. Good or bad stuff...... they just do.

Now, I've worked with some hyper-obese individuals. I'm talking 400-500+ pounds. You damn well better believe I don't expect these people to count calories. There is so much going on psychologically that making them do so would have a negative impact on their adherence.

I have made them count at times just in the beginning for a very simple reason. They would argue with me that they weren't eating more than 2500 calories per day. There is no way on God's green earth that one can maintain a 500 lb body on 2500 calories. I just use it as their "wake up" call. After that, I simply help them make "smarter" food choices, which brings us back to that self-regulatory component that comes along with healthier food choices. It certainly works for someone who is eating enough calories each day to maintain 500 lbs.

I've also worked with very small women, barely breaking 100 lbs. These individuals don't have as much "play" in their calorie limits as someone 5 times their weight. It is a lot easier for them to over-eat, physically. I'd much rather ANYONE not have to be counting calories every single day. Unfortunately, 99/100 times for someone in this situation, it's a must.

I tell you these things only to drive home the point that there is no right or wrong. There is only a "right" for YOU. And what that right might be, certainly isn't the "right" for the next person.

You see me consistently saying on here to people, "count calories." Why? If they've found their way here, it's pretty obvious that the self-regulatory technique doesn't work for them. Let's not piss on their legs and tell them it's raining. They aren't stupid. They know what "healthy" food choices are. There is just a lot more going on in the majority of cases that self-regulatory techniques can't fix.

I said it above and I'll say it again. I wish people didn't have to count calories. It's a pain in the ass, although some people (few) actually like it. And those that are "weak" mentally can really have problems with it. The concept of energy balance traps them in a paper bag, so to speak.

However, the bottom-line is this. Thermodynamics always rules in the game of weight management. Some people can naturally work with thermodynamics (Corn) and others can't (the masses). For those who can't, it takes manual labor, i.e. counting.

As an important aside..... I don't count calories either. I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

I have very little attachment to food. I associated food with fuel many years ago. Pleasure comes in distant second behind the concept of fuel. That being said, I don't get many cravings. However, when I want something, I eat it. And I feel free and happy.

However, a large majority of the time, I eat "on plan."

What is "on plan?"

As most of you know, I go through cycles of "cutting" and "bulking." At any one time of a given year you will find me either dieting the fat off or adding muscle. Both of these goals obviously are driven by calories, one needing a deficit and the other a surplus.

You'd think it would take some serious finesse in terms of tracking nutrition to do what I do.

But it doesn't.

For example, when I bulk, I slowly, incrementally up my cal intake above maintenance more and more every 2 weeks or so. Eventually, I begin seeing a sufficient rate of weight gain to assure myself I'm gaining muscle and minimizing fat gain. FYI, this usually falls around 3500 to 4000 calories. Once I get to the 3500 calories mark, I might sit there for 3-4 months. That's my stagnant caloric goal for an appreciable length of time.

Guess what? I certainly am NOT counting calories during those 3-4 months. I simply make meal plans. I'll divide my total caloric goal by the number of meals I want per day. I'll also figure out how many grams of the essential things I need. Once this is finished, I simply disperse the totals over the allotted meals. Sometimes it's ratable. Other times it's not. It's all very dependent.

Then I fill in the numbers with specific foods and wala, no more counting. Stick with the predetermined meals and you're golden. Do this often enough and when you feel the need to eat off plan, do so within reason.

My point is though, I follow a meal plan. I don't count calories directly. Once my meal plan is set, I am on autopilot. Sometimes when I'm lazy, my meal plan is strict, meaning, there aren't many meals to choose from on it. Other times I'll have 30 different meals to choose from.

This is what works for me. I used to count calories and I hated it. I felt trapped. So I do it indirectly and it suits me.

Very long winded, which I apologize for. The post wasn't necessarily directed at you Corn. Some of it was obviously.... but I wanted to share my take for everyone.

To wrap this up with the overall point of this post: From my experience (which you can take for what it's worth), you must control energy. For some that comes by means of direct accounting of what foods/drinks pass through your lips. For others, it comes by means of meal plans. Most need to set up some control factors.

Few can get away with "winging" their caloric intakes. Men's Health can say whatever they want. The top strength/physique/performance coaches in the world monitor caloric intakes of their clients. Because it is the backbone of weight regulation.

My advice is try a method similar to what Corn laid out above. If you can get away with it.... the more power to you. Roll with it. If it doesn't work, it's time to get your hands a bit more dirty.

And if you ever want a "serious" physique (ya know, ripped, muscles, abs, striations, etc, etc), I don't care who you are, you are going to have to get your hands very dirty.

If you want to be good, it doesn't take much effort. If you want to be great, put on the work boots and gloves.

 

[Steve]

Julie, I'll read and give you my opinion tomorrow regarding your original post. Sorry, I am really busy tonight!!

 

[corndogggy]

The only thing I can say negatively about what you said here is you are backing your info with info from magazines. Don't do that. But that's of little importance to the topic at hand here.

Yeah I know, but, it's kind of a kinda, sorta situation. That idea was actually from the book "The Abs Diet", which was written by the editors of Men's Health. I don't know how much exactly they preach about this subject in the magazine itself, but regardless, I'm sure that alot of people dismiss it for the same reasons. That magazine just happens to make alot of sense to me, but it's about the only one, so I don't mind refering to it.

 

[Juliette1]

Julie, I'll read and give you my opinion tomorrow regarding your original post. Sorry, I am really busy tonight!!

Thanks, no hurry. I know you're busy, so I really appreciate you taking the time to answer whenever you can.

Yeah I know, but, it's kind of a kinda, sorta situation. That idea was actually from the book "The Abs Diet", which was written by the editors of Men's Health. I don't know how much exactly they preach about this subject in the magazine itself, but regardless, I'm sure that alot of people dismiss it for the same reasons. That magazine just happens to make alot of sense to me, but it's about the only one, so I don't mind refering to it.

Let's say you play in a wind band, for the first time in your life. You don't know the music and you barely know how to handle your instrument. You have your sheet music in front of you and it's even difficult to read it as fast as you should. You have absolutely no idea what the gestures of the conductor mean.
And let's say I'm sitting there next to you. I've done this for 28 years. I only need one look at the music. I've heard it before. I've played it before. I master it. I am an expert in playing my instrument.
Result:
I play my part correctly with no effort at all, know exactly when to come in and what to play and how. I just sit there and do nothing noticeable, except move my fingers and breath in and out and beautiful music comes out.
You, not so great... You'd need to count the bars, keep your eyes at the music/instrument/conductor, all at the same time, try to get the correct pitches and rhythms out of your instrument and you'd still struggle to achieve any results.
Why am I telling you this story? What's the moral here?
We have different kinds of expertise, all of us. They come from the work we do, the hobbies we have, the situations we go through. All of them take time to develop and no one is born with experience and skills. Would I tell you in the above situation to just chill, stop counting and let the music come out of you naturally, as it comes out of me? No, but then I do also teach my trade to absolute beginners and know from experience what is helpful to them and what is not. I also take time to get to know my pupils/students before suggesting they take a 180 degree turn in what they're doing currently.
I'd say you don't have a lot of experience in teaching the beginners in any field. If you had, you wouldn't judge the skills and experience of others by your own. Neither would you give advice based solely on your own way of doing things at the current level of your skills.

Your posts here didn't really answer any of the questions in my original post regarding the balance between the amount of calories eaten and calories used exercising. If you have something to contribute to that subject, please do so.

Respectfully,
Juliette

 

[Steve]

Yeah I know, but, it's kind of a kinda, sorta situation. That idea was actually from the book "The Abs Diet", which was written by the editors of Men's Health. I don't know how much exactly they preach about this subject in the magazine itself, but regardless, I'm sure that alot of people dismiss it for the same reasons. That magazine just happens to make alot of sense to me, but it's about the only one, so I don't mind refering to it.

Haha, all that banter I posted above and you focused on the one or two sentences that was in direct disagreement to your point.

Go figure.

 

[Wrangell]

What's the safe and sensible amount of calories on the bottom line (calories eaten minus calories exercised), available for just being alive?

In terms of the calories you need " just for being alive " - I believe what you're looking for is something called the Basal Metabolic Rate or BMR. Your BMR calories - ' in theory ' - represent the mimimum calorires you need to keep your basic bodilly functions going - i.e heart pumping, brain function, breathing, hair growing, etc. - think of the calories you'd consume while you were in a coma " just being alive ". Generally speaking, this BMR may account for 70% of your total daily maintenance calories. A quick way to estimate BMR is to simply calculate 10 calories per pound of bodyweight...in your case approx 1,460+/- calories a day. But there are BMR calculators you can also use. For example,

While I understand that the weight-loss process requires using more calories than I eat, I am wondering, where is the limit under which I should not go?

A good starting point would be to first try and estimate what calorie intake you required initially simply to keep you at the weight you started at - including all the calories for your BMR, in addition to calorie estiamtes for daily non-athetic activities, atheltic actvities and some other small things. This all adds up to your ' total daily maintenance calories '. Again, there are dozens of ways to calculate daily maintenance calories too, but one very general approach you see quite often is about 16 calories per pound of bodyweight...in your case approx 2,300 calories a day. Keep in mind it might actually be less at something like 14 calories per pound of bodyweight or 2,000 calories - they're just estimates. I'd try and find a calculator or 2 to try and fine tune this estimate as best you can however.

As to your question as to " the limit under which I should not go ", it varies person to person, but limits of how many caloires are in deficit to your daily maintenance calories are usually centered around concerns of putting undue metabolic stress on your body ( i.e cuttin too many calories ) Relatively substantial calorie deficits may trigger a response in your body to try and conserve fat and turn to muscle for fuel. So, there is a risk you will lose muscle mass - something you want to avoid. Generally, the rule of thumb you see most often, is that a safe calorie deficit is 500 calories or 20% below your
' total daily maintenance calories '. Again, this is just a rough estimate.

I originally thought I could not go under that limit when eating about 1800 cals a day (instead of 1200), but was I wrong?

The cals I use for exercise vary from maybe 300 (on a walking day) to 600 (weights day) to 900 (cardio day), so I'm wondering if there's a way to calculate a number of calories I need to reserve for basic needs and then just plan my eating according how much I've used (especially for the 900 days)?

That is the basic approach. A good staring point is to simply add up all the estimates of all your sources of calorie expenditure that make up your ' total daily maintenance calories '. Or, opt for an on-line calculator as a starting point........

 

[corndogggy]

Haha, all that banter I posted above and you focused on the one or two sentences that was in direct disagreement to your point.

Go figure.

Didn't really see the point in further analyzing anything. Plus, it was like friggin four pages and I had just drank too much red wine, I just skimmed it.

 

[Steve]

What's the safe and sensible amount of calories on the bottom line (calories eaten minus calories exercised), available for just being alive?

The answer here is your resting metabolic rate (RMR).

This is the amount of energy required to keep you alive and functioning without activity.

Many people assume that this is a small component of total energy expenditure. However, it's actually the largest component.

Suppose you find yourself maintaining on 2000 calories. You can pretty much assume that 1400ish cals of that are going to RMR related activities, ballparked of course. It will be different for each individual.

Here is one calculator for estimating your RMR:

Bodybuilding.com - Tris Mardiastuty - Resting Metabolic Rate Calculator.

I've noticed that the amount of calories I use for exercising has been increasing lately. I've tried to eat 1700-1900 cals a day aiming for 146 grams of protein and 73 grams of fat. My average for the last 24 days is 1870 calories eaten and 612 cals exercised a day, leaving me with an average of 1259 cals a day for living and breathing. That seemed a little low when I saw it in my spreadsheet. At the moment I don't necessarily want to limit the amount of exercise, since it's really enjoyable, but I would be willing to eat more.

Too many people isolate each component of a deficit, ie, food and activity. In reality, they need to be considered in unison. A deficit is a deficit no matter which way you slice it. It can come from all activity or all food. Your body, in terms of weight loss, treats it the same.

I find many people cutting calories by means of a restriction of food intake by some inordinate amount. They then go and do hours of cardio every day. Some even add weight training into the mix. Don't forget all the other activities in one's day aside from exercise that also contribute to caloric expenditure above and beyond RMR.

They were already *deficited* deep enough through food restriction, then they add a boat-load more to this deficit by bumping up activity like crazy. This is where you run into problems.

Your body doesn't really *know* what is going on. All it knows is, it's very deficient in energy.

I can tell you that your cals are not "unsafely" low. However, if you aren't feeling well at this intake level, bump cals up and see how it goes. Monitor how you feel. Track your measurements.

Remember, this is an experiment. You are the scientist struggling to find what really works for you, as an individual.

In the last few days I've wondered about a few symptoms I recognize from the few (and short) periods of undereating in my life: feeling cold most of the time, otherwise uncommon memory lapses, headache.

Are you experiencing these currently?

If you are, I'd def. go to a doctor, just to play it safe!

I have by no means wanted to undereat, quite the opposite. While I understand that the weight-loss process requires using more calories than I eat, I am wondering, where is the limit under which I should not go?

I always ballpark this. It's just easier and since it's impossible to be precise anyhow, ball-parking it works. I've said many times on this forum that 14-16 calories per pound is a good, average maintenance level for someone where they are neither losing or gaining weight. These numbers take into account an expected activity rate. I forget which, exactly, but it is benchmarked to an average exerciser's energy expenditure.

This is not to say I haven't seen individuals with a maintenance of 12 or even 10. This usually occurs with very large people.

The body isn't a fragile organism. Clinics put obese patients on very low calorie diets (VLCD) safely. We're talking 500-800 calories per day. Certainly this isn't suitable for someone of your stature, Julie. However, again, you are *safe* consuming the calories you are now.

I never like putting someone of average/normal weight below their BMR for extended periods of time.

I originally thought I could not go under that limit when eating about 1800 cals a day (instead of 1200), but was I wrong?

Hopefully I explained this at the top well enough.

Just to recap.... you certainly can. You are isolating food here from the remainder of what goes into a deficit (read: activity). You can't do this.

The cals I use for exercise vary from maybe 300 (on a walking day) to 600 (weights day) to 900 (cardio day), so I'm wondering if there's a way to calculate a number of calories I need to reserve for basic needs and then just plan my eating according how much I've used (especially for the 900 days)?

Truthfully, you are worrying over little here. Add to this, I think you are trying to be too concise.

If you aren't feeling well on your high cal-expenditure days, simply do some form of cyclical diet where on higher cal-expenditure days you are eating more food and vice versa on the medium and low days. This is actually what I do.

But again, you are not teetering on the line of unsafe food intake.

For what's it's worth, I've seen people have to go as low as 8 cals per pound in order to lose adequate weight. However, that is not the norm and as a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't go below that under normal circumstances.

What I've done so far
I started my active effort for losing weight in January 07 and lost the first pounds by eating too little. Then I revised my eating plan, added more protein and fats and tried to balance between my life and weight-loss for most of the spring. January-March I exercised by walking, nordic-walking, swimming and some weight-training at home. I took part in a 25 mile walk in May, for which I trained, walking and running for almost 300 miles in April-May. After the walk in the end of May I returned to the gym and weight-training which I had previously done from Oct 06 to Jan 07.

How are you weight training?

Diet (exact calories and macros for last 24 days in attachment)
Protein turkey, chicken, lean beef, fish, eggs, cottage cheese, other dairy products (I'm allergic to nuts, beans, tofu)
Fats avocado, fish, olive oil, almonds, seeds
Carbs fruit, veg, whole grain rye bread

Food selection sounds good to me.

Exercise routine (calories used per day for last 24 days in attachment)
Weight training 2-3 times a week
Cardio 3-4 times a week, at the gym or walking/running/biking outdoors
Rest 1-2 days a week (often walking on those days)

Well balanced.

Recent weight-loss
During the last 24 days I've lost 4 pounds and 1.4 inches from my waist.
From Jan 07 I've lost a total of 15 pounds and 4 inches from my waist.

Excellent!!

ETA: Wrangell beat me to the punch.....

 

[Steve]

Didn't really see the point in further analyzing anything. Plus, it was like friggin four pages and I had just drank too much red wine, I just skimmed it.

What would I do without your company on this forum!?

 

[corndogggy]

Let's say you play in a wind band, for the first time in your life. You don't know the music and you barely know how to handle your instrument. You have your sheet music in front of you and it's even difficult to read it as fast as you should. You have absolutely no idea what the gestures of the conductor mean.
And let's say I'm sitting there next to you. I've done this for 28 years. I only need one look at the music. I've heard it before. I've played it before. I master it. I am an expert in playing my instrument.
Result:
I play my part correctly with no effort at all, know exactly when to come in and what to play and how. I just sit there and do nothing noticeable, except move my fingers and breath in and out and beautiful music comes out.
You, not so great... You'd need to count the bars, keep your eyes at the music/instrument/conductor, all at the same time, try to get the correct pitches and rhythms out of your instrument and you'd still struggle to achieve any results.
Why am I telling you this story? What's the moral here?
We have different kinds of expertise, all of us. They come from the work we do, the hobbies we have, the situations we go through. All of them take time to develop and no one is born with experience and skills. Would I tell you in the above situation to just chill, stop counting and let the music come out of you naturally, as it comes out of me? No, but then I do also teach my trade to absolute beginners and know from experience what is helpful to them and what is not. I also take time to get to know my pupils/students before suggesting they take a 180 degree turn in what they're doing currently.
I'd say you don't have a lot of experience in teaching the beginners in any field. If you had, you wouldn't judge the skills and experience of others by your own. Neither would you give advice based solely on your own way of doing things at the current level of your skills.

Your posts here didn't really answer any of the questions in my original post regarding the balance between the amount of calories eaten and calories used exercising. If you have something to contribute to that subject, please do so.

Respectfully,
Juliette

Well, I would kind of like to explain.

First of all, and this has nothing to do with anything other than connecting, but I played saxophone for years, alto and bari... also played 8th level piano... currently play bass and acoustic guitar. So, I completely understand your metaphor... and because of that, I can completely disagree with it.

You are assuming that it takes the same mental effort on each subject. You are assuming that you have to somehow outsmart your body. Well, let me tell you... the body God gave you is absolutely amazing and smarter than you will ever know, so trying to outsmart it will drive you nuts. It will make you crunch numbers and post spreadsheets and still be frustrated. You're assuming that you have to master this metaphorical wind instrument, yet you don't realize that this instrument actually plays itself... you just have to give it the right fuel that it needs. It's like filling up its gas tank with pancake syrup then wondering why the fuel gauge doesn't work correctly.

The whole idea behind the self-regulation is that if you eat in the manner that I posted above in the first place, if you just listen to your body, you'll know when you need more calories - you'll simply get hungry. If you exercise and need more calories afterwards, you'll get more hungry than usual, and will therefore eat more calories.

Like Steve said above... this just doesn't work for some people. Also, if you want to get as ripped and lean as the bodybuilders, you probably can't go this route either.

Want another source that has this same idea that wasn't written by magazine editors? Read "Body by God".

 

[Steve]

If the self-regulation techniques actually worked, 70% of our population wouldn't be fat.

Our bodies are built for survival during times of starvation. They are inadequate for times of over-abundance of food. We're still wired for prehistoric times. Not times when food is literally ever where.

Self regulation worked consistently during prehistoric times.

"Me hungry, me eat berries and kill bird, me live."

Nowadays, not so much.

"I'm hungry. I have an addiction to food. Food is everywhere. Burgers are .99 cents. Food is my friend."

Let's see this person "self-regulate" their calories. And mind you, this person isn't rare AT ALL.

Corn, I understand that it's not really the people that are self-regulating, it's actually the diet you speak of due to the caloric density found in the types of foods you speak of. But that diet doesn't match this population for the most part.

And this is getting a little off topic now, but certainly an interesting conversation.

 

[TomO]

All I can say is, Corndoggy, I've tried your method in the past, and have failed that way. I'm doing it a different way this time, and it does involve calorie counting, but it's working.

It interesting that the majority of people in the National Weight Loss Registry who have succeeded in keeping their weight off both exercise about an hour a day AND practice some form of calorie counting.

 

[corndogggy]

All I can say is, Corndoggy, I've tried your method in the past, and have failed that way. I'm doing it a different way this time, and it does involve calorie counting, but it's working.

Just out of curiosity without arguing against you, do you not start to get a little hungry and feel your blood sugar dip a little immediately before one of your scheduled snacks or meals? This is what I relied on. All I did was eat enough that this happened. If it's snack time and I'm not hungry, I know I ate too much at the previous snack or meal and will cut back a little the next day. If I get hungry 30-45 minutes too early, I ate too little. The biggest issue with doing this is that you have to eat at about the same times every day or else you can't judge intake in this manner, your snack times can't wildly vary.

 

[Steve]

Just out of curiosity without arguing against you, do you not start to get a little hungry and feel your blood sugar dip a little immediately before one of your scheduled snacks or meals? This is what I relied on. All I did was eat enough that this happened. If it's snack time and I'm not hungry, I know I ate too much at the previous snack or meal and will cut back a little the next day. If I get hungry 30-45 minutes too early, I ate too little. The biggest issue with doing this is that you have to eat at about the same times every day or else you can't judge intake in this manner, your snack times can't wildly vary.

What is your theory as to why the majority of our population is fat?

 

[corndogggy]

What is your theory as to why the majority of our population is fat?

Well, in general, and not directed at the author of this post, and alot of this is way off topic but I'm sure you'll find something to make your point...

1. We eat too much obvioius bullsh!it. This includes Cokes, ice cream, greasy pizza, McDonald's french fries, highly processed stuff that our bodies weren't designed to process, etc. These things trick our bodies. Even if you try not to overeat, some of these things can make you consume way more calories than it feels like.

2. We eat too much non-obvious bullsh!it. Even normal seemingly healthy products such as peanut butter has unnecessary extra sugar and trans-fats unless you get the natural kind. Even healthy seeming beef is packed full of extra calories, extra saturated fat, extra cholesterol, etc., because our beef over here is fattened up on grain and maybe bone meal instead of all grass fed like in Argentina where the beef is much healthier. Also we'll get carried away with condiments... like we'll consider the nutritional value of the salad, then drench it with fatty dressing without thinking about it. Or, we'll consider the steak and potato, then drench the steak with A1, load up the potato with butter, cheese, sour cream, and bacon, or put butter, cinnamon, and brown sugar on a sweet potato without thinking about those things.

3. We are a nation of gluttons. Most people know they overeat and eat bad stuff. We are addicted to feeling "full", yet we blow past that point into the realm of pure gluttony. The popularity of all-you-can-eat buffets should be a clear testimony to this. Portion sizes at American restaurants vs. European ones is also a good sign, yet nobody takes this into consideration, they eat whatever is plopped out in front of them.

4. Most people simply don't care. They eat what they like to eat and damn the consequences. The people here truly trying to lose weight are the minority.

5. Most people really don't like to exercise. Actually maybe I should say they don't like to sacrifice anything because it can apply to changing eating habits too. They have a comfort zone that they like to stay in and they're not going to get outside of it.

6. We eat just for the hell of it. Depressed? Eat. Bored? Eat. Something taste really good? Eat more of it, with no thought as to anything other than "this is tasty". Calorie counting would help this area more than anything, but I don't think it's as big of a deal if you can otherwise break free from your food addictions and eat primarily for function and not fun.

7. Healthy food is often alot more expensive, or is at least perceived to be. It's no coincidence that the poorest states are the fattest and the richest states are the trimmest. Most people think that ought to be backwards, but it's not. Kentucky and Alabama are full of fat people and they're the poorest. Summit County Colorado is the healthiest. Personally I think this is an education issue because usually the poor fat people are NOT the ones eating the cheap healthy staple foods such as dried beans.

8. People think they're extremely strapped for time. So basically, they eat quick meals that are often unhealthy. They eat too fast so their bodies cannot judge how much food they just squeezed in their bellies.

 

[TomO]

Corndoggy, you can't take the psychological element out of all this. There are some of us who have been more or less "controlled" by food all our lives. By counting calories, we take control over the food we eat.

To answer your questions, yes I do feel hungry -- sometimes. It's not always a reliable indicator. And definitely one I would not count on to keep my calories within limits.

I don't advocate my methods for everyone -- to many, they would be tedious and bordering on the obsessive. I don't spend a whole lot of time each day recording the numbers -- perhaps 5 minutes a day. Still, I consider that a worthwhile activity, because it's resulted in a healthier me. And that's ultimately what counts.

The thing I really object to in a lot of books and magazine articles is the one size fits all approach. Imagine if we applied that to cardio routines. We know that some people like interval training, some like bicycling, some like running -- but we generally would say to them, "Find something that works for you and that you can stick with for the rest of your life."

Why should it be any different with energy balance?

 

[corndogggy]

The thing I really object to in a lot of books and magazine articles is the one size fits all approach. Imagine if we applied that to cardio routines. We know that some people like interval training, some like bicycling, some like running -- but we generally would say to them, "Find something that works for you and that you can stick with for the rest of your life."

Why should it be any different with energy balance?

It just seemed like she was listening to her spreadsheet more than listening to her body, and I got the impression that the end results still weren't optimum. It appeared as if she was absolutely beating herself up, causing unnecessary stress, and still not being happy, as she did mention feeling cold, having headaches, etc. But hey, if crunching numbers on a spreadsheet works for you, knock yourself out. Personally, I'd rather listen to my body. If I feel like hell to the point of having memory failure, have cold chills, and have headaches due to low blood sugar, and this makes me obviously be concerned that I'm not getting enough calories... screw a spreadsheet, I'm going to eat something. But hey, that's just me.