Is it possible...

xyzzy · Mar 29, 2012

Mine works out as 2418 today. I am such a fanatic over numbers I wire it in to the actual date "today" on my spreadsheet so that it counts the fraction of year since by birthday. So in a few days even if I lose nothing it would go down to 2417 very very sad I know.

It started off on the day I was diagnosed as 2730 so in around 14 weeks my weight loss and age increase means to maintain weight now I would need to eat 300 cals less per day. When I look at what I eat now I'm amazed at how I could have possibly been eating more than 2730 cals per day to put all that weight on.

Defren · Mar 29, 2012

viviennem said:
I wish Metformin would suppress my appetite :shock: :lol:

More seriously, Defren, can you face eggs at any time of the day? I have a two-egg omelette for breakfast every day, which fills me up nicely and is kind to the stomach, but if eggs make you nauseous, no good!

I sometimes have a small can of soup for lunch - Heinz Chicken is quite low carb, and very soothing.

Can you eat yoghurt? I like Greek-style live yoghurt, and if you can get sheep or goat's milk yoghurt they are even kinder to the stomach than cow's milk. The bacteria are good for you, and you can always sweeten with a little Splenda etc.

As Borofergie said, 5g carb is too low, even for me, particulary if you're eating very little. If you're getting plenty of protein your body will convert some to glucose, but it doesn't seem as if you are at the moment. Also you need to keep an eye on your veg intake because that's where many of the nutrients are.

Try not to worry too much - in the short term you'll be okay - but do try alternatives. You may be better grazing all day than trying to eat a full meal.

Let us know how you get on!

Viv 8)

Hi Viv, thank you for your advice. Today I have got boiled egg on the menu, but as I was putting it on to boil I could feel my stomach churning, so if I actually eat it has yet to be seen. Ironically I love egg, feta cheese, veg all the things that will help, but am finding I just feel sick thinking about them. As I sit here typing, my stomach is doing flips. I had to stop having milk in my tea, I just couldn't drink it, and I can't stand fizzy drinks, never could, tea is one of my ever decreasing things I can drink. I have found I can stomach small amounts of chicken, fresh fish, ham and most salad ingredients, but not a lot more. I love veg but it doesn't like me much at the moment. I can't eat anything at all during the day, the thought makes me so nauseous to the point I feel like I am about to throw up. So not only is my appetite suppressed but I can only deal with a very limited choice of foods. Jeannesmum sent me a recipe for chicken and leek soup yesterday, I have got the ingredients today and plan on making that tomorrow, if my stomach allows, for dinner tomorrow. Please wish me luck, I am just completely at a loss as to why this is happening. The irony of it all is I feel the best I have in years, I have not felt weak, faint or had a any moments of being light headed, so I really just don't know. My BG is good, and this all makes me feel even more confused. I know the calories I am taking in are just not enough, but feel so well. What a situation!

Defren · Mar 29, 2012

xyzzy said:
Defren meant to post this yesterday but forgot.

To work out a rough guide to calories per day I use something called RMR in my all powerfull spreadsheet. RMR stands for resting metabolic rate and its supposed to tell you how many calories you can eat each day and MAINTAIN your current weight. So the theory is if you eat less than your RMR you should lose weight and if you eat more you should gain weight.

The calculation is

10 times your_weight_in_kilos then add
6.25 times your_height_in_cms then subtract
5 times your_age_in_years

from that final figure subtract 161 for women but for add 5 for men

That gives you a value in calories. Next you have to adjust that value by an activity factor based on how much "E" you do on average. Judge your own activity factor based on the following.

Activity Factor - Category - Definition
1.2 - Sedentary - Little or no exercise and desk job
1.375 - Lightly Active - Light exercise or sports 1-3 days a week
1.55 - Moderately Active - Moderate exercise or sports 3-5 days a week
1.725 - Very Active - Hard exercise or sports 6-7 days a week
1.9 - Extremely Active - Hard daily exercise or sports and physical job

So based on my "walk the dogs for an hour most days" I choose a value of 1.325 so half way between sedentary and lightly active. So I multiply the number I calculated by 1.325 to give me the calories I could eat each day and maintain my sylph like state.

If you are a numbers freak like me you can then work out the difference between your RMR and how many calories you are eating and project an average weight loss (or gain) you should be achieving each day. I must say for me and the wife it has been uncannily accurate but like most things opinions vary. I just do it cos I like numbers in my spreadsheet!

You can read more about it here http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_BMR.php

Once again, thank you so much for taking time to do this. However the problem is, I want to eat, but just can't. I want to up my calories, my body is saying a very firm NO! I am now seriously at a loss as to what is going on.

Defren · Mar 29, 2012

Hurray!! I have managed to eat all of my dinner in one sitting, first time in well over a week. While dinner was only 268 calories, I feel it is a step in the right direction. I even managed one whole boiled egg. yay me!! :lol:

Pneu · Mar 29, 2012

Borofergie... I think (and someone may correct me on this because I read it a long time ago) that calculation you use has a pre-built in activity factor.. now this was done based on a moderately active 70KG man.. the RMR calculation lets you add or own factor... or as I do use a 1.2 sedentary multiplier and add additional calories burnt (i.e. those from exercise) on top by calculating the MET rate over base.

borofergie · Mar 29, 2012

Pneu said:
Borofergie... I think (and someone may correct me on this because I read it a long time ago) that calculation you use has a pre-built in activity factor.. now this was done based on a moderately active 70KG man.. the RMR calculation lets you add or own factor... or as I do use a 1.2 sedentary multiplier and add additional calories burnt (i.e. those from exercise) on top by calculating the MET rate over base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

So, the difference between the two BMR calculators is that I used the classic Harris-Benedict equation that was formulated (from extensive human calorimetry experiments) in 1919. xyzzy was using the more up to date (and more accurate) 1990 Miffin equation:

where s=+5 for men and -161 for women.

Obviously a bit of extreme curve fitting going on there...

The difference between Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) and Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) is that BMR measure (in a calirometer) under conditions of complete rest - awake, but lying down with absolutely no stimulus. RMR is a less restrictive measurement, that just requires that the subject be resting.

I'm halfway through reading "Why Calories Count" by Marion Nestle which is a brilliant insight into the history, science and politics of calories, including detailed information about how BMR and RMR are calculated, and where the standard 2000kcal a day numbers come from. I thoroughly recommend it.

borofergie · Mar 29, 2012

Defren said:
Hurray!! I have managed to eat all of my dinner in one sitting, first time in well over a week. While dinner was only 268 calories, I feel it is a step in the right direction. I even managed one whole boiled egg. yay me!! :lol:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

phoenix · Mar 30, 2012

"Why Calories Count" by Marion Nestle which is a brilliant insight into the history, science and politics of calories, including detailed information about how BMR and RMR are calculated, and where the standard 2000kcal a day numbers come from. I thoroughly recommend it

According to Amazon my copy has arrived in France and is in the hands of La Poste so I should get it in the next few days.
(I do like their new package tracker, it tells me that the other book I ordered at the same time has arrived at my local Town and is 'out for delivery' so I better not go out this morning)

catherinecherub · Mar 30, 2012

I did find a short precis of the book here.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... rs/254888/

I found that when I needed to lose weight, 4stone put on within 6 months and taken off again in 6 months, that I needed to cut calories and eat less than the recommended R.D.A. and be more active. I did not need to run marathons or join gyms, just make sure that I didn't spend hours sitting around doing very little. I had been doing this when the weight rose sharply due to a personal tragedy followed by a heart attack and was feeling very down.

Has anyone found that their calorie intake did not need to be reduced to get down to a suitable weight without extra exercise?

I guess what I am saying is can you be a couch potato, follow a diet that does not take into account calorie intake and still get to where you want to be? Are we different when it comes to being able to lose weight?

Fat 1gram.= ..........9 calories.
Protein 1 gram=.......4 calories.
Carbs 1 gram=.........4 calories.
Alcohol 1 gram=.......7 calories.

borofergie · Mar 30, 2012

catherinecherub said:
I found that when I needed to lose weight, 4stone put on within 6 months and taken off again in 6 months, that I needed to cut calories and eat less than the recommended R.D.A. and be more active. I did not need to run marathons or join gyms, just make sure that I didn't spend hours sitting around doing very little. I had been doing this when the weight rose sharply due to a personal tragedy followed by a heart attack and was feeling very down.

Marion Nestle is from completely the opposite end of the argument from Gary Taubes but she agrees completely that exercise is not a significant component of weight loss:

Why Calories Count said:
The number of calories [expended due to exercise] are likely to add up to a small percentage of those required for basal metabolism. Their number is also small compared to the number of calories that most people expend in a day.

She has an interesting theory as to why the establishment continues to promote exercise as a weight loss strategy:

Why Calories Count said:
This however does not stop food companies and government agencies from emphasizing physical activity as the primary strategy for losing or maintaining body weight. From a political standpoint, the advice to move more is much less threatening than advice to eat less. Moving more does not effect the economic interests of the food companies or any other powerful industry. In contrast, as we keep reminding you, simply eating less is bad for business.

catherinecherub said:
Has anyone found that their calorie intake did not need to be reduced to get down to a suitable weight without extra exercise?

I can't comment directly, because I run, although I'm pretty convinced that during my most intense spells of training my weight goes up rather than down. I'm not sure if that's because of increased muscle mass, or an increased appetite. Either way, I don't think that you have to exercise to lose weight - although there are lots of extra benefits from being physically fit.

catherinecherub said:
I guess what I am saying is can you be a couch potato, follow a diet that does not take into account calorie intake and still get to where you want to be? Are we different when it comes to being able to lose weight?

I think that the numbers say "yes!".

catherinecherub said:
Fat 1gram.= ..........9 calories.
Protein 1 gram=.......4 calories.
Carbs 1 gram=.........4 calories.
Alcohol 1 gram=.......7 calories.

The Nestle book has a great discussion on where those numbers come from, how accurate they are, and how they influence the calorie counts on the side of our food packets.

Topsec · Mar 30, 2012

Great news about your high cal meal Defren :wink: Hopefully your body is getting accustomed to your meds

viviennem · Mar 30, 2012

Catherinecherub posted:

I guess what I am saying is can you be a couch potato, follow a diet and still get to where you want to be? Are we different when it comes to being able to lose weight?

I can only quote from my own experience, Catherine. When I first went on Atkins in 2004, very strictly, I got a dog (the Irish Wolfhound Exercise Machine) and worked up to a minimum of walking 3 miles a day. I know from previous experience that I won't exercise unless I have to, and a dog was the best way! I lost 5.5 stones in 18 months.

I did once work out the calorie intake of 4 weeks' food on Atkins and found it varied between 1300 and 2000 calories per day. This was probably not much less than my food intake pre-Atkins, except that only 120 cals came from carb. My excess calories pre-Atkins came from wine, 3 or more glasses every day.

This time around (5 years later) I'd put all that 5.5 stones, and more, back on. When I was diagnosed Type 2, I went straight back on Atkins, though I haven't been as strict (less wine less frequently, instead of none at all), and I am still barely able to exercise much. In the first 18 months I lost 4 stones, which was definitely a diet-only loss.

I'd be inclined to put the slower loss this time down to the alcohol intake!

However, there is no doubt in my mind that exercise certainly helps my weight loss, because I believe it improves my metabolism and speeds up the weight loss a bit. It also firms things up and makes me look better. But I can lose weight without exercise, because over that 18 months from April 2010 to September 2011 I proved it.

Now I've got the diagnosis of my back and leg problems I've had a tiny exercise programme worked out for me, and I am finding that the more I do the more I can do, though it's going very slowly. But for the people who really can't exercise, for instance people with disabilities - don't despair, you can lose weight on diet only. :thumbup: But I am sure we're all different. Don't some people have naturally higher metabolisms than others? Mine is extremely efficient - it converts every bit of spare food into fat! :lol:

Viv 8)

I should add that on every single diet I've tried over the last 40 years, I have never before embarked on a deliberate exercise programme over and above ordinary daily activity, and I have always lost weight. I've always put it back again, too :shock: .

borofergie · Mar 30, 2012

viviennem said:
However, there is no doubt in my mind that exercise certainly helps my weight loss, because I believe it improves my metabolism and speeds up the weight loss a bit.

It depends what sort of exercise. Aerobic fitness does not apparently increase your metabolic rate. An-aerobic fitness has an influence, because it increases your muscle mass and therefore the rate at which you burn calories. So only exercise that gives you bigger muscles will help improve your metabolic.

Incidently, the reason why obese people have a higher basal metabolic rate is not because of the accumulation of fat directly, but because of the extra muscle needed to haul it all around.

Nestle reckons that elevated calorie burn post exercise is worth no more than about 10% of the calories expended during the exercise.

Don't some people have naturally higher metabolisms than others? Mine is extremely efficient - it converts every bit of spare food into fat! :lol:

There is some variation - but the basal rate just comes down to total muscle mass. Other than that fidgeters supposedly burn more calories than anyone else.

xyzzy · Mar 30, 2012

I think carbs are fundamental to blood sugar control but still reckon calories are fundamental to diet. Patently even though I low / moderate carb, even ULC sometimes then by calculating my RMR on my spreadsheet I am also admitting that I pay attention to calories as well. The knack is to find the balance between the two. That balance depends on a number of things, what Type you are, what your personal risk levels are, how much weight you want to lose, what your lifestyle is.

Defren · Mar 30, 2012

borofergie said:
Defren said:

Hurray!! I have managed to eat all of my dinner in one sitting, first time in well over a week. While dinner was only 268 calories, I feel it is a step in the right direction. I even managed one whole boiled egg. yay me!! :lol:

Click to expand...

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thank you. It is only a small step, but as they say, a journey of a thousand miles, begins with a small step. You really are so kind and encouraging - I really appreciate that.

Defren · Mar 30, 2012

Topsec said:
Great news about your high cal meal Defren :wink: Hopefully your body is getting accustomed to your meds

Lol, hardly a high cal meal, or day, but for me an absolute step in the right direction - thank you for your support.

Defren · Mar 30, 2012

I've read through this entire thread, and while I don't understand the science behind some of the posts, it did make me think. Recently I saw a program on television about an extremely morbidly obese woman. The woman was as you would expect very ill, all kinds of problems associated with her weight. When she was taken into hospital she couldn't walk, was completely bed bound. However with the help of only a modified diet, the weight began to drop at unbelievable rates, which for her was of course wonderful.

The point I am making is, with a restricted and very modified diet, no more pizza, taco's and cake, she did loose weight. No exercise involved at all. Then in today's paper is the story of an actress Anne Hathaway who is on a restricted diet of 500 cals a day to slim down to star in a movie. While I suspect the actress also has a personal trainer she only has around a month or so to loose 16lb. So taking the obese woman, then you have to say that people like me who have a sedentary life for what ever reason, can loose weight doing no exercise and it is also possible to loose quite a lot of weight for a slimmer person, by ultra low calories and some form of exercise.

Anonymous · Mar 30, 2012

Defren said:
I've read through this entire thread, and while I don't understand the science behind some of the posts, it did make me think. Recently I saw a program on television about an extremely morbidly obese woman. The woman was as you would expect very ill, all kinds of problems associated with her weight. When she was taken into hospital she couldn't walk, was completely bed bound. However with the help of only a modified diet, the weight began to drop at unbelievable rates, which for her was of course wonderful.

The point I am making is, with a restricted and very modified diet, no more pizza, taco's and cake, she did loose weight. No exercise involved at all. Then in today's paper is the story of an actress Anne Hathaway who is on a restricted diet of 500 cals a day to slim down to star in a movie. While I suspect the actress also has a personal trainer she only has around a month or so to loose 16lb. So taking the obese woman, then you have to say that people like me who have a sedentary life for what ever reason, can loose weight doing no exercise and it is also possible to loose quite a lot of weight for a slimmer person, by ultra low calories and some form of exercise.

A few years ago I lost 6 stones doing no exercise except my normal cleaning, shopping etc. That put me bang in the middle of the correct BMI for my height, so exercise isn`t a must do, but of course it helps x

Defren · Mar 30, 2012

Jeannemum said:
Defren said:

I've read through this entire thread, and while I don't understand the science behind some of the posts, it did make me think. Recently I saw a program on television about an extremely morbidly obese woman. The woman was as you would expect very ill, all kinds of problems associated with her weight. When she was taken into hospital she couldn't walk, was completely bed bound. However with the help of only a modified diet, the weight began to drop at unbelievable rates, which for her was of course wonderful.

The point I am making is, with a restricted and very modified diet, no more pizza, taco's and cake, she did loose weight. No exercise involved at all. Then in today's paper is the story of an actress Anne Hathaway who is on a restricted diet of 500 cals a day to slim down to star in a movie. While I suspect the actress also has a personal trainer she only has around a month or so to loose 16lb. So taking the obese woman, then you have to say that people like me who have a sedentary life for what ever reason, can loose weight doing no exercise and it is also possible to loose quite a lot of weight for a slimmer person, by ultra low calories and some form of exercise.

Click to expand...

A few years ago I lost 6 stones doing no exercise except my normal cleaning, shopping etc. That put me bang in the middle of the correct BMI for my height, so exercise isn`t a must do, but of course it helps x

That is what I was trying to say, but you said it much better than I.

xyzzy · Mar 30, 2012

Yes except for walking the dogs am bolted to my chair and have lost loads.

Is it possible...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert

catherinecherub

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Anonymous

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency