What's a more accurate way of calculating it?

Lee

I lowered my calories to 500 a day - then I lost weight, but this is just not a long term solution. Its ok for a short term plan for those with less to lose (if you don't mind muscle loss), but eating 500 calories a day is for me a fast track to severe hunger and binge central.

Even at 1200 calories a day, I didn't lose.

Lee

Leemack, if you were eating 500 calories a day, you were doing something different from what people who normally count calories do - you were eating a third of what even a dieting person would normally eat!

Long term solution, yeah I guess NOT!

(Note: weight loss does occur based on calories in/ calories out... but it doesn't happen in a linear fashion. It seems to with me, these days - I look at averages and the averages show exactly what will happen next weigh-in, despite my relatively sedentary lifestyle - but I know that for the most part, it is not a linear chain of events.

To illustrate this: years ago, I lost weight on a 700 or 750 calorie a day program, with intensive counseling. By the time I finished, was at my goal, I could easily have continued, long-term, because the hunger was simply gone. Other things were gone from my life, though, too. Socializing, for one. My boyfriend was out of town and I just didn't go out. TV, for another... it was recommended that you not watch television on the diet because of the food ads!

I was in no danger of bingeing, or starving, or feeling very hungry. I thought that my stomach must have shrunk, or something. This was without any kind of pills other than a multivitamin!

After I went off the diet, I continued to lose weight, although I increased my caloric intake. I maintained for quite a long time. 3 or 4 years, for sure, at exactly the same weight, but my hunger level was gone, as if my stomach actually had shrunk! It took years, ageing, having two kids, becoming a stay-at-home mom, cooking a LOT, etc. to get to the point where I have a weight problem.)

Not true; fat won't make you fat, it might make you stall, but protein in excess can be fattening because it's converted to glucose. Please, more fact checking is in order Yet another common misconception.Maybe the "New Math"?

I am not sure. I think you'd have to talk to a specialist to make sure you had no hormonal/thyroid issues going on. I do know that it takes a lot less energy to maintain fat cells than it does to maintain your lean body weight in your body. Since you can gain fat cells in number but never lose them outside of surgery (when you lose weight they get smaller, but don't go away). So they are there being all efficient and then sending all these signals to your brain to fill them up again. So they screw with your willpower and your innate ability to maintain weight. At least that is my lay understanding.

Maybe someone knows a website or a book that would help you more accurately figure things out. It could be, though, that you have some other issues other than a miscalculated BMR. And as much as I turn to keeping an eye on calories when I stall out, I agree with those who say that it is too complicated and relies on too many variables to be the sole means of weight loss.

I think switching things a bit (adding or removing dairy, veg, etc) helps some people. It helps me a lot. I don't know if it just the adjustment to the new regimen or just that you may need to wait it out and you would lose weight eventually if you changed things or not.

Keep on keeping on. One thing is for sure: you won't break a stall by giving up and going back to old ways.

A local university where I live has a human performance lab where you can get your metabolic rate measured for $100.

http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/sc...e-lab/index.cfm

Interesting idea, and I think they do that here if you get referred to an obesity specialist - but I don't think my bmr is wrong. As I said, although I believe that calories are a factor in weight loss, I think there is more going on with lots of people.

Lee

Thanks Moggsy, but as I posted, I'm keeping on keeping on and trying metformin to solve the insulin issues. I've also stopped some medication I'm on, stopped all dairy and slightly increased my veg intake.

I was just pointing out that calories aren't all, and particularly for those with severe insulin resistance, pcos, thyroid issues etc, there are other things going on. Its not as 'predictable' as mathmaniac suggests. And for many of us the type of calories we eat do matter.

Lee

The 500 calories a day or less was not by choice. I had a severe episode of ibs that lasted several months and could not eat solid food for many weeks - my calorie intake was very low, but apart from the initial water weight, it is the only weight I've lost. Though today my endo suggested I try a 500 calorie a day diet called 'lighter life' - I declined, I don't fancy the muscle loss. (I also turned her down on wls and orlistat - I told her I don't want to be mutilated or soil myself!).

I believe that there is a solution and that a calorie deficit will be involved - I just don't think its the only thing in my case. I think that quite low carb, no dairy, metformin and supplementation will all help. But at the moment I'm my own one person experiment, I try things and work out what works and what doesn't - for me.

Lee

Well, it's good your seeing an endocrinologist because he or she has the right expertise (not talking about particular endos, just in general).

This is the second time I've heard about 'Lighter LIfe.' FatFreddy is on this board and he does that program - quite successfully, it seems, but it does take time. He has a good blog, don't know if you've read it. It's a link in his posts here.

Interesting. I tried it out saying "little or no exercise" since I have not been getting much during the winter, and it tells me:

Maintenance:
2153 Calories/day
Fat Loss:
2080 Calories/day

That's a pretty fine line between maintenance and fat loss, less than 100 calories a day. How does one even calculate to that level of precision? I mean I can weight and measure every bite, and I often do - but there is no guarantee that the actual calories of the food I'm eating match up with what the charts say. But they are right, I sure am "maintaining" at that level - stalled for 16 months, and average caloric intake of 1900-2200. Of course the above seems to say I should lose at 1900. I'm willing to believe I should eat less. The only problem is that when I do I get hungry. I can seem to live with hunger for 3-4 days, and then end up exploding on a 4000-calorie binge. But if I stick to the 1900-2200 range I can keep it up indefinitely. Just can't lose weight on it.

Yes, I am aware of his blogs. And lighter life is very successful in getting a person to lose weight - as would any 500 calorie a day diet. But its a recipe for muscle loss and dietary deficiencies. It is a starvation diet, and an expensive one at that at £60 per week per person.

I know a couple of people who did lighter life, they both lost loads - Ian, a chap I worked with lost around 5 stone in 13 weeks, it was only gp recommended for 13 weeks. A year later and they both weighed more than before lighter life.

Lee

I agree; a less than 100 calorie deficit makes all the difference? I call BS on that whole way of thinking. For instance, this morning, I had to dig my car out from the snow storm; a lot more activity than I normally do of a morning. You'd think that would make a difference somehow, and maybe it did; I ate more than 300 calories than I usually do

In fact, Gary Taubes, in this blog post, discusses why this is a ridiculous notion:






And this is another point; people who drastically undereat calories do lose weight; and then they are guaranteed to put it all back, and then some. I don't know anyone, from Lee's friends to Oprah, who hasn't done this kind of diet, only to gain it back twice.

I'm not sure what the answer is when no matter what, we maintain. That's where I've been for two months. But calories, especially drastic restriction, is what I figure is the worst thing I can do.

Doesn't Lighter Life have some kind of maintenance thing where you can keep on track?

I know that most diets, people regain. I don't know of any diet that doesn't have that effect. They may regain a little, or a lot, but keeping weight steady is an ongoing process. I don't think it's a sign of anything, not a sign that Lighter Life has a problem, or even that those coworkers have a problem that prevents them from staying healthy. Dieting is just simply tough to stay with.

Actually, on a 750 calories (it may have been 700 calories, don't remember) diet, I lost the weight, and then some, and kept it off for years, with very little effort.

So now you know someone who lost weight on a very low-calorie diet and kept it off - until after the birth of my son, actually. That was 20 years ago.