Post by fish on Oct 29, 2004 7:07:17 GMT -6
Pam,
Let me try again.
You said: “the way my program is structured, I should be able to eat 2100 calories a day and loose 2 lbs a week. That doesn’t take into account exercise”
I think the general rule is that in order to gain or loose a pound, one must gain or loose 3500 cals net over a given period.
Thus, to loose 2 lbs in a week requires a 7000 net reduction in cal intake in that week. That's 1000 cals net per day intake reduction.
So, using your figures, in order for you to have no weight loss, you must take in 2100 + 1000 = 3100 cals per day.
That sounds high, but I do not know how many cals you burn daily, an incredibly difficult figure to calculate even with a strict food diary.
Now turning to another subject raised in your post.
I have read that if a person reduces intake too quickly, the metabolism changes its burn rate down.
So, accepting your calculation that you requires 3100 cals per day to maintain your current weight, then my reading leads me to wonder if reduction to 2100, almost one third, is too abrupt and might induce counterproductive systemic reactions, ie, a reduction in the metabolic burn rate.
I have also read that eating often keeps the metabolic burn rate up.
I have also read that it takes a frustrating amount of time and effort to increase your metabolic burn rate.
People try to make big changes. Not only is it hard to make big changes, but big changes also do not result in the proper metabolic change.
Small changes are easier to implement for long periods.
Most people fail because they do not give the changes they make enough time to work.
I think the way to do it is this:
First: eat only quality food.
Second: find out how many cals you are eating. This requires a food diary.
Third: reduce cal intake slightly, say 5 - 10%.
Forth: monitor weight until the curve* indicates no further benefit.
Fifth: reduce cal intake slightly.
etc. etc.
*the curve - if you are gaining weight at the start, you should see a decline in the rate of gain. If your weight is stable or you are loosing weight at the start, you should see a decline in weight.
It takes time for the process to get started ie for the metabolism to get stabilized in other than the feast/famine mode, so you have to be patient at the beginning. But if there is a net reduction in cals, eventually there must be a change.
Applying this routine to your numbers, you might reduce your intake by somewhere between 155 to 310 cals per day. This may seem slow, but 310 cals per day converts to a little over 2.6 pounds a month which is almost 32 pounds per year.
I assume that you know the theory about aerobic and resistance training as a part of the plan. I think they are important, but I think diet is 95% of success.
I believe that Jack and I are talking about slightly different subjects. I read Jack’s regime in the context of a weight training plan designed to increase muscle tissue. Of course, just sitting on your bones, muscle tissue burns cals so it’s good to get more. But I have read that most people increase fat more than muscle when they try to increase cals to increase mass.
I have repeatedly heard Jack’s suggestion about frequent small meals as a device to keep the fires burning.
My reading leads me to believe that small reduction in cal intake over relatively long periods of time is the plan that works best for lifetime change.
I look forward to hearing what you guys think.
fish
Let me try again.
You said: “the way my program is structured, I should be able to eat 2100 calories a day and loose 2 lbs a week. That doesn’t take into account exercise”
I think the general rule is that in order to gain or loose a pound, one must gain or loose 3500 cals net over a given period.
Thus, to loose 2 lbs in a week requires a 7000 net reduction in cal intake in that week. That's 1000 cals net per day intake reduction.
So, using your figures, in order for you to have no weight loss, you must take in 2100 + 1000 = 3100 cals per day.
That sounds high, but I do not know how many cals you burn daily, an incredibly difficult figure to calculate even with a strict food diary.
Now turning to another subject raised in your post.
I have read that if a person reduces intake too quickly, the metabolism changes its burn rate down.
So, accepting your calculation that you requires 3100 cals per day to maintain your current weight, then my reading leads me to wonder if reduction to 2100, almost one third, is too abrupt and might induce counterproductive systemic reactions, ie, a reduction in the metabolic burn rate.
I have also read that eating often keeps the metabolic burn rate up.
I have also read that it takes a frustrating amount of time and effort to increase your metabolic burn rate.
People try to make big changes. Not only is it hard to make big changes, but big changes also do not result in the proper metabolic change.
Small changes are easier to implement for long periods.
Most people fail because they do not give the changes they make enough time to work.
I think the way to do it is this:
First: eat only quality food.
Second: find out how many cals you are eating. This requires a food diary.
Third: reduce cal intake slightly, say 5 - 10%.
Forth: monitor weight until the curve* indicates no further benefit.
Fifth: reduce cal intake slightly.
etc. etc.
*the curve - if you are gaining weight at the start, you should see a decline in the rate of gain. If your weight is stable or you are loosing weight at the start, you should see a decline in weight.
It takes time for the process to get started ie for the metabolism to get stabilized in other than the feast/famine mode, so you have to be patient at the beginning. But if there is a net reduction in cals, eventually there must be a change.
Applying this routine to your numbers, you might reduce your intake by somewhere between 155 to 310 cals per day. This may seem slow, but 310 cals per day converts to a little over 2.6 pounds a month which is almost 32 pounds per year.
I assume that you know the theory about aerobic and resistance training as a part of the plan. I think they are important, but I think diet is 95% of success.
I believe that Jack and I are talking about slightly different subjects. I read Jack’s regime in the context of a weight training plan designed to increase muscle tissue. Of course, just sitting on your bones, muscle tissue burns cals so it’s good to get more. But I have read that most people increase fat more than muscle when they try to increase cals to increase mass.
I have repeatedly heard Jack’s suggestion about frequent small meals as a device to keep the fires burning.
My reading leads me to believe that small reduction in cal intake over relatively long periods of time is the plan that works best for lifetime change.
I look forward to hearing what you guys think.
fish
And so my week begins.