PDA

View Full Version : Counting calories: Do the math if you want to lose the weight


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



MyJourney
Sat, Jul-08-06, 12:15
Article published Jul 8, 2006
Counting calories
Do the math if you want to lose the weight
By CINDY WATTS
cwatts~dnj.com
278-5164
Source: caloriescount.org

With so many choices on the market today, choosing a diet may be much like selecting a mate. Many of the weight-loss plans have attractive qualities, but no diet is perfect. For some people, the key to success may be to locate a diet with a set of "faults" — such as no sugar or no carbohydrates — that can be tolerated long term.

Today's popular diets include: Atkins, South Beach, Sonoma, L.A. Weightloss, Nutrisystem, Slim Fast, Body for Life, Weight Watchers, The Zone and The Three Hour Diet. Each have characteristics that make them unique, but Rutherford County nutritionists Laura Dowland of StoneCrest Hospital and Lisa Sheehan-Smith, a registered dietitian at MTSU, agreed all diets are not created equal. And many of them may not be healthy.

"There hasn't been a commercial diet come out that I've been terribly impressed with in a long time," said Smith. "Weight Watchers is the best backed by research, and keeps up with the times. It's been around and has gone through the test of time."

Weight Watchers operates on a point system that focuses on portion control instead of the elimination of certain foods. Each dieter is given a certain number of points, and food items are assigned numerical values. People can eat anything they want, but when they are out of points, they must wait until the next day to eat again.

Dowland is also a fan of Weight Watchers.

"I really like Weight Watchers because it doesn't eliminate any of the food groups," she said. "It focuses on lower calorie foods, and you just have to count the points. Carbs aren't bad; it's just we eat too many of them. A serving is actually 1/2 a cup of pasta or 1/2 a cup of potato, but we eat three or four times that."

Atkins and South Beach both restrict carbohydrates for periods of time. Atkins encourages endless amounts of fat and protein, while South Beach isn't as strict and promotes lean protein and whole grains. Of the two high-protein diets, both women agree South Beach is the better choice. After two weeks on the South Beach diet, good carbohydrates, such as whole grains, are reintroduced to balance it out. Dowland said she doesn't want people to think of carbohydrates as the weight-loss enemy.

"Carbohydrates are fuel for your brain activity," she said. "If you're not taking in adequate carbs, your blood sugar drops and causes headaches and makes you feel nauseous. The idea is to limit carbs to make your body burn stored fat. But if you eliminate fruits and grains, you eliminate fiber, and that's not good. You just need to be fully aware."

Another issue Smith has with fad diets is the notion that if someone doesn't lose weight on a diet, it is the dieter's fault. In fact, she said, the diet failed not the individual.

"It's an important concept to take ownership of your diet," she explained. "You lost the weight. The diet didn't do it for you. If you don't, the diet failed you. Authors write books to appeal to the masses, and really hard to stick to a diet if it doesn't fit your lifestyle. If the diet failed, it didn't meet your lifestyle."

In the end, dieting isn't about choosing a diet at all. Regardless of the approach, Dowland explained losing weight directly correlates to a reduction in calories.

"Calories in food comes from carbohydrates, proteins and fat," she said. "Losing weight ... comes down to somehow eating less calories and losing weight. One gram of carbohydrates weighs the same as one gram of protein, and both have four calories. As long as you are cutting calories, you are going to lose weight. Somehow that's all that matters."

Smith suggested new dieters plan for success by getting organized and mapping out meal plans.

"If you fail to plan, you plan to fail," she said. "I find people being challenged by not enough fruits and vegetables and too many fun foods. They don't even think about a ladle-plus of salad dressing on a salad, and there's so many prepackaged foods that have a lot of calories and not much else. If you don't plan to eat, you will probably fail. Think about what you like to snack on, and fill those little bitty snack bags with a favorite snack. Or, fill the little bag with veggies and create a new habit. You have to be practical when eating. A diet may sound sexy, but it probably won't last."

Regardless of the weight-loss route that is chosen, Dowland said success depends on one thing.

"Calories are calories, and it all comes down to calories," said Dowland. "I hate the word 'diet' because it implies it is a temporary thing. It should be a lifestyle change. The things you do to lose weight are the things you have to do to keep it off."

TIPS

Local dietitians Laura Dowland and Lisa Sheehan-Smith offered these calorie-counting, healthy-eating tips to bolster any weight-loss plan:


When dining out, request a doggy bag immediately. After you food arrives, take half of it and place it in the box. This will prevent the consumption of too many calories.

For dinners at home, eat on salad plates. The plates hold less food and you will eat less.

Look at the nutrition facts on the side panel of packaged foods. In cereal, you want at least three grams of fiber per serving.

When purchasing items that advertise as whole grain, check the ingredient list on the side panel. Whole wheat flour and whole grain oats should be listed first. If they are not, then the item isn't whole grain.
FYI ...

To lose one pound, a person must burn 3,500 calories more than are consumed. That adds up to 500 calories a day over the course of a week to lose one pound a week.

To get an idea of how much that is, a 12-ounce cola is 150 calories, and a slice of chocolate cake is about 388 calories, adding up to 538 calories.

mike_d
Sun, Jul-09-06, 08:01
Yep I ageee totally ...

Two thumbs down!

In a cranky mood today, I got woke up at the usual 5:30 and missed "Meet the Press" due to the tennis :)~

Frederick
Sun, Jul-09-06, 09:14
I've always been curious about Weight Watchers point system beign so effective. Let's say, I'm out of points.

So what? As if running out of points is going to stop a person from eating?

fallsgal
Sun, Jul-09-06, 10:51
Hey, as an old WW dieter I can attest that many people save up some of their daily points, and their "extra weekly points" so they can pig out on cake or booze, or whatever, on the weekend - I certainly used to do it. What did that teach me? That I could eat whatever I wanted, but only if I gave up the actual quantity of food I was eating. I just about went nuts trying to stay on this as I was always hungry. But if I wanted a glass of wine, or a candy, or piece of pie I was forced to eat much less of the lousy salad/veggie/fruit/lowcal cheese etc. I was supposed to eat. A half cup of potatoes? Give me a break! Just does not work!!!!! I read post after post after post there from dieters who were back yet again on WW year after year. I know that people here on LC do the same thing. But it's simple hunger on WW that drives people to eat too much, rather than the more complex problems with carbs LC people have. This LC way at least we can EAT and be satisfied.

MyJourney
Sun, Jul-09-06, 12:36
I've always been curious about Weight Watchers point system beign so effective. Let's say, I'm out of points.

So what? As if running out of points is going to stop a person from eating?

A friend of mine did WW and from what I understand they have some 0 point foods. I think one of the 0 point foods was some type of cabbage soup.

She would blow all her points on cookies, exercise for more points, blow those on cookies and then eat cabbage soup the rest of the day. And she told me I was sick in the head for following Atkins! lol


I think running out of points for some is like running out of carbs for another. I imagine most people try and spread out their carbs/points throughout the day but there are going to be times someone wants something with a higher than normal amount of points/carbs.

Low carbing is stricter and takes other things into consideration for example someone cant have a 20g carb sugary sucking candy on induction and then say I am out of carbs and eat steak all day but one can have a 20 point big mac and fast or eat cabbage soup and SF jello for the rest of the day and stay on plan with WW.

Frederick
Sun, Jul-09-06, 13:30
She would blow all her points on cookies, exercise for more points, blow those on cookies and then eat cabbage soup the rest of the day. And she told me I was sick in the head for following Atkins! lol

This is one of the funniest diet things I've ever heard! :lol:

kwikdriver
Sun, Jul-09-06, 14:00
"I really like Weight Watchers because it doesn't eliminate any of the food groups," she said. "It focuses on lower calorie foods, and you just have to count the points. Carbs aren't bad; it's just we eat too many of them. A serving is actually 1/2 a cup of pasta or 1/2 a cup of potato, but we eat three or four times that."


Why do people eat too many carbs, but not too many chicken breasts? It's the question articles like these always blow right by, but it's the one question that any carbohydrate restricted diet answers head on.

This article isn't bad for what it is, except what it's saying is pointless: people get too fat because they eat too much. Wow, what a concept! Yet almost every article being published these days says the same thing. Surely the public isn't so dumb it needs to be told this, over and over again? Surely? Surely the important question is why people eat too much today, but didn't eat too much 50 years ago? From my perspective any article that doesn't address this question is a waste of space.

HairOnFire
Sun, Jul-09-06, 14:25
I dropped 40 pounds on W.W. about six years ago. It works if you can stick to it. I like the description somebody on here said a while back - following a low-calorie high-carb low-fat diet is like holding your breath under water - eventually you just gotta come up for air, and when you do, you fall off the plan.

Now clearly there are tons of people who fall off Atkins and LC as well, and they return and try again and again. But for me, the difference is that I don't have cravings on LC. And I'm probably eating the same number of calories, or more, on LC and feeling quite full, and losing weight, whereas on W.W. I was always thinking about the next meal and having sugar cravings. It worked back in my early 40s. Now I'm 47 -- with the hormonal fluctuations that that entails -- and when I tried counting points again last year, I actually gained weight. And fell off. And gained. And counted points again. And fell off. I was in a spiral going nowhere. So I switched to Atkins.

ItsTheWooo
Mon, Jul-10-06, 15:40
I've always been curious about Weight Watchers point system beign so effective. Let's say, I'm out of points.

So what? As if running out of points is going to stop a person from eating?
Probably wouldn't, since a normal person can tolerate hunger so long.

It would be about the same as eating carbs on a LC diet, it would be cheating and one would know by eating over their points they were hurting weight loss.

WW seems to require more planning. At the local store where I work part time, a coworker is on weight watchers and I get the impression that she kinda plans her food (points) out for the course of a day. If you do it right I imagine you would save up your points for later in the day so you wouldn't go to bed hungry (or, quite as hungry ;) ).

ItsTheWooo
Mon, Jul-10-06, 16:06
I think WW would be a good plan to follow if only it emphasized nutrition more. Like, if one eats no protein, that's perfectly okay. It's not like a LC diet where eating way too little protein is impossible. It's very easy to become malnourished on that kind of diet because of it's lax rules on junkfood and it's pushing of raw energy food (carbs like grains). On LC your meals are almost 100% anabolic building blocks, fats and proteins. You're forced to eat veggies because starch-like food is prohibited or very restricted. Plus, veggies taste good if you're eating fat. A low fat dieter is more likely to load up on salty starch, or sweet fat free things like fruit, falling short in important nutrition (meat & veg).

I like the way it emphasizes control of eating. A newbie on atkins feels like the world will end if they screw up, because there is no recourse other than "oh well, you're gonna get fat now, try again tomorrow!"
It really doesn't work like that, and it isn't right that people should feel so terrified about slipping up. It just leads to self destructive behavior (like more cheating, or sometimes worse things...)
A newbie on WW knows if they eat something bad, they just eat less, or eat very low point things till later on... because upfront WW tells you it's all about choices and managing them, indulging only becomes screwing up if you don't stay accountable. This is something we all have to figure out sooner or later, anyway.

If we could take the emphasis on behavior modification and control of eating you have with WW, and combine it with the emphasis on fixing metabolism like LC diets, then we would have a real *winner* of a plan.

This probably won't ever happen because such a diet would be perceived as complicated and strict. I suppose that's why people keep gaining weight though - easy and effortless ain't reality :/ .