(no subject)
Dec. 5th, 2012 10:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
which_chickSo, I've personally tightened up on the diet a little and done the regular exercising thing for a month. What did I get in return? Three pounds down. Three pounds is not really that interesting -- I vary that much in any given week based on how much salt I've had and/or the cycle of the moon or whatever.
This is a topic of interest only to me, really, but so is most of what I post about on here. Everyone knows that the way to lose weight is to "eat less" and "exercise more". Yippee. And if it really were that easy, we'd be a nation of skinnies instead of a nation of fatties.
Eat Less really does work. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that it's not just "less" all over but also the right KINDS of "less". Some things will somewhat hamper your efforts even if you eat teensy weensy portions of them. (I am going to drift into "Works For Me" land here, so put on your fruitbat filter if you like.)
How and why people gain weight is not particularly well understood. Yeah, people 'eat too much' and 'don't move enough' and get fat. Got it. Thank you for the simple answers. Apparently the entire nation as a population started all at once to 'eat too much' and 'not move enough' in the early 1980's. Why? What changed for *most* of us in the early eighties that has been driving the fatness not just in America but also in most other countries as well?
I'm not sure. Scientists are not sure.
Theory: People move less than they used to.
Research: Study shows modern humans burn as many calories as hunter-gatherers. Source
Hrm. Okay, so probably we're not "moving less" or whatever.
Theory: People eat more than they used to.
Research: There has been portion size growth at restaurants. Source People mostly eat what is put in front of them. Source. Other Source Therefore if restaurant portion sizes are bigger (and they are) and if people eat what is in front of them instead of attending to appetite (and they do), then people who eat out are going to be consuming more food. Dinner plates for at home have gotten bigger, too, and the amount of milk-n-cereal that people pour for themselves has increased. Still, is this, alone, the answer to why "average US-ian is an inch taller and about 20 lbs heavier now than in 1960". Source I mean, it's not like we didn't have food around in the 1960's. We were a nation of ample food availability back then, too.
Research: CDC says people ate more calories in 2000 than in 1971. Women increased caloric intake by 22%, men by 7%. Much of that growth in intake was carbohydrates. Source Further, "In 1970, the average American downed 2,169 calories a day, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By 2008, we were consuming 2,674 calories daily." That increase is 23% Source
Eating more is a big part of the problem. I'm down with that.
So, eat less. Got it. I'm actually doing that. I'm currently losing about half a pound a week. So, I'm running a "calorie deficit" of 1700 calories per week if a "pound" is equivalent to 3500 calories.
Supposed "normal" bmr calorie use for someone of my height/weight: 1472.5 (from here) This is calories used if I do nothing more than lay around in bed all day, but let's pretend that is exactly how many calories I actually use per day outside of planned, definite, purposeful exercise.
I also include AT LEAST 45 minutes (usually more like 50 to 55 min.) of scheduled and purposeful exercise activity 6 days a week. I'm pretty religious about this and I use a heart rate monitor and stuff to make sure I'm working hard enough. I log my stuff with Garmin Connect and track it at fitocracy.
Jogging at 12min/mile: 3 days a week. 441 calories per.
Walking at 4 mph (15 min/mile): 3 days a week. 276 calories per.
Total "exercise-induced" calories used, per week: 2151.
Calories used over the course of a week (bmr + exercise): 13931
Weight loss per week is 1700 calories
So, what I have to be eating is 12231 calories per week
Or, 1747 calories per day. If I were eating fewer calories, I would be losing weight faster... so OBVIOUSLY I am not eating fewer calories.
Here's what I ate today:
breakfast: 232 calories total
large coffee with 1/2 cup half-n-half but no sugar or flavoring: 160 calories
small apple: 72 calories
I'm pretty sure I put less than a half a cup of half-n-half in my coffee, but I will check tomorrow with a measuring cup so that I know for sure.
lunch: 215 calories
3/4 cup of hominy/corn soup. For caloric content, I used 1 cup of hominy (115 calories) plus 100 for broth, fat, etc. This is probably an overestimate. It's about a 50-50 mix of corn and hominy, plus it's not a full cup plus there are things like onions and bell peppers and whatnot in it. I also use a measuring cup to dip out the lunch food when I portion it into serving size containers to take to work. It is not a guesstimate of amount, here.
dinner: 478
110 calories for 1 oz pepperjack cheese
120 calories for three slices bacon, crispy
76 calories for 2 cups green beans, frozen and steamed
100 calories for tablespoon of butter
72 calories for small apple
That's 925 calories. Hrm. And I'm actually supposed to be eating 1747 calories per day.
So, where are the other EIGHT HUNDRED CALORIES PER DAY? (This is a measurement error roughly equivalent to what I consume every day. I don't think I am that far off in my measuring.) Why am I not losing a pound and a half per week? Why am I losing half a pound per week with a 5600 calorie weekly deficit? Am I a bromiliad, able to live on fresh air and sunshine?
I respectfully submit that I have overestimated every single food metric and underestimated the calorie expenditures from activity. Even given the benefit of the doubt in every possible direction, the numbers do not line up. This "Weight loss is a simple matter of Calories In - Calories Out" bullshit is complete asshattery.
I should be dropping weight like a Biggest Loser and yet I am not. What the hell is going on here?
No, I am not "drinking" my calories. Aside from the morning coffee, the only beverage I drink is water. Just water. Not flavored water or vitamin water or exercise water. Regular boring water from the tap. JUST water. No juice. No diet anything. No soda of any kind. No selzer. No milk. No orange juice. Just water.
No, it's not starvation mode. That's for people who are severely malnourished, to the point of being STARVING. I weigh a hundred and sixty two pounds at 5'7". I am not even close to being STARVING.
New this week, I dropped sugar. I'd gotten rid of the other white carbs (rice, flour, potatoes) but felt I could still have sugar. No more. Sugar is gone. As I do not eat very many processed foods (bacon is one, pepperjack cheese is another, cottage cheese a third), I can readily eliminate refined sugar from my diet. Sugar that comes from actual fruits and vegetables, I'm OK with that. Added sugar (corn syrup or any other sugar) is right out. Yeah, it's xmas. I know. I'll still bake for other people. Just, y'know, not for me. I'm on a mission, here.
I realize that this is the "carbs drive insulin; insulin drives fat storage" theory of fatness. I know it's widely regarded as pseudoscience of the more huckster-ish sort. I am not sure that it's real but on the other hand, the only thing left for me to get rid of is sugar. I got rid of the white carbs pretty solidly a couple of years back and all that was left was sugar. So, let's try that.
This is a topic of interest only to me, really, but so is most of what I post about on here. Everyone knows that the way to lose weight is to "eat less" and "exercise more". Yippee. And if it really were that easy, we'd be a nation of skinnies instead of a nation of fatties.
Eat Less really does work. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that it's not just "less" all over but also the right KINDS of "less". Some things will somewhat hamper your efforts even if you eat teensy weensy portions of them. (I am going to drift into "Works For Me" land here, so put on your fruitbat filter if you like.)
How and why people gain weight is not particularly well understood. Yeah, people 'eat too much' and 'don't move enough' and get fat. Got it. Thank you for the simple answers. Apparently the entire nation as a population started all at once to 'eat too much' and 'not move enough' in the early 1980's. Why? What changed for *most* of us in the early eighties that has been driving the fatness not just in America but also in most other countries as well?
I'm not sure. Scientists are not sure.
Theory: People move less than they used to.
Research: Study shows modern humans burn as many calories as hunter-gatherers. Source
Hrm. Okay, so probably we're not "moving less" or whatever.
Theory: People eat more than they used to.
Research: There has been portion size growth at restaurants. Source People mostly eat what is put in front of them. Source. Other Source Therefore if restaurant portion sizes are bigger (and they are) and if people eat what is in front of them instead of attending to appetite (and they do), then people who eat out are going to be consuming more food. Dinner plates for at home have gotten bigger, too, and the amount of milk-n-cereal that people pour for themselves has increased. Still, is this, alone, the answer to why "average US-ian is an inch taller and about 20 lbs heavier now than in 1960". Source I mean, it's not like we didn't have food around in the 1960's. We were a nation of ample food availability back then, too.
Research: CDC says people ate more calories in 2000 than in 1971. Women increased caloric intake by 22%, men by 7%. Much of that growth in intake was carbohydrates. Source Further, "In 1970, the average American downed 2,169 calories a day, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By 2008, we were consuming 2,674 calories daily." That increase is 23% Source
Eating more is a big part of the problem. I'm down with that.
So, eat less. Got it. I'm actually doing that. I'm currently losing about half a pound a week. So, I'm running a "calorie deficit" of 1700 calories per week if a "pound" is equivalent to 3500 calories.
Supposed "normal" bmr calorie use for someone of my height/weight: 1472.5 (from here) This is calories used if I do nothing more than lay around in bed all day, but let's pretend that is exactly how many calories I actually use per day outside of planned, definite, purposeful exercise.
I also include AT LEAST 45 minutes (usually more like 50 to 55 min.) of scheduled and purposeful exercise activity 6 days a week. I'm pretty religious about this and I use a heart rate monitor and stuff to make sure I'm working hard enough. I log my stuff with Garmin Connect and track it at fitocracy.
Jogging at 12min/mile: 3 days a week. 441 calories per.
Walking at 4 mph (15 min/mile): 3 days a week. 276 calories per.
Total "exercise-induced" calories used, per week: 2151.
Calories used over the course of a week (bmr + exercise): 13931
Weight loss per week is 1700 calories
So, what I have to be eating is 12231 calories per week
Or, 1747 calories per day. If I were eating fewer calories, I would be losing weight faster... so OBVIOUSLY I am not eating fewer calories.
Here's what I ate today:
breakfast: 232 calories total
large coffee with 1/2 cup half-n-half but no sugar or flavoring: 160 calories
small apple: 72 calories
I'm pretty sure I put less than a half a cup of half-n-half in my coffee, but I will check tomorrow with a measuring cup so that I know for sure.
lunch: 215 calories
3/4 cup of hominy/corn soup. For caloric content, I used 1 cup of hominy (115 calories) plus 100 for broth, fat, etc. This is probably an overestimate. It's about a 50-50 mix of corn and hominy, plus it's not a full cup plus there are things like onions and bell peppers and whatnot in it. I also use a measuring cup to dip out the lunch food when I portion it into serving size containers to take to work. It is not a guesstimate of amount, here.
dinner: 478
110 calories for 1 oz pepperjack cheese
120 calories for three slices bacon, crispy
76 calories for 2 cups green beans, frozen and steamed
100 calories for tablespoon of butter
72 calories for small apple
That's 925 calories. Hrm. And I'm actually supposed to be eating 1747 calories per day.
So, where are the other EIGHT HUNDRED CALORIES PER DAY? (This is a measurement error roughly equivalent to what I consume every day. I don't think I am that far off in my measuring.) Why am I not losing a pound and a half per week? Why am I losing half a pound per week with a 5600 calorie weekly deficit? Am I a bromiliad, able to live on fresh air and sunshine?
I respectfully submit that I have overestimated every single food metric and underestimated the calorie expenditures from activity. Even given the benefit of the doubt in every possible direction, the numbers do not line up. This "Weight loss is a simple matter of Calories In - Calories Out" bullshit is complete asshattery.
I should be dropping weight like a Biggest Loser and yet I am not. What the hell is going on here?
No, I am not "drinking" my calories. Aside from the morning coffee, the only beverage I drink is water. Just water. Not flavored water or vitamin water or exercise water. Regular boring water from the tap. JUST water. No juice. No diet anything. No soda of any kind. No selzer. No milk. No orange juice. Just water.
No, it's not starvation mode. That's for people who are severely malnourished, to the point of being STARVING. I weigh a hundred and sixty two pounds at 5'7". I am not even close to being STARVING.
New this week, I dropped sugar. I'd gotten rid of the other white carbs (rice, flour, potatoes) but felt I could still have sugar. No more. Sugar is gone. As I do not eat very many processed foods (bacon is one, pepperjack cheese is another, cottage cheese a third), I can readily eliminate refined sugar from my diet. Sugar that comes from actual fruits and vegetables, I'm OK with that. Added sugar (corn syrup or any other sugar) is right out. Yeah, it's xmas. I know. I'll still bake for other people. Just, y'know, not for me. I'm on a mission, here.
I realize that this is the "carbs drive insulin; insulin drives fat storage" theory of fatness. I know it's widely regarded as pseudoscience of the more huckster-ish sort. I am not sure that it's real but on the other hand, the only thing left for me to get rid of is sugar. I got rid of the white carbs pretty solidly a couple of years back and all that was left was sugar. So, let's try that.
