I'm a geek. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. I'm the person that keeps track of the gas mpg on every single tank of gas. When I'm driving on a long trip, I'm the person that keeps calculating and recalculating my average miles per hour and arrival time based on mile markers vs speedometer reading. Yeah. I do it for fun.
I've been following the scientific debate in the blogosphere about what makes us fat. There's the carb hypothesis, the food reward hypothesis, and lots of others. And then there's the good old calories in - calories out hypothesis (CICO in certain circles, which gets fixed by ELMM, eat less, move more). One of the bloggers I like, Carbsane, sent out a request for anyone, anyone to give her a scientifically validated example of someone that ate more calories and lost weight, or ate fewer calories and gained weight.
Which got me thinking about Mir's figuring last week of how many calories she would be able to maintain her weight on.
Which got me thinking about what my maintenance calories would be.
Which got me in the mood to do some CICO calculatin'...
Since September 1, I've lost 27 pounds, which (at 3500 kcals per pound) is 94,500 kcalories deficit in 10-1/2 weeks. Or 9000 calories per week deficit. (Or 1285 calories per day.) Looking at it a different way, if I ate 1285 calories per day more than I eat, there would be no deficit and I wouldn't lose weight.
For the last few weeks I've been eating about 1200 calories per day. The above seems to indicate that I could eat 2485 calories per day if I wanted to maintain - which I have a hard time believing. If we assume that 7 pounds of the 27 was water weight, then my deficit is still 952 calories per day and I could eat 2150 calories per day. Still hard to swallow (that was punny! hahaha).
I don't believe for a minute that I could eat 2150-2450 calories per day and not gain weight. But I also didn't journal my food when I was fat. Maybe that's what I was eating!
Of course looking backward is easier than looking forward. I have no idea how my metabolism is going to change as I get smaller. Scientific research and anecdotes from successful losers say that it will slow down. A smaller body takes less energy to maintain, and 1200 calories will be less of a deficit. In a few months when I'm still eating 1200 calories per day but not losing as fast, I can re-do the above calculation and probably arrive at a completely different result. The days of 2150-2450 calories per day are gone, gone, gone!
Weight this morning was 236.4. No real loss this week so far. I'm being consistent with eating and exercise though, and my history indicates that I'll probably get my entire loss for the week in 1 or 2 days, probably this weekend.
I was meticulous about tracking early in my journey. Then I found my "system" and didn't really need to to keep losing. I began tracking again, saw how much I was maintaining at.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm meticulous again because I want to see if my metabolism can be s timulated in a slow refeed. I'm up 1.5 pounds from lowest of 177.6, and I was up to around 2000 cals. Today, I begin my rejiggered "metabolism healing" higher protein (2 to 3 protein snacks between 2 meals or 2 meals plus snack), but with an eye to staying u nder 1600. It's tougher with the added calories from the protein, but I like experimenting. We'll see. :)
Track and you'll see at what level you lose, maintain, gain..and that gives you an idea of what will be realistic later (for maintenance at a feasible weight).
Our ideal weights are not always feasible. We often need to compromise. Yep.
And metabolism doesn't just slow from losing weight/bulks/muscle. It slows from the body's adaptation to dieting....but I can't go back and change my approach. I'm just glad I focused on high nutrition/saw a dietitian/didn't skimp of fresh, real food, maximized value o calories (rather than using calories for Snickers, sugary yogurts, empty calories)..
If I were to start fresh (say I was back at 299 lbs), I would NOT do low-cal dieting (1200-1500), and certainly not VLCD (less than 1200). I would cut minimally, lose slowly, and keep nutrition very high to minimize loss of muscle and maximize the chances of resetting set-point and not going into starvation adaptation. I figured it would take me years, anyway....but maybe I should have accepted 4 years rather than...2? :)
Well, can't change the past. We do the best with what we can do NOW....that's my motto. Do the best NOW.
And be well...
Hmmm.... thought provoking. Kudos to you for taking the time to put some calculations into your health, your journey to the better you. It's such a tricky game and every body is different. Be well.
ReplyDeleteMir, I'm looking forward to reading about your experimentation! I've noticed that eating bland foods really does lower my hunger level. Cottage cheese fits the bill for bland, but nutritious. Plus, I like it.
ReplyDeleteThere's a whole theory of obesity/overeating/weight loss that Stephan Guyenet espouses and it's related to non-rewarding/rewarding foods. I found that the hyperpalatable foods research in THE END OF OVEREATING was my epiphany. And I do understand some of what Guyenet talks about with regard to the brain/reward etc.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I like spices and sauces and stuff, and I use garlic, onions, herbs. I like that. But when I avoided starches/lost sugar, my appetite calmed down. When I cut down on overly complicated/palatable dishes (like lasagna, pizzas, super burritos with oodles of laayers, etc), that I could avoid binges.
For me, avoiding binges was necessary to even start making some progress. Lowering carbs and palatability helped.
Now, I go for palatable, and if I keep the starches down, carbs moderate, appetite is still really nicely calm (most of the time).
We have to find what calms the beast. :D