Calorie Counts for Popular Diets
 

Every diet is a form of calorie restriction. I was peering at the South Beach Diet, Phase 1, and according to the plan I saw online, one would eat approx. 1000 cal. per day.

I've found many dip well below the 1200 mark.

I'm not criticizing - just observing.

Has anyone else added up the calories in popular, structured diets?

I personally did south beach diet 2 years ago and I ate way more than 1000 calories. U can eat any amount you want ( within reason) of the allotted foods for each plan. It just is VERYYY restricitve.

When I was on Jenny Craig around 1994 they started me on 1,400 and reduced it to 1,200 when I was close to goal.

I've seen accounts online about Weight Watchers and some of them seem to end up at the sub-1200 calorie mark even when eating all of their points.

I don't know if this is a common thing, or just a unique circumstance with the right combination of food choices.

It all comes down to one thing, we must reduce calories to lose weight .

I was on Nutrisystem, and it supposedly ranged from 1200 to 1400 per day. For me, it was closer to 1400. I rarely ate 1200. It depended on your choice of add-ins.

last time I saw my doctor he wanted me to consume no more than 900 calories a day.
He said I did not exercise enough to warrant more. I am also 51 years old. maybe if i was younger and more active he would have suugested more calories but I can easily consume 900 calories before 10 am. So what's the point!
No just kidding . I am not on any standard diet, just doing my own hard core vegan thing and no booze, no bread, no non-dairy coffee creamer...

Low-carb diets do not primarily work by calorie restriction - they work by regulating insulin levels. The moderate-carb diet I was on had no calorie restrictions laid out in the diet, only grams of carbohydrates. I started eating more calories when I switched from calorie-counting to that diet and I lost weight faster and more consistently.

I just find that most "popular diets" are on the super low end of the calorie range. I mean, "The Zone" comes in at barely 1200 a day.

As others have pointed out, so do Weight Watchers and Nurtisystem. Doctors also tend to prescribe super-low- calories....

I'm not trying to draw any conclusions here.... I just think it is fascinating how low these diets go!

ERHR: Last year I remember seeing a BBC documentary.... something like "The Truth about Carbs". They studied people on low-carb diets and found they generally were fuller on less food for a longer period of time. Thus, they actually did create a larger calorie deficit than when they were on a regular diet that included carbs.

So, the low-carb worked simply because they were eating less in general..... not because no-carb calories are something special or different.

I'm not refuting your experience - just wanted to add!

I started at only 168 and have lost more than 15 pounds eating 1400-1600 a day, sometimes more. Granted, I do work out 6 days a week. Anyway, I couldn't imagine eating 1200/cal- at least not every day. I have 1200 calorie days, but the next day I'm very very hungry. In my opinion there's no reason to be that restrictive on a regular basis.

Also, while we're on the subject, I'm fairly baffled as to why people would do anything besides count calories to lose weight. (Or weight watchers, since that's basically what it is). South beach, atkins, etc... I don't get it. Counting calories is free, fairly easy, and supports a lifestyle change so much better than any other diet, IMO. I'd never do it any other way.

And that is why I count calories, I refuse to pay money for someone to tell me what to eat. I have done it but now count calorie, efficient and free !

Speaking for myself, I was at a point last summer when I felt overwhelmed with my academic work and other things in my life, and when I spent time thinking about weight loss, the other things went by the wayside, and I was unhappy (and in trouble)! So I felt that I needed to compromise, and go with something "convenient." The Nutrisystem plan fit these criteria perfectly, but I always intended that it would be a temporary compromise -- the best thing would be to eat whole foods, and not pour money into the "diet industry."

That's one of the reasons I have quit Nutrisystem -- I know I don't want to eat their food forever, and the structure (and peer support) of their program got me into really good habits (that I didn't have to think about) -- now I feel that I can do it without the feeling of being overwhelmed learning new habits.

This! I couldn't afford to do any plans when I started and even now that I can I'm glad I never went that route.

I'm also not a big fan of weight watchers because they make it seem like it's the ONLY way to lose weight (I can't fault them for that, they're a business). I've heard so many people justify not even trying because they can't afford weight watchers and think it's the only way they can successfully shed pounds.

I also get annoyed when people ask me if I lost the weight with weight watchers. When I say I didn't, they act SHOCKED as if it's an impossible thing to do and then accuse me of starving myself.

yes folks, that's it, the only ways to lose weight are Weight Watchers and starving yourself. :rolleyes:

I actually just started south beach yesterday, and I'm also calorie counting (out of curiosity, mainly. I am apparently very sensitive to carbs so I really need to pay more attention to that than I have been, which is why I'm trying this out). I just tallied my calories and ended up with 1719 for today.

South Beach didn't have much cost to me.. less than $20. I didn't sign up for the website, just bought a few books on half.com. I'm a longtime calorie counter and will continue to do it, but I'm also a carboholic and wanted to try it out to see if it really got cravings in check. It's also really hard for me to lose weight and this helps me focus on the "kind" of calories I'm getting. So far so good, but it's only day 2... I'll keep my fingers crossed. So while I get that calorie counting is often the way to go, I find it helpful to use in conjunction with other methods.

They say that you don't have to track your portions etc... but I know that I won't be successful that way, so I do. I will say, though, that even if I don't end up following the plan longer-term, they have some great recipes and having that volume of food (I would expect that I was eating 1.5x as much based on how satisfied I am) is really helpful.

I noticed that when eating low-carb, I felt satisfied longer, munched and craved less and ended up consuming fewer calories. While committed to low carb, I tend to eat around 1400 calories without too much effort. I noticed other benefits as well, probably mostly gluten and insulin related :)

I think it's still definitely possible to overeat and not lose weight on low-carb, and that especially if appetite is reduced, it's important to make sure you get balanced vitamins in your veggie choices.

I did Metabolic Research Center and most days would average 800-1000 calories. 1200 on a heavier day when I ate beans for my starch and cheese for my protein. I'm so glad to be off that restrictive diet and just to counting calories and eating better.

I agree that the calories really do matter! And that eating those calories in carbs makes you hungry. I even thought twice about adopting "calorie counting" as my method, but I did. But in my mind, there is an asterisk in the words calorie counting*



* the calories counted must include at least 4 servings of vegetables, 1-2 fruits, healthy fats, etc. -- a reasonable distribution of macros. And a bit of chocolate each day. Just a bit. :)

GREAT guidelines! I HATE when I see people doing CC but eating crap! A lady in my Zumba class complains that she isn't losing any weight...but eating 1500 calories a day (according to her and her tracking on her phone). But she posts pics to facebook of her meals and she will eat a HUGE fast food lunch...and wonder why she isn't losing weight.

I think its QUALITY and quantity. I don't think I could lose weight on 1200 calories of junk because I'm still starving my body of nutrients.

LOL to be honest I've lost eating 1200-1500 calories of crap, but I didn't do it that often. My weekends are usually horrible diet-wise, but I stay within my calories so I think that's why I had a nice, almost-steady ride down to 132.

Although to be honest, those "horrible" weekends are getting few and far between. I don't seem to have the digestive tolerance for certain foods anymore.

Kara, I've done a lot of reading and research on carbohydrates in diet and I am convinced that hormone regulation is the root cause of weight gain or loss. Whether or not our bodies are ruled by caloric balance I'm not ready to say for sure (that's my own opinion - others would make the assertion that they are not), but I think it's not a very useful way to go about living one's life because our bodies modulate our energy output unconsciously. Eat fewer calories and our bodies expend less energy. You can't control your basic living-your-life energy expenditure with your actions the way you can with energy expenditure during workouts, and as you know that is far and away the greatest segment of expenditure.

You say "the bottom line is about less calories" but I could just as easily say that the bottom line is about minimizing fat storage. What if instead of low-carb diets really working by restricting calories, it was that low-calorie diets really work by restricting carbohydrates? I know that it's an extremely minority opinion on these boards and in society in general, but I've done enough reading and self-experimentation to be convinced that carbohydrates are the key, not calories.

And yes, I am aware that reducing carbohydrates in our diet reduces inflammation and therefore the body lets go of some water weight. My personal weight loss experience wasn't dropping a few pounds quickly when I switched, nor was it feeling more full on a higher-fat, higher-protein diet. I tracked my weight and calorie intake very carefully for months before and after my switch to lower-carb and my sustained, more rapid weight loss cannot be explained solely by letting go of water weight and feeling more full as I was eating several hundred more calories per day and didn't change my workout frequency/intensity.

I realize I'm not going to convince you or probably anyone else here. Just trying to inject some alternate views to nudge at the calories in-calories out paradigm.

That's a compelling argument, ERHR. I think nutrition and weight management is a very, very complex science, and I am only recently figuring out that we just don't know very much about how it works! I think it's probably that there is truth in all of these theories.

ERHR,

I found the same thing to be true for me. I also understand thermodynamics and the old calories in = calories out. I do so much better on low carb, I don't crave food.

Kara, like I said above, it's not that I don't think that caloric balance is valid but rather that it's not as useful as restricting carbohydrates for weight loss. The paradigm I referred to is that you can control your weight primarily through energy intake/expenditure, not that energy cannot be created or destroyed. As a "calorie-counter," you can control your calorie intake to the nth degree, struggling with your hunger and forcing yourself to work out attempting to tweak the balance, but you can't control your energy output very well at all.

I believe that our hormones control our fat storage (along with a host of other health-related mechanisms) and the most direct hack for pushing the equilibrium to fat loss rather than gain or maintenance is to reduce insulin spikes by restricting carbohydrate intake. (Secondarily, of course, you can look at protein intake, daily workouts, building muscle, etc.)

The first place I learned about this was in Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Great book for convincing un-demonizing dietary fat, but it goes on to discuss hormone control of weight. If I remember correctly, he doesn't discount the "thermodynamic law" of caloric balance but rather says that our energy intake and expenditure, while matched, are controlled by our hormones. That's why children grow, pregnant women put on weight, etc. fairly independently of how much they eat. Just today I was reading several women over on the "expecting" thread talk about how they had not changed their calorie intake at all and yet had gained x pounds. Does that mean they expended less energy so the "balance" was maintained? Maybe so. But the bottom line is that their hormones signaled their bodies to store fat so they did. Whether that was accomplished by eating more/moving less is not as critical as realizing that the hormones were behind it, not the calories.

ERHR, this is something that folks flogging thermodynamics sometimes overlook: the body has the ability to be more and less efficient, and utilize differing pathways to accomplish what it needs. So you don't truly know what you are burning.

3500 calories always equals 1lb of fat burned, but your body may burn it faster than mine at the same weight and same activity level. If manipulating macronutrient ratios appears to help in any way, so much the better.

Hello Bargoo! I am intrigued by your response. I am one who has tried every diet under the sun.....including a few really expensive ones. I want and need to get healthy, so my husband and I can start a family. I have about the same amount of weight to lose as you have. The only diet I have been truly successful on is the low carb diet but I really don't want to go back down that road. I don't want to be so restricted on what I can eat, plus low carb isn't really a lifestyle in my opinion. Calorie counting is really the only diet I haven't tried. So I want to get you insight so I will know what to expect. How long did it take you to lose your weight? What are some of your favorite things to eat? What kind of exercise do you do? Just some of the basics to get me started would be great!!!

Thanks so much! :D