You're on Page 3 of 3
|
You're on Page 3 of 3
|
Originally Posted by canadianwoman: Kaplods, yes. I did sign a contract. The center I go to says I should be losing 3-7 pounds a week and will lose 92 1/2 pounds in 6 months time. (This is when I started six weeks ago and 21.5 pounds ago) So by Feb, I'm supposed to be at my goal weight of 165. The thing is, everyone is SO nice at the center. They are really supportive and have ensured me I'm eating healthy and giving my body enough nutrients. I have a weigh-in tomorrow and I'm going to talk with one of the counselors about the calorie issue. I'll come back tomorrow and post and update on what they say about calories. I'm really happy for the suggestions and help! |
Originally Posted by canadianwoman: I find it interesting and exciting that even though we used different calorie-counting websites AND an exchange plan estimation, all three estimations came up with totals between 840 and 860. To me, that shows that any of them can get you close to an accurate portait of your calorie intake. It does annoy me that fiber calories aren't usually subtracted from many of the calorie counting resources, because it makes high-fiber foods seem higher in calorie than they are. I'm reminded of my high school and college crash dieting days when I would eat 600 calories of only fruits and vegetables. I know that the resources I used would not have subtracted the fiber calories, so while I was thinking I was eating 600 calories, I was getting even fewere. Even today, I'm surprised at how often the fiber calories aren't subtracted. As a result, it makes fruits and veggies seem higher in calorie than they really are. I bought a bag of edamame at Target, and the calorie count was listed at 110 calories per serving, but when I saw that the fiber calories couldn't have been subtracted I did so. Of the 12 total grams of carbs, 9 of them were fiber. That means that of the calories coming from carbs was actually 12 calories, not the 48 calories calculated by the label. Which means that instead of 110 calories, the serving actually contained only 74 useable calories. That's a difference of almost a third, which means it's possible that at least sometimes when I thought I was eating 600 calories, I may actually have been eating as little as 420 useable calories. Because many calorie resources don't subtract the fiber calories, the foods that are highest in fiber are actually significantly lower in calorie than we think they are. It's ironic that the healthier you eat (your calories coming from fruits, veggies, and high-fiber nuts and grains), the more you may be overestimating your calorie count. It's kind of scary when you realize that if I took the nutrition labels literally, I would have concluded that 2 cups of edamame pods had the same caloric value as my favorite candy bar (Heath or Skor bar, at about 220 calories for a 1.75 to 2 ounce bar). If I had chosen the candy bar, I would have gotten 50% more calories than I anticipated (220 calories of candy versus 150 calories of edamame). I now know the candy bar makes me a lot hungrier than the edamame, but it's still annoying that I could be overestimating calories by as much as 33%. It's one of the reasons I did switch to exchange plan dieting, because I was less likely to think that a 50 calorie oreo was a better choice than a 70 calorie apple (which as it turns out may not even contain 70 calories of useable calories). I'm getting off-track, but I think it shows how easy it is to not realize what you are and aren't getting in your food choices. Dieting isn't rocket science - it's a whole lot more complicated. |
oh. wow. WHAT. this is a revelation. fiber is counted in caloric content? how many calories are in a gram of fiber? I thought there couldn't be any, because we don't absorb fiber. that's...so confusing. I eat high-fiber cereals often (oatmeal, shredded wheat) so this could change everything.
|
Aishah, I am going to ask again, what is the name of this diet? I see you mention going to a center, what center ?
|
Originally Posted by bargoo: I go to Quick Weight Loss Center. I did weigh in today and nothing lost since Tuesday. It's TOM for me right now. I did have a chat about what I'm eating and calories and I was told that I'm eating fine. That I'm on a chemically balanced diet and I'm eating enough food and the right kind of foods to give my body energy and nutrients. They looked in detail at my food journals and said I was doing great. I made sure to ask about calories and they said I'm doing great. |
Originally Posted by graterandy: Fiber is a type of carbohydrate, and like all carbohydrates, technically contain 4 calories per gram. That's how you can "double check the math" on a nutrition label (if you care to). If there's no fiber, or very little fiber in a food, then there's really no need to check the math. I don't bother if there's 2g or less of fiber (because at most I'm going to be eating 8 calories less than you think you are). But if the food does contain a lot of fiber, I will sometimes double check the math. (remember 1g of fat = 9 calories, 1g of protein or carbohydrates = 4 calories) Just an example let's assume you see these values on food label 1g fat (9 calories) 15g carbohydrates (the fiber are included in this number - 60 calories) 10g fiber (this means 40 of the carb calories "don't count.") 1g protein (4 calories) The calorie content listed on the label is going to be around 73 calories or 33 calories. By doing the math, you can tell whether the manufacturer or calorie counting source is counting the fiber. A lot of people just take the calorie count given, because they figure the number reflects "worst case scenario." They'd rather overestimate their calorie intake than underestimate it. And that's a valid choice if you're eating in the mid-range of a healthy calorie level - but if you're eating at the very low-end, perhaps even into starvation or malnourishment calorie levels, it's really important not to overestimate. I eat at the generous end (1500 - 1900 calories), so when I double check the math, it's usually out of curiosity rather than necessity. If I were eating less than 1200 calories, I'd want to be more precise. |
Originally Posted by Aishah: A chemically balanced diet??? That is a new one...never heard that before. LOL. |
Originally Posted by Aishah: Originally Posted by canadianwoman: Unfortunately, when it comes to weight loss science, we're still in the dark-ages. I'm sure your counselors do believe they're telling the truth, but their paychecks can cloud their judgement. They have just as much incentive as you do to believe what they're saying. We have a culture in which being overweight is almost seen as a fate worse than death, so the risks often don't seem all that important, to the point that often even the people who know the risks (whether they're the patient or the health professional) are willing to ignore them or dismiss them. I had decided against weight loss surgery, for example because of health issues that put me at much higher risk for complications including death. For one, I'm very prone to sodium deficiecy/depletion (which puts me at risk for sudden death from cardiac arrest). Even on a healthy diet, with a daily vitamin supplement, I'm prone to vitamin deficiency (my doctor doesn't know why). I have a history of being extremely prone to staph infection (making any surgery a greater-than-normal risk), and I have an autoimmune and inflammatory disease of the connective tissue that is likely to put me at extreme risk for complications with either lapband or bypass surgeries. I went to a new rheumatologist a few years ago, who told me that I would never lose any weight without wls, and that he wouldn't treat me unless I agreed to wls. I told him that my gp and I had decided that I was not a good candidate for surgery because of my added risk factors and explained them, and this doctor dismissed my concerns. He said he wasn't worried about the risks (it wasn't his life on the line) and that we could find a surgeon "willing to perform the surgery," (again the surgeon wouldn't be taking the risks, I would). I've had doctors recommend crazy diets - probably because doctors get virtually no training in nutrition. When it comes to crash dieting, so many of the risks are long-term. Most people can get away with one or two crash diets, even a dozen or two, without any obvious ill-effects. The damage is cumulative (and/or psychological), so it's often invisible until a person has been overweight for so long, that people can say "it's not the diet, it's the fat." Except that there's some compelling evidence that overweight people who do not have the crash dieting history, have fewer of these chronic health problems. You may be able to continue on with your diet as planned, and may even get to your goal weight, with no apparent ill effects. I can't tell you that you WILL experience any of the horrible side effects and long-term results that I did, but I also can't tell you that you won't. I can't even tell you that you won't experience worse. About a year or two ago, I read a story of a woman who died of a sudden heart attack just a day or two before her wedding. She was a beautiful woman who had only had maybe 30 lbs to lose, so she joined a very strict diet plan, and was going to the gym every day, and was drinking about a gallon and a half of water a day. To lose the last few pounds, she had upped her gym routine. In the article I read, a doctor was interviewed (I don't remember if it was actually her doctor) and asked to speculate on cause of death (an autopsy had not yet been done), and the interviewed doctor had several theories. One that the woman had been exercising too much and drinking too much water and had died of hyponatremia (dangerously low sodium levels, sometimes called water poisoning, because drinking too much water is one of the most common ways this occurs, as the water "washes" sodium out of the body). Another theory was that she had a cardiac defect that had not been diagnosed. Another theory was that the crash dieting had been the primary cause. There are so many possible underlying issues, that it's impossible to tell what could have been the primary cause. Was it the water, the exercise, the calorie restriction an underlying undiagnosed heart condition? We just don't know enough. We know that crash diets increase the risk for both short-term and long-term (and both severe and merely inconvenient) health issues, but we don't know how to predict the risks, and who they will affect. You probably won't have a serious health issue from one short, crash diet - just as you probably won't get lung-cancer from one puff of one cigarette. Unfortunately though doctors can't tell you how many cigarettes are safe (or if there is ever a safe amount), and they can't tell you how long or how many times crash dieting might be safe. For people who feel that being fat is a fate worse than death, it doesn't matter, because to them any risk is worth taking just for the hope and possibility of weight loss. And that is why I think so many of the risks of weight loss methods are often unexplored. It's as if most of us don't care. The promise of weight loss obscures everything else, because we think that obesity is so horrible that the risks don't matter (and maybe that would be a legitimate thought if most of those weight loss methods didn't contribute more to obesity than to weight loss). Whatever you decide, I wish you the best luck. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 AM. |
You're on Page 3 of 3
|
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.