Doug, how does it work?

[Rena]

I've always been told "calories in, calories out" when it comes to losing. You've said that to me, too.

Okay, so according to my exercise chart I'm keeping, on average I'm burning about 2200+ calories, or so it says. I don't know how accurate that is. Basically, I do some hand weights for about 10 minutes and then I walk on a BowFlex TreadClimber for 30 minutes everyday. Then in the evening I use a recumbent bike for another 30 minutes, on the highest exercise setting.

So, I'm a little confused. If I'm burning so many calories, but not eating nearly as many, what's going on? I think I had about 600 or so yesterday with the same amount of exercise I do everyday. And I only had 11.38 net carbs. My weight didn't change from yesterday to today. I'm not complaining, mind you -- I'm just confused how it works.

   

[momma chops]

Have that problem I have been confused about how it works but always have been  afraid to ask.

[Rena]

Have that problem I have been confused about how it works but always have been  afraid to ask.

Well, at least we can be confused together!

Like today -- I've eaten 569 calories so far and I've done the same amount of exercise. I probably should eat more, but I've had my 3 meals and snacks and am pretty much satisfied. But I'm curious what happens when the calorie level (or carb or whatever!) is lower than what's being burned. The logical explanation is that you'd burn body fat, but I don't know if that's true or not. My scale hasn't changed regardless.

[SherriPie]

But guys we're not doing calories, we're doing carbs. So you should be watching portion control and carb intake, not calories. Sure try to be mindful of what you're eating, just because it has no carbs doesn't mean you can eat a whole bag(portion control). But counting calories on FTS won't help you loose weight, that's the old way that we all tried and it never works.

[Doug Varrieur]

But guys we're not doing calories, we're doing carbs. So you should be watching portion control and carb intake, not calories. Sure try to be mindful of what you're eating, just because it has no carbs doesn't mean you can eat a whole bag(portion control). But counting calories on FTS won't help you loose weight, that's the old way that we all tried and it never works.

Sherri is 100% correct.  Rena, are you sure I used the "C" word? Fuel in fuel out would be my normal statement and when I say that I'm referring to sugar in blood sugar out. I think calorie counting is a failed system which has been used for years and adopted by every food manufacturer and dietitian in the world. Of course years ago we used to think the world was flat and the sun rotated around the earth 

I'll give you an example of how calorie counting versus carb counting can conflict in our program;

Iceburg lettuce

8 cups are only 64 calories but that same 8 cups are 8 carbs, almost 1/2 your allowed total! That's why bunny rabbits get fat 

here's another, Pasta

1/2 cup of cooked pasta is only 110 calories but is also 21 carbs....ooops! no more food for you today! 

As I said, Sherri's advice is correct. and remember Rena as you work out all that protein you eat is developing into some muscle tissue, it weighs something, the scale might not be changing but unless I'm mistaken you're in those cute Mickey shorts now   

[Rena]

I agree, but I'm not 'counting' calories. I'm simply keeping track of how much food I eat, or portion control as you said. The calories, fat, fibre, and carbs just happen to come up when I do that on the program. And in all honesty, my carbs haven't been over 10 very often, so I'm not overdoing those. That's why I started monitoring my food intake the way I am now -- just to keep track of those little half-carbs here and there because they start adding up.

Perhaps it's the muscle thing like you said.

Sorry. Everytime I mention the C-word everyone gets upset.

[umpa]

Thats not true Rena! Nobody is upset you can ask whatever you like!We love ya! When doug and I answer questions it is being read by everyone so we don't want to confuse people with calories.(I said it,CALORIES!!! )

[jen1975]

It's ok Rena, we still love you!  You do it how it works for you!

   The one thing I see that concerned me (maybe I read it wrong) - are you only eating @600 calories a day?  Because your body will go into survival mode very quickly if you aren't getting enough food/ energy.  And if you are working out on top of that, it will cause it clamp down that much harder.  Portion control is all well and good, just make sure you are getting ENOUGH portions in the day too!!

[Doug Varrieur]

  Rena you can ask any question about any subject without concern, that's what our forum family is all about   Now, forgetting about all the numbers I want to point out something you said in your second post on this subject;

 "Like today -- I've eaten 569 calories so far and I've done the same amount of exercise. I probably should eat more, but I've had my 3 meals and snacks and am pretty much satisfied"

This is a perfect example of being in tune with your body, you felt satisfied and you didn't eat any more. When it comes right down to it there's your truthful barometer....your own body, you are listening to it and responding accordingly....well done. Stay the course Rena, you're doing great!

[Rena]

Thanks, Doug. And just so everyone knows, I was only using those numbers as an example of how can you eat a certain amount of food, but be burning way more and curious to what's going on in the body. I don't count calories, although I do see them, and they vary from day to day. I just happened to pick those numbers on that day because I saw how many I was burning with exercise. The numbers didn't make sense, but perhaps I'm building muscle or losing inches. Who knows. I thought about that whole 'not eating enough/starving yourself' thing too, but I read Doug's post on that as well and I don't think it's that.

[F2S-Awesome]

My two cents: Portion control doesn’t always mean don’t eat too much. For me it also means if I don't eat enough, I stop losing weight on F2S. I look at it like the tummy is my fireplace and I need to keep the fires burning. If the fire goes out, I stop losing fat. What's burning ‘in there’ for me is body fat as well as the food I eat; so for me at least, there is a point where too little food, regardless of exercise, will halt the fat burning. I'm not sure if it's the survival mode thing mentioned. I have read different schools of thought on that and so I’m not sure and it’s complicated. But for me, it’s simple, on F2S I need portion food throughout the day so I’m eating enough to keep the fires burning, but also never “too much” of course. My wife is on the diet too and 6 months ago said she stopped losing weight mysteriously. I told her to eat more. She didn’t, got nowhere, saw a nutritionist, and was told “eat more”. She did (all the while staying on F2S) and she started losing weight again. The body is a funny thing. It’s not as simple as fuel in/fuel out, at least not for me.

[Rena]

Thanks for your input, FTS-Awesome. I've had that happen where I stalled out when I wasn't eating enough. I can't say I'm stalled now because I have been losing. It's just interesting to see what people think and how much food they believe you need to consume verses how active you are. Most everything I've read says something to the effect of, "One pound of fat is made up of roughly 3,500 extra calories. So in order to lose one pound of fat, you need to create a caloric deficit of 3,500 calories." I guess that's what I was getting at with this post. It really wasn't about the basic FTS way, so I hope no one misunderstood me. It's kind of a catch-22 though. You have to eat enough to lose weight, but not too much. However, if you stop eating when you feel full, that might not be enough food to keep losing.

As Doug said, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing because it's obviously working.

[mouseissue]

Thanks for your input, FTS-Awesome. I've had that happen where I stalled out when I wasn't eating enough. I can't say I'm stalled now because I have been losing. It's just interesting to see what people think and how much food they believe you need to consume verses how active you are. Most everything I've read says something to the effect of, "One pound of fat is made up of roughly 3,500 extra calories. So in order to lose one pound of fat, you need to create a caloric deficit of 3,500 calories." I guess that's what I was getting at with this post. It really wasn't about the basic FTS way, so I hope no one misunderstood me. It's kind of a catch-22 though. You have to eat enough to [url=http://www.fattoskinny.com/][url=http://www.fattoskinny.com/]lose weight[/url][/url], but not too much. However, if you stop eating when you feel full, that might not be enough food to keep losing.

As Doug said, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing because it's obviously working.

Good for you, Rena!... Sounds like you're really tuning into your body and it's REAL (not imagined) needs.

My thoughts on the prevalent 3,500 calories per pound of fat in fat out theory;

I believe that it's close to truth. But misses a subtle but important point...
HOW does the body CREATE 3,500 calories of stored FAT?

Eating too many carbs... Leads to creating too much blood glucose... Which ends up being stored as body FAT!
Each pound of that stored FAT has about 3,500 calories. But that has little to do with the calorie content of foods that created it.

[snobles]

@Doug, I will have to agree with you on the carbs. I've been reading that Fatsecret site, and it's ALL about the calories! People are still eating the mashed potatoes, and all kinds of stuff that has like 50+ carbs in it! How can people expect to loose the weight if they're still putting the sugar in them?

[joagain]

What Doug said that about the lettuce  I just cant believe how we were led to believe the wrong thing all these years . When I went to weight watchers you could eat endless amount of green veggies did not even have to count them at all only the dressing . I could eat a sala as big as my A@# and it was AOK . Well Ok maybe not that big LOL  BUt that thing was probably 20 carbs or more but red onions green peppers celery........ Just amazing to me and sad that for 30 years I could have been small . Oh well no looking back only forward .