Re: Nutrient Quality/Quantity.

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney,

Here's my estimate for what my weight will migrate to, with a given intake and exercise.

Top line is exercise calories.

Right side is intake calories.

Each number is calc'd with falling BMR as weight decreases.

For example, using 1800 kcals intake and 200 exercise calories the weight settles to 180.

Increase that to 300 exercise and weight drops to 163.

Or drop to 1700 intake and weight drops to 163.

Now 200 is the exercise I do if I get out of bed. So if I also walked 2 miles the exercise would be 400 kcals.

The 1200 line is a projection of the equations.

400

300

200

100

0

164

179

195

212

228

1900

147

163

180

195

212

1800

131

147

163

180

195

1700

115

132

147

163

179

1600

51

67

84

100

115

1200

So I shoot for 1800 intake and 300 exercise (100 kcals = walk one mile).

A constant 100 kcals deficit will result in ~ 16 # decrease.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 3:47 PM

Subject: [ ] Nutrient Quality/Quantity.

Hi folks:I have been ruminating a bit lately about the nutrition issue referred to by Warren below. Since I am rather new to CR, nutrition is not a problem PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE I CAN LOSE WEIGHT AT A RATE OF HALF A POUND A WEEK WITH A FAIRLY LIBERAL DIET. It is not too difficult to get the nutrients I need (except for calcium and zinc) from a 1750 kcal diet - I am reasonably sure that my caloric-weight-maintenance needs were about 2000 kcal/day when I started on CR.So dropping my intake to 1750 and losing about half a pound of weight a week has done the trick for now. But only for now. As time goes by, and my weight/BMI/BF% etc all drop, so will my caloric needs. So it is likely to become increasingly more difficult to maintain good micronutrient intakes as I have to drop my caloric intake to maintain a daily 250 kcal deficit.Fortunately I have a cushion - I am still eating starches many of which do not contain much in the way of micronutrients (some none at all!). So down the road I will have to phase much of them out in order to eat more of the foods with higher micronutrient values.I am wondering whether maintaining a 250 kcal/day deficit will require the same degree of restraint as it has in the past, or whether it will require progressively greater efforts as my coloric needs decline.Any thought from the experiences of those who have already done it?Rodney.

[Guest guest]

What a neat chart. This chart was based on personal experience, yes? I like

that you have your own situation down to a science :-) Caloric variances

among people are interesting ... shoots for 1000 - 1200. Interestingly,

Francesca has reported for herself higher calories intake for her 115lb frame.

I'm not sure of height & weight comparisons ... each of them looked

tiny to me.

jwwright wrote:

Hi Rodney,

Here's my estimate for what my

weight will migrate to, with a given intake and exercise.

Top line is exercise calories.

Right side is intake calories.

Each number is calc'd with falling

BMR as weight decreases.

For example, using 1800 kcals

intake and 200 exercise calories the weight settles to 180.

Increase that to 300 exercise

and weight drops to 163.

Or drop to 1700 intake and weight

drops to 163.

Now 200 is the exercise I do if

I get out of bed. So if I also walked 2 miles the exercise would be 400

kcals.

The 1200 line is a projection

of the equations.

400

300

200

100

0

164

179

195

212

228

1900

147

163

180

195

212

1800

131

147

163

180

195

1700

115

132

147

163

179

1600

51

67

84

100

115

1200

So I shoot for 1800 intake and

300 exercise (100 kcals = walk one mile).

A constant 100 kcals deficit will

result in ~ 16 # decrease.

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

That IS an interesting table.

Can you tell me what process you use to get from the caloric intake

data in the far right column, to the equilibrium weight indicated in

the column immediately to the left of the far right column?

(As previously noted the 'system' used for calculating this stuff at

nutritiondata.com tells me that if I were to drop my caloric intake

by 40% (I am NOT planning to do that any time soon) my weight would

drop to below 40 pounds. So some of the methods used for calculating

the weights that are consistentent with given caloric intakes are

less than totally helpful, it seems) ; ^ )))

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

> Hi Rodney,

> Here's my estimate for what my weight will migrate to, with a given

intake and exercise.

> Top line is exercise calories.

> Right side is intake calories.

> Each number is calc'd with falling BMR as weight decreases.

> For example, using 1800 kcals intake and 200 exercise calories the

weight settles to 180.

> Increase that to 300 exercise and weight drops to 163.

> Or drop to 1700 intake and weight drops to 163.

> Now 200 is the exercise I do if I get out of bed. So if I also

walked 2 miles the exercise would be 400 kcals.

> The 1200 line is a projection of the equations.

>

> 400

> 300

> 200

> 100

> 0

>

>

> 164

> 179

> 195

> 212

> 228

> 1900

>

> 147

> 163

> 180

> 195

> 212

> 1800

>

> 131

> 147

> 163

> 180

> 195

> 1700

>

> 115

> 132

> 147

> 163

> 179

> 1600

>

> 51

> 67

> 84

> 100

> 115

> 1200

>

>

>

> So I shoot for 1800 intake and 300 exercise (100 kcals = walk one

mile).

> A constant 100 kcals deficit will result in ~ 16 # decrease.

>

> Regards.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Rodney

>

> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 3:47 PM

> Subject: [ ] Nutrient Quality/Quantity.

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> I have been ruminating a bit lately about the nutrition issue

> referred to by Warren below. Since I am rather new to CR,

nutrition

> is not a problem PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE I CAN LOSE WEIGHT AT A RATE

OF

> HALF A POUND A WEEK WITH A FAIRLY LIBERAL DIET. It is not too

> difficult to get the nutrients I need (except for calcium and

zinc)

> from a 1750 kcal diet - I am reasonably sure that my caloric-

weight-

> maintenance needs were about 2000 kcal/day when I started on CR.

>

> So dropping my intake to 1750 and losing about half a pound of

weight

> a week has done the trick for now. But only for now. As time

goes

> by, and my weight/BMI/BF% etc all drop, so will my caloric

needs. So

> it is likely to become increasingly more difficult to maintain

good

> micronutrient intakes as I have to drop my caloric intake to

maintain

> a daily 250 kcal deficit.

>

> Fortunately I have a cushion - I am still eating starches many of

> which do not contain much in the way of micronutrients (some none

at

> all!). So down the road I will have to phase much of them out in

> order to eat more of the foods with higher micronutrient values.

>

> I am wondering whether maintaining a 250 kcal/day deficit will

> require the same degree of restraint as it has in the past, or

> whether it will require progressively greater efforts as my

coloric

> needs decline.

>

> Any thought from the experiences of those who have already done

it?

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I use the Benedict to calc BMR and estimate from experience to add 200 kcals for routine motion.

So the HB depends on age, weight and gender. Then I have an estimate of how much weight I lose overnite from a given calorie deficit. That's half fact, and half guess.

As time goes by I know how much I expect to lose and how much I actually lost in a day. Filter that and it migrates to a function. That function is based on estimating how much carbo is burned and how much fat is burned.

I guess that at carbos 2/3 and fat 1/3 of the caloric deficit. Carbos release water about 6 oz for 100 kcals - fat just loses 1/3 oz for 1oo kcals. Get into a controlled stable state - you can't be eating 3 oz of fat one day and no fat the next, eg. But after 3 yrs you'll know how much you can eat of each. To quantify it, I still had to "tune", but I got to where I knew how much I would lose each day keeping everything the same.

When I started the whey, the metab changed and weight dropped faster, so I could see that happening and I had to adjust for it. Plus I wanted to verify the high protein thing and the Ca thing. I don't know that I believe either thing, but my felt temperature is higher. I also tried beef for protein - it works the same.

Another week and I'll go back to just milk, veggies, fruit, grain. I'm reaching my goal for this year - I'm not anxious to get to 135#. I can wait to 105yo. Besides that, the whey is sickening after a while.

The odd thing is it doesn't work as well on my wife. Her temp was already higher. Women are basically different. And she is so erratic in her eating that it's hard to quantify. But you know her 145-150#, is not that bad for 66 yo, 5"5.5".

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:24 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Nutrient Quality/Quantity.

Hi JW:That IS an interesting table. Can you tell me what process you use to get from the caloric intake data in the far right column, to the equilibrium weight indicated in the column immediately to the left of the far right column?(As previously noted the 'system' used for calculating this stuff at nutritiondata.com tells me that if I were to drop my caloric intake by 40% (I am NOT planning to do that any time soon) my weight would drop to below 40 pounds. So some of the methods used for calculating the weights that are consistentent with given caloric intakes are less than totally helpful, it seems) ; ^ )))Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Yes.

I've been working on weight and exercise since 1994. Lotsa misconceptions out there compared to individual experience. I pick up a little info here and there and analyze it till it cries and makes sense.

Women's req'ts are DIFFERENT. I would expect 1200 but WTHDIK? I struggle with my wife's weight/cholesterol.

AFA individuals go, some get more exercise and some burn more when they exercise, some need more protein, etc.

The variation in diet can be a function of how well food is chewed, availability of enzymes, and how much can be absorbed. The transfer function has got to be different between individuals.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: apricot85

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 6:55 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Nutrient Quality/Quantity.

What a neat chart. This chart was based on personal experience, yes? I like that you have your own situation down to a science :-) Caloric variances among people are interesting ... shoots for 1000 - 1200. Interestingly, Francesca has reported for herself higher calories intake for her 115lb frame. I'm not sure of height & weight comparisons ... each of them looked tiny to me. jwwright wrote:

[Guest guest]

Just for you apricot, I did another table for women.

woman 65" tall, 66yo

400

300

200

100

0

197

220

243

266

289

1900

174

197

220

243

267

1800

151

174

197

220

243

1700

128

151

174

197

220

1600

106

128

151

174

198

1500

83

106

128

151

174

1400

60

83

106

128

151

1300

37

60

83

106

128

1200

What I was trying to show Rodney, is that managing to <100 kcals is necessary.

Notice the difference is 23 # for 100 kcals.

That means just 100 kcals of exercise is important.

The delta between steps is 17# for men.

----- Original Message -----

From: apricot85

Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 6:55 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Nutrient Quality/Quantity.

What a neat chart. This chart was based on personal experience, yes? I like that you have your own situation down to a science :-) Caloric variances among people are interesting ... shoots for 1000 - 1200. Interestingly, Francesca has reported for herself higher calories intake for her 115lb frame. I'm not sure of height & weight comparisons ... each of them looked tiny to me.