 |
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
linda01720 
Posts:0
Newbie
 |
| 07/11/2004 2:29 AM |
 Alert
|
| Anybody know where I can find info specifically relating to formulating a zone plan for someone who is morbidly obese? Or, perhaps more generally, the question is scientific research/info about the nutritional needs/constraints for a healthy weight loss plan.
Assume 400lb with target weight range is 145-165 lb
From what I've read, Dr. Sears would recommend assuming 50% lean body mass & .6 activity factor, implying a daily protein requirement of 120g (17 blocks). 1547 calories + the 'uncounted' calories (vegetative protein, for example).
According to an online Harris-Benedict equation calculators the daily caloric requirement is @3000 calories.
Dr. Sears wrote that it is genetically impossible to lose more than 1 - 1 1/2 lb of body fat per week. That's a 500-750 cal/day deficit implying that consumption of 2250-2500 cal/day.
It's unlikely that the uncounted calories will add up to 700+ calories.
So what does this imply? Eat more to get caloric intake within the 2250-2500 range? Eat more blocks (more protein than 'needed')? Eat more monounsaturated fats?
And then as weight lowers, adjust the calculations to reflect the new weight. Eventually some of the original lean body mass will be lost if only because the muscles don't have to carry around so much. It doesn't make sense to me to force muscle loss by eating too little, if that is, in fact, what will happen because only 1 - 1 1/2 lb of body fat can be utilized per week.
Am I missing something or understood incorrectly?
I need to understand these issues better so I can formulate a healthy plan for myself. Thank you for any info about how I might educate myself more.
Linda |
|
|
|
|
adam_h
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/11/2004 12:54 PM |
Alert
|
| Linda,
Congrats on taking the first step. It's all downhill from here.
First, relax with those numbers. Statistical accuracy is by no means necessary at this (or any) stage of the game. And it seems that many beginning Zoners get overwhelmed by the numbers and quit.
Second, understand that Zone science is about hormonal balance, and not so much about the quantity of calories going in or being burned. Our bodies are complex systems that function exactly as they are designed, as long as we eat what we're designed to eat. The amount of what you ate is not what got you to your size; it was what you ate, and when, that maintained such a high level of insulin that kept your body in a constant state of fat-storing mode.
What the Zone does is adjusts your metabolism back to where it belongs by eating just enough protein, fat and carbs in the right combinations and at the right times. Your questions of lean body mass are valid, but you're putting the cart before the horse.
At this stage of the game there are only three things you need to work on:
1 - Get your carbs only from fruits and vegetables.
2 - Drink at least 5 liters of ice water every day.
3 - Do whatever it takes to avoid eating the foods you know are bad for you: fast food, pizza, desserts, candy, soda pop, chips, pasta, rice.... This will be the hardest part, as the temptation to eat these foods is more a psychologal drive than a physical one. I know you know what I mean.
By using the proper foods as powerful drugs you will put your metabolism back into fat-burning mode, where it belongs. As the pounds melt away, revealing the thin person who has been hidden all these years, your LBM will be more easily calculated.
Give it a few months. Eventually you can worry about exact LBM numbers and Zone blocks and grams of this and that.
It is also a good idea to start taking Pharm. Grade Fish Oil right away. It will help control your hunger and provide your body's cells with the essential fatty acids it badly needs.
Please stick around the Forum and keep us posted. |
|
|
|
|
linda01720
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/11/2004 5:32 PM |
Alert
|
| Thanks, Adam, for your support!
Actually I have been working along zone lines since the mid-May. Started with Schwarzbein & combined with Zone since the mid-June. Both share the goal of hormonal balance as the path to lifetime health. I've felt great from the beginning & it's clear to me that this approach works for me, at least in terms of how I feel mentally, emotionally & physically day-to-day. No cravings. No out of control eating, even with 'bad' foods in the house (for my husband). The psychological stuff doesn't seem to a big factor at this point. Convenience is--that's what I'm working on now: ways to make it work while travelling, eating away from home, & eating stuff with minimal prep time. Anyway, I'm already a huge fan!
Right now I'm eating 14-15 blocks/day. @1500-1600 cal/day My net carbs are not as much as they should be. @110-120 instead of 126-135. Been trying to follow Dr. Sears recommendation to keep grains/etc under 25%. But it sure is difficult to eat all that broccoli! And forget getting a block of lettuce or spinach. I use FitDay to help me keep track, 'cause I found the discrepancies in the zone books to be confusing. Who knows if FitDay is accurate. At some point I'll verify some foods with the fed nutritional database. Still exploring the pharmaceutical grade fish oil issue (sources, dose, etc)--currently taking 1 tsp flax seed oil & a low dose health food (molecularly distilled) fish oil supplement. I noticed positive effects within days of starting the flax seed oil, so have been beating the omega-3 drum to anyone who will listen.
I can't ignore Sears' statement that it's genetically impossible to lose more than 1 to 1 1/2 lb body fat per week. Schwarzbein makes a similar statement: "It is impossible t lose more than two pounds of body fat a week--even if you have a high-performing metabolism and exercise rigorously. ...If you are on a diet and losing weight faster than two pounds a week (after the first week), you are losing lean body mass, not fat." [p 155, "Schwarzbein Principle"] Both are strong statements of 'fact' which would seem to apply in my case. I need to understand what research they're using to make these statements. I want to know how I can make sure that what I'm doing is the healthiest way to proceed. I've asked both Dr. Sears & Dr. Schwarzbein for clarification with respect to my situation & have not received any response to date. This forum has contributers who seem to know a whole lot more about current research than I do. So I was hoping for some guidance about how to go about getting the information I'm seeking.
Thanks! Linda |
|
|
|
|
Sue
Posts:4177
Zoner
|
| 07/12/2004 2:10 PM |
Alert
|
| Congrats on choosing the Zone. Sounds like you've really done your homework.
[quote:06a21b7e16="linda01720"]Anybody know where I can find info specifically relating to formulating a zone plan for someone who is morbidly obese? Or, perhaps more generally, the question is scientific research/info about the nutritional needs/constraints for a healthy weight loss plan.
Assume 400lb with target weight range is 145-165 lb
From what I've read, Dr. Sears would recommend assuming 50% lean body mass & .6 activity factor, implying a daily protein requirement of 120g (17 blocks). 1547 calories + the 'uncounted' calories (vegetative protein, for example).
[/quote:06a21b7e16]
Linda, this is correct, except he also recommends raising one's activity level at least two levels above current activity. This is to account for the fact that it is strenuous for the body to carry around the extra weight 24/7. The lowest activity level factor to be used is your case would be .7 (if you are sedentary). This would put you at a 20 block minimum for now. (200 LBx .7 activity factor) divided by 7g of P equals 20 blocks. If you take walks or do other athletic activity you would up the activity factor appropriately.
Please try not to get too caught up in calories . More important in the Zone is to focus on tactics to lower insulin, while you make sure to get enought protein to sustain LBM. It's difficult to measure your LBM at this point, unless you've had it done by being immersed. I wouldn't necessarily think of it as losing LBM as you lose the pounds.
I would add two or three blocks a day, for now. As you lose weight you can adjust blocks down.
Sue :D |
|
sue
lost 100 lbs 13 yrs ago, off BP meds, thanks to the Zone diet and Zone fish oil!
for more photos, scroll over this photo and click when the link appears
 |
|
|
Scott
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/12/2004 4:29 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:1bc5b12491="linda01720"]
From what I've read, Dr. Sears would recommend assuming 50% lean body mass & .6 activity factor, implying a daily protein requirement of 120g (17 blocks). 1547 calories + the 'uncounted' calories (vegetative protein, for example).
According to an online Harris-Benedict equation calculators the daily caloric requirement is @3000 calories.
Dr. Sears wrote that it is genetically impossible to lose more than 1 - 1 1/2 lb of body fat per week. That's a 500-750 cal/day deficit implying that consumption of 2250-2500 cal/day.
It's unlikely that the uncounted calories will add up to 700+ calories.
So what does this imply? Eat more to get caloric intake within the 2250-2500 range? Eat more blocks (more protein than 'needed')? Eat more monounsaturated fats?
[/quote:1bc5b12491]
The Harris-Benedict equation is not applicable when you are thinking hormonally. Follow the Zone recommendations and things will fall into place. |
|
|
|
|
linda01720
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/13/2004 4:36 AM |
Alert
|
| Scott, why doesn't the Harris-Benedict equation apply?
Although, Sue's recommendation of 20 blocks would probably be close to the 2250-2500 range after all.
Sue, where does Dr. Sears recommend an activity level of .7 (or 2+ actual activity level)? I'm almost certain I read .6, although it would take me a while to find exactly where.
Linda |
|
|
|
|
Sue
Posts:4177
Zoner
|
| 07/13/2004 5:46 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:42e7994134="linda01720"]Scott, why doesn't the Harris-Benedict equation apply?
Although, Sue's recommendation of 20 blocks would probably be close to the 2250-2500 range after all.
Sue, where does Dr. Sears recommend an activity level of .7 (or 2+ actual activity level)? I'm almost certain I read .6, although it would take me a while to find exactly where.
Linda[/quote:42e7994134]
Hi Linda, it's either in the archives of the "old Forums" of this site (those previous to seitching to this curent format, which I don't believe we are able to access at this point in time) or in past questions in the "Ask D.r Sears" section.
Sue |
|
sue
lost 100 lbs 13 yrs ago, off BP meds, thanks to the Zone diet and Zone fish oil!
for more photos, scroll over this photo and click when the link appears
|
|
|
Patrick
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/15/2004 1:12 AM |
Alert
|
| Hi Linda. I know that for some people exactitude of information is important. It almost seems like you are psychologically looking for a reason to make it difficult for yourself. I really don't mean this as an insult or anything. I am really saying this because if you are currently at 400lbs and want to bring it down closer to 150lbs - well start by going down to 350lbs and then 250lbs and honestly, if you follow the Zone even at 60-80% of what it should be, you will be losing pounds at a fast rate for 100% sure. I would recommend that you focus on getting results ASAP and not fuss so much on exactitude of numbers. You currently are in a serious health crisis and your #1 priority should be on getting results now rather that "should I be eating 1700 calories or 2200 calories..."
In your case I would advise to simply eat 3 [u:b92b37d4f7]balanced[/u:b92b37d4f7] meals and two [u:b92b37d4f7]balanced[/u:b92b37d4f7] snacks per day using the eyball method, only drink PLENTY of water and walk for at least 30 minutes every day. If you want to make it even better keep trying to limit or eliminate the 5 worst things: Pasta, Rice, Potatoes, Cereal, Bread and eat mostly fruist and vegetables using legumes or Steel Cut Oats to reduce the size of your meals (I know it is sometimes hard to eat 8 cups of brocoli).
If you do this it is GUARANTEED that you will see great results of considerable fat loss, gained energy, lower heart risks, and very possibly a new lease on life. As far as slight loss of LBM, I think it should be the least of your concerns right now especially if you are getting between 15 and 20 blocks of protein every day. Like I said focus on getting started and seeing results RIGHT NOW and then worry about exactitudes and precision to get closer to 100% of the Zone for yourself and possibly some day your biggest worry will be seeing your ab muscles shining in the sun...
Pat |
|
|
|
|
linda01720
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/15/2004 4:02 AM |
Alert
|
| Pat,
I thought this forum was for questions relating to the science underlying the Zone philosophy. From reading other posts it seemed that some contributers were familiar with current research. So I asked whether anyone could refer me to research/citations backing Dr. Sears' statement regarding the genetic limitation of losing more that 1 - 1 1/2 lb body fat per week. Because I would like to know. Because it seems like for people such as myself who are 'extreme' cases, applying what little I have learned from reading Dr. Sears & others seems to point to an important question. If a conservative estimate of my daily caloric deficit implies a weekly loss of 3 lb and only 1 - 1 1/2 lb body fat is possible, then where is the remainder coming from? Note that I am not refering to scale weight. To me, a weekly loss of 1 1/2 - 2 lb lbm is not something to take lightly, if that is, in fact, what is happening. Perhaps there need to be some adjustments to the zone (or any other) approach. I'd like to know what, if any, research is being done regarding HEALTHY weight loss by morbidly obese people.
My questions are valid no matter what I weigh. Take it as a hypothetical case. I take it that your position is that it doesn't matter how much fat & muscle a morbidly obese person loses per week. That it should be done as quickly as possible. What research supports your position?
BTW, I have been eating calorie restricted balanced meals/snacks for over 3 months. I walk or swim 30-45 minutes daily. I've incorporated some strength-training & stretching into my regular routine. I feel fantastic & am noticing great changes. You're correct. I do strive to strive for 'exact information', but my questions do not stop me from trying to make healthy choices each and every day. I would like them to be informed choices, based on science, not just 'what people say'.
Linda |
|
|
|
|
Patrick
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/15/2004 6:16 AM |
Alert
|
| I understand. I didn't mean to undermine the validity of your question. I was focusing more on results because your questions seemed to insinuate doubt as to whether the Zone would be healthy for you and I was "cutting to the chase" to say that do not worry about that and as Dr.Sears says: "Let your blood do the talking" as far as results go. My standpoint was that no matter what, what you are currently doing is healthier than anything that would have gotten you to your current weight and you should not be concerned with a higher than 2lbs of weight loss. Eventually as your weight goes down, your energy goes up and activity level, strenght, endurance go up, then it will get much easier to measure your actual LBM and strenght + endurance to see if you are properly maintaining or losing. As I said earlier I was more focused on results.
As far as discussing and trying to find out if your current weight loss is "healthy" and you are not losing LBM as well, I believe that it is possible that you may lose a little bit more weight and some of it may be retained water as well as fat especially in the first 4 weeks. So again do not worry about it and if your calculations told you to be around 17 blocks then you can rest assured that you will not lose any LBM as your protein requirements according to The Zone will have been met. Any adjustments can be made at any time as you get better. Also, you will not automatically lose LBM as your fat goes down because you are carrying less weight. Especially if you are exercising. I do not have any direct Dr.Sears quotes or links re this and I do not think they are necessary.
In your first post you asked if you were missing something, the problem is that you [i:dd26f34aac]added[/i:dd26f34aac] something that was not necessary which is the "online Harris-Benedict equation calculators" numbers. Stick to what Dr.Sears recommends and you will be able to "formulate a healthy plan for yourself", not feel hungry, slow the aging process, gain energy, reverse many ilnesses and attain a state of wellness you may never have even thought possible. Dr.Sears has created that plan for you, just follow it and you will reap all the health benefits you want. If you still have doubts, read so many of the testimonials on this site and see how healthy this plan - as is - really is. As a matter of fact read and look at the pictures from June 2004 e-magazine which is someone who may have been in a similar situation as you may be in terms of obesity :
http://news.drsears.com/archives/june2004/testimonial.htm
Pat
P.S. Linda, you asked: "Scott, why doesn't the Harris-Benedict equation apply?"
A: It does not apply because that is not the Dr.Sears plan and has nothing to do with it. Dr.Sears' plan is calorie restriction without hunger and deprivation and with increased energy, etc.. |
|
|
|
|
linda01720
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/15/2004 5:18 PM |
Alert
|
| I know Dr. Sears doesn't refer to the Harris-Benedict equation. But he does present his framework as one based upon current research about human metabolism. That's what I like about it! Calorie restriction is an important component of his approach, as I read his writings. Slight/moderate calorie restriction not a huge amount.
To restrict calories one has to have some idea of what's 'enough'.
The Harris-Benedict equation is used by nutritionists and others to calculate an individual's daily caloric requirement. I have no idea how it was derived or whether there is controversy about its usefulness/accuracy. Whether or not Dr. Sears' would use Harris-Benedict or would use some other method, he must have some way to calculate/estimate daily caloric requirements in order to formulate an approach that he believes is calorie restricted. Thus my question to Scott about why he said that Harris-Benedict didn't apply.
Harris-Benedict is the only tool I know & when I apply it to a 400 lb, 5'6" sedentary female the results (@3000 cal/day) raised the question (in my mind) which I originally posted. If someone is consuming 1500-1700 calories per day & can only lose 500-750 calories worth of body fat per day (according to Dr. Sears), then what is happening to account for the remaining 550-1000 calories each day? Water loss is not an explanation. Again, I'm not talking about scale loss. My original question here was about the research/science behind Dr. Sears' statement that it is genetically impossible for an individual to lose more than 1 - 1 1/2 lb body fat per week, because obviously that statement taken as fact plays a critical role in my thinking. Still haven't found that reference.
I'm asking for a scientific explanations. I guess I believe that if a statement about human metabolism is scientifically 'true' then it agrees/supports/somehow fits in with other scientific 'truths' relating to human metabolism. It could be that Harris-Benedict loses accuracy for morbidly obese individuals. It could be Dr. Sears is using another approach which he believes to be better & which yields significantly different results. Or if calculating one's daily caloric intake truly doesn't apply, then there should be a scientific explanation for why that's so, not just because someone says you don't have to think about it when you're eating day to day.
It could also be, as Sue said, that I should use .7 to calculate my protein requirement rather than .6. 20 blocks would correspond pretty closely to 2250 cal/day which, to me, makes the zone approach relatively consistent with Harris-Benedict. It still begs the question of what one should do if daily caloric intake is more than 750 cal/day less than daily needs. Although I suspect the answer is, if one is eating adequate protein, then make up the difference with monounsaturated fats.
I'm still looking for the reference to .7 as the correct activity factor. It doesn't seem to be in the Ask Dr. Sears past questions, although sometimes it's difficult to figure out content from the topic heading & I haven't read them all.
I suspect the answers aren't easy. Too bad! But I appreciate everyone's efforts to help!
Thanks, Linda |
|
|
|
|
Scott
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/15/2004 5:59 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:254df3529c="linda01720"]
The Harris-Benedict equation is used by nutritionists and others to calculate an individual's daily caloric requirement. I have no idea how it was derived or whether there is controversy about its usefulness/accuracy. Whether or not Dr. Sears' would use Harris-Benedict or would use some other method, he must have some way to calculate/estimate daily caloric requirements in order to formulate an approach that he believes is calorie restricted. Thus my question to Scott about why he said that Harris-Benedict didn't apply.
Harris-Benedict is the only tool I know & when I apply it to a 400 lb, 5'6" sedentary female the results (@3000 cal/day) raised the question (in my mind) which I originally posted. If someone is consuming 1500-1700 calories per day & can only lose 500-750 calories worth of body fat per day (according to Dr. Sears), then what is happening to account for the remaining 550-1000 calories each day? Water loss is not an explanation. Again, I'm not talking about scale loss. My original question here was about the research/science behind Dr. Sears' statement that it is genetically impossible for an individual to lose more than 1 - 1 1/2 lb body fat per week, because obviously that statement taken as fact plays a critical role in my thinking. Still haven't found that reference.
Or if calculating one's daily caloric intake truly doesn't apply, then there should be a scientific explanation for why that's so, not just because someone says you don't have to think about it when you're eating day to day.
[/quote:254df3529c]
Hi Linda.
Zone eating is eating as if you are already at your ideal bodyfat%, not to induce fat loss and then resume eating a certain amount of calories above that. That being said,
the average female zoner will consume about 11 blocks per day, or roughly 1200 calories--not temporarily to lose weight but [i:254df3529c]indefinitely[/i:254df3529c] unless activity level or LBM changes. According to Harris-Benedict, the average females requires over 2200 calories. Right there you can see a fundamental difference in the amount of calories required to fuel the average female. (roughly 40% difference).
I would say that fasting insulin levels will have an effect on the amount of calories required--when your insulin levels are up, there is physiological drive to eat more calories because you are not accessing fat/glucose internally. When insulin levels are controlled, less calories are required because energy comes from stored body fat.
[quote:254df3529c]Harris-Benedict is the only tool I know & when I apply it to a 400 lb, 5'6" sedentary female the results (@3000 cal/day) raised the question (in my mind) which I originally posted. If someone is consuming 1500-1700 calories per day & can only lose 500-750 calories worth of body fat per day (according to Dr. Sears), then what is happening to account for the remaining 550-1000 calories each day? Water loss is not an explanation.[/quote:254df3529c]
It seems that you are asking what's happening to the additional calories when you start form the Harris-Benedict of 3000 to get to the Sears level of 1500, if you can only lose 1.0-1.5lb per week (or 700 worth of cal/day). I would say that nothing happened to them. Based on Sears calculations you don't require 3000 calories, but (to put it in terms of calories) the number of calories in the # of daily blocks based on LBM/activity level that doesn't leave you hungry + the amount of fat in calories you are accessing from stored fat.
That probably confuses you more, but the bottom line is, once you think about food hormonally, you don't need to think about calories in/calories out.
Little thermodynamic help Adam? |
|
|
|
|
Patrick
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/15/2004 10:16 PM |
Alert
|
| Your question regarding the Harris-Benedict equation automatically assumes that the 3000 cals/day requirement is accurate for weight maintainance and in doing so, also assumes that 2250 would be ideal to lose weight. Does the Harris-Benedict equation also recommend a certain protein to carb ratio? If so, what is it? Harris-Benedict is the only tool you know but it is wrong and if you ate 3000 cals a day you would gain fat for sure no matter what your calorie breakdown would be. Dr.Sears only talks about calorie restriction for comparison purposes but that is not his belief (or discovery through research rather).
Your questions could possibly be answered in 2 ways without direct quotes or citations. 1. 3000 calories will make you gain fat not maintain therefore do not think of what happens to the "missing" calories. 2. The scientific facts that answer your questions are that once your body gets the amount of protein it needs to maintain LBM (determined quite accurately by the calculations on this site or in the books and by trying it on yourself and fine tuning) the excess would only be turned into fat (that is a scientific fact). Once your ideal daily protein intake has been determined, you can also easily determine your daily carb requirement to maintain insulin and other hormones in a zone and then add the corresponding fat to get that 40/30/30 ratio Dr.Sears talks about. That gives you your true actual daily requirement for weight loss/maintainance, increased energy, longevity, etc. Nothing else needs to be taken into account other than your actual results (i.e. fat loss, cholesterol and AA/EPA blood tests, performance...).
The facts that have been discovered is that humans respond best with a prot/carb ratio of around .75 in most cases and if you read 'The Anti-Aging Zone' Dr.Sears goes on in great lenghts about proper calorie restriction (it is only restriction compared to every accepted - although wrong - standard which the Harris-Benedict also fall into).
The studies prove every conventional accepted "wisdom" wrong. Therefore, if you start from a place that conventional wisdom is wrong (hey, 60% of NA population is overweight or obese following the current accepted caloric intake "wisdom"), then the best possible scientific backing you can use as proof that calorie "restriction" is not only healthy but the best required course of action is in the testimonials. Also in your own testing on yourself!
So for your daily peace of mind consider that 3000 calories per day would make you gain fat and that the lower calorie count would actually make you maintain your weight IF PROPERLY PROPORTIONED. I mean if you exercised calorie restriction but your calories mainly consisted in high GL carbs, you would probably still gain fat rather than losing some. This was proven in a study where subjects who ate calorie restricted diets consisting of 90% fat lost fat. Another study of calorie restriction diet consisting of 90% carbs, the subjects gained fat. Dr.Sears' balanced calorie restriction is actually the proper calorie requirement for your LBM and activity level and the others are wrong.
Linda, I am still having a hard time as to why you want to get away from actual results and make comparisons with other data combined with Dr.Sears' data and research. I mean it's like if Dr.Sears gave you a complete map to a hidden treasure marked by an X and it also gives you all the directions and tools to get to that treasure. He even guarantees that if you follow the directions and the map you will get that treasure and have all wealth that you desire. You then reply that this other map or previous thinking tells you that it is not there and you should follow a different road and this confuses you and then you combine both maps which are different in hopes to get to that treasure. I believe that all the info you will ever need to understand your body and fat loss is in the books and that is all you need. No need for other maps/directions as you will find the treasure you want and that is your final goal, is it not? |
|
|
|
|
Dennis
Posts:1
Newbie
|
| 07/16/2004 2:40 AM |
Alert
|
| [quote:f3bfc65cc5="linda01720"]To restrict calories one has to have some idea of what's 'enough'.[/quote:f3bfc65cc5]
Hi Linda,
I just read this thread. I can tell you that it makes my head swim. You ask some very intelligent questions, and it does not appear that anyone has been able to answer them in the terms that you ask for --try as they have. I am not a weight loss expert as I have the problem of keeping my weight up instead. However, I have ask myself the same type of questions and have found out some interesting things:
People are not all robots made in the same factory. A simple equation can not be used to determine the absolute calorie requirements of everyone. You are a unique individual. The fact that you have been able to accumulate as much extra fat as you have would indicate that you are not an "average" person, just as the fact that I can eat a ton of carbs and zap my insulin to high levels all the time while not gaining any fat beyond the "Ideal" amount.
All of these equations are based on the average of a Bell curve. They mostly work for about 80% of people. You and I however, reside on the extreme tails of the curve.
This means that different people have different efficiencies of absorbing energy from food, different insulin generating responses, different insulin sensitivities in their cells, different base metabolisms, etc.
As an example, thinking a lot burns up a lot of calories; fidgeting can burn up several blocks of food a day. That can correspond to the equivalent a lot of concentrated exercise. You might burn twice the calories just walking around as a lighter person does.
So what I am suggesting is that you throw out all the equations, as I did, and concentrate on what you as a unique individual need --experimentally. Use common sense rules of thumb to make sure you are getting what you need.
First bound the problem. How much protein do you need? You can see that a thin person needs (on average) 11 blocks minimum. A very muscular athlete might need over twice that. But that is assuming that the person wants to keep all the muscle mass that they have. Unless you want to look like Charles Atlas when you are through loosing your fat, You should also want to lose some muscle mass. I would start in the middle --about 18 blocks.
Next wait and adjust over time. To be on the conservative and safe side, you will want to take the fat and muscle off gradually. This will give your body time to adjust to the many biochemical changes that are sure to take place in your body and mind. It does not matter if it takes several years to reach your goal. You will start reaping the health benefits immediately and all through the weight loss process --as long as you are slow and steady.
Watch your weight change. If you are losing over two pounds a week (measured over a month), then slowly add more mono-saturated fats to each block until you are losing only 1-2 pounds a week. It may be possible to lose more weight than that, but if you can control your loss rate, you are in control for the long term --the rest of your long life.
Drop one block for each 35 pounds you lose (250 pounds / 7 extra blocks). When you get under 200 pounds, you may need to reassess your blocks.
Doing it this way, you will know from actual reality what your calorie needs are. All the equations were based experimentally by measuring a lot of people anyway. However, they forgot to measure you in the experiment. Now you can finish the job.
Now here is the hard part. You need to stay in the Zone to make this work. And I would guess that you are very sensitive to insulin. So avoid unfavorable carbs. Eat as many favorable vegetables as you can, then use favorable fruit to reduce the bulk while getting all the carbs you need.
You will need to make adjustments based on how you feel, and take the PGFO. There are 3 or 4 good brands depending on your budget and how much you need.
I am just winging it with these suggestions based on my common sense understanding. I can tell that you are an intelligent person and I am sure that you can tell which of my suggestions may benefit you the most. And If you can't, rest assured that there will be a bunch of responses to this post by those who think I have messed up some point.
Go for it. 8) |
|
|
|
|
Scott
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/16/2004 12:18 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:f6a6c851e6="gofish"]
I am just winging it with these suggestions based on my common sense understanding. I can tell that you are an intelligent person and I am sure that you can tell which of my suggestions may benefit you the most. And If you can't, rest assured that there will be a bunch of responses to this post by those who think I have messed up some point.
[/quote:f6a6c851e6]
Winging it? C'mon Dennis. :wink:
You didn't mess up a bit. Excellent post. |
|
|
|
|
Scott
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/16/2004 12:22 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:f4552613bf="gofish"]
just as the fact that I can eat a ton of carbs and zap my insulin to high levels all the time while not gaining any fat )[/quote:f4552613bf]
I am the same way with respect to insulin and fat gain, but do you experience other hormonal consequences from such high insulin levels?
Obesity can be thought of one of many consequences of high insulin levels. |
|
|
|
|
Dennis
Posts:1
Newbie
|
| 07/16/2004 2:12 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:3cf2eaf08c="Scott"][quote:3cf2eaf08c="gofish"]
just as the fact that I can eat a ton of carbs and zap my insulin to high levels all the time while not gaining any fat )[/quote:3cf2eaf08c]
I am the same way with respect to insulin and fat gain, but do you experience other hormonal consequences from such high insulin levels?
Obesity can be thought of one of many consequences of high insulin levels.[/quote:3cf2eaf08c]
Scott,
Yes, I have adverse reactions to the high insulin levels even though gaining weight is not one of them. My mental and physical energy fall drastically. I am sure that my internal organs also suffer from the strain. My immune system also over reacts. The Zone and PGFO have corrected 90% of my problems over that last year. Now I feel the way I always thought I should feel if I were like other healthy people. However, I did gain a lot of will power after decades of having to force myself to get the job done even when I did not feel well. Hardship fosters strength as long as it does not kill you. A point often lost in our society when it comes to teaching children strength of character.
But let's not get this thread off Linda. It is her topic and she should get all the help she asks for here. I would love for her to have the joy of mobility that carrying 400 pounds must severely restrict. I would need twice my muscle strength to even walk around if I weighed that much. I would not be able to sit in any chair in my house, etc.,etc.,etc.
Linda, you now have the magic key in the Zone philosophy, use it to unlock your healthy future. I know you can do it! :D |
|
|
|
|
Scott
Posts:0
Newbie
|
| 07/16/2004 2:17 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:1b0af575ee="gofish"]
But let's not get this thread off Linda. It is her topic and she should get all the help she asks for here. I would love for her to have the joy of mobility that carrying 400 pounds must severely restrict.
Linda, you now have the magic key in the Zone philosophy, use it to unlock your healthy future. I know you can do it! :D[/quote:1b0af575ee]
Agree wholeheartedly. |
|
|
|
|
Sue
Posts:4177
Zoner
|
| 07/16/2004 8:50 PM |
Alert
|
| [quote:388d9ac2bd="Scott"][quote:388d9ac2bd="gofish"]
I am just winging it with these suggestions based on my common sense understanding. I can tell that you are an intelligent person and I am sure that you can tell which of my suggestions may benefit you the most. And If you can't, rest assured that there will be a bunch of responses to this post by those who think I have messed up some point.
[/quote:388d9ac2bd]
Winging it? C'mon Dennis. :wink:
You didn't mess up a bit. Excellent post.[/quote:388d9ac2bd]
And I second that!
Sue 8) |
|
sue
lost 100 lbs 13 yrs ago, off BP meds, thanks to the Zone diet and Zone fish oil!
for more photos, scroll over this photo and click when the link appears
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
Start getting Zone recipes, tips, articles and exclusive promotions sent right to your inbox!
After you provide your email address we’ll send you a confirmation email. You can “opt-out” of this program at anytime by following the simple instructions provided at the end of every email we send you. We will never send too many emails (spam) and we’ll never sell of rent your email to another company.
If you are already registerd with ZoneDiet.com and are receiving emails from Dr. Sears Zone then you do not need to provide your email address to us at this time.
To assure your Zone emails reach your inbox, be sure to add our email address,
reply@zoneliving.com, to your address book.
|
|