All you cutting experts, I have a question. It's one that isn't particularly amenable to a Google search, I have found.

When I'm keeping my calories fairly low and my ratios about where I want, that is protein over 30% (calories) and fat under 30% and the rest from clean carbs like veggies, I get an odd, almost sweet taste in the back of my mouth.

What is that? Is it a sign of something bad? I haven't checked to see if I am in ketosis, but if I am, is this bad?

I am kind of small so my BMR before I add in activities is low, around 1500 calories per day. I use the "sedentary" forumula and calculate need for extra calories based on hours/intensity of excercise (e.g. five miles of running at 5mph) on an as-needed basis.

I am losing a little bit of weight, but it's too soon to tell by the tape measure what kind of weight I am losing.

My exercise is mostly running and walking, with a little bit of resistance training when I can squeeze it in.

Help? Googling "sweet taste" and "weight loss" gets me all the wrong kinds of hits.

If you post your diet, that would help.

I know personally if I eat too much protein, I develop a nasty metallic taste in my mouth and just feel like garbage overall.

I'm not a fan of being in the state of ketosis. I think it's completely unneccesary and puts unwanted strain on the kidneys.

There have been people on here in the past that thought they were doing themselves a favor by staying in ketosis and have since disappeared for whatever reason. The body needs carbs for energy and if you don't get them in, you'll eventually start to crash or go on binges on things that you shouldn't be eating and or drinking which isn't ideal either.

It's easier just to eat a balanced diet to begin with instead of having to put yourself through starts and stops.

So you think it might be ketosis?

Should I post an individual day, a representative day, or my averages from Fitday?

Averages from Fitday say right around 1000 calories, split in the 30's all 3 ways. If anything dominates on any particular day it is carbs, but I am eating very little refined stuff except for the odd cheat square of chocolate.

My weight is trending downwards, but because of my hormonal cycle it's too soon to say if it's doing that more than usual. The next two weeks will tell me that more clearly.

I certainly have the symptoms of low carb dieting, but my carbs are...let me go and look them up for the last week:
85 grams yesterday
159 the day before that
112 the day before that (both of these were higher-than-usual calorie days)
112
113
147
130

So it's not like total grams of carbs is low. Main sources are: fruit, the occasional splurge of whole wheat pasta, and veggies like sweet potato. Also some milk.

I do have a spoonful of ice cream or a square of chocolate some days, and late last night I had sushi, yum!

Is that enough or do you need more specific info?

I thought that to get ketosis you had to keep the carbs extremely low. Looking this over, it doesn't seem low to me.

Oh, this might be pertinent. I am eating three meals per day. Again, never in my life has this put me in ketosis, why would it be happening now?

I really appreciate your input.

Just post your average day.

Breakfast - *roughly the time you eat and what you have.*
ex: 7:30 am- 3 egg whites, a piece of whole wheat toast, half a large grapefruit.
Use this example for your other meals and snacks

Lunch

Dinner

If you have snacks inbetween, post those as well.

OK I'm not sure what's average but:

Breakfast: coffee, 1 cup lowfat milk. Maybe a half of a whole wheat english muffin, or a meal replacement bar, around 150 calories per bar.

Snack: Plum, a cup of watermelon cubes, or similar

Lunch: A big bowl of mixed greens, with some sunflower seeds, and a half cup of lowfat cottage cheese and an ounce of fat free cheddar, plus assorted veggie toppings like red bell pepper, cucumber, some carrot slices, etc. Dressing is that squirt kind at one calorie per squirt.

Snack: Veggies and dip made from a half cup of lowfat cottage cheese or a cup or so of lowfat yogurt

Dinner: Some kind of lean protein like broiled fish or chicken breast, occasionally a steak. Another big salad or pile of steamed green veggies complete with topping of fat free cheese, and if temptation strikes, some brown rice pilaf.

Snack: If I'm really hungry I'll have some cottage cheese or lowfat yogurt and raw veggies (celery, baby carrots, cucumber) but usually I am not hungry so I'll have some fruit and/or sugar free jello.

If I'm up late: a square of chocolate or a spoonful or two of ice cream, the fattening kind. Also decaf chai with plenty of lowfat milk and a dash of Splenda.

Low calorie days are maybe around 800-950, and higher calorie days trend towards 1200. I splurge maybe once a week and top out around 1500, but I try not to make the splurge calories come from junk. More like a nice big bowl of whole wheat pasta with sauce.

If you post your diet, that would help.

I know personally if I eat too much protein, I develop a nasty metallic taste in my mouth and just feel like garbage overall.

I'm not a fan of being in the state of ketosis. I think it's completely unneccesary and puts unwanted strain on the kidneys.

There have been people on here in the past that thought they were doing themselves a favor by staying in ketosis and have since disappeared for whatever reason. The body needs carbs for energy and if you don't get them in, you'll eventually start to crash or go on binges on things that you shouldn't be eating and or drinking which isn't ideal either.

It's easier just to eat a balanced diet to begin with instead of having to put yourself through starts and stops.

I for one cut on moderate carbs (70-120 a day out of a ~2500 calorie cutting diet) much better than high carbs. I also am a pretty big advocate of healthy fats, in fact, more than 35% of my calories yesterday were fat. Most of my carbs come from veggies and fiberous fruits (apples, berries, etc).

I don't have as a goal ketosis, but I might hit it occasionally. I time my carbs for AM and workouts and feel better for it than I did higher carbed (even low GI), where I would often get more cravings and have energy crashes.

So what works for you might not for me and vice versa. High carbs aren't the answer for us all, though.

We don't all disappear. Several people right now are around here using a diet similar to this from t-nation.com called the t-dawg 2.0 diet.

EDIT: You posted your diet while I was posting this :)

By average day I mean average to you. :)

You don't have lots of protein in there and you're certainly getting enough veggies and fruit.

How do you feel eating when you eat 800-950 calories? Have you been measuring yourself as opposed to just going by the scale? The problem with going that low in calories is you'll start losing lean mass. By looking over your diet, I don't honestly know if you're getting enough to prevent that from happening or not.

If your weight is dropping too fast, there is a good chance that you're losing lean mass. Lean mass is basically the underlying fire of your metabolism so that you can burn fat. If the lean muscle you have isn't "healthy" you're going to hit a brick wall as you'll end up being skinny fat as there won't be enough lean mass to burn fat.

Is there a chance that you're diabetic? I ask because of the sweet breath thing you mentioned. If your urine also has that same sweet smell, you need to get it checked out ASAP.

OK I'm not sure what's average but:

Breakfast: coffee, 1 cup lowfat milk. Maybe a half of a whole wheat english muffin, or a meal replacement bar, around 150 calories per bar.

Snack: Plum, a cup of watermelon cubes, or similar

Lunch: A big bowl of mixed greens, with some sunflower seeds, and a half cup of lowfat cottage cheese and an ounce of fat free cheddar, plus assorted veggie toppings like red bell pepper, cucumber, some carrot slices, etc. Dressing is that squirt kind at one calorie per squirt.

Snack: Veggies and dip made from a half cup of lowfat cottage cheese or a cup or so of lowfat yogurt

Dinner: Some kind of lean protein like broiled fish or chicken breast, occasionally a steak. Another big salad or pile of steamed green veggies complete with topping of fat free cheese, and if temptation strikes, some brown rice pilaf.

Snack: If I'm really hungry I'll have some cottage cheese or lowfat yogurt and raw veggies (celery, baby carrots, cucumber) but usually I am not hungry so I'll have some fruit and/or sugar free jello.

If I'm up late: a square of chocolate or a spoonful or two of ice cream, the fattening kind. Also decaf chai with plenty of lowfat milk and a dash of Splenda.

Low calorie days are maybe around 800-950, and higher calorie days trend towards 1200. I splurge maybe once a week and top out around 1500, but I try not to make the splurge calories come from junk. More like a nice big bowl of whole wheat pasta with sauce.

I don't see a lot of good fats in there, not that that would cause your taste problem. I'd look for some nuts, natural nut butters, olive oil, flaxseed oil, avacados, fatty fish or fish oil supplements, etc.

Some fat is healthy :) Especially when eaten with vegetables, it greatly increases vitamin uptake for instance, and it can cut inflammation (fish oils). Unsaturated fats like in olive oil or almonds can improve cardiovascular health by upping good cholesterol.

I think trying to restrict fat too much ends up being counter productive IME.

How much do you currently weigh, what are your goals?

I for one cut on moderate carbs (70-120 a day out of a ~2500 calorie cutting diet) much better than high carbs. I also am a pretty big advocate of healthy fats, in fact, more than 35% of my calories yesterday were fat. Most of my carbs come from veggies and fiberous fruits (apples, berries, etc).

I don't have as a goal ketosis, but I might hit it occasionally. I time my carbs for AM and workouts and feel better for it than I did higher carbed (even low GI), where I would often get more cravings and have energy crashes.

So what works for you might not for me and vice versa. High carbs aren't the answer for us all, though.

We don't all disappear. Several people right now are around here using a diet similar to this from t-nation.com called the t-dawg 2.0 diet.

EDIT: You posted your diet while I was posting this :)

I wasn't referring to you and many others that are on here. There have been people that have gone about the whole low carb thing the wrong way on here. It's those people I was talking about. :)

The trouble with fat is that it's so calorie dense. In the past when I go much over 1200 calories per day my weight loss stalls right out.

It's a little soon to tell how much weight I'm losing; the first week or so is a ton of water. I might, maybe, be losing a pound a week but it's too soon to tell. At first the "lean body mass" lost includes the water.

Tape meausure has not responded but it's pretty soon for that I think.

How about more sunflower seeds and peanuts, stuff like that? They've got fat and I actually like them, and I get a little bulk with them. I have to be a little careful, they have a ton of calories.

Oop, I missed the stats question.

I'm a small (very small)-framed woman, 5'6" tall. Today after 2-3 weeks of honest-to-Pete dieting my scale says 131.5. Bodytracker says my bodyfat is just shy of 29%.

My first goal is improved fitness. I've been ramping up the exercise for several months, and I feel that this one is shaping nicely.

My second goal is to get my butt back down to 36 inches, a drop of more than 2 inches. Here is where I've been stuck for maybe a year, so I decided that in addition to increased exercise and general "eat less HoHos" stuff I'd begin tracking my food very carefully.

I don't expect to get into a size four next week, but I would like to see a little progress. The tape measure doesn't respond in a measurable way very quickly, so the only measure I've really got is the scale, and maybe my "skinny" jeans.

Oop, I missed the stats question.

I'm a small (very small)-framed woman, 5'6" tall. Today after 2-3 weeks of honest-to-Pete dieting my scale says 131.5. Bodytracker says my bodyfat is just shy of 29%.

My first goal is improved fitness. I've been ramping up the exercise for several months, and I feel that this one is shaping nicely.

My second goal is to get my butt back down to 36 inches, a drop of more than 2 inches. Here is where I've been stuck for maybe a year, so I decided that in addition to increased exercise and general "eat less HoHos" stuff I'd begin tracking my food very carefully.

I don't expect to get into a size four next week, but I would like to see a little progress. The tape measure doesn't respond in a measurable way very quickly, so the only measure I've really got is the scale, and maybe my "skinny" jeans.


I think you have plenty of room for fat in your diet. Just be judicious. I suspect you can cut on more calories as guava suggests, especially since you're not really "overweight", you just don't have it distributed exactly how you might like to see it.

Nuts and seeds are great sources of monounsaturated fats. So that's good. However, you also need some polyunsaturated fat, good omega 3s (like fish oils) as well as at least some minimal saturated fats.

To that end, I think you should also start to prioritize a bit of resistance training and maybe some higher intensity cardio to up the metabolism. Swap out some of your lower intensity longer steady state cardio. Resistance training and higher intensity cardio ups the metabolism and increases fat oxidation well after your finished exercise, where the "fat burning zone" style of cardio just burns calories when you do it, with little to no after effects to your metabolism or ability to burn fat.

One of the best cases I've read in awhile to this end is here (http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1526539).

If you get the metabolism up, you'll have more room for some fats. You also won't be forever chasing down a ever slowing metabolism with lower calories.

Thinking back to the taste question, I do have a weird thing happen to me when I eat a lot of lettuce. It's not a sweet taste, but it's almost a dry mouth feeling. Hard to describe. Spinach is better in this regard. I've never figured it out.

I wasn't referring to you and many others that are on here. There have been people that have gone about the whole low carb thing the wrong way on here. It's those people I was talking about. :)

I'm far from anti-carb. I just think that a lot of people got stuck in the 90s-think where all fat was even, and high carb/low fat was the way to go along with the "fat burning zone" style of cardio for weight loss over all else. The population seems to have gotten fatter taking that advice.

I didn't take it personal, I was just pointing out that not all of us using reduced carbs are unsuccessful :)

No way I'd want to do a sub 50g carb a day besides maybe a carb cycling type of diet (which I haven't tried) where you carb up periodically. I can't figure out a way to get enough fiber, nutrients, and antioxidants running day in day out on very low carb, and my health is more important to me than body comp.

Right now the running is in fact interval training, because I'm not very good at it. So I run a while and by the end of that stretch I am sucking wind and my heart rate is nice and high. Then I walk for a minute or two and catch my breath and do it again. Also, tons of evil hills and by the top of those babies my HR is over 180 which is really high for me, I'm 44 years old.

So I'm not unhappy with the intensity, I've been ramping that up steadily for months. On days when my feet hurt I walk, I'm not opposed to LISS except that it takes too darned long.

I'm trying to get more resistance training in, but I feel like the running is pretty intense and I don't want to drop that, it's hard to squeeze more exercise time in.

But, I am trying! Even if I only get five minutes in at a time, if I can get six of those blocks in I figure I got an extra half hour. When I lift I typically do three sets and try for maxing out at 8-10 reps. This is how we did it back in the days of Lisa Lyons and Carla Dunlap when I was a gym rat. Have things changed, should I be doing that differently?

But, I am trying! Even if I only get five minutes in at a time, if I can get six of those blocks in I figure I got an extra half hour. When I lift I typically do three sets and try for maxing out at 8-10 reps. This is how we did it back in the days of Lisa Lyons and Carla Dunlap when I was a gym rat. Have things changed, should I be doing that differently?

Sounds like a good start. A lot of people will advise women to not "lift heavy", and stick with light weights for very high reps. I think what you are doing is much better. After all, the point of "toning" is to increase lean mass and burn fat. High light reps won't do anything for muscle. It's basically cardio.

Oh, I have no problem with the concept of building. On my scrawny frame it would take a whale of a lot of building to make me look big. Anything that brings the top of me into proportion with the bottom of me is a good thing!

I just didn't know if there's a newer way to do it.

Is there?

Oh, I have no problem with the concept of building. On my scrawny frame it would take a whale of a lot of building to make me look big. Anything that brings the top of me into proportion with the bottom of me is a good thing!

I just didn't know if there's a newer way to do it.

Is there?


I don't know that there's anything particularly new, as much as there are lots of different theories on what's best.

I'd advise to do compound movements with mostly free weights instead of doing the machines. This gives you more overall work because you have to stabilize weight in space besides just moving it in a particular direction. This requires more work by the various stabilizing mucles, and thus increases overall strength more while giving more metabolic impact from the same time spent lifting.

Stuff like upper body presses (bench, overhead, etc), upper pulls (rows, pullups, pulldowns), and lower work for both the quads (squats, lunges, step ups, etc) and posterior chain (deadlift and it's variants, good mornings, Olympic types of pulls) should make up 75% or so of your lifting.

Use isolation stuff like curls, calf raises, etc to round out your plan.

Just getting back into the game, you don't have to get too complex. 6-12 reps x 3 sets is fine for awhile, and allows joints and connective tissue to acclimate, which happens slower than muscles strengthen. Later, you might want to get more technical and start doing different set/rep ranges on different days to work on different qualities (strength, power, endurance).

Sounds like the basics haven't changed one bit in all this time.

I'm not going to worry about "later" just now. I'm focusing on (a) getting to where I can run 5 miles of hills without stopping to puke (b) getting to a place in my head where eating clean is just What I Do, and (c) squeezing in some resistance workouts. For now, they'll have to be bowflex workouts.

I can't do pushups anymore because of the arthritis in my hands, those and lunges used to be my standbys.

Oh, and thanks so much for the input!

The trouble with fat is that it's so calorie dense. In the past when I go much over 1200 calories per day my weight loss stalls right out.

It's a little soon to tell how much weight I'm losing; the first week or so is a ton of water. I might, maybe, be losing a pound a week but it's too soon to tell. At first the "lean body mass" lost includes the water.

Tape meausure has not responded but it's pretty soon for that I think.

How about more sunflower seeds and peanuts, stuff like that? They've got fat and I actually like them, and I get a little bulk with them. I have to be a little careful, they have a ton of calories.

For extra fats, I would just add some fish oil - get some concentrated oil/tabs. These actually look good and cheap - take 2-4/day, that's not many calories.

http://www.prosource.net/product.jsp?path=-1|15864|15867&id=12152

but there are many others too. Personally I am taking 8g of Carlson's fish oil/day at the moment. It's a bit more expensive per g of omega-3, but I like to swap brands every once in a while.

Also you say 'low carb', but I see plenty of carbs. Eating lots of veg should be enough to keep you out of ketosis. You have stuff like:

1 cup milk
Muffin
Meal replacement bar
cup or so of yogurt
tea with more milk
rice

My diet suggestions would be to cut down on milk and yogurt (and remove the muffin and meal replacement bar, except perhaps occasionally) and stick with the cottage cheese. I use 'Calorie countdown' instead of milk for tea and coffee. Even if you have to add more, it has less carbs and more protein than regular milk.

If you have rice, pasta, muffin etc.. try to eat it around your lifting workouts.

You could increase veggies even more (if you feel hungry or want more carbs) - but ones with some calories, broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, cabbage (green, red), green beans. At your calorie level these will count towards your carb intake.

Try to add some more protein in breakfast and the first snack. Stick with the cottage cheese - if you need to sweeten it splenda is good - have you tried the zero calorie Davinci syrups? They are awesome. Adding just a bit of sugar-free (not calories free though) pudding can make these meals fantastic and potentially satisfy a sweet tooth.

Maybe something like egg white omelet (can add veg, onion mushroom and broccoli are good) with grapefruit for breakfast. If you prefer to have the FF cheese in here, you could instead of at lunch and that would make a tasty (and better) breakfast than you have right now.

I think you could lose fat with higher calories (and not feel hungry) if you increased your protein intake to 40-50% of calories and reduced the dairy sugars in milk and yogurt.

Good luck and be patient. It may take a while for your body to adjust and really start burning fat. Not eating enough, particularly protein and doing too much cardio is likely to leave you floundering though. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, just be wary of falling into that trap to try to get quick results.

OK, now I am confused. Are you saying that ketosis is something I should be striving for? Or just that I should be trying harder to get my protein up in the face of a low number of calories? I'm not wedded to the idea of low/high carbs, I just want to eat healthy and lose some fat. If anybody's got a magic formula, I'm ready to hear it!

I'm shooting for an average of around a thousand calories per day, but that goes up and down. Fitday says my average over the past two weeks is around 1100. I'm finding it very very challenging to get my protein levels up to 40%. I have to work at it pretty hard. (That's not a bad thing, but it's definitely an issue.)

I do egg beaters (is that bad?) omelets with tons of veggies like red peppers and spinach on the weekends. Weekdays there isn't time, I need something I can grab. Today it was smoked salmon sans the bagel LOL. Sigh. I fear that bagels are a thing of the past, oh well.

Thanks for the input, it really helps. Even if I am now even more confused LOL.

Well, the funny taste is back today. Yesterday was kind of a low carb day, not really on purpose, just how it worked out. Also more peeing. Maybe it is ketosis.

Today is going to be distinctly more salad-y, I feel the need for fresh veggies. Tomorrow, pizza! Two squares, tops.

Examining my fitday stats, it looks like about half the time I go under 1000 calories a day, sometimes as low as 850 but usually only barely under 1000. The other half I range from 1200-1300ish, and in the past month I've had 3 over-1500 calorie days (Two birthdays and Mother's day).

So I don't think I'm starving myself. Do you?

It's difficult to walk the line between eating enough calories that my weight loss stalls and eating so few that I'm losing all the wrong kinds.

So I don't think I'm starving myself. Do you?

It's difficult to walk the line between eating enough calories that my weight loss stalls and eating so few that I'm losing all the wrong kinds.

I still do. :D You're lowering your metabolism more and more, chasing it down. Thyroid function and lots of other things affecting metabolism decline.

OK, but what about the part where if I go over 1200 every day I stop losing weight? Not slow down, just plain stop. That gets mighty frustrating, let me tell you.

OK, but what about the part where if I go over 1200 every day I stop losing weight? Not slow down, just plain stop. That gets mighty frustrating, let me tell you.

That will happen for awhile as your metabolism resets.

The problem with continuing to go down the calorie slope is that you'll start to lose more lean mass instead of fat. You might keep the scale moving, but Then once you go back to eating normal levels, you gain weight back.

I know I sound like I'm harping on this, but we've seen people do this before and just fade away from here as they give up.

I'll quit bugging you about it :) Sorry.

See, I am looking for input, and I appreciate it. I just have kind of been here before and I think maybe my BMR calculates high or something, because in the face of increased activity and slightly decreased calories I just plain cannot lose weight after the first two weeks. I lose about five pounds of water and then whammo, nothing. And after about six weeks of that I get cranky and quit. Why the deprivation if no progress? I can bounce back up to 135 (that's where my body seems to like to be) and then eat more or less whatever (within reason 'natch) and not really get heavier.

I need to keep it moving, if slowly. I can easily live with a half pound a week, I'm not that big and I don't have that far to go. But a total stall is maddening.

Can you tell this frustrates me? Man, it does.

Oh, I guess I never posted this but even when I'm not working out per se, there are a few things I do several mornings per week, like a hundred or so crunches, ten or twenty lunges on each leg, a couple of pullups, etc. Not what you'd call a workout, but I've always figured it's better than nothing.

You stop losing for the very reason MannishBoy mentioned. Your metabolism can only go so low and once it reaches it's lowest point, your body is going to hold on to fat for dear life because your brain is saying "I'm starving!" even though you're eating.

I'm sorry, but that's the way the human mind works. From all I've read, this part of the brain has been functioning this way since Cavemen were around. There is nothing you can do to change this survival mechanism.

Start eating, take the gain for what it is and once you get over that hump, ypu won't have to deal with these stops and starts. Once your metabolism is on the course of being fired all the time, you'll lose weight in a consistant manner. You can do all the crunches you want, but that isn't what is going to give your a thinner waist. You have to eat properly. Abs are made in the kitchen, not at the gym whether you want a 6 pack or just a curvy waistline.

He's not BS'ing you. It's just the way it is.

Sigh.

I don't get it. I just don't. Nutrition is the base, I get that. You have to create a calorie deficit, I get that. The best way to do that is to combine moderate decrease in calorie intake with increase in calorie expenditure, I get that.

What I don't get is that if I increase expenditure and decrease calories a little and I don't lose weight, the right thing to do is eat more. That is just completly counterintuitive.

Around the middle of November I started just doing stuff like eating more salad and cutting out the junk, plus a big increase in exercise, and nothing happened. Nada.

So now I'm decreasing calories more and I'm losing weight and this is bad? It just goes so against the grain.

I think I am getting more confused.

Sigh.

I don't get it. I just don't. Nutrition is the base, I get that. You have to create a calorie deficit, I get that. The best way to do that is to combine moderate decrease in calorie intake with increase in calorie expenditure, I get that.

What I don't get is that if I increase expenditure and decrease calories a little and I don't lose weight, the right thing to do is eat more. That is just completly counterintuitive.

Around the middle of November I started just doing stuff like eating more salad and cutting out the junk, plus a big increase in exercise, and nothing happened. Nada.

So now I'm decreasing calories more and I'm losing weight and this is bad? It just goes so against the grain.

I think I am getting more confused.

I know it doesn't make sense right off hand, but when you start looking into how your body works on the physiological level, it makes sense.

WHen you say you increase activity and decrease calories but don't lose weight, you're right at that borderline area, where just a little bit more food will "tell" your body that you're not on the verge of starvation. If you give your body food regularly, it will "learn" that it doesn't need to store fat, so you'll lose weight.

However, at the "borderline" area, if you decrease calories even more, then your body thinks that you're living at a time/place when food is scarce, and does its best to keep you alive. How? Well, muscle takes more energy to maintain, so by getting rid of lean mass, it reduces your daily caloric need. BUT it keeps the fat. From a "survival" standpoint, this is beautiful, because then the fat/lean ratio gets rather high, and you get to stay alive even longer. However, from a fitness standpoint, this is totally wrong, since now you have even less muscle mass, and that fat will take even LONGER to take off.

We really don't mean to confuse you, we just want to make sure you do well! :)

OK, now I am confused. Are you saying that ketosis is something I should be striving for?

I'm shooting for an average of around a thousand calories per day, but that goes up and down. Fitday says my average over the past two weeks is around 1100. I'm finding it very very challenging to get my protein levels up to 40%. I have to work at it pretty hard. (That's not a bad thing, but it's definitely an issue.)

I do egg beaters (is that bad?) omelets with tons of veggies like red peppers and spinach on the weekends. Weekdays there isn't time, I need something I can grab. Today it was smoked salmon sans the bagel LOL. Sigh. I fear that bagels are a thing of the past, oh well.

Thanks for the input, it really helps. Even if I am now even more confused LOL.

#1 no, not saying you should try to achieve ketosis.
#2 egg beaters are good
#3 if you eat a bagel, that's what? 200-300kcal - 1/4 of your daily calorie intake right there! So that's 1/4 of your daily calories in a refined carb source (possibly not even post workout). Certainly not optimal for cutting, even PWO.
#4 given #3 and the sugary dairy, it's not surprising you find it difficult to eat 40% or higher in protein.

Ha, I haven't had a bagel in a dog's age. I found that sometime after my 40th birthday all the rules changed.

On weight watchers, a deli bagel with cream cheese is, like, 12 points, over half my daily allowance, all in one shot. Just not worth it.

So I don't have a lot of refined carbs. If I eat a half an english muffin, it's a whole wheat one. If I have a cup of pasta, it's whole wheat. And those are not everyday things.

OK, I shouldn't strive for ketosis, but I should strive for 40% or higher protein, and then maybe my calories can go higher and I won't stall out? Is that the message? I can certainly switch to a lower carb milk-like thing. I do use the protein-fortified lowfat milk now. I suppose I should enter it as a custom food in Fitday, I have it every day. It's slightly higher in protein than regular lowfat milk, but I don't think it's particularly low carb.

dkmahke, I thought it went without saying that if I increase activity and do nothing to change my diet, nothing happens. Then when I slightly decrease calories, still nothing. Why would increasing calories help?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I am trying to understand.

Sigh.

I don't get it. I just don't. Nutrition is the base, I get that. You have to create a calorie deficit, I get that. The best way to do that is to combine moderate decrease in calorie intake with increase in calorie expenditure, I get that.

What I don't get is that if I increase expenditure and decrease calories a little and I don't lose weight, the right thing to do is eat more. That is just completly counterintuitive.

Around the middle of November I started just doing stuff like eating more salad and cutting out the junk, plus a big increase in exercise, and nothing happened. Nada.

So now I'm decreasing calories more and I'm losing weight and this is bad? It just goes so against the grain.

I think I am getting more confused.

I don't know how else to explain it so that it will make sense. The only other thing I can suggest is that you go through the journals and media gallery here and see what people have done and how they did it.

Granted there are lots of guy success stories with pictures of 6 packs, awesome triceps,( Hi Guys! Yes I'm a fan of triceps! LOL) ect .. but they are pretty much doing all the same thing. They eat, work hard, rest, and drink plenty of water. You will not find one success story around here where people got the results that they did by only eating 800 or so calories. If the stories here don't do anything for you, do a google search and find stories there. There are plenty of women out there that are doing the same thing as the people here are and they too are getting results. They may not be as "hard" but some of them have certainly come a long way.

Forget about all the garbage you hear through the media, magazines that claim to know best an look to those that are living and breathing their results daily instead of trying to sell hocus-pocus because the rest of society sucks it up like boxes of Twinkies.

If you want a quick fix, then continue on with what you're doing, but just know that the weight is going to find you again once you start eating. Eating is alot easier when you have alittle wiggle room because you know that you are maintaining what your body needs to burn off extra calories.

OK, here is what fitday says my calories have been over the last three weeks:
1387, 1171, 1276, 1176, 768 (I wonder what happened that day?) 1589 (birthday party), 910, 1100, 979, 1226 (guesstimated, I didn't do an ingredients breakdown), 967, 1259, 755, 870, 1171, 996, 1006, 1554 (went out to dinner), 1351, 0 (didn't journal; Mother's Day, it was probably Not Pretty), 964, 1315, 984, 925.

So there are some kind of scarily low ones in there, but not that many. When I look at the specifics of that day, they are very broccoli/salad/cottage cheese heavy. It looks like the median is a hair under 1200.

1200 is too low IMO. People have been giving you really sound advice. It's up to you what you do with it. :gl:

Okay, so what are you eating on those 768 calorie days?

Going back to the bagel thing even though you haven't eaten any, just because WW puts points on a bagel, what they fail to teach you is what is in that bagel. This is where those "points" should really matter. I'll call this the quality versus quantity test.

Just to show you what I'm talking about, let's compare a plain bagel to plain ol' Quaker Oats.

Organic ( Bible Bagels)

1 Plain 4.5 inch bagel - Calories- 303, Protein- 12g Carbs 59g, Sodium- 587g, Fiber- 3g, Fat- 1.8g

Quaker Oats- Quick 1 minute- Plain

Serving Size- 1/2 cup measured dry - Calories- 150, Fat- 3g, Sat fat- .5 g, Poly fat- 1g, Mono fat- 1g, Carbs- 27g, Dietary Fiber- 4g, Soluable Fiber 2g, Insoluable Fiber 2g, Sugar-1g, Protein- 5g.

I don't have the ingredients list for the bagels, but I'm willing to bet that they are highly processed just because of all the sodium that is in them which means the company is messing with people's heads by simply adding "Organic" to their product name. There is little fiber which is needed for weightloss and basically it's a waste of 303 calories. From a health standpoint, a person would be much better off eating 2 servings of Quaker Oats.

I give WW credit for only one thing and that is teaching people serving sizes. Other than that, they don't get into the nitty gritty of what is in food or explain how things really work, atleast not from all that I've seen anyway. NutriSystem and all the other ones work the same way.

Could a person live off of Organic Bible Bagels, yes. Chances are they could also lose weight while eating them as well if the sodium didn't make them bloat, but that doesn't mean that the person eating them is eating a diet that is going to give them the best results either.

A trip to Sonic and ordering just their steak sandwich with no sides has 631 calories with 41.6 grams of fat. If you add a regular size thing of fries, you can dump on an extra 233 calories and 8 grams of fat. And to think that some people call this a snack.

Personally I'd rather save my money and eat at home as if I were to eat Sonic's food, it wouldn't leave much room for anything else and I wouldn't be able to eat anything with fat in it for 2 or so days as just that one order would put my fat intake way over than what I should be eating and I hadn't even ordered a drink, dessert and didn't use ketchup on my fries.

Calories count as much as where those calories come from.

* Information on the bagels and food from Sonic can be found in a book called " The Nutribase- Complete Book of Food Counts*

768 calories is still too low, but as you can see, it's really easy to use them all up in one meal if you're not careful.

Could a person live off of Organic Bible Bagels, yes. Chances are they could also lose weight while eating them as well if the sodium didn't make them bloat,

http://www.brentbuckman.com/diet.html

:neener: :p :rolleyes:

I should strive for 40% or higher protein, and then maybe my calories can go higher and I won't stall out? Is that the message?

Why would increasing calories help?

Because it increases the rate at which you burn calories.

If you're on a very large calorie deficit, your metabolism will slow down a great deal. On a smaller calorie deficit, you will burn fat at a faster rate.

Protein is slightly thermogenic, which means that in an equivalent amount of calories from protein as compared to calories from fats or carbohydrates, less of the protein calories will ultimately be stored as fat. I don't do well on more than 30% of my calories from protein, because of mood swings, cravings, and hormonal changes, but many people do well on quantities greater than this.

Take a look at Dr. John Berardi's New View of Energy Balance (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/new_view.htm)for some surprising case studies that seem to counter the commonly accepted "calories in = calories out" equation.

Okay, so what are you eating on those 768 calorie days?

Going back to the bagel thing even though you haven't eaten any, just because WW puts points on a bagel, what they fail to teach you is what is in that bagel. This is where those "points" should really matter. I'll call this the quality versus quantity test.

Just to show you what I'm talking about, let's compare a plain bagel to plain ol' Quaker Oats.

Organic ( Bible Bagels)

1 Plain 4.5 inch bagel - Calories- 303, Protein- 12g Carbs 59g, Sodium- 587g, Fiber- 3g, Fat- 1.8g

Quaker Oats- Quick 1 minute- Plain

Serving Size- 1/2 cup measured dry - Calories- 150, Fat- 3g, Sat fat- .5 g, Poly fat- 1g, Mono fat- 1g, Carbs- 27g, Dietary Fiber- 4g, Soluable Fiber 2g, Insoluable Fiber 2g, Sugar-1g, Protein- 5g.

I don't have the ingredients list for the bagels, but I'm willing to bet that they are highly processed just because of all the sodium that is in them which means the company is messing with people's heads by simply adding "Organic" to their product name. There is little fiber which is needed for weightloss and basically it's a waste of 303 calories. From a health standpoint, a person would be much better off eating 2 servings of Quaker Oats.

I give WW credit for only one thing and that is teaching people serving sizes. Other than that, they don't get into the nitty gritty of what is in food or explain how things really work, atleast not from all that I've seen anyway. NutriSystem and all the other ones work the same way.

Could a person live off of Organic Bible Bagels, yes. Chances are they could also lose weight while eating them as well if the sodium didn't make them bloat, but that doesn't mean that the person eating them is eating a diet that is going to give them the best results either.

A trip to Sonic and ordering just their steak sandwich with no sides has 631 calories with 41.6 grams of fat. If you add a regular size thing of fries, you can dump on an extra 233 calories and 8 grams of fat. And to think that some people call this a snack.

Personally I'd rather save my money and eat at home as if I were to eat Sonic's food, it wouldn't leave much room for anything else and I wouldn't be able to eat anything with fat in it for 2 or so days as just that one order would put my fat intake way over than what I should be eating and I hadn't even ordered a drink, dessert and didn't use ketchup on my fries.

Calories count as much as where those calories come from.

* Information on the bagels and food from Sonic can be found in a book called " The Nutribase- Complete Book of Food Counts*

768 calories is still too low, but as you can see, it's really easy to use them all up in one meal if you're not careful.

Weight watchers isn't all bad. The calculate points based on calories, fiber, and fat. It's not a bad place to start. Using their system also gets you watching things like portion size. As in you say "hmmm, I have three points left. I can eat an apple and two cups of watermelon, or a 3 oz portion of lean meat...or I can have one square of chocolate. Which will make me feel more satisfied?"

I'm trying hard to keep all of my calories clean, so if I did eat half a bagel it would be a whole wheat one. But I agree, mostly I'd rather spend my calories or points or grams of carbs or whatever on something more satisfying.

OK, want to know something funny? I've been calculating my BMR based on a height of 60 inches (I stink at math, go ahead and laugh) and I'm actually 66 inches tall.

So you are maybe right, I need a little (a LITTLE) more. But I am not going to stall out my cut; if I stop losing for more than 2 weeks I am going back to what's working.

On the sub-900 calorie days it looks like I am eating a ton of broccoli and salad, which really fills me up so I'm not hungry for the protein I need. I could probably up my calories a lot by simply putting an olive-oil dressing on instead of the squirty ones. That is easily fixed.

I'm not anti-carb, but I'm trying really hard to stay away from flour (whole wheat is allowed in moderation) and sugar (except as a special treat).

Take a look at Dr. John Berardi's New View of Energy Balance (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/new_view.htm)for some surprising case studies that seem to counter the commonly accepted "calories in = calories out" equation.

Queenie, that's by the same author I recommended Metabolism Advantage (http://www.amazon.com/Metabolism-Advantage-Program-Fat-Burning-Machine-At/dp/1594863237/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0627286-0104919?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179516060&sr=8-1) from.

Yes, I clicked your link, but there was only an ad for a book.

I dunno, sounds like voodoo to me. Eating more than my maintenance calories is just plain not going to help me lose weight, and my maintenance calories are not that high.

I do have a theory that once your body gets used to a certain weight it doesn't like to change. So I need to lose a little and maintain that for a while (I will shoot for a year) and then see if my body decides that this is the new "setpoint".

I have exactly zero data to support this theory. My experiment will have an n of 1.

Do you plan to maintain a certain weight for a year by eating 1000 calories per day? Honestly, that sounds really complicated to me, and possibly dangerous.

Take a look through Jedi's journal. I'm not up to date on it, but I think I remember reading that she was struggling with a slow metabolism, and having trouble building up to a "normal" amount of calories. I believe she said it may have been due to an eating disorder in the past (in other words, eating too few calories).

Yes, I clicked your link, but there was only an ad for a book.

I dunno, sounds like voodoo to me. Eating more than my maintenance calories is just plain not going to help me lose weight, and my maintenance calories are not that high.

I do have a theory that once your body gets used to a certain weight it doesn't like to change. So I need to lose a little and maintain that for a while (I will shoot for a year) and then see if my body decides that this is the new "setpoint".

I have exactly zero data to support this theory. My experiment will have an n of 1.

Yes, it's a book, but it's a good book covering the basics. I'd argue the diet/workout style in that book is much more effective than anything Weight Watchers puts out, and healthier to boot.

I think you're assuming "maintenance" is what some formula says. That formula is an average from a bunch of people, not an exact number. It's not a static number, either. You can change that number a lot of ways, including adding muscle mass, burning through your muscle mass, activity levels, types of foods you eat, types of exercises, etc.

The studies have shown that metabolism can ramp up or slow down over time due to a lot of these factors.

A year ago I was cutting on 2000-2200 calories. This year, I cut for nearly a month on 2700 before my metabolism started to slow and that number wasn't as effective.

We're just trying to get you out of the thinking that's caused lots to not have much success into thinking a way we've seen work tons of times around here.

Gah. I said I'd stop. I will now. I don't want to sound like I'm preaching :)

I think I need to sleep on this awhile. It doesn't make sense to me to stop doing something that appears to be working, which is creating a calorie deficit through eating a clean diet and exercise.

If (when) it stalls, that would be an optimal time to change tactics.

That isn't to say I won't come over to the side of light and reason...eventually.

And, um, I'm confused. If I'm losing on an average of 1100 calories, how could I maintain on 1000? Seems like I'd have to increase to maintain, especially if I transition to a more resistance-focused exercise plan.

This is very complicated. In the old days I never ever dieted. I just ate and worked out and it was all fine. This seems lots harder to get right.

There is 3500 calories in a pound of fat.

If you are eating 1000 calories or less on the average, you won't be losing 1100 per week. Eating 1000 calories and taking off 500 calories to lose roughly a half pound of fat per week isn't going to work, atleast not effectively. You will lose lean mass as there isn't enough food.

BTW- Cheetos isn't on the clean food list. LOL

Mannish- I give ya A++ for effort!

If you are eating 1000 calories or less on the average, you won't be losing 1100 per week. Eating 1000 calories and taking off 500 calories to lose roughly a half pound of fat per week isn't going to work, atleast not effectively. You will lose lean mass as there isn't enough food

Huh? Could you say that again please? You have completely lost me. Either I am really dumb or you have misconstrued something or there is a typo in there. Am I to understand that you think my goal is to eat 500 calories a day? What does "lose 1100 per week" mean?

Also, if anybody knows what the funny taste is, that would be good. Today it's kind of metallic, and today was a, well, cheat day, kidlet turned 5 and the house is full of things like birthday cake. So plenty of carbs.

OK. Let's go over what most people here generally accept as facts. Tell me which part of this is voodoo and not making sense.

1. When you take in fewer calories than basic maintenance, the body thinks it's in a "food shortage."

2. Your muscles are not permanent fixtures. They are constantly being broken down and rebuilt, exercise or not (all else being equal) to some degree.

3. When you're in a food shortage, and your muscles are not being heavily worked (weight/resistance training) the body stops replacing muscle tissue so it can save its fat stores which it thinks are more important for survival.

4. Thus, the weight you're losing is _probably_ the wrong weight. You're losing lean weight. You probably haven't lost very much fat yet.

5. You need to up your food to at least maintenance and do more resistance training, even if it means less (or no) cardio.

6. Resistance training burns calories just like cardio.

7. When you eat "maintenance" level AND exercise your muscles, your body will replenish your muscles and draw on fat stores for energy.

I forget who said it originally...but when was the last time you saw an overweight person start taking aerobics and come out a lean person? It doesn't happen often - only in the "genetic freak".

Look at what John did...he initially was eating way too low but grew to realize his mistake. However, he was doing weight training from day 1.

I say for more protein get Light Tuna about 26grams in one can. I know its not he best tasting but bring a apple or sumthign else and eat the tuna first then savor teh fruit.

I say for more protein get Light Tuna about 26grams in one can. I know its not he best tasting but bring a apple or sumthign else and eat the tuna first then savor teh fruit. Sigh. Yes, it's boring, but it's an awfully good protein source. Sometimes I put that or turkey on my salad, that helps with the protein a lot.

I taught aerobics and weight training for many years, I've seen a fair few transformations in my time. Done right, aerobics can be a great way to help transform a person. I never really did buy that stuff about lower intensity exercise being better than high intensity though; if all you have is an hour, make it the most intense hour you can manage. Worry about tweaking low/high intensity levels at different times when you've got ten hours a week to exercise. The rest of us humans only have a couple/few hours a week, I say make them count.