Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Two more days

Tuesday: 1,470 calories
Wednesday: (today) 1,608

By the way, I have scrolled down and taken an average over the last 16 days.  The average is 1,662 calories per day.  This is why I am probably not losing weight (I have not gotten on the scale for a while, but I don't need to.)  Here's a little bit of interesting factoid I have gleaned over the years:

Weight control is not an exact equation whereby each calorie you consume contributes to, or subtracts from, pounds on your body.  I believe that your body "wants" to be a particular weight at any given time, and your body is somewhat flexible in the number of calories taken in that can sustain that weight relatively steadily.  To back up my theory, I believe that people (this is true for me, at least) stay steady over long periods of time even with somewhat variable food intake.

My point here is that if a person is 152 pounds for a long time, it's likely that an intake ranging from 1,600 on the low side to 2,500 on the high side (roughly) would just maintain that weight.  (note: That was just a guess.)   This runs contrary to the popular belief that an extra 100 calories per day would put on X number of pounds per year.  Maybe for people grossly overeating in the first place, this could be true, but I happen to believe that there's a lot of "wiggle room" in any person's daily intake that would maintain a particular weight.  Restricting calories without restricting them enough to make the pounds budge does nothing except shortchange a person in nutrition and introduce a little deprivation, while the weight stays the same.  I might as well have been enjoying myself more and getting a few more vitamins and protein if I'm going to be pedaling in place and not losing any weight, in other words.  If I want to nudge a few pounds off, I have to take the calories down a few hundred more per day.  That's the bottom line.


  1. Great points - & I absolutely agree w/you on the FACT that the longer you remain at a particular weight, the harder it is to budge from that new "setpoint"...
    I came across a new source of info yesterday, which manages to be both discouraging and encouraging at the same time! It confirms a lot of what I've been reading that "a calorie is NOT a calorie":

    & now I need to find time to dive back into my Ancient History posts!

    1. Hmm... I'm not sure I understood much from that page except that low-fat is not a good thing. I have believed for a while now that people need fat - ideally through nuts and maybe some animal foods (preferably vegetable, though, right? Olive, etc., maybe fish? but definitely nuts) for proper everything function. Brain function, nervous systems, and I would NOT like to get gallstones, thank you very much, which I understand can be formed from extreme withholding of fat and from fasting.

    2. Yes, my associate gave herself gallstones via rapid weight loss on low-fat diet & despite a valiant effort, wound up losing her gallbladder...
      Unfortunately (as we all know) most of the weight rebounded as well :-(


Comments are welcome, but be patient since they require approval.