Straightforward Weight Loss
 

Ladies,

I've been sitting on this, guarding it viciously...LOL! No, I just haven't shared yet (of course my memory is a pity so if I've posted this already, bear with me). I've found, FOR ME, the easiest way to lose weight is to determine my appropriate caloric intake and then develop simple menus that I can actually follow. Fads are the absolute worst situation for me because I can't stick to one thing for any length of time.

I can't help y'all too much with the menus because it completely depends on your personal tastes. But I do have nutritional info for you on your caloric needs.

ENJOY!

NOTE: FOR WOMEN ONLY (I don't have the numbers for men)

HOW MUCH SHOULD I EAT?

Find out your optimum caloric intake for weight loss:

Step 1: find your number based on height

4'10 = 115...4'11 = 116...5'0 = 120...5'1...122...
5'2 = 125...5'3 = 128...5'4 = 131...5'5 = 134...
5'6 = 137...5'7 = 140...5'8 = 143...5'9 = 146...
6'0 = 149

Step 2: use the number from step one and multiply it by the factor for your age group here:

20's = 16...30's = 15
40's = 14...50's = 13
60's = 12...70's = 11

Step 3: subtract the number from step one FROM your present weight (present weight, minus, step one #)

Step 4: multiply the number from step three by 4 (step three # X 4)

Step 5: add the number from step two to the number from step four
**this is your maintenance caloric intake**
**if you don't want to lose or gain, this is how much you should eat**

Step 6: multiply your present weight by .01 (present weight X .01)
**this is the MAXIMUM number of pounds that you can safely lose per week**

Step 7: multiply the number from step six by 500 (Step six # X 500)

Step 8: subtract the number from step seven FROM your maintenance number (Step five)
**this is the MINIMUM number of calories you MUST eat daily to safely lose weight**

Note: If you eat between the number from Step Eight and the Number from Step Five, you WILL lose weight. Ladies, if your minimum number (Step eight) is below 1000 calories, increase to 1000 calories. Women must eat AT LEAST 1000 calories per day to maintain their health.



Please feel free to add any "straightforward" weightloss tips - NO FADS!

Im 6'1" and 170, I drink till I pass out, I eat unhealthy at all times possible, and outside of Bocce Ball and fishing I dont do anything active.

The best weightloss, if you have a good load of cash, is to go skiing with the white lady

Adding all this up counts as how many calories?

Minimum and maximum for weight loss. If the minimum is lower than 1000, bump up to at least 1000. Is that what you were asking?

Nice. Thanks, Jeni :)

Doing Weight Watchers I've learned that Fruit + Fiber + Lean Meats = Weight Loss. I hate the idea of counting calories or points or whatever, so I stick to just trying to eat healthy & I lose weight as long as I don't overeat.

Eat less. Exercise more.

she meant adding up all that you posted counts for having lost how many calories?

It's not how many calories have been lost. It's a range of calories that can be consumed while still losing weight.

Everyone has a maintenance level, meaning, you eat that much to maintain your current weight. If you eat more, you gain. If you eat less, you lose. Of course, the formula cannot be perfectly exact because bodies are different. But it's pretty accurate!

I don't count calories, per se. What I do is keep in mind the number of calories I have up to my maintenance level and watch what I ingest.

The rule is that there are approximately 3,500 calories per pound of weight. So, if your maintenance level is 2,000 calories daily and you eat 1,000 calories daily, you're cutting 1,000 calories. That means you'll lose one pound of weight every 3.5 days. Again, it's not exact...just a guideline.

And, valkyrie, you know there are more issues than just eating less for overweight people. For people who aren't depressed (or have medical reasons for overweight), we don't judge our caloric intake well. In general, normal weight people instinctively know when to quit. The rest of us don't. That's the problem...so, that's why I'm saying that, for me, having a general guideline helps me monitor myself.

I still have quite a bit to lose.

Someday, I will have a weight loss advice column and use this as the answer to every question.

"...there are more issues than just eating less for overweight people. For people who aren't depressed (or have medical reasons for overweight), we don't judge our caloric intake well. In general, normal weight people instinctively know when to quit. The rest of us don't. That's the problem."

ummm heavy scotch intake and 8 Balls on the weekends.......you won't gain a pound.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that in order to lose weight, you have to take in fewer calories than you burn off. I doubt anyone will argue against that.

Certainly, but what I'm saying is that we know that. The issue is not lack of that knowledge.

Amen! I loved weight watchers because of the results, but the points were a pain. I agree though that the best thing about weight watchers is learning to eat more fruit and fiber, cut out fatty meats (I never eat breaded meats anymore either), and drink LOTS of water :)

It's not that complicated. Don't do any of that calculations bullshit. YOu just wasted 10 minutes of your time.

Just follow these words














Make life easier for yourself. Eat less then what you can burn.

Many overweight people know when they SHOULD quit, they just don't.

You are greekchat's cougarjim. You should know that.

-Rudey

I agree with what's been said. But I also think that strictly drinking water elicits amazing results as well.

Counting calories doesn't necessarily work because you can end up eating empty calories -- a few bags of chips with soda, for example -- and still stay within your caloric threshold.

Stick to those good ol' fruits, veggies and whole grains which are nutrient-dense and fill you up:o

Hey GP, you'll get no resistance from me on this point. However, I've been referring to people who DO make an effort, like me for example. I can't just say eat less. I have to make it a point to think about what I'm doing because the hunger shut-off in my brain isn't as it should be.

That waiting 12 or 20 minutes or whatever it is after eating does absolutely nothing anymore. I never feel satiated (not full, just satiated) unless I'm stuffed to the gills. I do run into times during which my hormones or my mood make me less hungry and, of course, there are foods that work better than others. I feel less hungry on a cup of broccoli than a cup of popcorn, so I'd take the broccoli. You know what I'm saying?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "exercise more, eat less" theory. It depends on what you are eating and what exercise regimen you are following. I don't believe in "counting calories" either but I do watch what I eat and observe the fat content in each item. I would have to agree that most of the time when we are "counting calories" we ultimately mess up because we are counting empty calories as someone mentioned earlier.

I'll say it again: THE ONLY way to lose weight is less input, more output. No one can argue against this.

You're right, but everyone knows that. Obviously a little more direction is required.

Are you a certified nutritionist or fitness trainer???

Does that have anything to do with the accuracy of her statement?

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you can live on chips and ice cream and not be hungry, you'll lose weight (granted, you won't be healthy).

2000 Calories eaten - 2500 Calories burned = -500 Calories gained = weight loss

2500 Calories eaten - 1500 Calories burned = 1000 Calories gained = weight gain

It's not hard math.


ETA:
Nothing like being thin and dying of scurvy anyway.;) ;)

It was a simple question which required a simple answer, one that you, who really doesn't have the answer, shouldn't have entertained.

Are you a judicial officer????

Wow this is so hilariously wrong.

Take a science class.

Also - the reason why the 'drink only water' method works well for some people (and others are rail-thin while pounding diet coke like it's blow) has more to do with the effects of carbonation and the moderately high salt content on water balance, etc than anything related to 'empty calories' (which is possibly the worst phrase you could use in this kind of conversation).

It's kind of like when you flush a toilet - you have to wait for the water level to 'refill' before it can flush again, and that's what drinking a ton of water will do for you. Slight metabolic gains may also be possible (but are also possibly offset by the gains you get from caffeine in diet soda, which has been positively correlated with metabolic gains and serves to enhance the thermogenic capabilities of other materials as well). No I will not argue the point of thermogenesis, it's really a sketchy area, I agree.

That still doesn't refute the "more output, less input" method. Maybe some people don't exercise, but they use more calories than they take in through a normal day of working, walking around, and sleeping.

I can see where you're going, but I think it still goes back to less calories taken in, more calories burned out.

A former certified fitness instructor and current triathlete, not that it matters.

And I'm thin. Are you?

Hey, I was just joking about all the math.:D