That's about 1500 - 1700 calories a day, with nearly everything in my apathy diet included.
I am remaining in the 170 - 173 pound spot. Obviously, this calorie range keeps me squarely in this weight range. (I have been here for a year and a half?)
I go from 170 to 175. I get excited to see 1-6-9, and then, poof, right back into 170's. I have always shared (in my BBGC support group) that I believe in 10 - 12 calories per pound maintains my size.
Which also means, if I am EVER going to shake off this excess, I must drop back the calories OR ramp up my daily activity by at least 500 - 700 calories per day.
HUGE APATHETIC SIGH FILLED WITH TOAST. "BUT I DON'T WANNNNNNAAAAAA EAT LESS." I have become way too comfortable with over-eating. I can eat me some 1700 calories with ease. I can polish off a bowl of Anycarbs! like nobodies business. Hand me Anycarbs! (...except cereal and milk, gag) and I'll overeat it for you!
What made me realize this? One of my daughters decided to start looking at portions. She pulled out the measuring cups. And DOG KNOWS I AM A PROFESSIONAL MEASURER OF ALL THINGS NUTRITIVE and I can tell you how many calories are in all the things -- but -- do I bother measuring my own foods?
Nah. scoop scoop scoop
When I looked at her wee bowl of pasta and realized (for the millionth time) that 1/2 cup of pasta is only > this < much? And I have been serving myself with > this < much stomach + THIS MUCH + just because it's there? Thud.
Last night while watching My 600 LB Life -- I noted that Dr. Now puts all the patients on a 1200 calorie diet. It works. What I am doing, is not working. It's maintaining my obesity. What does this mean for me? I am going to make a conscious effort to aim for 1200 calories. I know that my aiming for that I may or may not - but it's not a huge deal. If I can hit it some days, I'll make progress. My goal is 150 pounds, so a loss of 20 pounds. To do that, I'll need to CUT THE CARBS back. I may need to cut out a meal or snack or three. Add shakes in? Maybe. I haven't "dieted" in so very long it's hard to even consider? I see lots of my online friends having great success with super low carb plans, some even KETO, but, I need something that is very flexible - even - ready to go - with no planning. I'm just ... chaotic. But I'll follow anything and be likely to succeed if I can get with it, you know?
Are you following any plans right now? Do you have excess weight to lose?
Cows eat grass. Babies eat grass. It's good for, fiber, right? Fiber in, uh, this form, hurts my old cranky gastric bypass belly. I get (excuses) bezoars (/excuses) and I eat toast instead. I'm not suggesting that one goes and eats grass, but some things I see Dieters Eat isn't much different than what this baby got in during his outside play yesterday. :x You don't have to tell me to worry about "your baby eating gross that's so gross do you know what might be in there?!" Yes. He's baby number five. A lot worse will be eaten. Salad, anyone?
Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new weight-loss procedure in which a thin tube, implanted in the stomach, ejects food from the body before all the calories can be absorbed.
Some have called it “medically sanctioned bulimia,” and it is the latest in a desperate search for new ways to stem the rising tides of obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Roughly one-third of adult Americans are now obese; two-thirds are overweight; and diabetes afflicts some 29 million. Another 86 million Americans have a condition called pre-diabetes. None of the proposed solutions have made a dent in these epidemics.
Recently, 45 international medical and scientific societies, including the American Diabetes Association, called for bariatric surgery to become a standard option for diabetes treatment. The procedure, until now seen as a last resort, involves stapling, binding or removing part of the stomach to help people shed weight. It costs $11,500 to $26,000, which many insurance plans won’t pay and which doesn’t include the costs of office visits for maintenance or postoperative complications. And up to 17 percent of patients will have complications, which can include nutrient deficiencies, infections and intestinal blockages.
It is nonsensical that we’re expected to prescribe these techniques to our patients while the medical guidelines don’t include another better, safer and far cheaper method: a diet low in carbohydrates.
Once a fad diet, the safety and efficacy of the low-carb diet have now been verified in more than 40 clinical trials on thousands of subjects. Given that the government projects that one in three Americans (and one in two of those of Hispanic origin) will be given a diagnosis of diabetes by 2050, it’s time to give this diet a closer look.
When someone has diabetes, he can no longer produce sufficient insulin to process glucose (sugar) in the blood. To lower glucose levels, diabetics need to increase insulin, either by taking medication that increases their own endogenous production or by injecting insulin directly. A patient with diabetes can be on four or five different medications to control blood glucose, with an annual price tag of thousands of dollars.
Yet there’s another, more effective way to lower glucose levels: Eat less of it.
Glucose is the breakdown product of carbohydrates, which are found principally in wheat, rice, corn, potatoes, fruit and sugars. Restricting these foods keeps blood glucose low. Moreover, replacing those carbohydrates with healthy protein and fats, the most naturally satiating of foods, often eliminates hunger. People can lose weight without starving themselves, or even counting calories.
Most doctors — and the diabetes associations — portray diabetes as an incurable disease, presaging a steady decline that may include kidney failure, amputations and blindness, as well as life-threatening heart attacks and stroke. Yet the literature on low-carbohydrate intervention for diabetes tells another story. For instance, a two-week study of 10 obese patients with Type 2 diabetes found that their glucose levels normalized and insulin sensitivity was improved by 75 percent after they went on a low-carb diet.
At our obesity clinics, we’ve seen hundreds of patients who, after cutting down on carbohydrates, lose weight and get off their medications. One patient in his 50s was a brick worker so impaired by diabetes that he had retired from his job. He came to see one of us last winter, 100 pounds overweight and panicking. He’d been taking insulin prescribed by a doctor who said he would need to take it for the rest of his life. Yet even with insurance coverage, his drugs cost hundreds of dollars a month, which he knew he couldn’t afford, any more than he could bariatric surgery.
Instead, we advised him to stop eating most of his meals out of boxes packed with processed flour and grains, replacing them with meat, eggs, nuts and even butter. Within five months, his blood-sugar levels had normalized, and he was back to working part-time. Today, he no longer needs to take insulin.
Another patient, in her 60s, had been suffering from Type 2 diabetes for 12 years. She lost 35 pounds in a year on a low-carb diet, and was able to stop taking her three medications, which included more than 100 units of insulin daily.
One small trial found that 44 percent of low-carb dieters were able to stop taking one or more diabetes medications after only a few months, compared with 11 percent of a control group following a moderate-carb, lower-fat, calorie-restricted diet. A similarly small trial reported those numbers as 31 percent versus 0 percent. And in these as well as another, larger, trial, hemoglobin A1C, which is the primary marker for a diabetes diagnosis, improved significantly more on the low-carb diet than on a low-fat or low-calorie diet. Of course, the results are dependent on patients’ ability to adhere to low-carb diets, which is why some studies have shown that the positive effects weaken over time.
A low-carbohydrate diet was in fact standard treatment for diabetes throughout most of the 20th century, when the condition was recognized as one in which “the normal utilization of carbohydrate is impaired,” according to a 1923 medical text. When pharmaceutical insulin became available in 1922, the advice changed, allowing moderate amounts of carbohydrates in the diet.
Yet in the late 1970s, several organizations, including the Department of Agriculture and the diabetes association, began recommending a high-carb, low-fat diet, in line with the then growing (yet now refuted) concern that dietary fat causes coronary artery disease. That advice has continued for people with diabetes despite more than a dozen peer-reviewed clinical trials over the past 15 years showing that a diet low in carbohydrates is more effective than one low in fat for reducing both blood sugar and most cardiovascular risk factors.
The diabetes association has yet to acknowledge this sizable body of scientific evidence. Its current guidelines find “no conclusive evidence” to recommend a specific carbohydrate limit. The organization even tells people with diabetes to maintain carbohydrate consumption, so that patients on insulin don’t see their blood sugar fall too low. That condition, known as hypoglycemia, is indeed dangerous, yet it can better be avoided by restricting carbs and eliminating the need for excess insulin in the first place. Encouraging patients with diabetes to eat a high-carb diet is effectively a prescription for ensuring a lifelong dependence on medication.
At the annual diabetes association convention in New Orleans this summer, there wasn’t a single prominent reference to low-carb treatment among the hundreds of lectures and posters publicizing cutting-edge research. Instead, we saw scores of presentations on expensive medications for blood sugar, obesity and liver problems, as well as new medical procedures, including that stomach-draining system, temptingly named AspireAssist, and another involving “mucosal resurfacing” of the digestive tract by burning the inside of the duodenum with a hot balloon.
We owe our patients with diabetes more than a lifetime of insulin injections and risky surgical procedures. To combat diabetes and spare a great deal of suffering, as well as the $322 billion in diabetes-related costs incurred by the nation each year, doctors should follow a version of that timeworn advice against doing unnecessary harm — and counsel their patients to first, do low carbs.
Sarah Hallberg is medical director of the weight loss program at Indiana University Health Arnett, adjunct professor at the school of medicine, director of the Nutrition Coalition and medical director of a start-up developing nutrition-based medical interventions. Osama Hamdy is the medical director of the obesity and inpatient diabetes programs at the Joslin Diabetes Center at Harvard Medical School. A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 11, 2016, on page SR1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Old-Fashioned Way to Treat Diabetes.
The most authentic commercial yet from Weight Watchers. WW you win with this one, although it doesn't exactly motivate me to go sign up for your plan (...was that the goal -- because I didn't catch that vibe, I just laughed and wanted a snack for a second?) I still LOVE THIS because it's truth all right here for us emotional eaters.
WHO-proposed sugar recommendation comes to less than a soda per day
WHO’s current recommendation, from 2002, is that sugars should make up less than 10% of total energy intake per day. The new draft guideline also proposes that sugars should be less than 10% of total energy intake per day. It further suggests that a reduction to below 5% of total energy intake per day would have additional benefits. Five per cent of total energy intake is equivalent to around 25 grams (around 6 teaspoons) of sugar per day for an adult of normal Body Mass Index (BMI).
The suggested limits on intake of sugars in the draft guideline apply to all monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) that are added to food by the manufacturer, the cook or the consumer, as well as sugars that are naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates.
Much of the sugars consumed today are “hidden” in processed foods that are not usually seen as sweets. For example, 1 tablespoon of ketchup contains around 4 grams (around 1 teaspoon) of sugars. A single can of sugar-sweetened soda contains up to 40 grams (around 10 teaspoons) of sugar.
The draft guideline was formulated based on analyses of all published scientific studies on the consumption of sugars and how that relates to excess weight gain and tooth decay in adults and children.
I have been drinking a variation of thispumpkin protein shake at my gym since before Thanksgiving -- and I adore it. I finally decided that since my kitchen is (...it is a long story) finally half-complete -- the blender is coming back out.
THIS! I saw Dr. Avena (the voice in this video) at OAC #YWM2013 and she was amazingly informative. WATCH.
As the video shows, the key player in the reward system of our brain — where we get that feeling of pleasure — is dopamine. Dopamine receptors are all over our brain. And doing a drug like heroin brings on a deluge of dopamine. Guess what happens when we eat sugar?
Yes, those dopamine levels also surge — though not nearly as much as they do with heroin. Still, too much sugar too often can steer the brain into overdrive, the video says. And that kickstarts a series of "unfortunate events" — loss of control, cravings and increased tolerance to sugar. All of those effects can be physically and psychologically taxing over time, leading to weight gain and dependence. The takeaway is pretty clear: If you're sensitive to sugar and inclined to indulge in a supersugary treat, do it rarely and cautiously. Otherwise, there's a pretty good chance that your brain is going to start demanding sugar loudly and often. And we're probably better off without that extra voice in our head.
People still order high density foods -- big fatty fast foods in the drive through -- six hundred calorie cheeseburgers, seven hundred calorie fries, and a Diet Coke, please! Breakfast is often huge stacks of pancakes, waffles, sides of bacon, upwards of one to two thousand calories in a single meal -- without batting an eyelash.
As my teenager used to roll her eyes and say - YOLO.
But, alas -- I not-so-fondly-remember how I gained up to my highest weight and it was before calories became a standard on menus. I look back at my lots of fast-food and take out days and only wish companies had added this type of nutritional information to at least GIVE ME THE HEADS UP AS TO WHAT I WAS PUTTING IN MY MOUTH BACK THEN.
Would I have still eaten that 20-pack of McNuggets? I own it.
It is likely, but I would have at least been aware of the impact:
And perhaps saved myself some of the drama of my FUTURE. Ten or more years ago, I might not have been as aware or willing to see the calories of the items on a menu. I would glaze over them, validate Why I Deserve This More Than A Day's Worth Of Calories In One Meal and then just forget that I had it. I might have even added on a dessert and forgot about that as well.
Even after having bariatric surgery, these behaviors sometimes cycle back. I often say that the inner-fat-girl (PLEASE DO NOT TAKE OFFENSE - she's MY INNER FAT GIRL - and I will ALWAYS HAVE ONE!) will just lapse and lose it. She'll blank, forgetting that she (ME!) is now a 144 lb "normal" sized woman with a rearranged gut, and try to order all sorts of Big Food That Does Not Work For The Smaller Sized Appetite.
HELL YES THIS GIRL WILL ORDER 2000 CALORIES WORTH OF RIBS AND SIDES AT ONE MEAL if I am not paying attention and hungry... And eat three. People like ME need those numbers on menus. I need to be shown what is the best nutritional option, because if it is there, I will order it.
Better, lighter options at restaurants aside from KIDS MENUS because they are ridiculous
Smaller portions of typical entrees, because sometimes you really DO want chicken parmesan, but not 1890 calories worth and aren't taking it home!
Label ALL TEH FOODS, ALL THE TIME. I am a food journaler, I actually DO want to know what I am eating. Journaling works.
What about you? Do you like calorie counts on menus? Does it change or alter you restaurant behavior? Does it make you feel guilty -- or worse about eating out?
"In recent years banned and untested drugs have been found in hundreds of dietary supplements. We began our study of Craze after several athletes failed urine drug tests because of a new methamphetamine analog," said lead author Dr. Pieter Cohen, of Harvard Medical School, U.S.A. A workout supplement marketed as a 'performance fuel', Craze is manufactured by Driven Sports, Inc. It is sold in stores across the United States and internationally via body supplement websites. The supplement is labeled as containing the compound N,N-diethyl-phenylethylamine (N,N-DEPEA), claiming it is derived from endangered dendrobium orchids. However, while there is no proof that this compound is found within orchids, it is also structurally similar to the methamphetamine analog N,α-diethylphenylethylamine (N,α-DEPEA), a banned substance.
And be warned, variations of phenylethlamine are in EVERYTHING. READ YOUR PRODUCT LABELS NOW.
Don't get too excited -- although Burger King removed 40% of the dietary fat and 30% of the calories from their french fries -- the little buggers still contain 60% of the fat and 70% of the calories. That means that many people will validate this Menu Choice By Overeating It or dipping it into sugary ketchup and killing those lost calories. Some non-fry eaters will simply start eating fries!
What is the difference between regular BK Fries and SATISFRIES?
Burger King executives say people won't be able to tell that Satisfries are lower in calories. It says they use exactly the same ingredients as its regular fries — potatoes, oil and batter. To keep kitchen operations simple, they're even made in the same fryers and cooked for the same amount of time as regular fries.
The difference, Burger King says, is that it adjusts the proportions of different ingredients for the batter to block out more oil. The company declined to be more specific. Another difference, the crinkle-cut shape, is in part so workers will be able to easily distinguish them from the regular fries when they're deep frying them together.
"The concept of taking an indulgent food and removing some of the guilt isn't new, of course. Supermarkets are filled with baked Lay's potato chips, 100-calorie packs of Oreos and other less fattening versions of popular treats. Such creations play on people's inability to give up their food vices, even as they struggle to eat better. The idea is to create something that skimps on calories, but not on taste."
There's a problem though - because even people like me who eat the stupid calorie bombs now and then on limited calorie diet? WE WON'T ASK FOR AN ORDER OF 'SATISFRIES' BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE A SEX TOY.