Goal Weight x 12 (Jordan Syatt) and WW Wendie Plan

PAV8888

I challenge you to focus on CALORIE control; NOT simple "portion" control. Is an item/meal worth the CALORIES for the benefit you get?

I just had a huge (well outside norms of portion control) salad (with the hard boiled eggs, turkey, and balsamic vinegar being the highest calorie items) for 429 measly calories (out of the 2500+ I am going to spend today)-- you will note that I didn't use any oil, mayo, crackers, croutons, or nuts or what have you, keeping the calories relatively low on purpose since I am planning on getting a $1 vanilla cone later this afternoon, and it will add anywhere from 250 to 350 Cal depending on the 'hands" of the McD person preparing it!

lissakristinej

PAV8888 wrote: »

I challenge you to focus on CALORIE control; NOT simple "portion" control. Is an item/meal worth the CALORIES for the benefit you get?

I just had a huge (well outside norms of portion control) salad (with the hard boiled eggs, turkey, and balsamic vinegar being the highest calorie items) for 429 measly calories (out of the 2500+ I am going to spend today)-- you will note that I didn't use any oil, mayo, crackers, croutons, or nuts or what have you, keeping the calories relatively low on purpose since I am planning on getting a $1 vanilla cone later this afternoon, and it will add anywhere from 250 to 350 Cal depending on the 'hands" of the McD person preparing it!

On the "current" WW plans, it's very easy to overeat certain foods- especially fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins. I can have over 200 calories worth of protein powder for one point (and I get 16, 23, or 30 points a day depending on the plan). I was eating good, healthy foods, but my caloric intake was too high. That's what I mean by needing to focus more on portion control than types of foods. WW has helped me "clean up" my eating significantly by pushing me to eat more whole, unprocessed foods. Now, I need to work on making sure I don't go overboard on portions because the calories for healthy foods still add up.

PAV8888

But don't forget (which I don't think WW teaches this) that NOT EVERY VEGETABLE has the same amount of calories.

For example, corn is a high calorie veg, peas are medium and have more protein than most, carrots are low cal, cabbage is ultra low cal.

Onions are not super low cal... but they have high satiation and filler power (for me). So does garlic. A huge amount of rutabaga (swede) mash can be had, or a smaller amount of mashed potatoes.

If you, for example, mash the potatoes (or plain instant powder) as is (i.e. without butter and cream), but maybe add 0% plain yogurt... you actually end up with a relatively filling relatively tasty mash.

Instead of using huge amounts of relative mild cheese, I now use very small amounts of very sharp / tasty cheese

Just saying that experimenting and varying the portion is definitely a thing!

BUT, I absolutely hear you about no food TRULY being zero calorie in sufficient quantity and that includes "0" Cal spray, mustard, spices, and even powdered sucralose (liquid is actually truly almost 0!)

Ticks me off that I keep running into manufacturer lies (compare french's mustard entries to usda yellow mustard entries)

it is eye opening (that and a scale!)

*BTW: you've nicely confirmed some of my objections to WW in that they (for their own ends) penalize foods they shouldn't and that they sometimes make foods that, at best, are medium bargains appear to be much greater bargains than they are.

lissakristinej

PAV8888 wrote: »

But don't forget (which I don't think WW teaches this) that NOT EVERY VEGETABLE has the same amount of calories.

For example, corn is a high calorie veg, peas are medium and have more protein than most, carrots are low cal, cabbage is ultra low cal.

Onions are not super low cal... but they have high satiation and filler power (for me). So does garlic. A huge amount of rutabaga (swede) mash can be had, or a smaller amount of mashed potatoes.

If you, for example, mash the potatoes (or plain instant powder) as is (i.e. without butter and cream), but maybe add 0% plain yogurt... you actually end up with a relatively filling relatively tasty mash.

Instead of using huge amounts of relative mild cheese, I now use very small amounts of very sharp / tasty cheese

Just saying that experimenting and varying the portion is definitely a thing!

BUT, I absolutely hear you about no food TRULY being zero calorie in sufficient quantity and that includes "0" Cal spray, mustard, spices, and even powdered sucralose (liquid is actually truly almost 0!)

Ticks me off that I keep running into manufacturer lies (compare french's mustard entries to usda yellow mustard entries)

it is eye opening (that and a scale!)

*BTW: you've nicely confirmed some of my objections to WW in that they (for their own ends) penalize foods they shouldn't and that they sometimes make foods that, at best, are medium bargains appear to be much greater bargains than they are.

Oh I'm definitely aware that not all vegetables have the same number of calories. I was double tracking WW points and caloreis for a couple of weeks. I even switched WW plans because I realized that my portions for low point proteins were getting out of control. The WW plan I was on will lower the points if something is high in protein; the one I switched to has protein count for the calories it has. It helped, but it just wasn't quite enough. I'm not the kind of person who can keep under control by double tracking. I know that the sugar snap peas I'm eating are 14 calories and the bell pepper strips are 27, but if they're only taking 0 points away from my total, it's not going to help much.

Plus, one of the downsides of the Points system is that it's just easy to learn to manipulate things. I can have 140 grams of cauliflower gnocchi for 3 points, but 163 grams is ALSO 3 points. Since I want to get the full value of my points, it feels like a waste if I don't try to get as close to 163 grams as possible (without going over; 164 grams is 4 points). Now, the difference between 140 and 163 grams of cauliflower gnocchi is only 23 calories, but when I'm adding a couple extra grams of protein powder to my smoothies, looking for the biggest piece of chicken I can get for x points, etc., it adds up. Calories not only eliminates those little things, but it also takes off the pressure of trying to maximize what I get for the serving. Instead of focusing on getting exactly 32 grams of peanut butter because 33 is an extra point and I want to get every points' worth, if my sandwich has 33 grams one day or 31 the next on calories, it doesn't seem to matter as much.

age_is_just_a_number

This is not a program or a diet, it is a lifestyle to a healthier you. Regardless of whether you count WW points or calories, weight loss happens when at a caloric deficit.

You are at a point where you’ve lost 50 pounds! Which is amazing.
So, the body you have today is different from the one you had 50 pounds ago. You need to establish how many calories your body needs, then consume less than that number. The question is how? There are all kinds of calculators out there and they are all based on averages. The only way for you to know about you is with tracking.

- Track what you eat
- Monitor your macros
- Monitor your metrics (weight and measurements)
- Then adjust as needed
- As you lose weight, your body is going to change, not only in appearance, but also in how it reacts to different foods.

DonnasJourney0805

lissakristinej wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.

Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.

You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.

One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss

Yep. I'm working on figuring out what my weekly amounts are going to be. I know the bare minimum is going to be the absolute lowest daily calories I'm going to eat x 7. I know 1,200 is the "standard," but I'll probably go at least with GWx10 or maybe my BMR? I'm not sure. I just want a bottom number. If I have a week where I have a few super high calorie days, I want to make sure I have a "no matter what, I need to eat at least x calories today. The main difference between this and WW is that I'm probably never going to hit that bare minimum number.

My real goal is going to be to use MOST of my weekly calorie allotment without going over at the end of the week, but I know that might happen sometime. I just don't want to compensate for a really high calorie day by eating so little that I end up getting into that undereating/overeating cycle. I need to have a calorie "floor" each day that I don't go under (I may give myself a 50 calorie buffer on days like that... as long as I'm within 50 calories over/under that floor, I'm on track if I need a minimum calorie day)

The main thing right now is that I'm just going to try to see where my eating is within this weekly calorie goal without intentionally having low/high days unless I find I need them to help me get used to learning how to distribute my calories throughout the week.

DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »

I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..

That's never been an issue for me. My issue is with WW math and manipulating things. If I find something that's 3 points for 1 serving and 5 points for 2 servings, I'm more likely to have two servings because it's such a good bargain. If something else is 3 points for 1 serving and 7 for 2, I can get around that by eating two different flavors or not eating both servings at the same meal. With calories, 2 servings just doubles the calories, period.

I've also spent a significant amount of time figuring out things like how many calories in a packaged food come from 0 point vegetables and how many come from olive oil so I don't "count" the veggies. It's exhausting and a huge part of why I'm leavingpoints. (That and I just need to zero in and focus on portion control more than the types of foods I'm eating).

I totally agree.. That's what I'm doing too.. I've decided to just stick to calorie deficit for the long haul...❣️

lissakristinej

DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »

lissakristinej wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

What you're describing sounds closer to what I'm describing in my last example.

Do remember to take into account when you're deciding on your weekly amounts that based on your own tracker 11,424 Cal is a 1 pound per week -3500 weekly deficit.

You're already know this. you don't have to use generic formula in order to approximate it.

One pound per week is 52 pounds a year. This would not be slow weight loss

Yep. I'm working on figuring out what my weekly amounts are going to be. I know the bare minimum is going to be the absolute lowest daily calories I'm going to eat x 7. I know 1,200 is the "standard," but I'll probably go at least with GWx10 or maybe my BMR? I'm not sure. I just want a bottom number. If I have a week where I have a few super high calorie days, I want to make sure I have a "no matter what, I need to eat at least x calories today. The main difference between this and WW is that I'm probably never going to hit that bare minimum number.

My real goal is going to be to use MOST of my weekly calorie allotment without going over at the end of the week, but I know that might happen sometime. I just don't want to compensate for a really high calorie day by eating so little that I end up getting into that undereating/overeating cycle. I need to have a calorie "floor" each day that I don't go under (I may give myself a 50 calorie buffer on days like that... as long as I'm within 50 calories over/under that floor, I'm on track if I need a minimum calorie day)

The main thing right now is that I'm just going to try to see where my eating is within this weekly calorie goal without intentionally having low/high days unless I find I need them to help me get used to learning how to distribute my calories throughout the week.

DonnasJourney0805 wrote: »

I have gone back and fourth many times between WW and calorie counting.. I simply have decided to stick with calorie deficit eating WW STYLE because it's the most accountable. I found myself blowing through my points but not getting enough calories. Because the avacados, olive oil and nuts are so dang high in points.. Rest your mind and stay focused on your health and what's the most livable..

That's never been an issue for me. My issue is with WW math and manipulating things. If I find something that's 3 points for 1 serving and 5 points for 2 servings, I'm more likely to have two servings because it's such a good bargain. If something else is 3 points for 1 serving and 7 for 2, I can get around that by eating two different flavors or not eating both servings at the same meal. With calories, 2 servings just doubles the calories, period.

I've also spent a significant amount of time figuring out things like how many calories in a packaged food come from 0 point vegetables and how many come from olive oil so I don't "count" the veggies. It's exhausting and a huge part of why I'm leavingpoints. (That and I just need to zero in and focus on portion control more than the types of foods I'm eating).

I totally agree.. That's what I'm doing too.. I've decided to just stick to calorie deficit for the long haul...❣️

I'm giving myself a solid 4 weeks to see how I like tracking calories. I figure, I can always go back to counting points in some capacity if I find that it fits better with my lifestyle. After all, at the end of the day, the best plan is the plan that you stick to.