Shoop69 wrote: »

tifano wrote: »

Yea this makes me so happy to read especially when the other day you wanted to stay between 1200-1300 calories!!!!

Yeah - I dont know what I was thinking - counting everything started making me go mad! haha

I know this trial begins 1 August, but I celebrated my freedom starting today. Ate like I felt and my carbs still didnt rise over 20g. I totally ignored all other macros.

The last 3 weeks of CICO approach, if nothing else, has really shown me how many carbs I used to eat. I now have a much better understanding of where my carbs are coming from and what to avoid.

I'm still gonna log every day, just so I can come back see the whole picture later.

The biggest change is probably mental. [. . .] I have learned to trust my body. I don’t know if many here will understand how deep that really is. My whole adult-life, I had been constantly betrayed by my body when I didn’t strictly monitor what I ate and my activity level. When I ate because I was hungry, I got fatter. I would know I was eating too much, but I couldn’t stop myself. I knew my body was wrong.

Now, I can trust my body is right. If I am hungry, I eat. I don’t worry if it’s 5,000 calories in a day (and sometimes it is). I know my body is asking because it needs it. If I am not hungry, I don’t worry about it. I know I don’t need it. If I am feeling like going out for a walk or a run, I do. If I am feeling like sitting in the yard and enjoying the sun without moving except to reach for my iced coffee, I do that instead. No guilt about being lazy. No concern about getting fat and losing my muscle.

Be Aware of Calories, but Don't Count Them Obsessively

This advice may seem surprising coming from us. We do think everyone should have a ballpark idea of calorie needs and the calories in foods, which is why we favor food and menu calorie labels. But we can't advise calorie counting as a weight loss strategy, because it is too difficult to do precisely. Unless you weigh everything you eat and know how the foods were prepared, your guess is likely to be too far off to be helpful.

[. . .]the FDA originally intended to use 2,350 calories as the basis for comparison when it wrote the regulations for Nutrition Facts labels in 1993. This reflected the average number of calories reported as consumed in the USDA's dietary intake surveys of the time. But those who commented on the FDA's proposal did not like this number. They predicted that a 2,350-calorie standard would encourage overeating, especially among women. Instead, they suggested 2,000 as easier to use, consistent with popular food plans, and closer to the energy needs of postmenopausal women, a key target group for obesity prevention. They argued that the lower number would be more likely to help consumers understand that they might need more or less than 2,000 calories a day and should choose foods according to their own dietary needs.

[. . .]

By now it should be evident that 2,000 calories is much lower than either measurements or estimates of the total energy needs of all but the smallest and most sedentary people. We did warn you that these kinds of imprecisions might make you uncomfortable. Without participating in calorimeter, oxygen consumption, or doubly labeled water experiments, the best you can do is try to do better in estimating your total calorie needs.

Despite the now-observable fact that 2,350 calories per day is below the average requirements for either men or women obtained from doubly labeled water experiments, most of the people who responded to the comments judged the proposed benchmark as too high. Nutrition educators worried that it would encourage overconsumption, be irrelevant to women who consume fewer calories, and permit overstatement of acceptable levels of “eat less” nutrients such as saturated fat and sodium. Instead, they proposed 2,000 calories as:

•   consistent with widely used food plans
•   close to the calorie requirements for postmenopausal women, the population group most prone to weight gain
•   a reasonably rounded-down value from 2,350 calories
•   easier to use than 2,350 and, therefore, a better tool for nutrition education

Whether a rounding down of nearly 20 percent is reasonable or not, the FDA ultimately viewed these arguments as persuasive. It agreed that 2,000 calories per day would be more likely to make it clear that people needed to tailor dietary recommendations to their own diets. The FDA wanted people to understand that they must adjust calorie intake according to age, sex, activity, and life stage. It addressed the adjustment problem by requiring the percent Daily Value footnote on food labels for diets of 2,000 and 2,500 calories per day, the range of average values reported in dietary intake surveys.

PaulaKro wrote: »

FIT_Goat wrote: »

Two days to go. I am so excited. Have 14 people officially signed up. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/127716-low-carber-ad-libitum-experience

@FIT_Goat I'd be fun to join and eat whenever/whatever with friends. But since hunger doesn't happen often with IF/Keto; low calories are clues to eat more (otherwise I get tired). Is there an option to watching calories?