Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > JUDDD
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-07-2011, 09:27 AM   #31
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
I don't know, Marie. It is a fun problem to have, isn't it.

I know for myself, my weight goes up and down by several pounds within my maintenance range, and I am more prone to have to pay special attention to bringing it back down, rather than in building my weight back up into my range. Probably a little HINT to me that my cals are borderline high. LOL
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 10-07-2011, 10:27 AM   #32
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoHappy View Post
Don't know when Linda will be back to answer your question, but I believe she was trying UDs of 1800 and DDs were at 900, and I think that is the level that seemed to hold her weight stable. I know she'll correct these numbers if I have this wrong.

So even her DDs allow enough calories to really be able to enjoy a lot of food variety and menu options and delicious recipes. And UDs up in that 1800 calorie range can mean there is room for a lot of nourishing food, and also calorie room for some of those little delicious and delightful *extras* that we can choose to indulge in, courtesy of JUDDD. All while staying strictly on plan.

I'm so happy for her.
Thanks Pat!! And you are right here. The numbers are UD 1,800 and DD 900. That seems to be the "magic" I need to keep my weight at 139/140. And yes, it's pretty fun to have more DD cals but it's the UD cals that are sometimes tough to get up to, especially when I'm not hungry at all and need to add quite a few more calories into the mix. Sure, I could do that with "junk" food, but that is not how I like to eat so I'm thinking I'm just going to eat more meats and a few creamed items like sauces to the menu. And I also agree, not a bad problem to have!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzcrzy View Post
Thanks, Pat. I know at some point those are the numbers she landed at, but, was wondering if she feels like she needs to even go higher. It's a great problem to have. I am so glad for her. It's fun to see her progress!


Thank you! I hope my "problems" can be inspiration to others out there that are struggling with their WOE and are looking to tweak or try something new to help get things moving again. JUDDD has been like a dream come true for me and I would like to see this happen for many, many others!!
__________________

A man asked Gautama Buddha, "I want happiness." Buddha said, "First remove "I," that's Ego, then remove "want," that's Desire. See now you are left with only "Happiness.”
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 10:34 AM   #33
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Way to Go BEEB!
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2011, 11:20 AM   #34
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
Way to Go BEEB!
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 07:13 AM   #35
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Sorry to TJ Beeb,

But is there not a General JUDDDD thread where people can ask one question without starting up a whole thread?

Many of my questions are similar to other threads so I don't want to start another thread to ask the same questions but personalized.

and I dont' want to Jack other folks personal threads, like I'm doing right now!

Thanks.
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 07:22 AM   #36
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
Sorry to TJ Beeb,

But is there not a General JUDDDD thread where people can ask one question without starting up a whole thread?

Many of my questions are similar to other threads so I don't want to start another thread to ask the same questions but personalized.

and I dont' want to Jack other folks personal threads, like I'm doing right now!

Thanks.
These days this forum is working a lot more like on the Main Lobby, in that we just start new threads whenever we want to ask questions or open a conversation.

When we were on a "general" forum, we had our own single ongoing thread, but that was more because that was where we had to go to discuss anything. But it did get awfully jammed up in that single thread back then.

So feel free to start new threads of conversation and discussion. It doesn't matter in the least if the subject has been covered before.. just like in real life, we talk about a lot of the same stuff over again, just out of the sheer pleasure of discussing our favorite subject. Like my DH and his cronies having to bring up their favorite teams and games over and endlessly over again.
__________________
Best wishes, Pat
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 07:33 AM   #37
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Sorry.. I just realized that you addressed this question to Beeb.

Carry on.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 08:04 AM   #38
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
I addressed it to anyone who could answer, I was just apologizing to Beeb for "Jacking" her thread.

I'm always happy to get a response to questions from anyone.

My Question was about calories so that's why I ended up here. I wondered if there was a number of calories that, despite being 20% of Max, was considered too low. That website told me my down day calories should be only 323. I ate more than that on Original HCG and it seems awfully low. My UP calories they put at only 1627 and that's 177 lower than my caloric needs exrx calculator I've been using for years based on 8 hours of sleep and 16 hours of very light activity.

according to JUDDD I should be 1627 and 323, My BMR calc says 1793, and 358 would be 20%. So any advice would be welcome.

(see I didn't want to start a new thread cause it's a calorie question just like Beeb's)
__________________
"You have to understand zat ven a vampire forgoes . . .the b-vord, zere is a process zat ve call transference? Zey force Zemselves to desire somesing else? . . .But your friend chose . . . coffee. And now he has none." "You can find him some coffee, or . . .you can keep a vooden stake and a big knife ready. You vould be doink him a favor, believe me." Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett
IBKKF 898
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 08:11 AM   #39
Major LCF Poster!
 
Joedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: England
Posts: 1,481
Gallery: Joedi
Stats: 180/131-135/133 5' 5.5" 40 y/o
WOE: Maintaining on Juddd
Start Date: Made Goal on 23/10/2011 - Stats updated daily
Hi Metga!

Its great to have you on our Juddd thread!

As you are just starting juddd, I would recommend not starting too low!

Why dont you take your BMR number..and start at 35%? This would give you 627 calories for your DD.
As you get a feel for how you lose on these numbers, you could then try 30%...537 cals.

I know Beeb lost on about 700 on her DD...I started at about the same...and worked down to about 500...as I learned what I liked to eat and what filled me the best.

Give whatever you decided a week or two..before tweaking...I know its easier said than done...but our bodies do take time to adjust!

BTW...i keep meaning to ask you where your signature quote is from? I LOVE it!

hugs
Jo
x
__________________


"Eat today for the clothes you want to wear tomorrow!"

Last edited by Joedi; 10-08-2011 at 08:20 AM..
Joedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 08:19 AM   #40
Blabbermouth!!!
 
paulabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,544
Gallery: paulabob
Stats: 204/124.6/110 49%/27.4%/20% 5'2"
WOE: Atkins/hHcg/Optimal whatever works
Start Date: restart March '10
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
My Question was about calories so that's why I ended up here. I wondered if there was a number of calories that, despite being 20% of Max, was considered too low. That website told me my down day calories should be only 323. I ate more than that on Original HCG and it seems awfully low. My UP calories they put at only 1627 and that's 177 lower than my caloric needs exrx calculator I've been using for years based on 8 hours of sleep and 16 hours of very light activity.
Their calculator is generally regarded as slightly wacky. For me, their UP calories are too low if I say no activity, and too high if I say 1-3 times a week. I go with my ****** estimate instead for up days, around 1740.

Also on down days, very few of us can actually reach that 20% target. Many are going higher. If you *can* reach it, good for you, but I think many of us settle for, well, quite a bit higher. I aim for 500 (that's my 30%), am happy at 600, and don't cry too badly if I'm at 800 instead.

I don't think 323 would be too low to hurt you since the next day you eat up, unlike on hcg where 323 would definitely be too low. You shouldn't hit that starvation factor. Said with a big grain of salt in that I've never tried the 20%.
__________________
Paula
2010 Atkins 204/191.6 HCG/hHCG 191.6/176/165.4/156.4/147.8 (4 rounds)
2011 hHCG 148.6/140.8/134.8/129.2 (3 rounds) JUDDD 125.6 (sept-dec)
2012 lowish Optimal calories, June25th 132.6/124.6/110
paulabob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 08:27 AM   #41
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
I addressed it to anyone who could answer, I was just apologizing to Beeb for "Jacking" her thread.

I'm always happy to get a response to questions from anyone.

My Question was about calories so that's why I ended up here. I wondered if there was a number of calories that, despite being 20% of Max, was considered too low. That website told me my down day calories should be only 323. I ate more than that on Original HCG and it seems awfully low. My UP calories they put at only 1627 and that's 177 lower than my caloric needs exrx calculator I've been using for years based on 8 hours of sleep and 16 hours of very light activity.

according to JUDDD I should be 1627 and 323, My BMR calc says 1793, and 358 would be 20%. So any advice would be welcome.

(see I didn't want to start a new thread cause it's a calorie question just like Beeb's)
When I first put my stats in the JUDDD calculator I came out with your numbers and said NO WAY !! I knew I would NEVER be able to do that DD and keep this WOE going, even for the 2 weeks recommended. Pat (SoHappy) came to my rescue when I asked if I could up my DD calories. She said she didn't see why not, that many did. Well, I decided to go even higher than the 500 calories also recommended as the highest for the first 2 weeks, PLUS I never did the shakes, either because I like to "chew", I and made my DD cals 700. I left the UD cals alone and went with that.

Well, the rest is history, as you know, and those 700 cals were just the right amount to keep me on plan and going strong in losing weight.

Sometimes tweaks work well, it's all a matter of doing them for the right fit for you!
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 08:50 AM   #42
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Well, here are my thoughts on the subject for what they're worth.

I've read with interest over the years, on this calorie restriction subject, and the studies always show the benefits. And it is found that the restriction period can easily be a complete fast. Nothing but water. So apparently eating less than 500 calories, or 323 calories is very permissible, adequate, beneficial, and workable for strong calorie cycling programs, except that almost nobody wants to do it. Small wonder.

But it was found that the weight loss, health benefits, sense of well being, etc. were just as present for those who didn't do a total fast. And as proved in the many, many ongoing animal studies.

So at this point, *they* know that the low/high cycling does seem to awaken and stimulate some genes that are responsible for helping keep weight/metabolism regulated evenly, so that our bodies remain in sensible and reasonable weights. And of course, that is what everyone would wish as their ideal goal.. that their bodies would just kick in and take care of this like it seems to happen for those lucky folks who seem to eat pretty much everything in acceptable portions and still remain pretty slim. But it goes far beyond just weight loss.

Dr. Johnson (late to this subject) advocated for the activation of the SIRT1 gene through calorie restriction. If you Google for SIRT1 gene studies, activation studies, etc. you can read some remarkable things which are being discovered now. Hint.. activating this often sluggish gene has a strong effect on suppressing the growth of cancer and that the inhibition of the SIRT1 reactivates silenced cancer genes, among others.

Anyway, the sharp calorie restriction was found to activate the gene, among others that work in conjunction with it, but it was also found that for humans, Down Days of low calories were as effective as Down Days of total fasting, thus the plan outline.

So. I believe that 500 calories was pretty much a number pulled from a hat. In any of the studies I've ever read, I don't find anything that would support that exact number. In designing an "official diet plan" he could publish, I think Dr. Johnson just pulled up some numbers that would work, and turned them into *The Plan*. So while it is suggested that you hold your DD calories to 20% of your UD calorie number, you are given the alternative options of choosing to diet at a 25% or 30%, etc. level if you so desire. And to further illustrate how the numbers are somewhat arbitrary, how did they come out so evenly.. why not be required to hold DD calories to 27.33% of UD calories, for example. Because it doesn't matter all that much!

The point is to hold DD calories very low. Very low. Because very low is what appears to activate the SIRT1 gene, plus others. It isn't required for weight loss. Weight loss on a calorie cycling plan only requires.. well, whatever. Lower on some days and higher on some others, etc. And I think it is recommended that folks start off with Down Days of 500 calories or lower, just to get them into it, and to get the ball rolling.

If you are questioning your calorie numbers as they differ from other numbers you have been given, I can completely understand that, as I've noticed that various sources and sites seem to give somewhat differing numbers from each other. And truthfully, you don't even have to worry about it.

Because, you get to pick the numbers you think most likely reflect the truth of your needs and status, and then proceed from there. Your progress will pretty much tell the accuracy of your numbers. Personally, from the reading I've done, I'd recommend your Down Day calories be absolutely no higher than 1/3 of your UD calories, but 25% is much better. So.. 20%, 25%.. whatever you choose really.

Since most of us do this to promote our continued weight loss as well as for the additional health benefits, we just want to hold to our calorie numbers pretty closely, and see the numbers on the scale eventually move downward. All while getting to eat whatever we want to eat.

Which reminds me to warn you of one small thing. If you are eating very low carb and continue to do so, obviously you shouldn't expect to regain any water weight from diet. If you decide to up your carb numbers as you can on this plan, that's very enjoyable, but be prepared for some initial weight gain from water retention as your body begins to store more carb fuel in your tissues, tucked in there with the 4 parts water, blah, blah....

Did I explain this well enough for you to understand? Sometimes I talk a lot, but am not sure whether I explain well enough.

But JUDDD doesn't require numbers to be as exact as it sounds like in order to work wonderfully well.

Last edited by SoHappy; 10-08-2011 at 08:54 AM..
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 09:16 AM   #43
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joedi View Post
Hi Metga!

Its great to have you on our Juddd thread!

As you are just starting juddd, I would recommend not starting too low!

Why dont you take your BMR number..and start at 35%? This would give you 627 calories for your DD.
As you get a feel for how you lose on these numbers, you could then try 30%...537 cals.

I know Beeb lost on about 700 on her DD...I started at about the same...and worked down to about 500...as I learned what I liked to eat and what filled me the best.

Give whatever you decided a week or two..before tweaking...I know its easier said than done...but our bodies do take time to adjust!

BTW...i keep meaning to ask you where your signature quote is from? I LOVE it!

hugs
Jo
x
Thanks, I've decided to give it a week ( for my own compliance) and two weeks to see results. Today would be my first DD. I think after reading all these responses, i'll start today as I planned with 500 calories and see how the following days go. 500 is easy for me I have whole daily menus around that number as well as 600, 700 and 800, but I don't have any for 300 as those were usually anomolies where I didn't eat enough. But that's a different plan also, with no refeeds or Up Days.

That quote is from a book called Monstrous Regiment By Terry Pratchett. It's a very funny story about a girl who joins the army to find her missing brother and ends up in the regiment of the least wanted recruits. Google (Your friend he chose coffee vampire transference) and read the Google Books link, pages 196 and 197 and I guarantee you either laugh or be in shock or both!

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulabob View Post
Their calculator is generally regarded as slightly wacky. For me, their UP calories are too low if I say no activity, and too high if I say 1-3 times a week. I go with my ****** estimate instead for up days, around 1740.

Also on down days, very few of us can actually reach that 20% target. Many are going higher. If you *can* reach it, good for you, but I think many of us settle for, well, quite a bit higher. I aim for 500 (that's my 30%), am happy at 600, and don't cry too badly if I'm at 800 instead.

I don't think 323 would be too low to hurt you since the next day you eat up, unlike on hcg where 323 would definitely be too low. You shouldn't hit that starvation factor. Said with a big grain of salt in that I've never tried the 20%.
That's kinda the sense I got. My BMR has gotten smaller since I've lost weight, but I'm not completely inactive. But I don't exercise 3 days a week either. I think I could do a really low day like that if I tried. I did manage HCG after all but I had to deliberatly increase my calories cause I was only eating around 300 cal , and on that plan, that's too low for loss. I'll not even worry about my protein min, since I'll make it up the next day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeb View Post
When I first put my stats in the JUDDD calculator I came out with your numbers and said NO WAY !! I knew I would NEVER be able to do that DD and keep this WOE going, even for the 2 weeks recommended. Pat (SoHappy) came to my rescue when I asked if I could up my DD calories. [...]
Well, the rest is history, as you know, and those 700 cals were just the right amount to keep me on plan and going strong in losing weight.

Sometimes tweaks work well, it's all a matter of doing them for the right fit for you!
Yeah, I've noticed you a lot! You and my friend Jackie are the ones who've forced me, by your successes , to pay attention to these JUDDD people , and SoHappy has been such a fountain of information I couldn't help but get hooked on your threads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoHappy View Post
Well, here are my thoughts on the subject for what they're worth.

[...] And it is found that the restriction period can easily be a complete fast. Nothing but water. So apparently eating less than 500 calories, or 323 calories is very permissible,
[...]
So at this point, *they* know that the low/high cycling does seem to awaken and stimulate some genes that are responsible for helping keep weight/metabolism regulated evenly,
[...]
Dr. Johnson (late to this subject) advocated for the activation of the SIRT1 gene through calorie restriction. [...]but it was also found that for humans, Down Days of low calories were as effective as Down Days of total fasting, thus the plan outline.

So. I believe that 500 calories was pretty much a number pulled from a hat.
[...]
The point is to hold DD calories very low. Very low. Because very low is what appears to activate the SIRT1 gene, plus others.

If you are questioning your calorie numbers as they differ from other numbers you have been given, I can completely understand that,[...] And truthfully, you don't even have to worry about it.

Because, you get to pick the numbers you think most likely reflect the truth of your needs and status, and then proceed from there.

[...]
Did I explain this well enough for you to understand? Sometimes I talk a lot, but am not sure whether I explain well enough.

But JUDDD doesn't require numbers to be as exact as it sounds like in order to work wonderfully well.
Perfectly!!! Thanks a Bunch!

Honestly, the real reason I want to try JUDDD is because I'm maintaining between rounds of HCG and I'm in P4 where I can add in sugar/starches if I want. I want to keep losing but I need to use up my pantry foods which include LC bake mixes and high fat foods, both of which aren't allowed on HCG even in my own made up rogue plan. So I was looking for a plan where I could maintain and still incorporate my pantry foods. JUDDD seemed to make the most sense and might have the added benefit of loss. Loss would be great, but maintenance is my first goal for now.

Everyone!

Last edited by metqa; 10-08-2011 at 09:20 AM..
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 09:26 AM   #44
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
..........Honestly, the real reason I want to try JUDDD is because I'm maintaining between rounds of HCG and I'm in P4 where I can add in sugar/starches if I want. I want to keep losing but I need to use up my pantry foods which include LC bake mixes and high fat foods, both of which aren't allowed on HCG even in my own made up rogue plan. So I was looking for a plan where I could maintain and still incorporate my pantry foods. JUDDD seemed to make the most sense and might have the added benefit of loss. Loss would be great, but maintenance is my first goal for now...........
This is a plan you can easily use to include some of those foods on hand, rather than throwing them out.

The only thing I would warn you about is that.. eating the carbs these foods will bring with them may cause some water weight gain if you aren't already acclimated to eating those carbs, so just want you to be prepared for the possibility that you will actually see scale numbers rise with the carb up. No fat regain.. just water weight. But when we have come to abhor water weight, it's sometimes hard to accept its return.

But possibly you won't have any of this result at all, and that would be even better!
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 09:35 AM   #45
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoHappy View Post
Well, here are my thoughts on the subject for what they're worth.

I've read with interest over the years, on this calorie restriction subject, and the studies always show the benefits. And it is found that the restriction period can easily be a complete fast. Nothing but water. So apparently eating less than 500 calories, or 323 calories is very permissible, adequate, beneficial, and workable for strong calorie cycling programs, except that almost nobody wants to do it. Small wonder.

But it was found that the weight loss, health benefits, sense of well being, etc. were just as present for those who didn't do a total fast. And as proved in the many, many ongoing animal studies.

So at this point, *they* know that the low/high cycling does seem to awaken and stimulate some genes that are responsible for helping keep weight/metabolism regulated evenly, so that our bodies remain in sensible and reasonable weights. And of course, that is what everyone would wish as their ideal goal.. that their bodies would just kick in and take care of this like it seems to happen for those lucky folks who seem to eat pretty much everything in acceptable portions and still remain pretty slim. But it goes far beyond just weight loss.

Dr. Johnson (late to this subject) advocated for the activation of the SIRT1 gene through calorie restriction. If you Google for SIRT1 gene studies, activation studies, etc. you can read some remarkable things which are being discovered now. Hint.. activating this often sluggish gene has a strong effect on suppressing the growth of cancer and that the inhibition of the SIRT1 reactivates silenced cancer genes, among others.

Anyway, the sharp calorie restriction was found to activate the gene, among others that work in conjunction with it, but it was also found that for humans, Down Days of low calories were as effective as Down Days of total fasting, thus the plan outline.

So. I believe that 500 calories was pretty much a number pulled from a hat. In any of the studies I've ever read, I don't find anything that would support that exact number. In designing an "official diet plan" he could publish, I think Dr. Johnson just pulled up some numbers that would work, and turned them into *The Plan*. So while it is suggested that you hold your DD calories to 20% of your UD calorie number, you are given the alternative options of choosing to diet at a 25% or 30%, etc. level if you so desire. And to further illustrate how the numbers are somewhat arbitrary, how did they come out so evenly.. why not be required to hold DD calories to 27.33% of UD calories, for example. Because it doesn't matter all that much!

The point is to hold DD calories very low. Very low. Because very low is what appears to activate the SIRT1 gene, plus others. It isn't required for weight loss. Weight loss on a calorie cycling plan only requires.. well, whatever. Lower on some days and higher on some others, etc. And I think it is recommended that folks start off with Down Days of 500 calories or lower, just to get them into it, and to get the ball rolling.

If you are questioning your calorie numbers as they differ from other numbers you have been given, I can completely understand that, as I've noticed that various sources and sites seem to give somewhat differing numbers from each other. And truthfully, you don't even have to worry about it.

Because, you get to pick the numbers you think most likely reflect the truth of your needs and status, and then proceed from there. Your progress will pretty much tell the accuracy of your numbers. Personally, from the reading I've done, I'd recommend your Down Day calories be absolutely no higher than 1/3 of your UD calories, but 25% is much better. So.. 20%, 25%.. whatever you choose really.

Since most of us do this to promote our continued weight loss as well as for the additional health benefits, we just want to hold to our calorie numbers pretty closely, and see the numbers on the scale eventually move downward. All while getting to eat whatever we want to eat.

Which reminds me to warn you of one small thing. If you are eating very low carb and continue to do so, obviously you shouldn't expect to regain any water weight from diet. If you decide to up your carb numbers as you can on this plan, that's very enjoyable, but be prepared for some initial weight gain from water retention as your body begins to store more carb fuel in your tissues, tucked in there with the 4 parts water, blah, blah....

Did I explain this well enough for you to understand? Sometimes I talk a lot, but am not sure whether I explain well enough.

But JUDDD doesn't require numbers to be as exact as it sounds like in order to work wonderfully well.
I agree with the theory, see that it works, and understand that this, especially the last part I have bold out above, are both very good suggestions, and I would like to add that I really think the % is something that needs to be thought over carefully in order to NOT set ourselves up for failure in the beginning. If this happens the plan doesn't even get a chance to start to work. If I had gone with the 20% or 25% that was recommended I KNOW I would never had even made it through my first couple of DDs and THAT would have been the end for me. I needed to find a % that would make me feel OK about eating low cals for that one day, every other day. I'm sure that if my tweak didn't work I would have lowered the % but the funny thing is the % lowered itself with less hunger anyway after the second DD I did. I had a ratio of 40% for my DD when I started and did very well, then that ratio went to about 35%, sometimes 30%, where I was leaving 100+ or more calories just about every DD because I just wasn't hungry.

I just think because this WOE is SO flexible it would be best for a person to find the % and number that works for them, even if those numbers may total, let's say, 40% or 45 % of their UDs. It works, and I'm proof that it works. Will it work for others? Don't know but again I stress the point that creating a JUDDD WOE that will NOT set you up for immediate failure because of low cals that either will leave you hungry or give you a mental freak out because they are so low (this was me ) is the best approach, in my opinion.

Not saying what I did is right at all, just what I would like others to consider before they think that the DD number may be too low and don't even give our wonderful JUDDD a chance!

Last edited by Beeb; 10-08-2011 at 09:41 AM..
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 09:46 AM   #46
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by beeb View Post
I agree with the theory, see that it works, and understand that this (in bold) is a good suggestion, and I would like to add that I really think the % is something that needs to be thought over carefully in order to NOT set ourselves up for failure in the beginning. If this happens the plan doesn't even get a chance to start to work. If I had gone with the 20% or 25% that was recommended I KNOW I would never had even made it through my first couple of DDs and THAT would have been the end for me. I needed to find a % that would make me feel OK about eating low cals for that one day, every other day. I'm sure that if my tweak didn't work I would have lowered the % but the funny thing is the % lowered itself with less hunger anyway after the second DD I did. I had a ratio of 40% for my DD when I started and did very well, then that ratio went to about 35%, sometimes 30%, where I was leaving 100+ or more calories just about every DD because I just wasn't hungry.

I just think because this WOE is SO flexible it would be best for a person to find the % and number that works for them, even if those numbers may total, let's say, 40% or 45 % of their UDs. It works, and I'm proof that it works. Will it work for others? Don't know but again I stress the point that creating a JUDDD WOE that will NOT set you up for immediate failure because of low cals that either will leave you hungry or give you a mental freak out because they are so low (this was me ) is the best approach, in my opinion.

Not saying what I did is right at all, just what I would like others to consider before they think that the DD number may be too low and don't even give our wonderful JUDDD a chance!
I did almost exactly what you did when I started too. I just couldn't do a very low calorie day at first, not even 500 calories. I think I was initially thrilled when I was able to hold my DD calories to the 700-800 range. But I was able to work lower fairly soon.

I think Metqa will have a lot easier time of holding to a decent low calorie number right from the start because of her experience already with holding down on the hcg protocol.

I knew I wasn't going to quit if I didn't lose any weight in the early days because of my inability to eat quite as low as I knew I should to optimize the plan. And I expected that my choice to add back in some more carbs might work against my scale weight too, but again, I intended to be transitioning to this plan, so no worry there.

These days I seem to do DDs in the 500 to 700 range, and combined with my UDs, I seem to maintain fairly easily.

It's sure an easy plan to customize to a person's own needs. Love it!
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 10:10 AM   #47
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoHappy View Post
This is a plan you can easily use to include some of those foods on hand, rather than throwing them out.

The only thing I would warn you about is that.. eating the carbs these foods will bring with them may cause some water weight gain if you aren't already acclimated to eating those carbs, so just want you to be prepared for the possibility that you will actually see scale numbers rise with the carb up. No fat regain.. just water weight. But when we have come to abhor water weight, it's sometimes hard to accept its return.

But possibly you won't have any of this result at all, and that would be even better!
Thanks for the warning. That's why I think I will have fun because even as starches they are much lower in starch than thier counterparts and I won't be using them at 100% of their serving suggestions but mostly to add texture to other low carb bread recipes. I've already added some high starch samples : waffle fries, breaded meat, and I'm holding stead from those so I think that the 3lbs over my last goal already reflect that gain. But I'll keep an eye on the scale. I weigh everyday so I can chart it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeb View Post
I agree with the theory, see that it works, and understand that this, especially the last part I have bold out above, are both very good suggestions, and I would like to add that I really think the % is something that needs to be thought over carefully in order to NOT set ourselves up for failure in the beginning. If this happens the plan doesn't even get a chance to start to work. If I had gone with the 20% or 25% that was recommended I KNOW I would never had even made it through my first couple of DDs and THAT would have been the end for me. I needed to find a % that would make me feel OK about eating low cals for that one day, every other day. I'm sure that if my tweak didn't work I would have lowered the % but the funny thing is the % lowered itself with less hunger anyway after the second DD I did. I had a ratio of 40% for my DD when I started and did very well, then that ratio went to about 35%, sometimes 30%, where I was leaving 100+ or more calories just about every DD because I just wasn't hungry.

I just think because this WOE is SO flexible it would be best for a person to find the % and number that works for them, even if those numbers may total, let's say, 40% or 45 % of their UDs. It works, and I'm proof that it works. Will it work for others? Don't know but again I stress the point that creating a JUDDD WOE that will NOT set you up for immediate failure because of low cals that either will leave you hungry or give you a mental freak out because they are so low (this was me ) is the best approach, in my opinion.

Not saying what I did is right at all, just what I would like others to consider before they think that the DD number may be too low and don't even give our wonderful JUDDD a chance!
I think that's what I needed to know about this plan. Too much flexibility can be hard for me. But the DD seem to give me some direction, and choosing EFGT ratios for UD will keep me in line there also. Having the choice to follow what I already know will make it easier, I think, to stay the course of JUDDD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoHappy View Post
I think Metqa will have a lot easier time of holding to a decent low calorie number right from the start because of her experience already with holding down on the hcg protocol.
I hope so, in fact I took the concept of Loading by having a high fat dinner and dessert to help me ease into my DD today. so far I've got some shiritaki, shitake mushrooms, and celery simmering, to add shrimp later. I've been nursing a chocolate protein shake for an hour, and I still have a grapefruit on the menu. All that will be just under 500 calories.

Oh, I decided to embarrass myself and start a Journal. It's in my siggy now.

Last edited by metqa; 10-08-2011 at 10:12 AM..
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 10:16 AM   #48
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Ah. Of course. The grapefruit.


I'm looking forward to seeing how all of this goes for you. I really expect that you will rock it.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 10:18 AM   #49
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
That grapefruit is an important part of MY PLANS! Muahahahaha!
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 10:21 AM   #50
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,879
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
That grapefruit is an important part of MY PLANS! Muahahahaha!
Just as long as it isn't.. yellow.

SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 10:40 AM   #51
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
That grapefruit is an important part of MY PLANS! Muahahahaha!
LOVE this^^^^!!

So, can I assume you are over on the "DARK SIDE" with us now? If so...... and SO glad to have you here with us!
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 10:50 AM   #52
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Yess, I've come over into the Dark Chocolate Side~!

Oh and JUDDD also!
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 11:30 AM   #53
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
Yess, I've come over into the Dark Chocolate Side~!

Oh and JUDDD also!
:hig h5:
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2011, 01:53 PM   #54
Major LCF Poster!
 
Joedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: England
Posts: 1,481
Gallery: Joedi
Stats: 180/131-135/133 5' 5.5" 40 y/o
WOE: Maintaining on Juddd
Start Date: Made Goal on 23/10/2011 - Stats updated daily
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
Yess, I've come over into the Dark Chocolate Side~!

Oh and JUDDD also!
I love this...the Dark Chocolate Side!
I have been there a little while...and I love it!

hugs
Jo
x
Joedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 08:52 PM   #55
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
OK, so here I am AGAIN!! I have lost more weight this week, but I think know why. I am NOT hungry on my UDs and since doing JUDDD I have learned to listen to my "hunger" and eat only when I'm hungry. Well, that is not giving me enough calories so I think I'm going to put some more fat and veggies into my UDs, getting more calories that way, and start to slow down on the snacking. And if I eat a snack I will eat the whole serving, not the DD serving like I have been doing.

This may help, we will see!
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 10:34 PM   #56
Way too much time on my hands!
 
metqa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 12,582
Gallery: metqa
Stats: 147/136/125; 5'1"
WOE: PSMF/hcg Transitioning to HFLC
Start Date: joined LCF 2003: HCG/PSMF 07/2014
Oh, well, I'll tell you , you'll get a lot of fat in if you start using Ghee. I put it on everything now. Artisan bread, pork rinds, carbsmart Ice cream it's truly that tasty and wonderful and doesn't leave you feeling like you've eaten a bunch of fat, just sastisfying!
metqa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011, 08:36 AM   #57
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by metqa View Post
Oh, well, I'll tell you , you'll get a lot of fat in if you start using Ghee. I put it on everything now. Artisan bread, pork rinds, carbsmart Ice cream it's truly that tasty and wonderful and doesn't leave you feeling like you've eaten a bunch of fat, just sastisfying!
WOW, I forgot about Ghee! I love this stuff, especially in sauteing meats, and I'm off to make some right now! Thanks Metga!!
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2011, 08:38 PM   #58
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
OK, just a little update that might help others as they get into maintenance.

So, in order to stop losing when I got to 135 I upped my DD calories to somewhere between 800 and 900 and upped my UD calories to between 1,700 and 1,800 and reading back over this thread it seems that those DD cals were what I had decided to do, but I also added more onto the UD cals as time went by to about 1,850/1,950 and I'm thinking that the UDs are too "UP" now and need to come down some.

Well, that worked for about 1 week and now I'm finding the scale is creeping up a bit, even on my DDs.

I am now going to try to lower the cals a bit on DD to see what happens by 100 and UDs by about 200 to stay at 1,600 cals. That would be 600/700 DDs and 1,600 UDs.

Let's see what happens!

The Beeb is ALWAYS a work in progress right now!

Last edited by Beeb; 11-16-2011 at 08:45 PM..
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2011, 02:45 PM   #59
Major LCF Poster!
 
Joedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: England
Posts: 1,481
Gallery: Joedi
Stats: 180/131-135/133 5' 5.5" 40 y/o
WOE: Maintaining on Juddd
Start Date: Made Goal on 23/10/2011 - Stats updated daily
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeb View Post
OK, just a little update that might help others as they get into maintenance.

So, in order to stop losing when I got to 135 I upped my DD calories to somewhere between 800 and 900 and upped my UD calories to between 1,700 and 1,800 and reading back over this thread it seems that those DD cals were what I had decided to do, but I also added more onto the UD cals as time went by to about 1,850/1,950 and I'm thinking that the UDs are too "UP" now and need to come down some.

Well, that worked for about 1 week and now I'm finding the scale is creeping up a bit, even on my DDs.
I am now going to try to lower the cals a bit on DD to see what happens by 100 and UDs by about 200 to stay at 1,600 cals. That would be 600/700 DDs and 1,600 UDs.

Let's see what happens!

The Beeb is ALWAYS a work in progress right now!
This is exactly why we should be weighing daily, if at all possible!

It is so easy to see how our bodies are responding to what we eat...and if we see a trend like Beeb did ( I know she had been down a lb on DD's, up a lb on UD's)....now she found herself being up after a DD, it is the simplest thing to just tweek our numbers , and stop the trend in its tracks!

How much harder, and depressing to have waited till our clothes got tight, or to get on the scales and see a significant gain!

Let us know how those numbers work for you, Beeb!

jo
x
Joedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2011, 07:28 AM   #60
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,062
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
WELL, lowering the calories didn't work too well. I have lost more weight, down 1.2 pounds today after my 700 calorie DD and this is NOT what I am aiming for.

Back to the drawing board again! I'll figure it out, I'm sure!!
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.