Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   JUDDD (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/juddd/)
-   -   The great induction calorie debate - a question (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/juddd/754106-great-induction-calorie-debate-question.html)

TallToriV 01-18-2012 12:39 PM

The great induction calorie debate - a question
 
I apologize if this is discussed in depth somewhere on here that I haven't found (in the WAY too much time I've spent poking around over the last couple of days, lol).

I know that there are two opinions on what weight to use when setting your cal levels at the start of your JUDDD journey. One school of thought says to put in your weight now; another says to use the weight you want to get to. General consensus seems to be that if you're quite close to your target, just use your weight now. If you're farther off, your current weight may give you an ineffectively high number for up days.

So how far away from target is far? I have 35 lbs to lose, so that's significant without being extreme. My up day quoted number is 2500, which seems AWESOME but really high. Up day numbers for my target weight are closer to 2000. What do we think? :dunno:

And bless you all for your patience with me for asking 2 noob questions in the same day!

KeirasMom 01-18-2012 12:58 PM

You and I are the same height, and I weigh a lot more than you, and my UD calories are 2345, from which I cut a bit for a nice round 2200.

Unless you're running marathons weekly, I think yours might be a bit high.

Most of us put in little to no exercise as well, preferring not to eat back our exercise calories, but that's a personal decision you will need to make.

TallToriV 01-18-2012 01:03 PM

"But...but I DO exercise!" is my first response, but if most of you guys are saying little to no, since I know you're also exercising, that would explain the difference between my targets and yours!

DeeLen 01-18-2012 01:54 PM

Wait, what?

I put in my current weight on the calculator. Is that not correct?

lil miss 01-18-2012 02:01 PM

Put in your current weight unless you have A LOT to lose. Also make sure calculator is set to say that you do NOT exercise even if you do.

After every 10 lbs or so that you lose, re calculate.

KeirasMom 01-18-2012 02:03 PM

Tori, you may lose just fine with the higher numbers. You could try it for a week or two and see what happens. Seems like the general consensus is that Dr. J's site gives pretty lenient numbers. I know a lot of people enter their statistics into several of the calculators and take an average. When I entered mine in all of them, they were very close.

I lost just fine on the 2345, but wanted a little cushion when I dropped it to 2200.

Dee, I used my current weight too and am losing fine. Some people use their goal weight to determine their calories. I wanted to see if I could lose well with my calories at my current weight and I'm losing really well. All that means is I'll probably need to adjust my calories as I lose, but boy am I enjoying the ride until then! :)

ETA: I am losing 3 lbs/week on average and used my current weight and have a LOT to lose. I don't think you need to put in your goal weight if you have a lot to lose. It makes more sense to me to put in your goal weight if you do NOT have a lot to lose.

Bonnie 01-18-2012 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lil miss (Post 15340654)
Put in your current weight unless you have A LOT to lose. Also make sure calculator is set to say that you do NOT exercise even if you do.

After every 10 lbs or so that you lose, re calculate.

Is that from the book?

DeeLen 01-18-2012 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeirasMom (Post 15340660)
Dee, I used my current weight too and am losing fine. Some people use their goal weight to determine their calories. I wanted to see if I could lose well with my calories at my current weight and I'm losing really well. All that means is I'll probably need to adjust my calories as I lose, but boy am I enjoying the ride until then! :)

Cool! I have a lot to lose. Thanks!

lil miss 01-18-2012 02:11 PM

NO. Sorry Bonnie, it is from what I have learned here on the boards. Some Vets here said they would recalculate as they lost so they would keep losing. If you stall, you could THEN recalculate. It is to our advantage to keep UD cals as high as we can, dont want to keep lowering those and then have to lower them further to lose more etc.

SoHappy 01-18-2012 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeLen (Post 15340621)
Wait, what?

I put in my current weight on the calculator. Is that not correct?

Don't worry, Dee! :laugh: The majority just put in their current weight and go from there, so you're fine. LOLOLOL

It's just that if a LOT of our *current weight* is nothing but FAT (which some of us know about that being a starting weight), we might want to not use all of that as the weight to figure calorie consumption on. 'Cause we don't actually want to be given, and eat, all those extra calories being given to us to maintain the fat. We want to eat a little lower number of UD calories, so we aren't eating to maintenance for quite as much of our fat. :laugh: Does that make sense?

But you can always bring that UD number down some as you lose initially. If you slow down or aren't losing as fast as you think you should be, it's possible the UD maintenance calorie number is of *the basic slim You* as well as the *Fat overcoat you're carrying* sort of thing. In that case, it's probably time to lower the UD number figured on your previous higher weight, and get yourself a new UD number, figured on the new slimmer you. And then just keep going.


Quote:

Originally Posted by TallToriV (Post 15340476)
"But...but I DO exercise!" is my first response, but if most of you guys are saying little to no, since I know you're also exercising, that would explain the difference between my targets and yours!

Most of us, regardless of whether we work out seven days a week, enter *little or no exercise* into the Calorie Calculator.. because of this way of thinking about it:

If I was a lean, sleek, hard-muscled woman of ideal weight, working out regularly, I'd want to know how many calories I'd worked off, so that I could eat them back and replace them. Because I wouldn't want to lose even more weight from my exercise. I need to know exercise calorie use, so that I can eat more to maintain my current body.

But if I'm an overweight person, still carrying plenty of body fat that I'm trying to get rid of, I'm hoping my workouts will give me some muscle, but also help me shed some fat. So the last thing I want to do is eat back those lost exercise calories to keep from losing my fat!!!!!

So in general, if we're now skinny, we can count the exercise burned calories and eat them back to help us maintain our current slim weight, but if we're still overweight and wanting to lose more, we don't want to put those lost exercise calories back into our fat cells, which is basically what *eating them back again* is doing. :laugh:

Bonnie 01-18-2012 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lil miss (Post 15340692)
NO. Sorry Bonnie, it is from what I have learned here on the boards. Some Vets here said they would recalculate as they lost so they would keep losing. If you stall, you could THEN recalculate. It is to our advantage to keep UD cals as high as we can, dont want to keep lowering those and then have to lower them further to lose more etc.

Thanks for the clarification.

For those of us who don't have the book, can someone tell us how he actually says to figure the calculation? Or is it just what it says on the website? It seems like everyone does it how they feel it should be done and not based on what he said. I will say though, based on what was posted in the Induction thread what he said about fats, I'm not sure I would go by what he said either.

cherryhair 01-18-2012 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoHappy (Post 15340704)
Don't worry, Dee! :laugh: The majority just put in their current weight and go from there, so you're fine. LOLOLOL

It's just that if a LOT of our *current weight* is nothing but FAT (which some of us know about that being a starting weight), we might want to not use all of that as the weight to figure calorie consumption on. 'Cause we don't actually want to be given, and eat, all those extra calories being given to us to maintain the fat. We want to eat a little lower number of UD calories, so we aren't eating to maintenance for quite as much of our fat. :laugh: Does that make sense?

But you can always bring that UD number down some as you lose initially. If you slow down or aren't losing as fast as you think you should be, it's possible the UD maintenance calorie number is of *the basic slim You* as well as the *Fat overcoat you're carrying* sort of thing. In that case, it's probably time to lower the UD number figured on your previous higher weight, and get yourself a new UD number, figured on the new slimmer you. And then just keep going.




Most of us, regardless of whether we work out seven days a week, enter *little or no exercise* into the Calorie Calculator.. because of this way of thinking about it:

If I was a lean, sleek, hard-muscled woman of ideal weight, working out regularly, I'd want to know how many calories I'd worked off, so that I could eat them back and replace them. Because I wouldn't want to lose even more weight from my exercise. I need to know exercise calorie use, so that I can eat more to maintain my current body.

But if I'm an overweight person, still carrying plenty of body fat that I'm trying to get rid of, I'm hoping my workouts will give me some muscle, but also help me shed some fat. So the last thing I want to do is eat back those lost exercise calories to keep from losing my fat!!!!!

So in general, if we're now skinny, we can count the exercise burned calories and eat them back to help us maintain our current slim weight, but if we're still overweight and wanting to lose more, we don't want to put those lost exercise calories back into our fat cells, which is basically what *eating them back again* is doing. :laugh:

I'm confused about how using up calories through exercise would be any different than not eating to your UP day calories (which is not recommended). All your body knows is the net calories, correct (if we are talking about creating a calorie deficit)? Especially if you are exercising on a regular basis why wouldn't your metabolism slow down eventually-the same as if you were eating less calories on a regular basis? Regardless of size-we know the bigger you are the more calories you burn through exercise anyway. I'm not trying to argue. I honestly want to understand this

gotsomeold 01-18-2012 02:50 PM

Page 244

"But the sole purpose of the Calorie Calculator is to estimate the number of calories to eat on your down days. You absolutely do not have to consume all the calories estimated on your up days. There is no specific requirement for the up day."

I think over time JUDDD BUDDDs have amended that to say if you go too low on UD then you are on just another calorie restricted diet and/or you risk slowing your metabolism and stalling. UD calories need to be high enough to prevent either of those from happening.

KeirasMom 01-18-2012 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotsomeold (Post 15340790)
Page 244

"But the sole purpose of the Calorie Calculator is to estimate the number of calories to eat on your down days. You absolutely do not have to consume all the calories estimated on your up days. There is no specific requirement for the up day."

I think over time JUDDD BUDDDs have amended that to say if you go too low on UD then you are on just another calorie restricted diet and/or you risk slowing your metabolism and stalling. UD calories need to be high enough to prevent either of those from happening.

And they need to be high enough to feel decadent. At least to me. :laugh:

Bonnie 01-18-2012 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotsomeold (Post 15340790)
Page 244

"But the sole purpose of the Calorie Calculator is to estimate the number of calories to eat on your down days. You absolutely do not have to consume all the calories estimated on your up days. There is no specific requirement for the up day."

I think over time JUDDD BUDDDs have amended that to say if you go too low on UD then you are on just another calorie restricted diet and/or you risk slowing your metabolism and stalling. UD calories need to be high enough to prevent either of those from happening.

Thank you! Does he mention the 500 calorie thing for DDs or is that another thing that started here?

cherryhair 01-18-2012 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherryhair (Post 15340772)
I'm confused about how using up calories through exercise would be any different than not eating to your UP day calories (which is not recommended). All your body knows is the net calories, correct (if we are talking about creating a calorie deficit)? Especially if you are exercising on a regular basis why wouldn't your metabolism slow down eventually-the same as if you were eating less calories on a regular basis? Regardless of size-we know the bigger you are the more calories you burn through exercise anyway. I'm not trying to argue. I honestly want to understand this

Anybody? Anybody? If anyone finds an answer to this please let me know. I can't be the only one wondering. I just don't want to slow down my metabolism-want the JUDDD magic to keep working.

Mommie22boys 01-18-2012 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnie (Post 15340822)
Thank you! Does he mention the 500 calorie thing for DDs or is that another thing that started here?

The 500 calorie number is from the website (likely in the book too, but I haven't read the book). Paraphrased, he says that you don't need to hit your 20-25% number on DDs during the first two weeks...keeping it to 500 will work fine.

gotsomeold 01-18-2012 03:41 PM

I've read the book twice now (love the science - of the time - behind caloric restriction/fasting).

In the book he talks about calculating UD caloric requirements based on - like on the website - age, height, exercise, and current weight. Then he extrapolates DD calories based on what you can comfortably eat (between 20% and 50% of UD calculation, or fasting).

I don't remember seeing 500 calories specified in the book. I think it is an average various JUDDD forums have tried and found works for many and satisfies the need to eat something.

Dr J tried to keep the rules flexible - DD low enough to feel reasonably good and invoke the stress response that leads to that old JUDDD magic, UD high enough to feel pampered, avoid a slowed metabolism, and keep a smile on everyone's face.

Bonnie 01-18-2012 03:47 PM

Thanks to both of you! I did see it is mentioned on the website. I will read the book if I ever find a copy of it. Our used book store and Goodwill didn't have it and I don't want to order it online.

belfrybat 01-18-2012 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotsomeold (Post 15340947)
I've read the book twice now (love the science - of the time - behind caloric restriction/fasting).

In the book he talks about calculating UD caloric requirements based on - like on the website - age, height, exercise, and current weight. Then he extrapolates DD calories based on what you can comfortably eat (between 20% and 50% of UD calculation, or fasting).

I don't remember seeing 500 calories specified in the book. I think it is an average various JUDDD forums have tried and found works for many and satisfies the need to eat something.

I haven't read the book, but the statement of eating up to 500 calories on a DD is on his website:

UpDayDownDay Diet™ Plan ? How to Succeed
Quote:

Induction Phase
The two-week induction phase is the most restrictive part of the Johnson UpDayDownDay Diet™ but is necessary to activate the body's genetic response to alternate-day calorie restriction. To begin experiencing the many benefits from "turning on" your SIRT1 gene, it is important to limit yourself to no more than 500 calories on Down Days during this period. Prepackaged diet shakes and bars from Slim FastŪ, AtkinsŪ, and other companies can help make sure that you don't go above 500 calories on Down Days during these two weeks.
I used the "light exercise" option when I put in my stats, since I exercise 2 - 3 times a week with "Walk away the Pounds" tape. I figured if I didn't lose, I could always lower them, however I rarely eat up to that limit. But it is nice to know I can.

gotsomeold 01-18-2012 04:05 PM

The book is several years old. It makes sense Dr J would update the website frequently as he learns more about the science and about how people react to this woe.

Cherry, as long as you alternate DD/UD (and don't have a string of DDs) you can eat 500 calories or your calculated DD calories or fast all day without worrying about slowing your metabolism down. That takes longer than one day to become established, and the following UD (or even a MD) ensures your metabolism is rocking.

(This assumes you do not have an imbalance or illness that makes fasting or extreme low calorie dangerous for you.)

Knittering 01-18-2012 04:12 PM

This all suddenly seems a lot more complicated. :(

KeirasMom 01-18-2012 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knittering (Post 15341036)
This all suddenly seems a lot more complicated. :(

I know. I have to stop thinking about it, lol. I know what's working for me, and that's all I can retain in the poor frazzled brain at the moment. :stars:

sophiethecat 01-18-2012 04:16 PM

It took me a long time to get down to a 500 calorie DD, but I "felt" the effects of JUDDD by 2 weeks (as far as you can go by feeling) doing 600 - 750 calorie DD, but even with those higher #s I was losing the weight and experiencing some other good effects.

Once I did get down around 500 calories, I didn't stay there very long, and found I did just as well on 600 - 800 calories. So I've been sticking around that in maintenance.

Whether it's 300 calories or 800, there's just something about cutting the calories so drastically and then eating, eating, eating every other day that does great things for the body! :up:

belfrybat 01-18-2012 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knittering (Post 15341036)
This all suddenly seems a lot more complicated. :(

Not complicated at all. For the first two weeks don't go over 500 cal on DDs. Eat on UDs until comfortably satiated but not stuffed. Repeat.
Input your stats on the website if you want to see what Dr. J's recommendations are, otherwise use whatever calculator you prefer. The website indicates we are to use our current weight, not goal. Some here have found out they lose better by cutting calories some on UDs, and Dr. J. states you do not have to eat all your allotted calories on UDs.

Knittering 01-18-2012 04:31 PM

*nodsnods*

Well, what I've been doing so far is working for me so just going to stick to that until it stops working, then refigure things.

cherryhair 01-18-2012 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knittering (Post 15341096)
*nodsnods*

Well, what I've been doing so far is working for me so just going to stick to that until it stops working, then refigure things.

This:laugh:

TallToriV 01-18-2012 04:52 PM

Thank you, everyone! This has really helped, even though it's not all exactly the same. :wink:

I think I really do just need to try it out for a few weeks and see what works and what doesn't for me personally! However it works out, I'm loving it - I just finished my first DD, ate 485 calories, and feel really great. AND I'm looking forward to eating tomorrow!

gotsomeold 01-18-2012 04:55 PM

:stars: Oh, I can make it more complicated if you would like. I could mention that the famous appetite suppression is ketosis. Yes, LCers, the DD/UD rotation causes ketosis while you eat carbs.

I could chatter about all the health benefits you will probably notice over time.

But, the important point is, as Sophie says, DD - low, UD - higher, weight goes bye-bye. :jumpjoy:

TallToriV 01-18-2012 05:04 PM

LOL! See, *that* I can manage! Especially the weight going bye-bye part! I do overthink.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 PM.