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 02-22-2012, 09:28 AM   #1
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
Not sure what to do with this information

So I went to my nutritionist for my follow up (she does not know I am doing JUDD - not even going there- ) but the main reason I saw her again was to do metabolic testing. I was guessing that my resting metobolic rate was super low and thats why I can't lose - surprise - it was 1800. Basically, thats what I burn if I do nothing all day. She then took that number and multiplied it by a percent based on activity (which we put it as sedentary although I am not but she said the excercise would count as a bonus since I take beta blockers and my heart rate doesnt go up), then subtracted 500 cals a day for a 1 lb a week loss. final calories I should eat for a loss of 1 lb a week - 1600-2000 which is WAAAY more than I ever eat...

So now I dont know what to eat on JUDD. I have been doing 500/1500 and I am losing but not a ton (3 pounds in 4 weeks). Should this info change what I eat on UDs? should I do 500/1800? She said staying at 1200 could actually slow my loss (that is my average which I know JUDD is more than just calories) because my body would hang on to it...I am wondering if that was why on WW I never really lost because it averages 1200 cals a day...so confused!
kaysol is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 02-22-2012, 09:33 AM   #2
Way too much time on my hands!
 
KeirasMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 15,143
Gallery: KeirasMom
Stats: 277.6/150/150
WOE: Whatever plan keeps me around 150 lbs!
I would try upping your UD calories a bit. 1800 sounds good, though I'm no expert. Give it a week and see what it does. You can always go back down if it doesn't work, but at least you'll know. And wouldn't it be wonderful if it actually allows for a better loss?
KeirasMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 09:40 AM   #3
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaysol View Post
So I went to my nutritionist for my follow up (she does not know I am doing JUDD - not even going there- ) but the main reason I saw her again was to do metabolic testing. I was guessing that my resting metobolic rate was super low and thats why I can't lose - surprise - it was 1800. Basically, thats what I burn if I do nothing all day. She then took that number and multiplied it by a percent based on activity (which we put it as sedentary although I am not but she said the excercise would count as a bonus since I take beta blockers and my heart rate doesnt go up), then subtracted 500 cals a day for a 1 lb a week loss. final calories I should eat for a loss of 1 lb a week - 1600-2000 which is WAAAY more than I ever eat...

So now I dont know what to eat on JUDD. I have been doing 500/1500 and I am losing but not a ton (3 pounds in 4 weeks). Should this info change what I eat on UDs? should I do 500/1800? She said staying at 1200 could actually slow my loss (that is my average which I know JUDD is more than just calories) because my body would hang on to it...I am wondering if that was why on WW I never really lost because it averages 1200 cals a day...so confused!
What kind of metabolic testing did she do on you? Just curious how she came up with that number...

Your base metabolic rate is nearly 600 calories daily above mine.

If you list your stats, I'd be glad to run your figures and see what I come up with for your numbers.

Are you counting calories? Actually measuring out your foods and portions? Or just estimating and guessing...

I know we can get the problem solved. Let's get to working on it and get you very, very happy with your JUDDD progress as quickly as we can!
__________________
Best wishes, Pat
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 10:09 AM   #4
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
Pat, it was a thing you breath into (after fasting, first thing in the morning) and it measures your carbon dioxide output (it think its called bodygem). I know my metabolism was great when I was younger -I was one of those kids that can't gain - super skinny until college when I started dieting...

My stats are 41 yrs old, 4'11'', 140 lbs.

I measure, weigh and track my dds for sure and my UDs I enter track everything - maybe not as good with the measuring but I end up at about 1300 cals so figure I am at more like 1500 if I underestimate. I know I should be more exact on that...I have been entering stuff on fat secret - is there a better tracker that is more accurate?

thanks for any help, I really appreciate it, I am going to make this work this time, I know I can do this!

Dawn, I was kind of thinking 1800 as well and when she said I could add more calories with avacodos, nuts, yogurt it took everything I had to not ask her if cookies would would do the trick
kaysol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 10:14 AM   #5
Way too much time on my hands!
 
KeirasMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 15,143
Gallery: KeirasMom
Stats: 277.6/150/150
WOE: Whatever plan keeps me around 150 lbs!
I just ran your numbers and I'm sure Pat will give you better direction than I could, but it gives 1619/324. Given your basal metabolic rate, I'm at a loss. Pat? Your wisdom is needed.
KeirasMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 10:26 AM   #6
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,056
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
I'm not Pat but here is my suggestion. I would do 700 DDs and 1900 UDs and see how it goes for you. This is an average of 1300 calories a day which should help you along in losing weight and get you close to the number she is talking about (which to me seems to be a number to use for maintaining your 140, not losing ).

Now if you were to do what she is suggesting you would have to do, at least 500/700 DDs and 2500/2700 UDs to get to at least 1600 calories daily. Those numbers seem pretty high to me to lose weight.

I weight 135 and eat about 1250/1350 calories daily, 650/750 DDs and about 1850/1950 UDs. I am maintaining on these numbers. When I was in weight loss mode I ate 700 DDs and 1650 UDs for an average of 1150 calories a day.

I'm also thinking if you are losing weight the way you have been doing JUDDD and you feel healthy this way, maybe a change is really not needed. Just a thought.....
__________________

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 02-22-2012, 10:57 AM   #7
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
Beeb, I think she came up with the number by taking my 1800 and adding what you burn doing other activities (eating, moving etc. and she used the lowest number for me -the 1800 is what I burn if I just lay on the couch all day doing nothing) and then took away 500 cals a day for weight loss. I agree - it seems to be too much - I have always thougth 1200 for weight loss which is why I am confused now...

I am losing but it seem to be slower than most so maybe the 700/1650 would help get the numbers a little higher?
kaysol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 11:36 AM   #8
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
One of the problems dieters run into, and we all do it, is to rely more on a *if X works for her, it should work for me.. since we're both about the same size, etc.* and that just isn't always true. So when we really think about it, we do realize that the resting metabolic rate, the base rate, can vary a great deal among folks that are the same height, weight, age, and sex and activity level. Unhappily, one size does not fit all, after all.

The BodyGem is supposed to be fairly accurate, at least enough to be depended on as a good place to start. BUT, I don't know if it can still be depended upon to be very accurate in someone who is on beta blockers! As you mentioned, the blockers do affect heart rate, which affects blood flow surge and rate, which affects the rate of flow through lungs, which affects the oxygen uptake of the red blood cells, which might cause a variance in the level of carbon dioxide being exhaled from the lungs.. the blood carrying a higher rate of CO2 because of the slower heart rate, etc. SO, I just can't say whether your test results for metabolism would still be considered correct, or whether those results might truly be inaccurate. In other words, your output of CO2 may be greater, not because your metabolism is burning at such a rapid rate, as because your heart rate is running at a slower pace. Did this make sense enough to understand?

Freedieting gives your base metabolic rate as 1207, based on your stats. Now that figure is just given out as the average of a bajillion women with your stats, and may not apply completely and exactly to you, but it is a far cry from 1800! Which, once again, I am thinking may have been thrown off because of a slightly elevated CO2 blood level from the blockers. But regardless, something here is very strange.

So then, Freedieting gives your daily calorie number for maintenance of your 140 pounds of body weight at 1448 calories. A little more if you exercise really well. Really well. As in sweating and huffing and puffing, even if the blockers keep your heart rate down.

Now, JUDDD gives us a calorie figure for our Up Days, what it calls our *Normal* calorie number, at a slightly higher number than is really and truly our number for maintenance. I expect we have made a mistake in labeling this calorie number as the *maintenance* number amongst ourselves, as it really isn't.. it is higher than our maintenance if we were to eat at that level every day, but it is allowed to be higher because it is offset by our low-calorie fasting days.

So the numbers you are given by JUDDD based on your stats, comes out to be 1619 for your UDs, and the range for your DDs comes out to be 20%=324, 25%=405, 30%=486, and 35%=567. When you are eating even larger percentages of your *higher than maintenance calories* Up Day number for your DDs, that is strongly getting into your range for maintenance!

You stated that you have been doing 500/1500 and you have been losing at the rate of 3 pounds in 4 weeks.. an average of 3/4 pound per week.

Your 500/1500 2-day is an average of 1000 per day. JUDDD's suggestion for you for the most rapid weight loss (the 20% figure of 324) comes out to be only slightly under that.. at 971 per day.

I KNOW this sounds incredibly few calories, but you are a much more petite lady than even the average. I am not telling you anything that you don't already know. LOL But you are more than half a foot shorter than the average woman, and will burn so many fewer calories than they do it would make their heads spin. I'm also short, but at 5'-3". In fact Sazzie and I were just discussing this yesterday. We're settling on the term that describes us as *little dolls*. So welcome to our club. LOL

My sincere recommendation for you would be to weigh and measure foods, even on UDs as much as you can (which is usually pretty simple foods) and go to 1600 on your UDs and lower your DDs as low as you can, strongly going for 400 or lower. This will give you a good and strong spread between your Up and Down days, and should be helpful to stimulate a bit better weight loss rate for you. At least.. after a little while here. Sometimes it takes a bit of time to get to working at best efficiency. I assume you are going for a goal of around 100 pounds?

And I will say, sometimes when we're smaller, even when we are carrying more weight than we should be, weight loss can be slower for us than for the women of greater height. Not fair. But while it's true that most slim, trim women would NOT expect to be able to eat remotely as many calories as the big burly guys, it's also true that the little petite woman can't expect to be able to eat remotely as many calories as the much taller women are able to pull off. Not fair. But usually pretty true.

Last edited by SoHappy; 02-22-2012 at 11:42 AM..
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 12:48 PM   #9
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
Pat, your explanation does make sense with the beta blockers but I did the body gem one other time, pre-beta blockers and the number was the same. I always figured that number was wrong now with the beta blockers (but thinking the opposite -that they would lower my RMR) which is why I wanted to do it again... just to add some more confusion in

I agree, I have always assumed that being petite I could eat far less than the average person and in fact when I first started seeing the nutritionist and was tracking but not doing JUDDD realized most days I am at less than 1200 calories, I really truly am always dieting and never get results ..

I think your idea of 1600/400 is good (once I can get myself to that 400 # - I just got comfortable with the 500 so it may take a little time!) And I for sure wil start entering my UDs, who knows, I could be way over or under eating and I suppose either way that could mess up what JUDDD does...

Maybe I should write someone at bodygem and see what their opinion on the beta blocker thing is, I am curious now!

Unfortunately I take the beta blocker for a heart condition that keeps me from being able to huff and puff safely walking is about the extent of my exercise but I do try to walk 3 miles 4x/week and I run around alot - not a sit around kind of person, pace when on the phone etc.

Metabolism is very interesting, I wish their was an exact number we could use but I guess trying different things till you find what works is the way to figure it out!

Happy to be a part of the doll club, other than the fact that I have to hem all my pants- don't mind being short at all! (well that and the less food thing!)
As far as my goal - it has been such a struggle to lose even 5 pounds that I have resigned myself to be thrilled at 115 but anything below that would be amazing - who knows, maybe once I get this ball rolling anything is possible!

thanks for all the responses and thoughts, I appreciate it!
kaysol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 12:59 PM   #10
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaysol View Post
Pat, your explanation does make sense with the beta blockers but I did the body gem one other time, pre-beta blockers and the number was the same. I always figured that number was wrong now with the beta blockers (but thinking the opposite -that they would lower my RMR) which is why I wanted to do it again... just to add some more confusion in

I agree, I have always assumed that being petite I could eat far less than the average person and in fact when I first started seeing the nutritionist and was tracking but not doing JUDDD realized most days I am at less than 1200 calories, I really truly am always dieting and never get results ..

I think your idea of 1600/400 is good (once I can get myself to that 400 # - I just got comfortable with the 500 so it may take a little time!) And I for sure wil start entering my UDs, who knows, I could be way over or under eating and I suppose either way that could mess up what JUDDD does...

Maybe I should write someone at bodygem and see what their opinion on the beta blocker thing is, I am curious now!

Unfortunately I take the beta blocker for a heart condition that keeps me from being able to huff and puff safely walking is about the extent of my exercise but I do try to walk 3 miles 4x/week and I run around alot - not a sit around kind of person, pace when on the phone etc.

Metabolism is very interesting, I wish their was an exact number we could use but I guess trying different things till you find what works is the way to figure it out!

Happy to be a part of the doll club, other than the fact that I have to hem all my pants- don't mind being short at all! (well that and the less food thing!)
As far as my goal - it has been such a struggle to lose even 5 pounds that I have resigned myself to be thrilled at 115 but anything below that would be amazing - who knows, maybe once I get this ball rolling anything is possible!

thanks for all the responses and thoughts, I appreciate it!
I'm thinking I would be foolish to argue with a BodyGem, but it just seems like a person of your petite stature who was burning at the rate of 1800 basal a day would never have packed on a single pound of body fat! That's some serious raging metabolism for a little person!

I really do expect your weight loss to be decent if you can stick to 400/1600 and especially if you measure and weigh foods and portions.... so you actually know you are sticking to 400/1600. Ha!

And here's another thing. IF you couldn't ever increase rate of weight loss, and you were only able to continue to lose 3 pounds in every 4 weeks, in one year that would come to.. almost 40 pounds! So.. there you are!

Hang in there. I think you are going to get slimmer and trimmer as these weeks pass, and all of us shorter gals will make up the club of cute little dolls.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 01:08 PM   #11
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
I agree, I always feel like I should weigh negative pounds for all time I put into it that does seemtoo high...guess I will not worry about that number right now and try to do my 1600/400 more accuratly and see where it leads me!

I love how you put that - one year/40 pounds - I can do that! And between now and then, every week I will look a feel a little bit better. And yes, I would love to be a cute doll rather than a chubba doll

I will aim for 400 tommorow and see how it goes - you may see me on here whining that I am starving to death but thats what hard boiled eggs are for!

Thanks again!
kaysol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 04:17 PM   #12
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,056
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaysol View Post
I agree, I always feel like I should weigh negative pounds for all time I put into it that does seemtoo high...guess I will not worry about that number right now and try to do my 1600/400 more accuratly and see where it leads me!

I love how you put that - one year/40 pounds - I can do that! And between now and then, every week I will look a feel a little bit better. And yes, I would love to be a cute doll rather than a chubba doll

I will aim for 400 tommorow and see how it goes - you may see me on here whining that I am starving to death but thats what hard boiled eggs are for!

Thanks again!

Not to disagree with Pat in anyway, she has giving you very good info and ideas, BUT if 400 calories is not doable, do 500 or even more. Many of us have done this and have lost weight fine with higher DD calories. If you are hungry on your DDs you may give up JUDDD altogether, as was my thought when it was suggested by the JUDDD calculator that I do 365 calories for my DDs. NO way in this good Universe would I have been able to do this, so I upped the calories and actually only recently have eaten less than the 700 DD calories I started with. Do the calories on your DDs that you figure will work well for you, and if you can lower them later, do so. If not, then don't. In the end the weight will come off if you stick to a plan that fits you the best.

Here is a thread that may help, also: Don't Let Those DD Calories Scare You Into NOT Trying JUDDD!

Last edited by Beeb; 02-22-2012 at 04:20 PM..
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 04:48 PM   #13
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeb View Post
Not to disagree with Pat in anyway, she has giving you very good info and ideas, BUT if 400 calories is not doable, do 500 or even more. Many of us have done this and have lost weight fine with higher DD calories. If you are hungry on your DDs you may give up JUDDD altogether, as was my thought when it was suggested by the JUDDD calculator that I do 365 calories for my DDs. NO way in this good Universe would I have been able to do this, so I upped the calories and actually only recently have eaten less than the 700 DD calories I started with. Do the calories on your DDs that you figure will work well for you, and if you can lower them later, do so. If not, then don't. In the end the weight will come off if you stick to a plan that fits you the best.

Here is a thread that may help, also: Don't Let Those DD Calories Scare You Into NOT Trying JUDDD!
Yup.. you sometimes have to work your way down to the most ideal DD calorie number for yourself. (Don't I know that well from experience.) If only you stood several inches taller you would have so much more wiggle room to eat higher and still expect some good success too.

Truly, the shorter we are (well, the smaller overall too) the more gypped we are when it comes to how much *play* we have with the numbers.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 05:52 PM   #14
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
Thanks ladies, I guess maybe I will try to slowly lower it, 500 is doable right now so maybe I will do 480 tommorow then 460 etc and see if I can get to 400 if not, 500 and slow loss is fine too (better than losing an arm after I chew it off!)

thanks!
kaysol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:14 PM   #15
Senior LCF Member
 
pjsam1156's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 497
Gallery: pjsam1156
WOE: JUDDD for life, baby!!
Start Date: Feb 2009; RESTART: Nov. 2011 as EX-LCer
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoHappy View Post
Truly, the shorter we are (well, the smaller overall too) the more gypped we are when it comes to how much *play* we have with the numbers.
I have been complaining about this my ENTIRE life!!
At 5' 3", all I've ever been able to think about is how much more I could eat if I was 5' 6" or 5' 7". **sigh**
pjsam1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:15 PM   #16
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaysol View Post
Thanks ladies, I guess maybe I will try to slowly lower it, 500 is doable right now so maybe I will do 480 tommorow then 460 etc and see if I can get to 400 if not, 500 and slow loss is fine too (better than losing an arm after I chew it off!)

thanks!
That's true. Good luck. You at least know your numbers and what to aim for, and I think it's a lot like aiming for the stars... If you fall short, you've still got a whole lot higher than if you'd just never tried at all. So if you can't quite go as low as your JUDDD numbers recommend, ideally, you will still be fairly low.

You've already been losing weight, so I doubt that will stop. All you're trying to do at this point is get a bit more speed out of the process, right?

And remember, 486 calories on DDs is at the 30% weight loss figure. Which is weight loss. It's higher than the 25% figure and the 20% figure, but it is still quite firmly within the weight loss numbers!

Good luck. It will be fun to see how you do in these next weeks. I'll bet you will be back reporting some nice losses!
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:24 PM   #17
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,056
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsam1156 View Post
I have been complaining about this my ENTIRE life!!
At 5' 3", all I've ever been able to think about is how much more I could eat if I was 5' 6" or 5' 7". **sigh**
You know, I don't see how it matters how short or tall you are. I'm 5.5 1/2 and don't eat more than others who are shorter. As a matter of fact my calorie numbers starting out were 328/1640 at 20% with little or no exercise.

The OP calculates at 324/1619 at 20% with little or no exercise. That is only 4 calories more for me on DDs and 21 calories more on UDs. I am 6 1/2 inches taller than her and yet our calories are pretty close, thus the reason I'm not buying the "get more with height" theory here.

Last edited by Beeb; 02-22-2012 at 06:42 PM..
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:31 PM   #18
Blabbermouth!!!
 
Speck333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,168
Gallery: Speck333
WOE: Semi-Primal
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsam1156 View Post
I have been complaining about this my ENTIRE life!!
At 5' 3", all I've ever been able to think about is how much more I could eat if I was 5' 6" or 5' 7". **sigh**
amen sister!
Speck333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:54 PM   #19
Senior LCF Member
 
pjsam1156's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 497
Gallery: pjsam1156
WOE: JUDDD for life, baby!!
Start Date: Feb 2009; RESTART: Nov. 2011 as EX-LCer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeb View Post
You know, I don't see how it matters how short or tall you are. I'm 5.5 1/2 and don't eat more than others who are shorter. As a matter of fact my calorie numbers starting out were 328/1640 at 20% with little or no exercise.

The OP calculates at 324/1619 at 20% with little or no exercise. That is only 4 calories more for me on DDs and 21 calories more on UDs. I am 6 1/2 inches taller than her and yet our calories are pretty close, thus the reason I'm not buying the "get more with height" theory here.
Well, I'm just going by the fact that if you take basic stats--height, gender, and age--the amount of cals you can eat to maintain your weight go up the taller you are. Of course, that's just basic AVERAGE calculations that "they" use. (whoever "they" are-- haha)
pjsam1156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 07:30 PM   #20
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeb View Post
You know, I don't see how it matters how short or tall you are. I'm 5.5 1/2 and don't eat more than others who are shorter. As a matter of fact my calorie numbers starting out were 328/1640 at 20% with little or no exercise.

The OP calculates at 324/1619 at 20% with little or no exercise. That is only 4 calories more for me on DDs and 21 calories more on UDs. I am 6 1/2 inches taller than her and yet our calories are pretty close, thus the reason I'm not buying the "get more with height" theory here.
But you might be comparing the close-to-goal weight of the woman who is almost 5'6" to the 40% over weight figure of the woman who only stand 5 feet tall. Part of this has to do with weight as well as just height. If the shorter woman is even more overweight, it is possible that her calorie numbers will be more than the woman who is many inches taller.

It's easier to understand there being a calorie difference if you compare the calories at maintenance weight for our two hypothetical women. So say they are both 40 years old and exercise the same, and both are already at the *rule-of-thumb* ideal weight for their heights, and go to the JUDDD calorie calculator for their numbers.

The ideal body weight rule is for a woman to be 100 pounds at 5 feet of height, and to add another 5 pounds of weight for each inch she stands above that starting place.

So JUDDD gives our 5 foot tall & 100 pound woman (who is now at her ideal goal weight) Up Days of 1422 calories and 45% maintenance DDs of 640 calories.

Our woman who is 5'-6" tall and also at her ideal goal weight of 130 pounds, is given 1612 UD calories and 725 DD calories at the same percentage.

So both women are at their perfect very slim ideal weights now, but the taller woman gets to eat almost 300 more calories every couple of days, just because of her height advantage. Nearly 1000 calories more every week, because of her height advantage.

And if the petite woman is even shorter than 5 feet, and our taller woman is even above 5'-6".. say 5'-8" or even 5'-10"... that calorie advantage gets to be larger and larger.

Now this is all based on *all other factors being equal*.. which they almost never are if we are trying to compare people, because of not just various levels of our overweight, but also our varying ages, and activity levels (regardless of what we input in that part of the calorie calculator LOL), and then too... all of us have operating metabolisms, but some of us run at a much more sluggish pace than the gal standing at our elbow, etc.

Really, impossible to compare us all too closely, because all things are never quite equal except on paper. But if they were... little ladies got robbed when it comes to calorie consumption!

Last edited by SoHappy; 02-22-2012 at 07:31 PM..
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 08:50 PM   #21
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
not only could I eat more, I could wear pants without having to pay more to get them hemmed, I could reach things on the top shelf, I could actually find shoes (5s are not abudant)... But there are some advantages too - I can wear as high of heels as I want, and umm, I'm sure there are more! At any rate, being petite is part of who I am so I wouldnt change it anyways! (except maybe just a few measly inches...

It does make sense to me either why height matters but in weight watchers it does too..and weight matters as well, my tall friend always got 7-10 more points than me but believe me she wasnt necessarily hungier than I was
kaysol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 08:58 PM   #22
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaysol View Post
not only could I eat more, I could wear pants without having to pay more to get them hemmed, I could reach things on the top shelf, I could actually find shoes (5s are not abudant)... But there are some advantages too - I can wear as high of heels as I want, and umm, I'm sure there are more! At any rate, being petite is part of who I am so I wouldnt change it anyways! (except maybe just a few measly inches...

It does make sense to me either why height matters but in weight watchers it does too..and weight matters as well, my tall friend always got 7-10 more points than me but believe me she wasnt necessarily hungier than I was
It's a weird world in lots of ways really. My DH and I go out to dinner and each order the same meal. When it comes, it's pretty much the same portion sizes, of course. So that big man is eating about the same calories as has been served his wife, who should be eating about only 60% of what he eats. But guess who can eat almost as much as he can every single time. These days I almost always take home a large portion of my meal. But I usually eat a lot of it anyway before bedtime.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 09:05 PM   #23
Why wait, just do it NOW!
 
Beeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A REAL Jersey Girl!!
Posts: 12,056
Gallery: Beeb
Stats: Then: 162.4 Now: 158 :( Darn Holidays!!
WOE: No Diet = No Stress! Just eating healthy!
The same thing can be said for someone who is, say, my height of 5' 5.5" and weighs 100 pounds more than me. This woman would get many more calories a day then I do because she would need more "energy" than I do to lose weight. Her body would need the extra calories or more calories so that it could lose. This has nothing to do with height at all, but the fact she needs more "energy" for her body to lose weight. If she was to eat the amount of calories I eat everyday she would be starving or in the least, her body would take it as starving, and would likely hold onto it's weight for "survival". And if I was to eat the amount of calories this woman needed and has suggested to lose weight I would gain weight because my slimmer body does not need that much energy to function on a daily basis.

This, again, has nothing to do with height but the amount of weight she and I carry and the amount of food (energy/calories) we need to either lose, maintain or gain. It is understandable that someone thinner than myself would need less or get less calories, but I still do not believe it's because they are shorter than me. I believe it's because they weigh less than I should at their height to be in a "normal" weight range for that height, be it 4' 11" or 5' 5.5".

If I weighed 100 pounds at my height I would naturally need less calories to maintain that weight, as does someone 6.5 inches shorter than myself who would weigh the same 100 pounds. As a matter of fact, when I calculate my height and use 100 pounds as my weight at 20% little or not exercise I will get 275/1374, very close to the DD/UD calories for someone 6.5 inches shorter than myself at 100 pounds. Actually, using the same 20%/little or no exercise for the OP at 4'11" and 100 pounds she is getting more calories than myself with her calories being 282/1410.

SO, I still think height really doesn't play that big of a factor.
Beeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 09:57 PM   #24
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
LOL I expect we should maybe just say *size* then. It's all sort of a height x weight = mass sort of thing.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 05:56 AM   #25
Way too much time on my hands!
 
KeirasMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 15,143
Gallery: KeirasMom
Stats: 277.6/150/150
WOE: Whatever plan keeps me around 150 lbs!
I'm surprised nobody's really addressed the fact that the taller women aren't really getting an "advantage" with being able to eat more calories. We burn them, based on our height, so we are just as hungry on the higher calories as someone smaller is on their lower calories.

If it were so much of an advantage to be tall, there wouldn't be any overweight taller women. We'd all be eating our "increased" calories and would never "want" any more than that. I can certainly eat a LOT more than I'm eating, even getting 2000 for UDs. Heck I could take in 2000 calories at a nice dinner with wine.

Just playing devil's advocate.
__________________
Dawn

JUDDD got me where I want to be!
KeirasMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 06:35 AM   #26
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeirasMom View Post
I'm surprised nobody's really addressed the fact that the taller women aren't really getting an "advantage" with being able to eat more calories. We burn them, based on our height, so we are just as hungry on the higher calories as someone smaller is on their lower calories.

If it were so much of an advantage to be tall, there wouldn't be any overweight taller women. We'd all be eating our "increased" calories and would never "want" any more than that. I can certainly eat a LOT more than I'm eating, even getting 2000 for UDs. Heck I could take in 2000 calories at a nice dinner with wine.

Just playing devil's advocate.
Advantage not from the standpoint of how much fuel does it take to fuel people of different sizes.. once it's swallowed. Only advantage from the standpoint of how many mouthfuls of deliciousness do they get to savor before swallowing.. and before that's all they get. They've had as big a portion as their little self gets, while someone bigger gets to eat the slightly bigger portion.. a few more bites of Grandma's Cherry Pie, for example.



And, no. It's not a big deal. We all get a certain number of calories depending on our size, just like the chihuahua gets a smaller bit in its bowl than is portioned out to the great dane.

And when it's all said and done, and regardless of what numbers the calculator gives us, mostly all we want is to get slim and then stay there.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 07:01 AM   #27
Way too much time on my hands!
 
KeirasMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 15,143
Gallery: KeirasMom
Stats: 277.6/150/150
WOE: Whatever plan keeps me around 150 lbs!
Okay, from a flavor perspective I can see that my height would be an advantage. I've always disliked being tall, but I think I may have to embrace it now!
KeirasMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 07:43 AM   #28
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
gotsomeold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Asheville, NC / Marietta, Ga
Posts: 3,858
Gallery: gotsomeold
Stats: 175/111.8/124 - 5'4, 61yo
WOE: JUDDD/PHD, LC now that my BG is getting weird
Start Date: JUDDD 1/1/12 + LCHF 12/1/13 (controlling diabetes)
Chuckle, and then there are exceptions that almost make me question the rule.

Like my mother who, at 5 foot nothing, eats anything and everything, eats more than many men, finishes every day with a bowl of ice cream, thinks walking across the room is enough exercise for anyone, and has never gone above 103 in her life. AND has cholesterol: hdl 100, ldl, 100, trigs 25.

How I wish I had those genes!
gotsomeold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 08:05 AM   #29
Way too much time on my hands!
 
SoHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 17,888
Gallery: SoHappy
Stats: obese/slimmer
WOE: JUDDD!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotsomeold View Post
Chuckle, and then there are exceptions that almost make me question the rule.

Like my mother who, at 5 foot nothing, eats anything and everything, eats more than many men, finishes every day with a bowl of ice cream, thinks walking across the room is enough exercise for anyone, and has never gone above 103 in her life. AND has cholesterol: hdl 100, ldl, 100, trigs 25.

How I wish I had those genes!
Yeah, metabolism is one of the things that has to be taken into the equation, most certainly. The equation is only the starting point.. it's the *all else being equal* and *this is how it looks on paper* sort of thing. It's the calculators being set to the *average* of a bajillion people, and you may not fit the average, so the calculators are only the starting point.

They have to give their figures based on height too when it is combined with current weight and all the other stats. And the BIG one it can't account for is metabolism.

Many of us had great burn rates in our younger years, eating everything and remaining slim and trim. And then it all crashed and burned. Others of us never even experienced a youth with a great metabolism.

But most of us who ended up here, arrived here in our search because our metabolisms had been sluggish enough, for long enough, that we'd got pretty overweight.

But there certainly are folks with good metabolism out there, like your mother and my little neighbor lady, age 80 or maybe 81 now, who is also very tiny, eats very well and enjoys her glasses of wine. And her cigarettes, of all things!

But regardless of our personal metabolic rates, I believe that if this plan isn't working for us quite as well as we wish, the first place to look, to problem-solve, is at the numbers the JUDDD Calorie Calculator spits out. And then ask yourself if you are really doing those numbers. Really. And then after we can determine that every gram of food is truly being measured and the calorie numbers being adhered to, and still no success.. it's finally time to tweak. Mostly no tweaking is necessary.

And even then, this strict adherence isn't necessary for lots of folks. They can follow the plan very loosely and still experience really nice weight loss. Being strict with a diet plan is often only necessary for some folks. Sad truth.
SoHappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2012, 08:32 AM   #30
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 54
Gallery: kaysol
hmmm, this has me wondering - what if the body gem is right and my BMR is 1800...
When I went to college I weighed 98 pounds and ate like crap (like most high school girls), was active but not a runner or anything extreme...half-way through college weighed 109 (remember this because I was horrified- oh the stupidity of youth). Maybe less active with all nighters, ordering pizza etc- went on the typical low cal 1200/day diet. Maintained that weight all through college, even while working in resteraunts, drinking,eating etc and not really dieting. After college got a job at a desk, gained weight and always dieting at that 1200 cals- always losing slowly if at all. The only time I was able to lose was right after my kids were born, not dieting but nursing and eating like crazy, then slowly gained it back-

What if I have put my body in starvation mode like Beeb was talking about, what if I needed 1600 cals a day to lose but I consistantly ate 1200 or lower all these years, making my body a very efficient fat storer? I do know that about myself because when I was diagnosed with celiac I was gaining weight while most people lose- when I was not absorbing nutrients my body fought by storing weight (or so I have read)

Unfortunately, the only way to figure this out would be to eat more and see what happens which seems too scary - if its wrong I end up even heavier and start over again!

Still thinking I will stay where I am at and if after a few weeks I dont lose anymore, maybe I will try upping the numbers...

And Dawn, yes embrace your height - you never have to ask a stranger at the grocery store to get something off the top shelf for you - or do the grocery cart climb- where you stand on the bottom edge trying to give yourself a few inches while praying no one is watching waiting for it to roll and you to fall and your butt...
kaysol 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 05:33 PM.


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