From: mazur@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Newsgroups: alt.support.diet
Subject: Re: Plateaus
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:19:58 GMT
Organization: Intermetrics Inc, Cambridge MA

In article <6375@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> jsl+@pitt.edu (John S Lundberg) writes:
>I guess I basically believe that the heavier you are the more energy
>you use to stay alive but I still have the feeling that one of the
>things that really leads to weight gain is a sedentary life style and
>that the tendency to lead a sedentary life style becomes almost a
>certainity in the upper weight ranges.  

I don't disagree with this at all.

>Such, unfortunately, was my
>own experience.  However you calculate it, I'm certainly eating less
>than my maintenance requirements and I certainly didn't mean to
>claim that what Peter was saying was untrue.  I'm just a bit skeptical
>about the math, that's all, but it doesn't really matter.

One of the major factors in any individual's maintenance calories is
the amount of total lean body mass (muscle).  Two people who both
weigh 200 lbs have totally different caloric requirements if one is
15% fat (ideal for white men per Covert Bailey) and the other is
55% fat (the highest he's tested for men).  Fat does not require as
much energy to maintain as muscle does, so as one gets more and more
obese, the amount of calories needed to maintain that weight will begin
to taper off.

The 12 calorie/pound/day number is just a useful metric; so is the
number of calories per mile (your weight * 2/3).  To find out any one
individual's numbers requires a considerable investment in either time
(keeping *very* careful food and activity records) or technology (getting
body fat or metabolism measured), so using the metrics above is a good
way to at least get in the ballpark.

HMR (the liquid diet Peter and I were on) has been keeping track of
the numbers long enough to know a couple of things:

   - most people don't have slow metabolisms (even on the fast)--they are 
     just not getting enough activity
   - most people underestimate their food intake, not because they don't
     know the calories in foods, but because they don't accurately know
     the volume or weights of foods (for example, most calorie books might
     say a muffin is 250 calories, but the muffins you get at muffin shops
     are usually 4-6oz each, which makes them generally 500-800 calories
     each!)

So, if you say you don't get 12 cals/lb at your current weight, I believe
you (although you might want to try keeping an accurate food diary--
weighing and measuring things--to be sure).  As I said above, this number
is meant to be a useful metric, it was not handed down from on high.

Similarly, women can use the 11 cals/lb to see why it's so hard for them.
Your average 150lb woman only requires 1650 cals/day to maintain her
weight.  A 1200 cal/day diet is only a 450 cal/day deficit, which means
after a week of dieting, a 1lb loss is all you can realistically expect (and
which can easily be hidden by water changes either up or down).  No wonder
women have a tough time dieting!  Looking at the numbers (however generic) 
makes it crystal clear how important exercise is for women.

Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls