From: mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.support.diet
Subject: Re: 1300 cal/day, why?
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:59:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Syracuse University

In article <1d90eoINNojl@agate.berkeley.edu> mossman@sag1.ssl.berkeley.edu () writes:
>From: feathers@eskimo.celestial.com (Cheryl Owen)
>
>>   I wish I was onne of those average people.  People are such
>>individuals, and our bodies don't all process food the same way.
>>In order to lose weight and maintain it, I have to eat very few calories
>>always, every day, for the rest of my life.  I exercise and am active,
>>but I couldn't eat 1200 calories a day without putting on weight. 
>>Around 600-800 calories a day is about right for me, maintenance-wise.
>
>other stuff deleted (sorry my news poster is so PICKY)
>
>YEAH!!!! Thank you Cheryl. I am so glad someone said this. Everyone
>has different requirements and I think this idea of 1300 cal/day or
>11 cal/lb is an average. And, I am tired of reading that I don't know
>how much 1300 calories is. I know I have to be at about 1000 or less
>to reduce. I also know I can go on very little eating for days at a
>time a) without noticing and b) without losing alot. I just don't
>need alot of calories. Granted, I don't exercise strenously or regularly.
>But please, stop telling me I don't know how much I eat. My weight has
>bounced all over the place for years and I know that a traditional
>3 meals a day, 1200 to 1500 calorie regime puts me well above my goal
>weight. Now leave me to crunch my celery sticks in peace! (smile-figure)
>
>Amy Mossman

Well, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in since a year ago I would have
been agreeing with the above and now I'm not...what happened?      

18 years ago (when I was 16...) I lived on 600 cals a day and lost
60+ pounds.  Seems like I continued to eat that way (get this,
one meal a day, dinner which was something like 2 hot dogs and
2 rolls-ugh!  How did I survive?) for a few years after.  I was
pretty active but no regular exercise (except for a few maniacle
bouts with the jump rope when I had gained a few pounds) and no
sustained aerobic exercise.  After I put the weight back on (took
about 9 years) i tried WW twice to no avail and was certain that,
given my history and the fact that I was over 30, that I could not
possibly, never ever never lose weight on anything over 800 cal
a day (not to mention that the idea of losing at a rate of 1-1.5lbs
a week was unacceptable).  So why is WW working now (at around
1200 cals/day)?  I don't know exactly.  I am probably adhearing
to it better (my attitude is no longer resentful), I'm not
drinking (alcohol) at all and I have been following Covert
Baily's advice (mostly....not so good lately).  I think that last
one must be key, though.  And I'm still on the exercise bike
3-4 days a week.  

So far be it from me to say that Amy and the other poster are wrong.
But I can understand why everyone is urging them to reconsider.  All
that I might suggest is that they try, as an experiment (that's how
I approached it) applying what Bailey says in _Fit_or_Fat_, counting
the calories of what they eat and see if the weight is easier to
lose/maintaine with some kind of regular exercise.  Let me add that
the benefits are more than just being able to up your caloric intake.  

Margot



--
"I think we're passing through here kind of fast,
  Did you think these tracks in the dust can last? "
                                         - David Crosby
Newsgroups: alt.support.diet