XPost: alt.support.diet.weightwatchers   
   From: rgrass@consolidated.net   
      
   I know squat about math will leave that up to you but... WW seems to make   
   you burn 100 calories to get an activity point so this indicates in your   
   program you should only eat half of what you burn, also on the big exercise   
   weeks I imagine there is water retention going on, interesting thread, Lee,   
   who would worry if you cut back too much   
   Doug Lerner  wrote in message   
   news:C05918FD.1E85E%doug@lerner.net...   
   > I'm sure that completely obvious title was an attention-grabber, with most   
   > people rolling their eyes and going, "well, duh?":)   
   >   
   > But there really is a point behind this note.   
   >   
   > Up until now I have only counted my "net calories" each day - the calories   
   I   
   > actually ate minus the exercise calories I earned on my exercise bike. The   
   > exercise bike shows my calories burned on a little computer read-out, and   
   it   
   > all depends on my input weight, time, distance, etc. It also measures my   
   > heartbeat during the exercise.   
   >   
   > So, thinking just in terms of conservation of energy if I used up 300   
   > calories on the bike then I deducted 300 calories from what I ate so far   
   > today, which is a great incentive to exercise!   
   >   
   > Using this method I've lost over 70 lb in about 300 days so far.   
   >   
   > But, I wonder...   
   >   
   > Lately it seems to me that the less I actually *eat* - not just the net   
   > calories, but the calories I actually eat (ignoring exercise) - the more I   
   > actually lose.   
   >   
   > Technically it should not make a difference whether I eat 1500 calories in   
   a   
   > day and do zero exercise, or whether I eat 1800 calories in day and do 300   
   > calories worth of exercise, right? But I think I lose more when I actually   
   > eat just 1500 calories.   
   >   
   > (I assume I would lose even more if I just ate 1500 calories and did extra   
   > exercise but didn't deduct it at all.)   
   >   
   > So - I wonder. What is going on here? What are other peoples' experience   
   > with the numerical value of exercise towards weight loss?   
   >   
   > Could it be that my "net calorie" theory is correct but I'm just getting   
   bad   
   > calorie counts to use?   
   >   
   > Sometimes I just do 15 minutes of exercise and still count those calories.   
   > Should I require myself to do a minimum number of minutes before the   
   > calories become "countable"?   
   >   
   > Should I limit the number of calories I am allowed to use against food   
   (like   
   > WW does with activity points)?   
   >   
   > Any thoughts would be welcome!   
   >   
   > doug   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)