Ever since beginning to regularly exercise (4X curves/2 days Gazelle and calesthetics = 6x a week) I have noticed an increase in appetite (hunger) and am now eating/snacking about 6X a day - smaller meals.

My calories have increased and I have upped my carbs slightly (from 25 to 30) - calories from 1400 avg to 1800 avg. Still seem to be losing wonderfully which I can just "blame" on my commitment to lose those last 20 lbs (now 18).

Do you think I can vary from these numbers (higher) on occassion without it causing me to stop losing?? Like today, I ate 37 carbs (net) - (only bad food product was some breading on a chicken cutlet I was not able to scrape off so I added about 5 carbs to my daily menu). My calories will be at around 1800. I should be OK, I think.

Anyone working out regularly noted they can eat more in ways of cals and/or carbs and continue to be successful?? Please say yes.

Yvonne, ultimately that is the whole point of working out. You lose fat, you build lean mass, which in turn eats body fat, and raises your metabolism causing your daily caloric needs to increase.

In order to lose 1 pound a week you need to create a caloric deficit of 500 calories a day (3,500 calories) - that is 500 calories below maintenance level. Maintenance level will increase as you become fitter; especially if you replace fat with lean mass.

It takes 50 calories, rougly, to sustain a pound of muscle.
It takes 9 calories, roughly to sustain a pound of fat.

If you're hungry now I'd take it as a sign you're not eating enough.

Nat

I'm certainly not a definitive authority on the issue, but I will offer my opinion based on what's worked or me.

I've been quite liberal with carbs. My upper limit has been quite elastic--some days it's 50 while other's it could be as high as 70. I've been losing very consistently over the time span. This is true even since my excercise regimen isn't even that strenuous or vigorous. Only 30 minutes running 5 days/week, and working with weights every other day.

I've added carbs, but not necessarily calories. I've found it difficult adding calories when low carbing and my intake naturally zones in at around 1800/day, give or take fluctuations from day to day.

In my view, working out moderately for an hour at the very least burns about 500 calories. That means, all things being equal, we can eat that much more irrespective if it's made of carbs, protein, or fats--eventhough fats and protein probably has the upper hand in respect to metabolic advantage. Theoretically, since a gram of carb is only 4 calories, if you burn an extra 500/day, even if you add 100 grams of carbs--ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL--you will still lose weight and might even lost faster since the extra fuel will allow you to both workout more vigorously and longer.

Just my views and wishing you the best,

Frederick

Again, no expert, but I think you can add some carbs. According to Protein Power you should also have more protein. I work out fairly rigorously and am presently reinducting. I'll tell you, I am very tired and weak. But I need to jumpstart my weight loss so I'll stick at 20 carbs for these two weeks.

I think you can do as suggested in Atkins, add 5 carbs a week and see what happens to your weight loss.

Amy

Just my ignorant opinion, but I think calories are the worst thing to consider. Atkins book discusses the Metabolic Advantage, which is that by limiting the carbs, the amount of fat eaten doesn't matter. The excess fat is broken down into ketone bodies, pyruvic, citric and lactic acid and excreted into urine and stool. In mice being fed low carbs, the percentage of unused fat calories being excreted in urine and stool rose from 10 to 36%.

I don't remember where I read it, but I remember this: Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame. That suggests to me that a very small amount of carb is needed to light the fat-burning furnace. Finding the right amount of carbs is the goal.

Right now my treadmill says I'm burning 1000 calories in a one-hour workout. I'm running 40 miles a week on 10-15 grams of carbs a day and unlimited protein and fat. No bonking so far.

I don't know about that 50/9 formula...according to that I could eat about 5900 cal a day and maintain...I don't think so !

You have 118 lbs of lean muscle mass? After weighing all your bones, organs and fat I doubt it leaves that much muscle mass.

Ah , so how would you ever be able to use that formula when all you know is lean vs fat. I guess the info is only really useful to illustrate how much more metabolically active muscle is.

You would use it mainly as an incentive for weight training with a goal to increasing lean mass- trading fat for muscle.

It's common to not lose scale weight while lifting weights but to shrink considerably. A "shrunken" you isn't going to have the same metabolic rate as the "pre-shrunken" you, even though you weigh the same.

Take me for example. I've lost well in excess of 80 lbs and yet I eat as much, if not more, than I did when I started out - and I'm still shrinking.

Nat