The sweet stuff

There are guidelines, GDAs or more recently known as Recommended Intakes (RI) about the make-up of calorific intake.

MFP set up default levels but I noticed that I seemed to be reaching the sugar level very quickly despite not having added sugar, fruit juices or syrups - the things you expect. This got me thinking about what my intake of sugar should be and, more scarily, how much it has been in the past.

MFP was set at 43g of sugar. But that didn't take into account whether they were natural sugars or added sugars. There doesn't seem to be a way to break this down (without paying a shedload for MFP premium, which I'm not up for). The GDA or RI for women is 90g TOTAL sugar. So although I was above the threshold it had arbitrarily chosen for me that was ALL sugar in my diet. Surely even a saint couldn't keep it below 43g? I have changed it to 90g and intend to keep below that.

Quite possibly, up until just a few days ago, I could well have been topping 90g on a daily basis and probably doubling that or even more. Maybe this is the wake-up call I need. I realised that as I was walking around Tesco this afternoon I was thinking about the sugar content of virtually everything and remembering my brother saying that he never buys grapes because they are just balls of sugar. I scoffed at this because I thought that purely being a natural fruit trumped any bad sugar content. I was wrong; it's all important.

I have also considered the calcium, potassium and sodium content of my diet as MFP was consistently advising me that my potassium and calcium were low. I'm quite chuffed that there was no such alert about sodium being high - I have hypertension and so am quite aware of salt and processed foods etc. So I have adjusted the amounts according to RI and have considered where I might best obtain potassium and calcium in my diet. This is made a helluver lot easier by the fact I can now eat more natural sugars. I knew my calcium intake wasn't great, but the cap on my sugar wouldn't allow me to have a glass of milk without going way over. Hopefully there will be a bit of a better balance now. The same with goes for nuts and seeds giving me extra nutrients (calcium among them) or yoghurt, bananas and dried fruit for potassium; it all has sugar in too but now I have more sugar to play with!

This all makes me feel quite accomplished and like I'm on the right track to change my lifestyle. I never considered it as an academic process before, WeightWatchers and the like have always done the science bit for me and I've just taken their word for it. I hate WW. It works while you're on it, adhering to their strict rules (no matter how flexible they want you to think it is) but mostly because they peddle horrible low fat alternatives, rubbish recipes that never taste as good as when they're laden with fat and sugar. I'm miserable when I'm on a 'diet'.

I want to drink whole milk, eat full fat cheese and full fat yoghurt. I want to eat fresh, unprocessed foods as much as I can. But most of all, I want to be able to enjoy a healthy diet without feeling guilty, fat or deprived. I know I'm counting and measuring a lot at the moment and it takes precious time to put that extra effort in. But it will eventually be worth it. I will have changed my habits, changed my lifestyle and it will no longer be a chore. 

Calorie requirements

I have been trying to find out exactly how many calories (or kcal) I need to consume to exist. This is not as easy as I thought it might be.

• From somewhere my Fitbit has be using 1635 per day just from existing. That is, on a day when I haven't had it on or recording, it calculates that is how many kcals I will have used. How it comes to that conclusion, I'm not sure. 

• HealthStatus (a website) calculated my existence to require 2689.8 kcal a day.

• BBCiWonder came up with 2240 kcal.

There seems to be a general consensus that 2000 kcal is what women need in order to maintain their weight, keeping the engine ticking over so to speak. But that takes little or no account of age or weight.

There is a formula or something. Doing a bit of reading it seems that requirements (no matter what the answer comes up as) seem to be calculated from the basal metabolic rate (BMR) and that is calculated from body weight, height, age and gender. Which is the same no matter what on-line calculator you use. So how can they differ so much? Who am I supposed to believe?

The amount of kcal you need to lose weight is a whole new ballgame!

• HealthUnlocked (website) suggest 1400 kcal.

• NHS Choices say 1692 - 2175 kcal

• and MFP wanted me to start on 1230 kcal!

So where does all that information leave me? And lets not forget, we're only talking about calories here; the components and proportions are as yet, undiscovered by me. It's surely going to get way more complicated the more I delve into it.

• To function on a daily basis I require 1692 - 2689.8 kcal per day. That's a hell of a margin for error!

• To maintain my weight the consensus is approximately 2000 kcal

• To lose weight, guidelines (see previous post) suggest 600 kcals less than maintenance. So is that 1092 kcal, 1400 kcal or 2089.8 kcal? Answers on a postcard please!

I have set MFP to 1800 kcal per day and I will see how that goes for a while. I am hopeful that in the short-term as it is considerably less than I have been eating I should show some weight loss initially. This may need to be adjusted as I (hopefully) lose weight.

I've started something here that is going to be a long term project, perhaps even more so than my MSc!