| Author | Post |
|---|
nee
Senior Member
| Joined: | 25 June 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
|
Posted: 14 July 2005 05:08 pm |
|
I've been doing the 1990 Weight Watchers program, more or less (mostly less) strictly, for 9-1/2 weeks. Until last week, I consistently lost 3-4 pounds a week averaging anywhere from 1328 to 1692 calories per day but usually about 1500. I've been thrilled with how easily I've lost and how much I've been able to eat, though I'm sure it's just because I'm very tall and very heavy. I've lost 33 pounds and still have at least 100 and probably more like 120 to go. At 6'1" and 270 pounds (as of this morning), I'm still bigger than most men. I can't even believe how easy it's been, like maybe I've just hit on the magic formula. I did not have this kind of success with this plan in 1990. I had to work a lot harder to lose less weight at 30.
I think it's is more due to the proportion and quality of food and the discipline of planning and recording than the particular plan I'm (sort of) following or the reduction in calories.
Last week I was way too lax, averaged 1844 calories per day, and only lost one pound. It showed me where the line is and just kind of demonstrated that I need to keep doing the planning and recording thing for life, because it only takes one pigout and three or four little "treats" to stop the progress.
So I reined myself in and have lost two more pounds on 1200 cals/day so far this week. The thing is, I tend to eat the same things for three or four days in a row and then switch to something else for three or four days. This week, for example, I had stir fry for dinner on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Any major variety has been due to eating out.
I keep waiting for things to slow down and wondering if I'm inviting it by eating such a predictable menu. They say the body adjusts to its diet, because it thinks it's going to starve, but I don't see that happening ... yet.
So is this starvation response a myth or what? Because more and more I'm convinced it's just simple math and laws of physics.
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 14 July 2005 05:38 pm |
|
I'm sure it's more science than myth but it's never happened to me.
Actually my history has been that after a few months of eating well and losing weight my metabolism really picks UP and I have to work at it to eat enough.
(Just so I don't confuse people since I post about it often, on my new diet:
http://www.caloriesperhour.com/faqs_ETL.html
I can always eat all I want.)
Peter
|
Dave Brown
Senior Member
|
Posted: 15 July 2005 04:35 am |
|
Hi Nee,
You're wondering about the starvation response. What is your understanding of that phenomenon? Do you realize it's different for each individual? Do you realize that what happens to one's physiology depends on a lot of variables besides total caloric intake? Food quality, timing of food intake, the mix of nutrients, your body's ability to absorb and process nutrients, the relative efficiency of the glands, size of brown fat tissue, hours of sleep, exercise habits, emotional state, shortages and overages of essential nutrients; all of these affect the way your body processes calories.
Theoretically, eating really great quality food and exercising properly can cause skinny people to gain weight and fat people to lose fat on the same caloric intake. It's not simple math. It's genetics, biochemistry, and food quality that determine the success or failure of any weight control effort.
May you experience continued success.
Dave Brown
|
nee
Senior Member
| Joined: | 25 June 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
|
Posted: 15 July 2005 06:45 am |
|
No, Dave, I didn't realize all of that. Emotional state, good. Hours of sleep, too few. Exercise habits? Well, I wouldn't call them habits. As for genetics, I think I hear my fat relatives laughing. The other things I don't know about, but they can't be that great or I wouldn't have gained as much weight as I did in my twenties and nearly twice as much again in my thirties and forties.
Perhaps I should have said, "More and more I'm convinced that for me it's simple math and laws of physics." No, make that "simple math and laws of physics and quality food." But I I don't doubt what you said.
Peter, I think you're right about metabolism picking up. I feel like that's happened with me, too. The rate at which I'm losing suggests a daily caloric need somewhere between lightly and moderately active, according to the calculator I've been using, which defines lightly active as doing sports three times a week. I'm definitely not doing that. I consider myself more sedentary, as in anything over 3500 steps on the pedometer requires a conscious effort.
So ETL is a vegan diet? That's what one of the reviews on the B&N site says. I don't know if I could do the whole vegan thing, but I've been pretty close to becoming a vegetarian for several years. I think I'll buy the book.
Last edited on 15 July 2005 04:06 pm by nee
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 15 July 2005 07:13 am |
|
No! ETL is not a vegan diet. Please read what I wrote about it via the link in my post, above.
Peter
|
nee
Senior Member
| Joined: | 25 June 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
|
Posted: 15 July 2005 03:42 pm |
|
I did read that, thank you, and then I clicked on the link to the Barnes & Noble page and read the reviews. One says says it's vegetarian or vegan, and another says it's vegan but makes a few very limited concessions for those who refuse to give up animal food entirely. I haven't been eating that much, anyway - three egg whites for breakfast, a couple tablespoons of bleu cheese crumbles and bacon bits on my lunch salad, 3 ounces of chicken or turkey breast for dinner, or occasionally some tuna. Otherwise, it's all whole grain, veggies, and fruits. It wouldn't be a big change. I'd have to eat more beans is all.
I don't like the idea of eating animals or even fish, really, or things that come out of animals. It grosses me out if I think about it too hard. I do love sushi, though.
And by the way, I'm down another pound this morning, for a total of 34 in 66 days. Twenty pounds in two or three weeks (which is what the publisher's review of ETL says) would be beyond awesome.Last edited on 15 July 2005 04:03 pm by nee
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 15 July 2005 07:12 pm |
|
Hi again,
Yea, I can see why they'd say that. Compared to most diets it's pretty close to vegan, or can be. But it's left up to you and that's the point I wanted to make.
Thanks, Peter
|
Dave Brown
Senior Member
|
Posted: 16 July 2005 02:30 pm |
|
If you're going to pretty much eliminate animal products from your diet, I suggest you check into coconut oil. The following article by Dr. Enig explains why it is important to include saturated fats in ones diet. For more info on coconut oil visit coconutoil.com.
Dave Brown
By Mary G. Enig, PhD
Many people recognize that saturated fats are needed for energy, hormone production, cellular membranes and for organ padding. You may be surprised to learn that certain saturated fatty acids are also needed for important signaling and stabilization processes in the body.
Signaling processes work in the cells at the level of the membrane proteins, many of which are called G-protein receptors. The G-protein receptors become stimulated by different molecules and can be turned off or on in a manner similar to a binary light switch, which remains on for a limited time and then flips itself off until it is stimulated again.
The saturated fatty acids that play important roles in these processes are the 16-carbon palmitic acid, the 14-carbon myristic acid and the 12-carbon lauric acid. These saturated fatty acids are found in certain food fats. Palmitic acid, for example, comprises 45 percent of palm oil and about 25 percent of animal and dairy fats. Furthermore, the body makes palmitic acid out of excess carbohydrates and excess protein.
A biochemical process called palmitoylation, in which the body uses palmitic acid in stabilization processes, although not very well known, is very important to our health.
When these important saturated fatty acids are not readily available, certain growth factors in the cells and organs will not be properly aligned. This is because the various receptors, such as G-protein receptors, need to be coupled with lipids in order to provide localization of function.
The messages that are sent from the outside of the cell to the inner part of the cell control many functions including those activated by, for example, adrenaline in the primitive mammalian fight/flight reactions. When the adrenal gland produces adrenaline and the adrenaline (beta-adrenergic) receptor communicates with the G-protein and its signal cascade, the parts of the body are alerted to the need for action; the heart beats faster, the blood flow to the gut decreases while the blood flow to the muscles increases and the production of glucose is stimulated.
The G-proteins come in different forms; the alpha subunit is covalently linked to myristic acid and the function of this subunit is important for turning on and off the binding to an enzyme called adenylate cyclase and thus the amplification of important hormone signals.
When researchers looked at the fatty acid composition of the phospholipids in the T-cells (white blood cells), from both young and old donors, they found that a loss of saturated fatty acids in the lymphocytes was responsible for age-related declines in white blood cell function. They found that they could correct cellular deficiencies in palmitic acid and myristic acid by adding these saturated fatty acids.
Most Westerners consume very little myristic acid because it is provided by coconut oil and dairy fats, both of which we are told to avoid. But myristic acid is a very important fatty acid, which the body uses to stabilize many different proteins, including proteins used in the immune system and to fight tumors. This function is called myristoylation; it occurs when myristic acid is attached to the protein in a specific position where it functions usefully. For example, the body has the ability to suppress production of tumors from lung cancer cells if a certain genetically determined suppressor gene is available. This gene is called fus1 and is a protein that has been modified with covalent addition of the saturated fatty acid myristic acid. Thus, the loss of myristic acid from the diet can have unfortunate consequences, including cancer and immune system dysfunction.
Lauric acid has several functions. It is an antimicrobial fatty acid on its own and as a monoglyceride. It also has the function of stabilization when it is attached to certain proteins in a similar fashion to myristic acid and palmitic acid.
Stearic acid is the 18-carbon saturated fatty acid. The main sources are animal tallows, which contain about 20-25 percent stearic acid, and chocolate, which contains about 35 percent stearic acid. In other foods it occurs only on levels of 1-2 percent.
How much total saturated do we need? During the 1970s, researchers from Canada found that animals fed rapeseed oil and canola oil developed heart lesions. This problem was corrected when they added saturated fat to the animals diets. On the basis of this and other research, they ultimately determined that the diet should contain at least 25 percent of fat as saturated fat. Among the food fats that they tested, the one found to have the best proportion of saturated fat was lard, the very fat we are told to avoid under all circumstances!
These are some of the complex but vital reasons we need to include palm oil, coconut oil, butter and lard in our diets.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts,
the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, SPRING 2004.
Last edited on 16 July 2005 02:36 pm by Dave Brown
|
nee
Senior Member
| Joined: | 25 June 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
|
Posted: 16 July 2005 08:43 pm |
|
| Thanks. As it happens, I love coconut!
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4179 |
|
Posted: 17 July 2005 01:17 am |
|
| Do Mounds bars count?:D
|
Dave Brown
Senior Member
|
Posted: 17 July 2005 04:54 am |
|
| I hope so; but you might want to check the sugar content before eating a pile of them to strengthen your immune system.
|
nee
Senior Member
| Joined: | 25 June 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
|
Posted: 17 July 2005 07:42 pm |
|
Well, I managed to kick things up quite a bit. I've lost 6 lbs. this week averaging 1200 cals/day, assuming I don't go over 1100 today. It might turn out to be a 7-lb. loss, because the week starts Monday morning.
All I did, really, was switch from the whole wheat pasta/turkey breast/asparagus combo dinner to beef or chicken stir fry with thai spicy peanut sauce. Fewer breads and more vegetables, essentially. And I avoided my little "treats," although I did eat two bags of Quaker soy crisps, which are kind of like mini-rice cakes only thinner, over six days. Those, fruit, and some diet Snapples were all I had for snacks. Yesterday I had a ham and Havarti on whole wheat sandwich instead of the salad for lunch. In terms of fat/protein/carb percentages, I did 22/25/53 instead of 25/20/55.
I'm stoked! I think I'll do this again next week and see what happens.
Unfortunately, I can't stop thinking, "Get FrozFruit coconut popsicles." Those things are so yummy, but they have 160 calories a piece, and I have the hardest time eating just one a day. I should be thinking more like, "Get shredded coconut and put on salad/in stir fry."
Edited to correct my weight loss, plus I should add that the ham and Havarti probably upped my animal consumption. I need to learn how to cook tofu to my liking. I also couldn't help noticing that my lunch salad wasn't nearly as good without the bleu cheese crumbles, which I ran out of on Friday. I could lose the bacon bits a lot more easily.Last edited on 17 July 2005 09:10 pm by nee
|
Dave Brown
Senior Member
|
Posted: 23 July 2005 02:15 am |
|
The low-fat enthusiasts have produced some research indicating that a trade-off between fat and protein tends to result in decreased appetite and lowered caloric intake. Interestingly, the proportions of fat/protein/carbohydrate (20/30/50) used in the study are very similar to what you were doing (22/25/53) last week. In an editorial by Arne Astrup published in the July 2005 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition it was noted that "diets with a fat content fixed at 30% of calories produce more weight loss when high in protein (25% of energy) than when normal in protein (12% of energy)." Sounds like you are on the right track, nee.
Dave Brown
|
nee
Senior Member
| Joined: | 25 June 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
|
Posted: 23 July 2005 10:23 pm |
|
Yeah, I read somewhere - I think in a newsletter from this fitness coaching outfit that my company has a relationship with - that the best proportion for weight loss is 25-30% fat, 20-25% protein, and 50-55% carbs.
I stopped following the Weight Watchers rules and started counting things based on their actual fat, protein, and carohydrate content. So instead of a big fluffy 300-calorie bagel being 3.75 breads, it's 3.25 breads and 1 fat. And a 120-calorie slice of cheese is 2.5 fats and .33 protein instead of 2 proteins. I've been going way over the WW allowances on fats and a little over on proteins for several weeks now.
Right now, on Day 6 of Week 11, because of those bagels and cheese and a handful of peanuts and cashews, I'm at 30/20/50 and 1430 calories per day. If I stay on track the rest of today and tomorrow, I'll probably have a 2-3 pound loss for the week.
|
nee
Senior Member
| Joined: | 25 June 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
|
Posted: 7 August 2005 01:43 am |
|
| Well, so much for 30/20/50. I just broke through a long plateau this morning, after 18 days at 265. Then again I took a business trip last week and was wined and dined into oblivion by a visiting client the week before, so I averaged 1800 calories a day both weeks. I was surprised this morning when the scale said 263. So that's a total of 40 pounds in 13 weeks. The plan column has caught up with the actual is all.
|
Dave Brown
Senior Member
|
Posted: 22 August 2005 06:37 am |
|
Hi nee, Are you still progressing?
Dave
|
Current time is 12:39 am | |
|
|
|
