Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / November 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Eric Blackway: Weight-Loss Program

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Eric - 10 Nov 2007 08:57 GMT
Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb.

I'm 6'2", 33 years old, and this evening when I stepped on my brand-
new scale, I weighed 283 pounds, possibly my all-time high weight.

I have been overweight since the second grade and have been going up
and down in weight since I was 17. When I say "up and down in weight,"
I mean from 280 to 180, the lower number being close to where I want
to be.

Something has to change.

Slowly, over the years, I have come upon ways of doing this that work,
and ways that don't. Three of the ways that work are low-carb dieting,
writing, and reading, so here I am. Reading what others write about
this topic will be a fresh experience. Sharing what I write about
weight, food, and losing one while cutting back on the other is a
frightening idea, but I'm determined to go through with it.

In public, I come off as a perfectly reasonable individual with
exceptionally polished social skills. I'm one of those types who live
a double life, and my weight problem has always been a part of my
private life, in which I am a lunatic. There are reasons for this
duality, but hey, different strokes, as they say.

With this in mind, I feel obliged to warn regular readers of this
group that I'm not holding myself to even an NC-17 rating in this
thread. I've never flamed anyone without provocation and I don't
intend to start now, but I'm not just talking about language.

The story of my weight problem is the story of my life, and it's been
strange. Bits and pieces of it have been well beyond the brink of
garden-variety insanity. I'm going to do my best to be true to that.

So wish me luck, or not. Read, ignore, contribute, or not. Life is too
short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to
do something real about it.
em - 10 Nov 2007 10:00 GMT
> Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb.
>
> I'm 6'2", 33 years old, and this evening when I stepped on my brand-
> new scale, I weighed 283 pounds, possibly my all-time high weight.

Hi Eric,

Your weight story is pretty much the same as mine. I'm one of the least
knowledgable here, and I just proved it because I can't even spell
knowledgeable! Welcome on-board. Stick to your guns & you'll do just fine.

Mike
Ophelia - 10 Nov 2007 10:49 GMT
> Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb.
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to
> do something real about it.

Welcome Eric:)  You could not have come to a better place!

I wish you all the luck in the world

O
Jim - 10 Nov 2007 12:03 GMT
[ Do you think that you could be classified as an "emotional eater",
where you eat in response to emotions ? ]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071108113252.htm
=======================================================

Emotional Eaters Susceptible To Weight Regain

ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2007)

— Just in time for the start of the holiday eating season - a new study
finds that dieters who have the tendency to eat in response to external
factors, such as at festive celebrations, have fewer problems with their
weight loss than those who *eat* in *response* to *emotions* (internal
factors). Led by researchers at The Miriam Hospital's Weight Control &
Diabetes Research Center, the study also found that *emotional_eating*
was associated with weight regain in successful losers.

"We found that the more people report eating in response to thoughts and
feelings, such as, 'when I feel lonely, I console myself by eating,' the
less weight they lost in a behavioral weight loss program. In addition,
amongst successful weight losers, those who report emotional eating are
more likely to regain," says lead author Heather Niemeier, Ph.D., of The
Miriam Hospital's Weight Control & Diabetes Research Center and The
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.

This is important, the authors note, because one of greatest challenges
facing the field of obesity treatment remains the problem of weight
regain following weight loss.

"Participants in behavioral weight loss programs lose an average of 10
percent of their body weight and these losses are associated with
significant health benefits. Unfortunately, the majority of participants
return to their baseline weight within three to five years," Niemeier says.

In this study, researchers analyzed individual's responses to a
questionnaire widely used in obesity research called the Eating
Inventory. The Eating Inventory is a clinical tool that is designed to
assess three aspects of eating behavior in individuals -- cognitive
restraint, hunger, and disinhibition.

Specifically, Niemeier and her team focused on the disinhibition
component of the Eating Inventory because although past studies have
suggested that disinhibition as a whole is an accurate predictor of
weight loss, the scale itself includes multiple factors that could
independently forecast outcomes.

"The disinhibition scale evaluates impulsive eating in response to
emotional, cognitive, or social cues. Our goal was to examine and
isolate the factors that make up the disinhibition scale, and then
determine if these factors have a specific relationship to weight loss
and regain," says Niemeier.

Participants in the study included two groups of individuals. The first
group consisted of 286 overweight men and women who were currently
participating in a behavioral weight loss program. The second group
included 3,345 members of the National Weight Control Registry (NWCR),
an ongoing study of adults who have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it
off for at least one year.

"By examining these two very different sample groups, we were able to
assess the effect of disinhibition on individuals attempting to lose
weight, as well as on those who are trying to maintain weight loss," the
authors note.

Upon examination, the researchers found that the components within the
disinhibition scale could be grouped into two distinct factors --
external and internal disinhibition.

External disinhibition describes experiences that are external to the
individual such as, "When I am with someone who is overeating, I usually
overeat, too" and "I usually eat too much at social occasions, like
parties and picnics". Internal disinhibition refers to eating in
response to thoughts and feelings that are internal to the individual
and includes emotional eating such as, "When I feel lonely, I console
myself by eating" and "While on a diet, if I eat a food that is not
allowed, I often splurge and eat other high calorie foods".

Results showed that in both groups of participants, internal
disinhibition was a significant predictor of weight over time. For
participants in the weight loss program, the higher the level of
internal disinhibition, the less weight an individual lost over time.
The same was true for maintainers in the NWCR in that internal
disinhibition predicted weight regain over the first year of registry
membership.

"Interestingly, external disinhibition did not predict weight loss or
regain in either sample at any time," notes Niemeier.

In addition, the authors note that internal disinhibition predicted
weight change over time above and beyond other psychological issues
including depression, binge eating, and perceived stress.

"Our results suggest that we need to pay more attention to eating
triggered by emotions or thoughts as they clearly play a significant
role in weight loss. Current treatments provide minimal assistance with
eating in response to feelings or thoughts," says Niemeier.

She adds, "Modifying our treatments to address these triggers for
unhealthy eating and help patients learn alternative strategies could
improve their ability to maintain weight loss behaviors, even in the
face of affective and cognitive difficulties."'

The study is published in the October 2007 issue of Obesity.

In addition to Niemeier, the research team consisted of Suzanne Phelan,
Ph.D.; Joseph L. Fava, Ph.D.; and Rena R.Wing, Ph.D.; of the Weight
Control and Diabetes Research Center at The Miriam Hospital and The
Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University.

This research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of
Health.

Adapted from materials provided by Lifespan.

> Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb.
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to
> do something real about it.
Eric - 10 Nov 2007 22:33 GMT
> [ Do you think that you could be classified as an "emotional eater",
> where you eat in response to emotions ? ]

Hell yeah. I could also be classified as a compulsive eater, a
carbohydrate addict, and in general, a screwed-up piece of damaged
goods.
asiegel7@gmail.com - 10 Nov 2007 15:42 GMT
> Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb.
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to
> do something real about it.

I know what it is like to live in that double life.  Having a weight
problem makes you either a slob or the funny guy in the group.  I find
that being around people and listening to these guys and gals that
weigh possible 110 pounds but call themselves fat just damn
irritating.  They laugh at me and just call me fluffy or pleasantly
plump.  What do they know?!?  If they truely were fat they wouldn't
know how to handle it.  I wish the best of luck to you and look
forward to seeing your posts.

asiegel
Eric - 10 Nov 2007 22:45 GMT
On Nov 10, 10:42 am, asieg...@gmail.com wrote:

>> I know what it is like to live in that double life.  Having a weight
> problem makes you either a slob or the funny guy in the group.  I find
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> know how to handle it.  I wish the best of luck to you and look
> forward to seeing your posts.

Thank you so much.
H.L - 10 Nov 2007 22:05 GMT
> Hello, alt.support.diet.low-carb.
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> short and my problem is too pressing for me not to try everything to
> do something real about it.

Go for it. Just remember that consistency and tenacity is the key.
Don't fall for your friends saying "just one time won't hurt"...
Eric - 10 Nov 2007 22:36 GMT
>  Go for it. Just remember that consistency and tenacity is the key.
> Don't fall for your friends saying "just one time won't hurt"...- Hide quoted text -

Thank you, and that sounds so familiar.
Eric - 10 Nov 2007 22:44 GMT
THE FIRST DAY

November 10, 12:38 pm

Well, I wrote my first post yesterday, so I'd better pony up today
with the particulars of my diet. First of all, morning weight-in. I
was at 279.0, 38.0% fat and 45.5% water. The scale gave me two pluses,
which means that I am OBESE. Something must be done, or I feel there's
a very real chance that the next step will be bariatric surgery. I
would like to avoid that, if I could.

I intend to eat eight ounces of cheese every day, along with a multi-
vitamin and 23 grams of additional protein from a wonderfully cheap
source of whey protein powder that I found at my local supermarket.
Eight ounces of cheese will give me 64 grams of protein every day.

In the first week, at least, I'm going to mix the powder with a cup of
whole milk, which will add 6 more grams of protein but 12 more grams
of carbohydrates. I'm also going to suck down some psyllium husk
laxative, to the tune of one full tablespoon, which adds 12 grams of
carbohydrates. The cheese will give me 8 more grams of carbohydrates
for a grand total, in my first week, of:

12 (laxative) + 12 (milk) + 8 (cheese) + 2 (protein powder) = 34 grams
of carbyhydrates

While protein will be at:

0 (laxative) + 8 (milk) + 64 (cheese) + 23(powder) = 95 grams of
protein

I'll swill all the Kool-Aid I can handle, sweetened with Splenda,
which means less than 1 gram of carbohydrates per half-gallon.

Yes, this diet composition is essentially a low-carbohydrate, protein-
sparing fast.  I'm worried about potassium amounts and am going out
today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
see anything else that could kill me?
em - 11 Nov 2007 01:10 GMT
> THE FIRST DAY
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
> see anything else that could kill me?

Sounds kind of off-the-wall to me. Protein sparing is usually done under a
doctor's supervision. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think a doctor put
you on a cheese, kool-aid and laxative diet.

Two things: first, I'm rooting for you. Second, if you haven't already, read
a decent low-carb book like Protein Power or Atkins.

It looks to me like you're going way out on a limb with a weird diet that
you probably can't maintain. If you're serious about this, and I think you
are, take a few days and come up with a reasonable plan that you can follow
and go from there.

Here are some links you may find of interest:

Stillman's
http://www.lowcarb.org/stillman.html

Atkin's Induction
http://www.atkins.com/articles/atkins-phases/phase-one/acceptable-foods/

protein sparing:
http://www.drblythe.com/weightloss/chptr6txt.htm

Just my .015

Mike
Eric - 11 Nov 2007 05:56 GMT
> Sounds kind of off-the-wall to me. Protein sparing is usually done under a
> doctor's supervision. I'm just guessing here, but I don't think a doctor put
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is the beauty of a newsgroup, isn't it?

I've read Atkins cover-to-cover at least fifteen times. I've looked up
Atkins's quoted research in Lancet and the BMJ, and he's telling the
truth. And I have never, never managed to lose weight slowly and
patiently on some nice-n-easy "take it off in 7982 weeks, lose a pound
every fifteen weeks, we go slow" diet. I sincerely doubt I can:
there's something about that whole mentality that screams "masochist."

Nope: the only way that has ever worked for me to actually lose weight
is to dive in and fight the food demon head-on. Well-meaning attempts
to regulate weight loss at half-speed and three-quarters speed seem to
require the same amount of willpower for me as the off-the-wall diet I
am describing.

A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a
less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely
new, a balanced weight-loss program that leads me by the hand down the
road to weight loss bit-by-bit, come on, honey, you can do it, rah,
rah, rah...

Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.

This is the beauty of a newsgroup, isn't it?
Jackie Patti - 11 Nov 2007 11:03 GMT
> Nope: the only way that has ever worked for me to actually lose weight
> is to dive in and fight the food demon head-on. Well-meaning attempts
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
> insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

OK, that's worked in the past to take the weight off.

But if you're having to do it again, maybe what you need is not so much
to learn how to take the weight off as how to KEEP it off.

Your current plan doesn't seem to address that issue at all.  Skip the
kasier buns until you're lean, eat them again until you're fat, etc.
That's the yo-yo thing, and all studies show that's less healthy than
just staying fat in the first place - you'd be better off not dieting at
all.

> Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
> sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.

The advantage to losing it slow is you learn how to eat for the rest of
your life.

But hey, go fast if you want to - it's your body.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Hollywood - 11 Nov 2007 17:19 GMT
> A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
> insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

<Snipped to the Core of the Matter>

I'm not gonna comment on the cheese, Kool-Aid, and laxative
diet. It's probably not sustainable, was clearly not designed to be
so, and will therefore, not work in the long term.

The thing that I'm going to talk to is more about the mentality.
Since you are here, are NC-17/X rated in your posting, and
getting the ++ on your scale, I am going to suggest that you
probably don't have much of an idea of what works for you.

Yes, this pound a day, every day, approach has moved the
scale for you in the past, but equally clearly, it has also moved
the scale back up, and probably with interest, once you moved
on from it. Clearly, that's not what you really want, otherwise,
you'd just do it, and not be on usenet. There's the beauty of
usenet.

IFF: you are serious about making real changes and ending
your double life (whatever: Billy Joel is right about the Stranger,
all lyrics, all situations), you are going to have to find something
sustainable. That is, by necessity, going to be slower. Probably
1/7th of the speed of a pound a day, every day. Maybe slower.
But that's the price you pay for the worthwhile changes. On the
upside, it's probably gonna be easier than doing flaxseed,
kool-aid (I cannot think of many things more useless to consume)
and cheese (I love cheese, but 8 oz a day would make the flax
something like a necessity, and lots of people stall on cheese
anyway).

At any rate, I wish you the best. I'm sorry this may be harsh. But
what you're doing to yourself, both food wise and mentality wise is
probably not the most useful course for you.
Roger Zoul - 12 Nov 2007 03:59 GMT
"Eric" <Eric.Blackway@gmail.com> wrote in message >
> A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
> insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.

Apparently, this has NOT worked for you.

> Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a
> less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely
> new, a balanced weight-loss program that leads me by the hand down the
> road to weight loss bit-by-bit, come on, honey, you can do it, rah,
> rah, rah...

If you do the same thing you've always done, you'll get the same thing you
always got.

> Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
> sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.

Well, your way doesn't seem to be working for you, Eric.
Doug Freyburger - 12 Nov 2007 16:01 GMT
> > A pound a day, every day, is the only way it's ever worked for me,
> > insane as is sounds. I suspect I'm not alone, however.
>
> Apparently, this has NOT worked for you.

Of course it hasn't.  Aiming for the physically impossible never
does work.  Stored fat is 3500-4000 calories per pound.  Human
metabolism is typically closer to half that, so losing a pound a
day means you need to excerise so fiercely you more than
double your caloric output for the day and somehow avoid
starvation mode.  Who runs daily marathons to be able to lose
fat that fast?

> > Now, maybe that is my problem. Maybe I need to learn how to accept a
> > less-enthusiastic approach to dieting. Maybe I need something entirely
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> If you do the same thing you've always done, you'll get the same thing you
> always got.

The all-or-nothing approach yields nothing well in excess of
90% of the time.

> > Or maybe the whole mentality that says "lose it slow" is a crock of
> > sh.t, fed by doctors frightened by lawyers in sharp suits.
>
> Well, your way doesn't seem to be working for you, Eric.

Guaranteed regain.  Doing radical stuff is SO tempting, but it
never keeps the weight off.
BlueBrooke - 11 Nov 2007 01:41 GMT
>THE FIRST DAY
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>today to get my hands on a serious supplement, but does anyone else
>see anything else that could kill me?

First -- welcome to the group.  

Second -- what plan is it that you're following?  Why don't you just
eat real food?  

Signature

BlueBrooke
254/225/135

Eric - 11 Nov 2007 05:55 GMT
> First -- welcome to the group.  
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> --
> BlueBrooke

Thank you for your welcome.

In answer to your question, because real food doesn't work for me, and
it never has. I like real food, and I tend to eat more of it than is
good for me.

But Jesus Christ, who can afford "real food" that would taste
acceptable on a low-carb diet? Once you get into making low-carb
sauces and pounding down low-carb meals from the animal kingdom...holy
damn, the price tag mounts up! We're talking at least six dollars a
day if you try to eat 2000 calories in meat and fish with some level
of variety. That adds up to some serious bread, doesn't it?

Speaking of bread, once I get into "real food" and not food that
convinces me I'm on a diet when I'm on a diet, the separation in my
head between "I'm eating real food" and "I'm on a diet" quickly gets
blurry, especially in the first stages of a low-carb diet. Somehow,
when I'm consuming a cheesy medium-rare half-pound patty on a plate,
it reminds me that I'm missing a decent kaiser roll.

Putting it on some ultra-special preservative-reeking soya cracker-
wannabe ain't gonna cut it at that point. (That might fall under
someone's else's definition of "real food," but not mine.)

Being on an easy diet, for me, is kind of like being on an easy plan
to quit smoking. I've done it three times, and it does get easier each
time, but the second I start trying to make the experience anything
less than a clear separation between me and the puffies, everything
goes to hell.

And judging from the fact that going by the accepted wisdom provided
by dieting gurus means that 95% of people who lose weight on diets
simply regain it again in five years, I think that there might be some
logic to what I say. As far as I know, there is very little research
that actually targets "what losing it fast" and "losing it slow"
means. If you look at studies, an element of exercise is always
involved, as well as an element of behavioral modification. My
conclusion based on the suspicious regularity of these recurring
elements in the advice that we all tend to suck up like mother's milk
is that there is really very little difference in the failure rates of
those who lose it fast and those who lose it slow, as long as
carefully planned elements of both behavioral modification and
exercise exists. To prove that, of course, we would have to have
access to raw data, and that data is firmly in the control of the
powers that be, the ones that have all the money and the power, and
preach to all of us about how to live life on their terms.

Based on these observations, I think it's far more likely that the
reason why losing weight is so frowned upon by nutritionists is that
you very simply can't tell people of all ages and backgrounds that
they should lose weight fast. Some older individual is going to kill
himself, and it's very easy for even one good lawsuit  to establish
liability and wipe out the profitability of any diet plan.

In general, the same holds true for all marketed exercise programs,
and even things like the US Navy's delayed entrance program. To be
frank, a forty-year-old could probably follow the preparation plan our
salty dogs lay out in their DEP manual to get ready for boot camp.
Since the military doesn't recruit anyone above 28, well, you can see
the absurd logic behind detailing a TEN WEEK program that takes an
average 20-something from walking 40 minutes a day 4 times a week to
running 30 minutes three times a week.

The idiot-fix is in. The Navy's primary goal in telling you to go as
slowly as that is to AVOID GETTING SUED, not to actually help you.

Atkins proved to my satisfaction long ago that the American Medical
Association is most definitely in the pocket of well-organized
multinational agribusiness, so I have a lot of suspicion when it comes
to following any kind of accepted wisdom in dieting. If it's been
documented, if it's been proven and confirmed, I'll try it, but start
taking steps away from that, and the next thing you know, you're
playing games with yourself that you can live with just a few
cigarettes (oops, I mean dietary slip-ups) a week, and then you're
back where you started.

But Atkins is in the same boat as the rest of them. One poor bastard
dies and their spouse runs to a well-funded and well-connected
personal injury lawyer, and poor Dr. Atkins is B-R-O-K-E.

So I'm trying to eat about a thousand calories a day, with a less than
20% caloric intake from carbohydrates. I'm a bit worried about
vitamins, but as to keeping this going for something like three months
and dropping ninety pounds...now that's a challenge worth fighting
for. This is, with the simple addition of more protein, the Benoit-
study dietary ketosis diet detailed in Atkins. A peer-evaluated,
proven plan under the unflinching terms of the scientific method, as
Atkins goes on to show and I have scoured old medical journals to
confirm.

Now the issue of losing weight, when it comes to me, seems to be food
addiction before any other. Not genes, nor willpower, but addiction.
And the addict, caught in the throes of addiction, does not make
positive choices on a day-to-day basis, which is more or less the only
reason why he is typically called an "addict" and not a "role model."
The addict's brain does not function solely according to the dictates
of logic and reason, just like everyone else's, but in an overt way
that leads to a lack of socioeconomic success and personal
fulfillment, as defined by our society.

I have seen this pattern of behavior over and over in myself, and I'd
be willing to bet anyone reading a low-carb newsgroup has as well.
When it comes to addiction, be it physical or psychological, there
comes a point where you simply HAVE TO STOP. The commitment you make
to stop is not about logic. It is about a furious "NO!" thrown out
into the everlasting, uncaring ether that exists despite you and your
puny self, a determination to not give in and do what is easy but
choose instead what is right.

And that, in its turn, could be said to be the essence of faith,
commitment, or even love.

And that, for me, leads to the inescapable conclusion that I really
have to stop enjoying food, enjoying eating all I want, and
relentlessly rearrange up some of the wiring in my head to make things
lead to different places. I have tried other times in the past, and
half-finished the job, but the food demon has returned to climb once
again on my back and sink his relentless claws into my shoulders. I am
quite certain that the food demon will kill me, unless I finally
manage to throw him off and wrestle him into eternal submission.

Once again, thank you for your welcome.
Jackie Patti - 11 Nov 2007 10:58 GMT
> But Jesus Christ, who can afford "real food" that would taste
> acceptable on a low-carb diet? Once you get into making low-carb
> sauces and pounding down low-carb meals from the animal kingdom...holy
> damn, the price tag mounts up! We're talking at least six dollars a
> day if you try to eat 2000 calories in meat and fish with some level
> of variety. That adds up to some serious bread, doesn't it?

You can get lots more variety in at a lower price tag if you use eggs as
a major source of protein.  You can cook eggs a bazillion different ways.

Also, you add a LOT of variety with veggies too.  There's a lot more
choices in nonstarchy vegetables than there are in meats.

> Speaking of bread, once I get into "real food" and not food that
> convinces me I'm on a diet when I'm on a diet, the separation in my
> head between "I'm eating real food" and "I'm on a diet" quickly gets
> blurry, especially in the first stages of a low-carb diet. Somehow,
> when I'm consuming a cheesy medium-rare half-pound patty on a plate,
> it reminds me that I'm missing a decent kaiser roll.

At the beginning, that makes sense.  When I do induction, I eat pretty
much nothing but meat and eggs to get me over the hump.

But if you're going to low-carb for life, you need to think in terms of
real, every-day food you can live with long term.

Kaiser rolls never come back into it for me; the burger is *permanently*
bunless.

>  Based on these observations, I think it's far more likely that the
> reason why losing weight is so frowned upon by nutritionists is that
> you very simply can't tell people of all ages and backgrounds that
> they should lose weight fast. Some older individual is going to kill
> himself, and it's very easy for even one good lawsuit  to establish
> liability and wipe out the profitability of any diet plan.

You don't have to be old though.  Google for "rabbit starvation".
Anyone can suffer serious deficiency diseases.

> So I'm trying to eat about a thousand calories a day, with a less than
> 20% caloric intake from carbohydrates. I'm a bit worried about
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Atkins goes on to show and I have scoured old medical journals to
> confirm.

A multivitmain is decent insurance whether you're dieting or not.  And
fish oil tablets if you don't eat fish regularly.

It really depends on how you do it... and the studies don't show
differences between someone who eats the same stuff, just small portions
of the carby stuff, vs. people who replace the starches with vegetables.

Personally, I eat so much more veggies low-carbing that I don't think of
it as a less nutritious way to eat, but a more nutritious way.

> Now the issue of losing weight, when it comes to me, seems to be food
> addiction before any other. Not genes, nor willpower, but addiction.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> that leads to a lack of socioeconomic success and personal
> fulfillment, as defined by our society.

I don't find food addictive except carbs.  Once past the
induction-stage, cravings don't hit much.  During the withdrawal
process, I will overeat a lot, but not once the cravings subside.

The only real exception is nuts and nut butters; I can very easily
over-do those calorically.  Strangely, something like almond flour,
which is the in-between state from whole nuts to nut butters, doesn't
spark the same sort of tendency to overeat.

> I have seen this pattern of behavior over and over in myself, and I'd
> be willing to bet anyone reading a low-carb newsgroup has as well.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> puny self, a determination to not give in and do what is easy but
> choose instead what is right.

The thing is, you can cut carbs to nada, but you can't cut food that
way.  It's not like smoking or alcoholism, where going cold turkey works
cause you do have to eat.

The trick is to eat stuff that doesn't kickstart the addiction.

For me, bread and pasta are ALWAYS going to cause problems, regardless
of how long I go without them or how much weight I lose.

I just don't ever binge on tuna and salad.  It doesn't happen.

You have to find out what foods work that way for yourself.

> And that, for me, leads to the inescapable conclusion that I really
> have to stop enjoying food, enjoying eating all I want, and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> quite certain that the food demon will kill me, unless I finally
> manage to throw him off and wrestle him into eternal submission.

IMO, an awful lot of it is biochemistry.

The type of hunger that kicks in when I eat carby foods is painful and
can wake me from a dead sleep, it takes a LOT of willpower to overcome that.

Whereas the hunger I experience on low-carb is such a minor feeling that
I often get distracted and forget to eat all day.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

BlueBrooke - 11 Nov 2007 18:19 GMT
>> First -- welcome to the group.  
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>wannabe ain't gonna cut it at that point. (That might fall under
>someone's else's definition of "real food," but not mine.)

Hi, Eric --

To be quite frank, I've snipped the rest of your post because I just
couldn't process it (and now that I'm ready to send this one, I'm sure
there are many that won't get through mine, either <g>) .  That's my
problem, not your's.  But here's what I have to say about what I could
understand:  

I don't think $6.00 a day for food is excessive.  You can spend that
grabbing a "value meal" for lunch.  And if you think I'm referring to
"some ultra-special preservative-reeking soya cracker-wannabe" as
"real food" then, well, I'm not.  

Here's my idea of "real food" --

Breakfast:  Decaf coffee with Splenda and cream, an egg scramble
(sausage, bacon or ham with a couple of eggs, some sauteed (sp?) green
pepper and onion, a couple of eggs and some cheese).  Sometimes, if
I'm feeling "fancy" I make it into an omelette and have some
cantalope.

Lunch:  "Big Salad" (tuna, ham or grilled chicken, lots of leafy green
lettuce, avocado, tomato, green onions, ranch dressing and grated
cheese -- sometimes some "real" bacon bits on there, too.  

Dinner:  Grilled chicken, or a grilled burger patty, or a steak --
"real" protein -- steamed, stir fried or roasted veggies (broccoli,
cauliflower, cabbage or brussels sprouts), a garden salad and maybe
some sugar-free Jell-O (sometimes with a dab of "real" whipped cream).
Sometimes I skip breakfast, sometimes I don't.  This is just an
"average" day.  

If I feel like raiding the fridge, I have Jello-O there if I want
something cool and sweet.  I also keep beef stick or summer sausage
and a block of extra-sharp cheddar in the meat bin and slice off a
piece for a quick snack.  Planter's has some neet nut mixes now
(pistachios, cashews, almonds, etc.), and I could definitely over-eat
those.  So my trick is to put a serving in a custard dish to nibble on
-- I don't take the can with me when I sit down to watch my "must-see"
TV.  

I mostly shop the "outside" of the store, where the "real" meat and
fresh veggies are.  I also keep my freezer stocked with "real" meat
and bags of frozen veggies -- sometimes my snack is a bowl of steamed
broccoli with butter, salt and pepper.  

There's nothing magical here -- it's just "real" food.  When I come
home from the grocery store, most of what I buy goes in the fridge --
I don't have a lot of boxes and cans to put away.  At least once a
month, the checker makes a comment about how I must "really like to
cook" because of what's going in the bags, but as you can see, pretty
much everything on my menu is just simple food.  And there's really no
time committment -- I can spend 30 minutes cooking dinner or 30
minutes driving to Taco Bell and back -- and spend more money.  

And the best part is that it's tasty and I don't feel like I need a
nap everytime I eat.  I look forward to my meals, and I also look
forward to not feeling sluggy afterwards.  

My husband and teenage son don't have a weight problem and they aren't
diabetic -- but they eat this way, too.  None of feel "deprived."  I
keep some things in the house that they really like, but I don't eat,
such as oatmeal, whole grain bread, fresh fruit.  I don't get any
complaints.  My hubby is an OTR truck driver and looks forward to
coming home and eating "real food" -- which is easier to find in truck
stops than it used to be, but it's still hard to eat on the road.  As
a matter of fact, I gained most of my weight when I was pregnant with
my son, and the rest of it while I was driving a truck.  

My son is almost 6'5" (he likes to tell people he's 6'5", but we
measured him the other day and he's "just" 6'4-3/4" <g>) and size 13
shoe (ack!) and still growing.  He's lean and healthy and knows what
to eat and how to cook it -- that's more than I can say for a lot of
kids *and* adults these days.  Just a few weeks ago, after a *long*
day in town, he was "starving" and it's a 45 minute drive to get home.
So I asked him if he wanted to stop for fast food -- and he told me no
-- it makes him feel sick!  

If he goes off to college and balloons from stuffing himself on pizza,
chips and soda (which we don't have in the house, by the way -- I
drink water and he drinks whole-fat milk and water), it won't be
because he's been taught that way.  And hopefully, if that does
happen, he'll know what to do about it and actually do it.  But it
won't be because he's been raised to believe dinner comes from boxes
and bags.  

He has a healthy attitude about food, doesn't eat when he's not
hungry, and I have plenty of healthy snacks in the fridge for him when
he wants to graze.  

The typical dinner fare where we live is fried catfish, beans, corn
bread and canned corn.  They wouldn't know what to do with a head of
lettuce if it dropped in their lap.  My son often tells me he's tired
and draggy after eating at a friends house and I know what he means.
My mom always made sure we left the house in the morning with a "good
breakfast" of Cheerios or Wheaties -- and I was tired and dragging
before I even left the house.  

I can spend $10.00 for each of us to eat out at a sit-down restaurant,
or I can spend $10.00 on a package of boneless, skinless chicken
breasts that will feed us for a week.  

Low-carb hasn't been expensive for us because what we do buy goes a
long way.  That $3.00 box of cereal disappears in two days because
there's no nutritional value in it -- you might as well eat the box.
You can spray all the vitamins and minerals on a piece of wood -- that
doesn't make it "food."  

I know I'm on a ramble here, but I get so tired of people saying LC is
expensive and doesn't work when they haven't *done* LC.  You said in
another post that you'd read the Atkins book, I believe, fifteen times
-- but I didn't see where you'd actually used the program -- perhaps
that was later in your post.  Sometimes it takes more than analysis
based on a (perhaps faulty) paradigm to determine if something is
effective.  

I wish you all the best in the program that you've decided to
implement, but I'm not optomistic that you've found a long-term
solution to your problem(s).  I will be truly happy for you when you
show my assumption to be wrong.  

Signature

BlueBrooke
254/225/135

Eric - 11 Nov 2007 18:40 GMT
MY OFF-THE-WALL DIET, AS DOCUMENTED BY ATKINS

November 11, 2007

Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat  40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two
days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I
remember why I hate digital scales.

I finally went down to my basement and unearthed my copy of Atkins.

It's:

_Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution_
Robert C. Atkins
Avon Books, NY 1992
First Avon printing: January 1997
ISBN 0-380-72739-3

Back to the Benoit study:

Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat
diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher,
but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure,
it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried
to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?), my
carbohydrate intake will drop to exactly 10 grams (cheese, 8 grams and
protein powder, 2 grams). My caloric intake will be more or less
exactly right on target, although I'll be eating a lot less fat and a
lot more protein. This corrects (maybe) the problem detailed in the
footnote on page 234, that "the diet is deficient in protein and is
therefore not suitable for long-term use, unless amino acid
supplements are given periodically."

Will the performance of the diet significantly change due to the fact
that I am ingesting less fat and more protein? We are in virgin
territory here. I'm a bit worried, but not much.

Will I be unable to maintain my potassium levels without significant
supplementation? In the Benoit ketogenic study (page 70), dieters did,
but I am not all that optimistic.

And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie
beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to
make two quarts, the Splenda costs 20 cents and the unsweetened mix
packet goes for 24 cents. When a 20-oz bottle of spring water costs as
much as a 20-oz bottle of soda, and if you buy by the two-or-three
liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think
outside the box.

Don't get me wrong, I love diet soda and I'll suck down plenty on this
diet, but when 64 ounces of Kool-Aid costs less than ten ounces of the
more socially acceptable bottle of spring water or diet soda, I've
gotta go with my childish urges and reach for the smiling pitcher.

I should also mention that for the last seven years, I've been abroad
and there was no Kool-Aid to be had where I was, sugar-free or
otherwise. My current wave of enthusiasm for the stuff must be
examined in that light to be appreciated as something other than a
plain and simple Peter-Pan neurosis.

So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about
my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn
day for a long time.

I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion
control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this
diet. It is also a part of my experience that  hunger is indeed a
great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I
mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran
dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry.

My diet, as I described it at first, just looks off-the-wall because
Atkins and the rest of the low-carb crowd tries to seduce you with
breathy descriptions of delicious, rich foods loaded in protein and
fat, steering your attention away from the annoying, inconvenient fact
that no matter what you do, if you've been fat for a long time, you
can't eat until you feel full and lose weight. Metabolic advantage,
boundless ketogenic energy supply, that's all little more than bull,
in my experience. The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I
have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue
on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low
calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good
bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its
attitude regarding portion size.

*     *     *

em (Mike), I've been reading your posts elsewhere the group and the
gentle suggestions you've been getting to try to help you cut down on
the backsliding, by focusing you on reducing your caloric intake. Like
you, if I just count carbs and count on my stabilizing blood sugar and
appetite to regulate my food intake (as Atkins promises will happen),
I'm dead in the water. I can easily eat three pounds of meat, wait
three hours, and eat three more pounds. Zero carbs, huh? No weight
loss!

What's really cute is how Atkins tries to deal with the fact that he's
got to convince people like you and me to stop shoveling it in, people
whose appetites do not become controllable without a definite exercise
of will and behavioral modification. The book abounds with exhortions
to "eat all you want!" and "enjoy!" and fairy tales about natural
insulin appetite regulators in his 15,000 clinical patients, so it's
easy to miss the one and only place where Atkins deals with poor
gluttons like me, on page 231 ("For you the most effective strategy
might be to say to yourself , 'I'll eat just enough that I'm
physically free of intolerable hunger signals, and no more.'").

Personally, I have no idea what an "intolerable hunger signal" is, and
I'm sitting here writing this post having eaten half-a-pound of cheese
today and having drunk a cup of milk, and nothing else. I will tell
you that at the moment I am better prepared psychologically to
tolerate the hunger signals that I feel right now than the many times
I've woken up ravenous after having eaten a large pot of mac-and-
cheese the night before. Hunger is a largely relative, psychosomatic
phenomenon in the compulsive overeater, because the wiring upstairs is
more screwed up than Atkins or anyone else wants to admit.

I am damned certain that if I start eating right now, and I have a
large amount of food available to me, I will continue to consume it
until it is all gone or I feel full to the point of bursting. Atkins's
promise that I will feel "satiated" and continue to lose weight (page
126) means nothing to me, and I feel comfortable assuming that this
giant hole in the notion that a low-carb intake leads automatically to
a self-regulating appetite has been something of a sticking point for
many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and-
more-denied voyage to Slenderville.
Jim - 11 Nov 2007 22:35 GMT
> Like
> you, if I just count carbs and count on my stabilizing blood sugar and
> appetite to regulate my food intake (as Atkins promises will happen),
> I'm dead in the water. I can easily eat three pounds of meat, wait
> three hours, and eat three more pounds. Zero carbs, huh? No weight
> loss!

Probably the lack of fat for its satiation character would be the
leading cause of this enormous meat eating.

Personally, if I ate that much meat, I'd want to have a club lying
around with knife and fork being optional.

> What's really cute is how Atkins tries to deal with the fact that he's
> got to convince people like you and me to stop shoveling it in, people
> whose appetites do not become controllable without a definite exercise
> of will and behavioral modification.

He tells you about 8 or 9 times to "Eat till satisfied, not satiated".
It isn't a minor point in his more recent plans.

Your meat binges above are eating till satiation.

> The book abounds with exhortions
> to "eat all you want!" and "enjoy!" and fairy tales about natural
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Personally, I have no idea what an "intolerable hunger signal" is,

Eating 6 pound of meat per day just might qualify, or at least serve as
an alternate intrepretation of the expression.

> and
> I'm sitting here writing this post having eaten half-a-pound of cheese
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> large amount of food available to me, I will continue to consume it
> until it is all gone or I feel full to the point of bursting.

This is eating till satiated, not eating till satisfied.

> Atkins's
> promise that I will feel "satiated" and continue to lose weight (page
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and-
> more-denied voyage to Slenderville.

Eating a fat filled dessert is more satisfying than eating a sweet one
with modest carbohydrates.

You probably need to listen to someone like Roger talk about the role of
fats in the low carb diet.  Atkins didn't really do a good job of
discussing this.  Doug will have his own position to tell you.

Again, a fat filled dessert is more satisfying to me than a sweet one.
Eric - 12 Nov 2007 03:50 GMT
Hey everyone, thank you for your responses. There have been some
wonderfully helpful, intelligent, supportive, constructively-critical
individuals writing in this thread, far more than I could have hoped.

I don't have time to respond to every post here, but the two most
helpful suggestions must be recognized. Many thanks must go to Jackie
Patti both for her eggs suggestion (I'll be following that soon!) and
her Salt-Lite recommendation (330 mg of Potassium per serving!). We
disagree on our biochemistry versus psychosomatic understanding of
hunger, but I have my reasons for that.

Hollywood, my NC-17 comment was for people to understand that all
kinds of things might pop up in this thread that they might not want
their children to see. It was not an attempt to titillate, nor will I
go out of my way to be offensive. There are 3000+ members in this
group and some of the things that I'm going to share I wouldn't tell
my own children about, if I had any. And you were not at all harsh:
honesty is much appreciated.

FOB, damn straight, no scale can properly determine bodyfat content,
as I am sure we will quickly see as I continue to post my readings. I
like water quite a bit, so I might just ditch the Kool-Aid, but let me
get my fill, for now, OK? It's a lot easier swilling lots of bug juice
than lots of water: I've got one last little pleasure to ingest every
day...don't take it away!

There is some health and eating history in my family that I really
should share now, at the beginning of this thread. My father had a
weight problem. When my dad was in his thirties, he started taking a
drug called Micronaise for his high blood pressure. Ten years later,
he was diagnosed with diabetes, which seems now to be a common side
effect of the drug (who knew?). He hung on for 20 more years, but
succumbed at 63, disabled, half-blind, and prone to almost any
infection under the sun -- it was pneumonia (during the SARS epidemic,
and I have my suspicions, but no country in Europe wanted to admit
that their birds were contaminated, so there was no investigation was
done, and there was no way we could make one happen) that put him in a
coma and a hospital infection that carried him off.

My brother is overweight and has high blood pressure. Unlike me, he
only put on weight when he went away to college. He's spent the last
12 years trying to lose the hundred plus pounds he put on, dieting the
low-carb way. My mother is overweight, but that's only been since her
30s, and her own hypertension didn't manifest until her 50s. One of my
grandmothers was chronically obese all her life (on my father's side).
The other (mother's side) is still alive, hypertensive, and has been
overweight since at least her 40s. One of my grandfathers died in his
sleep at 45 from a stroke, before I was born (mother's side, he was
not overweight). My grandfather on my father's side was also not
overweight: he was a semi-professional soccer player with no
significant health problems until bone cancer got him at 73.

So, in response to those who have mentioned it, yes, there is indeed a
clear and present history of Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure
in my family. On the other hand, some of these people lived in a
country and a time when there wasn't much in the way of health care,
and I really don't have all the answers. The urban area where my
father's father lived is quickly becoming a recognized and infamous
cancer cluster, usually ascribed to the high-voltage power lines that
run 20 feet from the balconies on the streets. Let me re-qualify that:
the lines themselves run at eye level 20 feet from the balconies --
I'm not talking about the base of the posts that hold them up. In the
years that I also lived there, I could easily hear the lines humming
at night. There is very little doubt in my mind that this contributed
to my grandfather's early death, but of course, I can't prove it.

So, with this in mind, good night, and thank you all for contributing.
I'll get up tomorrow, check my stats, finish tomorrow's article, and
post away.
FOB - 12 Nov 2007 00:47 GMT
No scale can accurately determine your bodyfat content.

As for something to drink, nothing beats water, straight from the tap.

| MY OFF-THE-WALL DIET, AS DOCUMENTED BY ATKINS
|
[quoted text clipped - 122 lines]
| many of you in your often interrupted, often-postponed, thrice-and-
| more-denied voyage to Slenderville.
Hollywood - 13 Nov 2007 21:12 GMT
> Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat  40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two
> days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I
> remember why I hate digital scales.

You've kicked probably 6.5 lbs of fluid tied to glycogen stored in
your
liver. It's nice to see the scale move, but let's not get mental here.
Wait
until the end of week 2, then start counting the weight lost.

> Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat
> diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher,
> but if I cut out the psyllium husk laxative (as an initial measure,
> it's also recommended by Atkins, on page 273) and the milk (ever tried
> to drink vanilla-flavored protein powder mixed with water?)

Uhm, if the purpose is to ditch real food, you can't really complain
about taste, right? Lots of people slug down whey and water (self
included). It takes getting used to, but if you're in the "dump real
food
and get into diet mentality" why not go there?

> And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie
> beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> liter you'll have flat soda in a New York minute, you've got to think
> outside the box.

Think in the box first. Dump the kool-aid and the splenda. Now, you're
cost free. Get a 1L water bottle (you might own one already) and fill
it
with, get ready, tap water. It's like kool-aid+splenda only it
contains
fewer chemicals. A lot fewer depending on where your tap is.

> So the only thing that is not "according to Atkins," as it were, about
> my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn
> day for a long time.

Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a
difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than
infalible.

> I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion
> control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this
> diet. It is also a part of my experience that  hunger is indeed a
> great equalizer when you're eating so few calories every day. And as I
> mentioned in my first post, in the developed world, only the veteran
> dieter ever truly finds out what it means to be hungry.

I submit that only the veteran dieter understands how to diet
unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've
done and you will get what you've always gotten.

> The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I
> have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue
> on a strict low-carb, low calory diet than on a strict high-carb, low
> calory diet. Secondly, a strict low-carb diet does clamp down a good
> bit on hunger and causes your mouth and stomach to re-evaluate its
> attitude regarding portion size.

Your diet is wacky because:
1- you need a laxative to move the food out.
2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food
3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect.
4- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
5- You've done it before and yet are having to diet again.
I repeated 4 because it's really essential that you get this in.

If you do the same junk you've always done, you will get the same
junk you've always gotten.

I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days,
you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not
going to shed 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories and
running
3 miles a day. That's reality. It sucks.
Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of
cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue
to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time,
so you're going to regain 90 lbs of fat, possibly in 75 days, and
you're
going to be worse off for the effort. You might even gain 100 or 120
lbs
of fat, possibly in 75 days, and then you'll be really happy, I guess.

The ultimate question is not one of losing. It's one of maintaining
your
losses. If you're going to be there in 90 days (you're not, but let's
assume for the sake of discussion), what will you be doing in February
to make sure you're not going back on Cheese, Flax and Kool-Aid
in June?
Eric - 14 Nov 2007 06:10 GMT
> > Morning weigh-in: 273.4, fat  40.5%, water 45.0%. Supposedly, in two
> > days, I've lost 6.6 pounds and my fat content has risen 2%. Now I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Wait
> until the end of week 2, then start counting the weight lost.

You have a point.

> > Page 70: Details 1000-calorie, 10 grams of carbohydrate, high-fat
> > diet. My own carbyhydrate intake at the moment is quite a bit higher,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> food
> and get into diet mentality" why not go there?

> > And as for my Kool-Aid consumption, well, it's the cheapest no-calorie
> > beverage (also recommended by Atkins, page 237) out there! I mean, to
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> > my diet is its lack of variety. I will be eating...cheese...every damn
> > day for a long time.

You've got a point.

> Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
> during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
> matter daily. So, you're not according to Atkins. Like it makes a
> difference. DANDR isn't the Bible, and even that's less than
> infalible.

Uhm, (no...I'm not going to indulge in your brand of sarcasm tonight,
Hollywood. Maybe another time.)

Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done
to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting.

"The beautiful fact about fasting and the Atkins diet is that one can
use the /Induction/ diet to creat a maximal outpouring of FMS and
then, without an interruption, switch into fasting without going
through the hunger/discomfort that characterizes the first two days of
a fast." (Page 233)

Flip to the next page and have a look at the information. I've already
cited the footnote in an earlier post.

If you're willing to suffer the hunger pangs, there is no restriction
offered against doing it. No, I'm not getting into BDK the easy way,
through the Induction diet, but I am doing much the same thing.

Furthermore, drastic cuts in food intake in the first stages of low
calory dieting seem to provide the most fodder for much of the
controversy surrounding the practice. Dr. Willard Krehl's opposition
to dieting (pg. 71) is Atkins's reference for that, and if you look at
the German studies (pg. 73). The study I remember best, Pilkington's
published in Lancet (pg. 67), makes Atkins's case even better. He does
"blithely eliminate the first 12 days of the low-carbohydrate from
their mathematics). If I remember correctly, the side-by-side charts
all start twelve days later and the fact that the first twelve days
are missing are referred to in a footnote.

As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is
the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line
research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed
that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere,
don't you?

> > I submit that the regularity of food intake, the absolute portion
> > control, may be an important part of my being able to stay on this
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've
> done and you will get what you've always gotten.

I've never tried what I'm trying now.

And I understand that my writing style seems to offend you. I do use
terms like "I submit" in my post because it doesn't sound as
pretentious to me as it does to you. Fine. I'll try to tone it down,
but it's hard sometimes, for reasons I'll probably discuss someday.

> > The main reason I'm going with low carb is simple: I
> > have seen firsthand that, over time, a dieter loses less muscle tissue
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> If you do the same junk you've always done, you will get the same
> junk you've always gotten.

And now, here we are again. You're being overtly offensive, Hollywood,
and it gets worse throughout your post. I'm trying hard to be nice.

I've already explained the use of a laxative in the initial stages of
the diet (as Atkins recommends) and I've managed to cut that out
already.

On the cheese thing, I can understand why you would feel that eating
half-a-pound of cheese a day is wacky. I find some of the Fat Fast
recommendation listed in Atkins equally wacky, e.g.: "five handfuls of
macadamia nuts (one ounce each), per day, or the equivalent." (pg.
235)

I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've
never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get
around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and
choking it down can be more than a bit nasty.

If I have to do it again, well, Eye of the Tiger!

At some point, I promise I will explain my reason for doing it better,
OK? For now, let me just say that it serves four purposes, rigorous
portion control, behavioral modification, easy access, and low cost.

And finally, the Kool-Aid. Damn, the heat is on the Kool-Aid. By the
way, I don't do much in the way of variety. Tropical Punch all the way
for me. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, give me some time,
OK?

> I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days,
> you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not
> going to shed 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories and
> running
> 3 miles a day. That's reality. It sucks.

> Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of
> cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> lbs
> of fat, possibly in 75 days, and then you'll be really happy, I guess.

OK, the "you'll be really happy" stuff is getting to me, Hollywood. I
don't know why you cannot communicate your convictions without trying
to insult the person you're addressing. Maybe you had a bad day at
work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you
on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility?

I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest.
But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic
diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5
pounds total (page 70).

Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
necessarily a high fat diet.

It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test
subject...

It's a bit more complicated than all that, but let's let it be for
now.

> The ultimate question is not one of losing. It's one of maintaining
> your
> losses. If you're going to be there in 90 days (you're not, but let's
> assume for the sake of discussion), what will you be doing in February
> to make sure you're not going back on Cheese, Flax and Kool-Aid
> in June?

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. How about I focus on losing it
now and start working on my maintenance diet about 20 pounds out?

And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the
matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused
the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if
your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a
voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low-
carb dieting.
Jackie Patti - 14 Nov 2007 09:46 GMT
> Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done
> to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting.

Well, not really.  The Fat Fast is not part of the normal Atkins
programs; it's intended for the small minority of folks who don't get
into ketosis from induction.

Atkins uses induction to get you into OWL, OWL to get you to
pre-maintenance and then finally maintenance.  That's the main plan.

I can give a nice long list of criticisms of Atkins; I don't like his
book much.  But the basic plan is pretty damned good if you work the
stages, though I doubt most folks need all the supplements he insists on
or the caffeine restrictions.

Still, it is a plan for *life* in which you start with the basic
necessary foods, protein/fat sources and vegetables, and add to it as
tolerated.  Can't go too far wrong with that basic plan.

> If you're willing to suffer the hunger pangs, there is no restriction
> offered against doing it. No, I'm not getting into BDK the easy way,
> through the Induction diet, but I am doing much the same thing.

The objection is to you calling it Atkins.

I've read Atkins, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, CAD, Zone, Bernstein,
one of Lyle's books, the FAQ of this newsgroup.

I use the basic principle of putting some fat-containing protein on my
plate and filling the rest of the plate with veggies, but am not
strictly doing any of the official diets and don't call what I'm doing
after any of those program names.  I do my own home-grown version of
low-carb.

> I've already explained the use of a laxative in the initial stages of
> the diet (as Atkins recommends) and I've managed to cut that out
> already.

I don't see any problem with using fiber supplements myself.  Sure,
vegetables are highly preferred as a fiber source, what with the
micronutrients and such, but fiber isn't exactly a *laxative* in the
sense that milk of magnesia is.  Fiber is a noraml food component.

> I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've
> never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get
> around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and
> choking it down can be more than a bit nasty.

I don't care for whey as much, but have no problem knocking down milk
isolate protein.  It's not nasty at all.  It's pretty much just powdered
milk without the lactose.  I usually add cream to my protein shakes, so
they really *are* just milk without sugar.

I make a mocha shake with coffee and cocoa, a strawberry shake with
frozen berries, a pudding shake with a quarter package of sugar-free
instant pudding (a *bit* carby), or just flavor the suckers up with a
DaVinci syrup.

I don't find them any nastier than milkshakes made with milk.

> OK, the "you'll be really happy" stuff is getting to me, Hollywood. I
> don't know why you cannot communicate your convictions without trying
> to insult the person you're addressing. Maybe you had a bad day at
> work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you
> on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility?

D00d, if you think this is hostile, well... you ain't been around Usenet
much.  He's being a bit sarcastic at ya, but it's not a flamewar or
anything.

> Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
> the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
> essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
> carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
> necessarily a high fat diet.

You want to look into it a bit more.  This is the deal: some amount of
protein (over 50%) can convert to glucose.  A smaller amount of fat
(around 10%) can convert to glucose.

There's specific ratios of carb, protein and fat that make a diet
ketogenic - these have been well-defined for diets for epilectic
children.  Fat having the lowest conversion rate helps the ratios out a
lot more than protein does; in fact, you can overdo protein and raise bg
from that.

Low-carb *and* low-fat is not appetite-suppressing.  Google on "rabbit
starvation" - people subsisting on lean meat don't do well.

Course, you're eating whole eggs and an amazing amount of cheese, so
you're not doing low-fat anyways.

I find it a bit perplexing that you find a 1/2 lb cheese per day to be a
frugal way to go though.  Cheese is pretty much my most expensive
protein source short of something like scallops or the occasional really
nice steak.  Hamburger or chicken is a lot cheaper than cheese.

> Thank you for the benefit of the doubt. How about I focus on losing it
> now and start working on my maintenance diet about 20 pounds out?

Maintenance is not trivial; diets that have maintenance built-in do
better than diets that postpone that.

I was just reading Lyle say that the other day over on his forum... the
whole reason he recommends people doing his PSMF eat whole foods is
cause it's a lot easier to use that as a basis for a permanent diet than
if you just lived on protein shakes or egg whites or such.

I'd again suggest his book if you really want to do a fast weight loss
deal; it's basically still a fad diet, but a lot more logical than most.
   If you really want to cut the calories to the bone and lose as fast
as possible; his plan makes sense to me.

> And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the
> matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused
> the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if
> your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a
> voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low-
> carb dieting.

Seriously d00d, get over it - or you'll freak when you get really flamed.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Hollywood - 14 Nov 2007 14:29 GMT
> > Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
> > during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Uhm, (no...I'm not going to indulge in your brand of sarcasm tonight,
> Hollywood. Maybe another time.)

> Atkins uses the Induction diet to get into the Fat Fast. This is done
> to avoid the hunger pangs of fasting.

My reading (out of date, I'm a protein power life plan person) is that
fat
fast is what you do when induction and ongoing weight loss don't work
for you. I'd submit that you haven't actually gone through the
Induction,
much less an attempt at OWL, so with Robert Atkins as your
cardiologist/weight loss doctor, you wouldn't be where you are. I will
submit page 271 in the 2002 10th printing paperback (I guess I don't
have the same one as you afterall, though it's a 1992 copyright as
well),
under the heading "None of the Above?" That's where the fat fast is
is discussed. After we've discussed extreme metabolic resistance,
a highly disrupted insulin metabolism, prescription drugs, hormone
therapy, anti-depressants of the SSRI category, NSAIDS, Beta blockers,
diurectics, hundreds of other drugs (unnamed at press), thyroid
hormones
and candida as possible explanations for the weight not coming off.
After
all of that, THEN you do the fat fast.

And that gets back to the core issue. Your goal is to lose very large
very
quickly. That's really, well, what everyone wants. It tends not to
happen
for very many. And those who do lose very fast have to maintain or
progressively cut back further on their diets to maintain their
losses.
There's no return to thrice weekly fast food gorging. So, this
mentality of
"I lose fast or I don't lose" is, well, not constructive for the long
term. I'm
sorry, Eric. Someone had to tell you. Without dancing.

> As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is
> the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line
> research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed
> that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere,
> don't you?

You can start and stop there, frozen in perpetuity. Or, you can start
and continue. Your version of DANDR is 15+ years old. A lot of the
science is a lot better understood now. Some isn't. Protein Power
is only 12 years old. Protein Power Life Plan, only 7. Men's Health
Targeted Nutrition Tactics, a mere 2 months old. You can start
somewhere or you can start somewhere.

> > I submit that only the veteran dieter understands how to diet
> > unsuccesfully by any long term measure. Keep doing what you've
> > done and you will get what you've always gotten.
>
> I've never tried what I'm trying now.

What I meant was the "lose fast or not at all" mentality. So, you
haven't done the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid diet before. Perhaps
you've done the master cleanse.

> > Your diet is wacky because:
> > 2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> macadamia nuts (one ounce each), per day, or the equivalent." (pg.
> 235)

As I've established, by starting with the fat fast, you're essentially
cutting to the end of the plan, without working the steps to see if
that's
warranted. It is, your experiment. And perhaps it's the right one. Who
am I to say otherwise? But what's the point? If it's to feed the all
or
nothing mentality, you've essentially already lost the 95% lottery.

> I find your ability to slug down whey and water unusual, myself. I've
> never done it, and at the first opportunity, I found a way to get
> around it. You've got to admit, mixing milk protein in with water and
> choking it down can be more than a bit nasty.

Nitrean vanilla + water = not awful upon accomodation.
Same + 1 TBS DaVinci Syrup = more useful combination
Core + 1/2 cup berries belnded in = pretty decent
Core + 1/2 cup ice, stick blended = not too bad either.

If you go to a gym, and talk to the guys lifting, a lot of them drink
the water and whey. The milk is a lot of fast sugar, not terribly
useful. Maybe heavy cream instead, but I don't need anything that
filling.

> At some point, I promise I will explain my reason for doing it better,
> OK? For now, let me just say that it serves four purposes, rigorous
> portion control, behavioral modification, easy access, and low cost.

Let's break it down:
Portion control: Good, but limited long term value due to the limited
variety of the approach.
Behavior Mod: And the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid modification serves
how in the big picture of your life?
Ease: Fine.
Low Cost: The "high cost of low prices" extends beyond discussions
of the societal value of Wal*Mart.

> And finally, the Kool-Aid. Damn, the heat is on the Kool-Aid. By the
> way, I don't do much in the way of variety. Tropical Punch all the way
> for me. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, give me some time,
> OK?

It's your life. I wouldn't do that, but I'm sure I do stuff you
wouldn't do
either.

> > I'm gonna kick some reality here. If you lose 90 lbs in 90 days,
> > you're going to be losing muscle in there with the fat. You are not
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> work. But what did I say to you? Is the fact that I disagree with you
> on some issues so difficult to discuss without hostility?

Many people have put this to you very nicely. It clearly hasn't sunk.
I
tried a different tact. I'm sorry. But really, maximize your happiness
in
the long term.

> I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest.
> But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic
> diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5
> pounds total (page 70).

First: when you cite Benoit like gospel, you're citing a
study with 7 subjects. Seven. But forget Benoit. Let's use logic.
Calorie math is junk. But still, you're holding 3500-4000 kcal per
lb of fat. You're looking to dump 90 lbs of fat, so, 315,000 kcals
of deficit/expenditure, at the bottom end. We figure you were
eating 3000 kcals per day when you weren't dieting, and now
you're at 1000. So, 2K/day. 3 miles isn't 1500 kcals.
http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm
If you're cranking 10 minute miles, an hour gets you maybe
1200. And if you're cranking 10 minute miles, and running
3 miles, you're not doing an hour. So, you're short on your
pound a day. Never mind the metabolism ramp down or
the loss of thermic effect. I'm sorry, a seven person study
doesn't get you there.

Last thing on Benoit vs. you. 10 days. That's what Benoit's
7 subjects (or maybe 3-4 subjects) did. Not a long term
adjustment. So, you can make projections on what would
have happened on day 11 or 15 or 20, but the further out
you get, well, your ability to predict goes down. Remember,
your metabolism makes adjustments. Conserves resources.
Adapts to it's environment.

> Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
> the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
> essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
> carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
> necessarily a high fat diet.

I think you can duplicate Benoit's 14.5 lbs loss in 10 days. I
would quibble with their finding in that it doesn't seem to factor
liver glycogen dumping, but the study is from before Woodstock.

> It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test
> subject...

You're only 6 behind Benoit. But it's your science experiment.

> And please don't attack me again, especially without looking at the
> matter more carefully? I've got a feeling that something else caused
> the insulting tone of this post than what it might be taken to be, if
> your last post is anything to go by. I could use your help, even as a
> voice of caution, especially since you obviously know a lot about low-
> carb dieting.

I've voiced caution. You are welcome to throw it to the wind. As I
explained, I tried a different tact to make an impression on you.
Maybe
it worked, maybe not.

Run your experiment, but always be open to making adjustments. And,
for the sake of sustainability, of beating the 95% problem, I think
you're
gonna have to.
Doug Freyburger - 14 Nov 2007 17:38 GMT
> > > Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
> > > during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> After
> all of that, THEN you do the fat fast.

Right.  What Eric is doing does include a tiny part of material
from the Atkins books but it isn't Atkins.  I strongly object to
calling wierd made up plans "Atkins".  Call it the "Eric Blackway:
Weight-Loss Program" as in the subject line and stop calling it
Atkins and that objection goes away.

People making up extreme diets like all bacon double cheese
burgers with no bun and then incorrectly calling it Atkins is a
major source of bad press.  Don't call what you're doing Atkins
unless you're following the directions, and you give no hint you
have even considered the long list of requirements for the Fat
Fast.  BTW, folks use the Fat Fast to bust stalls and though
that's technically an abuse it works just fine - You haven't been
on enough days to consider stalls.

> And that gets back to the core issue. Your goal is to lose very large
> very
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> term. I'm
> sorry, Eric. Someone had to tell you. Without dancing.

Several have repeated it.  My version was all-or-nothing tends to
result in nothing.

> > As far as DANDR goes, I am not saying that _New Diet Revolution_ is
> > the Bible. I have dial-up access, limited time to spare for on-line
> > research, and I know the book pretty well. A no point have I claimed
> > that this book is the Bible, but you've got to start from somewhere,
> > don't you?

Yet you're citing the book while ignoring the requirements for the
Fat Fast.  That means you came in with a preconceived notion of
what you want to do and you're using the book as justification.
That's fine if you don't call what you're doing Atkins, but it is
certainly not following the directions for what Atkins actually says
to do.

> > I've never tried what I'm trying now.

That's fine.  Has it occured to you that you aren't the first and
that the regulars on ASDLC are reporting to you the results of
the bunch of people who have tried the Fat Fast or variations
before you started?  Your body, your science experiment
and all that but don't pretend that the regulars are writing from
your lack of on-topic experience.  If you really believe you will
do what others have done before you and you will get different
results, then go ahead and believe it.  You discussed that in
another post.  But don't also dismiss the fact that regulars are
basing their repsonses on prior experience.

> What I meant was the "lose fast or not at all" mentality. So, you
> haven't done the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid diet before. Perhaps
> you've done the master cleanse.
>
> > > Your diet is wacky because:
> > > 2- you eat half a pound of cheese as your main food

The Fat Fast as described in the book suggests cream cheese.

> > > 3- Kool Aid seems integral to the variety aspect.

And completely switching away from it is extreme.  Serving
sizes tend to be selected to just barely qualify to round down
to zero so checking the serving size and calling each serving
0.4 or 0.5 grams is the way to go.  Then decide if you want
to continue using the kool-aid, knowing that lower carb isn't
better for loss rates (consider the original study had a group
eating 1000 calories of 90% protein who didn't lose as well
and they were just as low in carbs as the faster losing 90%
fat group, thus lower carb isn't all there is too it).

> As I've established, by starting with the fat fast, you're essentially
> cutting to the end of the plan, without working the steps to see if
> that's warranted.

And that's why I object to calling it Atkins.  And don't imagine
that Eric is the first to come to ASDLC trying something like this.

> Behavior Mod: And the Cheese-Laxative-Kool-aid modification serves
> how in the big picture of your life?

This was discussed in another post.  Starting extremist and
then moving towards less extreme, the real Atkins plan as it
actually appears in the book with 14 days of Induction, moving
on to OWL and so on thorugh the 4 phases starts less extreme
and moves towards much less extreme.  Does anyone really
imgine that Dr A failed to try extremist approaches?  His plan as
it is in the book is what it is because it works better longer for
more than more extreme approaches.

> > > Even if you did lose 90 lbs of fat in 90 days eating 1000 calories of
> > > cheese and running 3 miles a day, you are not going to continue
> > > to eat cheese and run 3 miles a day for any extended period of time,

Rate of ketosis changes after about two weeks.  It's extremely
predictable.  Folks see dark sticks early, then light beige sticks
in week 3 and think something is wrong.  Nope, that's what happens
to almost everyone.  Roughly two weeks in the body adjusts and
around the time the water runs out the level of ketosis starts to
closely match the metabolic burn rate.  And loss rates become
much harder to sustain.

> > I know that the losing fat versus muscle issue is difficult to digest.
> > But pull away from your anger and look at the research.The ketogenic
> > diet Benoit used made his dieters lose 14 pounds of fat, out of 14.5
> > pounds total (page 70).

While the mechanism behind lean sparing for high fat low carb is
not well known, the fact of it is well known to the ASDLC regulars.

> First: when you cite Benoit like gospel, you're citing a
> study with 7 subjects. Seven. But forget Benoit. Let's use logic.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> your metabolism makes adjustments. Conserves resources.
> Adapts to it's environment.

It's one of many reasons that OWL starts day 15.

> > Perhaps it is impossible, on the diet I am working on, to duplicate
> > the fat-loss success of that diet, although everything in Atkins is
> > essentially to the theory that a ketogenic diet restricted in
> > carbohydrates is what causes BDK and fat stores to dissolve, not
> > necessarily a high fat diet.

The original fat fast diet had the 90% protein folks lose less
than the 90% fat folks, and the 90% protein folks lost more
lean.  So yes the high fat aspect is a part of the deal.  It's the
reason folks who don't get into ketosis at 20 grams per day
get put on the Fat Fast not on the Protein Fast.

> > It's worth testing, isn't it? And since I have only one test
> > subject...
>
> You're only 6 behind Benoit. But it's your science experiment.

And there's the history of folks in the past who tried the same.
Eric gets to repeat there errors by ignoring that the ASDLC
regulars use their lessons, or he gets to learn from thier
experiences.  So far, no learning from their experiences.
Eric - 15 Nov 2007 05:21 GMT
> > > > Uhm, my edition of the book (same one you have) suggests that
> > > > during the first two weeks, you must consume 2+1 serves of vegetable
[quoted text clipped - 193 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, thank you for your input.
Eric - 15 Nov 2007 04:26 GMT
<snip>

Now that was classy, and I appreciate it very much.
Hollywood - 15 Nov 2007 19:08 GMT
> <snip>
>
> Now that was classy, and I appreciate it very much.

You're welcome.

As with probably everyone in this thread, I wish you success in
your attempt to lose weight permanently. I hope that your program
works well and is everything you need it to be. We've shared
concerns about your approach, but ultimately, you're gonna do
what you're gonna do and we all hope for the best.
Eric - 16 Nov 2007 03:48 GMT
We had some movement on the scale today:
268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5%

FOB pointed out earlier in this thread that no scale exists that can
provide consistent fat percentage readings. Yet another bit of proof
for that.

There were two exceptional responses yesterday that I have to study
carefully. In case anyone's trying to contact me personally, well, I
haven't even opened any of the e-mail that goes to this address since
the day I set up the gmail account.

The worst of the process of entering ketosis is over, it seems. I've
also switched my feeding times, so-called because I wouldn't strip the
word "eat" of its inherent dignity and vitality. Even the expression
"eat me" involves less contempt than what I'm doing now.

This is how the schedule goes:

In the mornings I eat absolutely nothing and just drink coffee, which
is far less shocking in Europe than it is here, but the acids are
wearing on my stomach.

At 2:00 pm, I eat my cheese, today the most disgusting variety
available to me, an unbelievably inferior grade of mild cheddar sold
at my local supermarket for 1.69 per 8 oz. bar as the "value" brand.
The funny thing is that the other stuff sold as the store brand and
the standard brand are not much better, while the top-line non-deli/
non-specialty brand goes for three bucks for a 10 oz bar and is still
nothing to write home about.

On the other hand, if I go to Aldi, I get a slightly better 8 oz. bar
of cheese than the supermarket's standard brand and pay 1.79 for it.
I'm buying by the bar every day as a psychological trick to keep the
cupboard at home bare, so that getting more food will involve taking
the second walk of the day in the fall weather. I really, really
should go to my supermarket and buy crappy mild cheddar every day of
the week, but it's a 2.5 mile walk there-and-back-again and I haven't
the stomach to make the trek for cheese you couldn't bait rat-traps
with.

At 8:00 pm, I eat my four large-grade eggs, hard-boiled and liberally
seasoned with Lite Salt. I cannot stand hard-boiled eggs and so I can
buy a dozen of them every third trip. That is one food that I will
never binge on.

I used to do it backwards: cheese at 8 pm, protein powder/eggs at 2.
This works much better and helps cut down on the hunger.

Whenever I've done food-intake calory restriction in the past, the
pattern has always been exactly the same as regards sticking to
mealtimes. I cannot afford to cheat even one minute on them. If I do,
my diet is as good as over the second time I do it. I've kept records.

Even now, after I get done feeding on my cheese or my eggs, my mind
will spend a good ten minutes throwing up fantasies of eating as much
as I want. Everything else just goes away as the lower mind torments
the higher mind to ease that trembling, crawling NEED.

My head plays the same games on me that it used to do with cigarettes
when I was quitting. What's one cigarette? You can handle just ONE
cigarette. And really, lots of people just have a few cigarettes a
day, and health risks show that is isn't that bad at all, and you
don't have to worryaboutjustonesohaveonehaveoneHAVEONE!HAVEONE!....and
you shut the voice up and leave it to slaver on in the corners of your
mind. The cravings just have to win once, but you have to win every
time, and every minor victory is just a thimbleful more of shining
resolve, while every defeat is a barrel of black despair.

If I eat that bar of cheese at 1:59 pm, it's almost as bad
psychologically as eating it at 9:30 am, because even a miniscule
lapse like that turns it into an sadistic opportunity for the food
demon to torment me. As long as I have that psychological edge of one
minute, and I have the experience of having gained that edge day after
day behind me, I can keep the demon from hooking a claw inside my
chest and tearing at the heart of me.

That's why I threw out that bit about backsliding, Mike. In the end,
justifying my seemingly mad scheme to all of you is just an end to a
means, a weapon in this struggle against what I really do believe is a
demon that possesses me as real as any in history or speculation.

Negative energy has never really won anything for me in the end, but
right now, the challenge that I will post these numbers is going far
to helping make me what I have to become, what I've become to continue
in other struggles. I can't really explain it well, but it involves
become void of emotion or reason or any other purpose save fighting
on, not even because I think I will win, but as a matter of pure
reflex and habit.

So to date, it's six days and 14.4 pounds, but it would be much more
fair to say that the diet really began three days ago and I've lost
two pounds. Let's see if I can make it four days of dieting.

And that's another little trick. Whenever I look way down the road on
anything I'm trying to do or way back, I never take myself seriously.
I can be as full of sh.t as anyone, but tomorrow's numbers are much
more important to me right now than next year's. Which is why I really
don't want to even dream about maintenance diets until I'm much closer
to the end of this round with the food demon.
em - 16 Nov 2007 05:49 GMT
> We had some movement on the scale today:
> 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5%

The first number's the scale, where do you get the second two?
Eric - 16 Nov 2007 11:02 GMT
> > We had some movement on the scale today:
> > 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5%
>
> The first number's the scale, where do you get the second two?

Oh, I have this computerized digital scale that I went out and paid
beaucoup bucks for, instead of investing in a quality manual product.
But over in Europe, I had what could be considered a really nice Braun
scale. It was what I call "a happy scale" because it consistently gave
me readings about twelve kilos below my actual weight. But it was all
I had, so I just used it for day-to-day purposes and then went down to
a pharmacy in another municipality for my bi-monthly readings.

This time, I figured that since I've never had an expensive digital
scale, I might as well see what they could do. So I walked down to Bed
and Bath and was confronted by an array from low-end to high-end. I
picked out something in the upper range, paid my money, and am taking
my chances.

I can't find the box, but it apparently shoots a mild shock through
one foot and by calculating how long the juice takes it get to the
other foot and how it changes as it goes through the body, it can tell
you what your body fat percentage and water percentages are. Since you
have to program your height and age, I immediately thought it had
something more to do with preprogrammed actuarial tables than pricey
electrodes and sensors, but I'm a suspicious bastard in general.

But I bought it and brought it home, and it does seem to be reasonably
accurate weight-wise, so I'm using it. As far as the other numbers go,
I'll take them with a grain of Lite Salt.
Hollywood - 16 Nov 2007 13:20 GMT
> We had some movement on the scale today:
> 268.6/Fat:38.0%/Water Mass 45.5%

Congrats, although at last read you were 38% fat and 45.5% water.
Of course, muscle contains a lot of water. As does everything else.
So, I dunno how useful the water number is if it's not just
free water like those tied