 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004Stalled -argghh
Hi all, I'm in the second week of induction and things have been going well for me with a loss of 14 lbs - though I've been stalled the last few days. This puzzles me because I've been keeping the ketostix purple to the tune of "light" to "moderate" on the bottle color chart. Sins? Well, I don't do any aspartame or artificial sweeteners. I do have a few thin slices of hard salami (imported - shows dextrose as an ingredient) and (hard) cheese each day. I'm eating some leafy greens and a cup of steamed broccoli most days. I eat maybe a cup of sauerkraut on some days (cabbage and salt only ingredients listed) and that hasn't seemed to mess with the ketosis. I've always taken pleasure in my coffee habit, and have about 12oz STRONG coffee each morning, to which I add about 2 Tbs. of half and half. Other than what is mentioned here I take in no dairy. My menu is mostly eggs, beef, pork, chicken. I've cut back on suspected hidden carbs such as Worcestershire, sweetened vinegars etc. I go to the gym every or every other day and do 30-40 *hard* minutes on the aerobic equipment. As I said, the stix indicate I'm in ketosis. But the lbs. just aren't dropping lately. Opinions? I know this post reflects a great lack of knowledge about the Adkins process and WOL, any links to FAQ's and other info sources are much appreciated. Mike :: Opinions? Yeah....quit sweating it....keep doing what you're doing...weight loss doesn't happen on a time table that you can easily predict...there are many variables that factor into what you see on the scale....just keep on keeping on... >Yeah....quit sweating it....keep doing what you're doing...weight loss >doesn't happen on a time table that you can easily predict...there are many >variables that factor into what you see on the scale....just keep on keeping >on... When my weight loss stalled (and a couple of days is not a stall), I would notice that I still lost inches. If you measured yourself at the start, measure again and see if there is a difference. Yvonne || Yeah....quit sweating it....keep doing what you're doing...weight loss || doesn't happen on a time table that you can easily predict...there are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | Yvonne Yep. This is a very normal part of low-carbing, the mini-plateau a couple of weeks into it. Keep doing what you've been doing, and just have a little patience while your body catches up to the canges you're making to your metabolism, and gets used to the shift your making in its fuel source.  SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo Your doing great! You need to expect some stalls while your body catches up to the new weight adjustments! I assume your reading the Adkins New revolution? sticking to the rules of induction? Drinking your 64 oz of water? getting some exercise? taking your supplements? then great! You've lost your initial water weight with some fat and from now on it will be slower. Don't skip your veggie carbs. It's all in the book. You will soon learn your weight loss/stall pattern, and learn to stick it out till the next loss begins. As a older gal, in phase 2 I only see my loss in a few day span a month- so now I won't call the rest of my month a stall as long as I'm still sticking to my plan. I'm averaging a 4 lb loss a month and am getting into clothes that I haven't worn in 10 years! My weight loss graph looks like a stair case, not a down hill. Keep it up, you will learn about yourself. We are all different. SignatureDiane Atkins since 12/4/2003 234/208/150 5"8 > Hi all, > I'm in the second week of induction and things have been going well for me [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mike My suggestion would be to STOP weighing yourself every day...... Also..if you do HARD exercise at the gym, you're probably losing fat, but adding muscle mass, which will result in you not showing any "loss". But seriously, get off the daily scale...you're just going to obsess.... Most scales are accurate to +/- 1 or 2 lbs, and unless you're on the Ghandi diet you wont see much "authentic" movement in 1 days time. > Hi all, > I'm in the second week of induction and things have been going well for me [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mike >Hi all, >I'm in the second week of induction and things have been going well for me >with a loss of 14 lbs - though I've been stalled the last few days. >This puzzles me because I've been keeping the ketostix purple to the tune of >"light" to "moderate" on the bottle color chart. Days are not a stall, weeks may constitute a stall. The body is not a simple machine where simple calories/carbs in = weight loss. There are a lot of things going on in your body. Follow the diet as directed and begin phase 2, OWL. FWIW--I don't think the ketostix are of value, they seem to confuse and worry people more than they help. You can make them darker simply by drinking less water and concentrating urine. They will likely show ketosis first thing in the morning for most people(even not dieting--it is used with pregnant women as a meter to judge if they are eating enough). Typical person has some ketosis going on during an 8 hour sleep period since your last meal was 9-14 hours before you woke up. As you navigate through OWL, you may experiences bounces, daily gains. My days gaining were offset by larger losses in later days. If you worry about each day you may lose sight of the long term. I weigh every day, but I do it to understand factors in my eventual weight loss. FOr instance I gained weight, then was stable then suddenly lost two pound in a day. Because I track everything, I know it had nothing to do with my activity level and was not because of a variation of a diet, but because I didn't have a bowel movement for over three days. These are all things people get frustrated over when they weigh daily but don't try to understand the whole picture. That's why it is suggested you weigh yourself once a month and take measurements so you aren't discouraged by daily variations. >I know this post reflects a great lack of knowledge about the Adkins process >and WOL, any links to FAQ's and other info sources are much appreciated. http://atkins.com/ is free and discusses the entire four phases-- (Phase 1-Induction) http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-325810.html (Phase 2-Ongoing Weight Loss) http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-693999.html (Phase 3-Pre-Maintenance) http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-652756.html (Phase 4-Maintenance) http://atkins.com/Archive/2001/12/15-973878.html DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since 1/12/2004 I agree the scale will play with your mind, I go into the gym felling great weigh in and if it is higher then expected , i just want to go home, if it is lower I will do twice as much... I only weigh on saturday morning after my workout before breakfast and after I have a BM!!! then thats my weight for the week until next saturday. ( dont kid yourself a BM after a prime rib is Lbs.) >dont kid yourself a BM after a prime rib is Lbs.) No it is not. On average an entire day's meals amount to only about a half-pound. I've measured the weight difference after a bowel movement and it is much smaller than people think. Water waste is much greater since a cup of water is half-a-pound. (8 cups a day, 4 lbs) DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 :: PKripper@mikebuffshouse.com wrote: :: ::: dont kid yourself a BM after a prime rib is Lbs.) :: No it is not. On average an entire day's meals amount to only about a :: half-pound. ARe you sure about that.? those 2pd folks swear people can control weight by limiting the weight of their food to two pounds per day. I've measured the weight difference after a bowel :: movement and it is much smaller than people think. Water waste is :: much greater since a cup of water is half-a-pound. (8 cups a day, 4 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: 350/321/Mar-315/200 :: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 >:: PKripper@mikebuffshouse.com wrote: >:: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ARe you sure about that.? those 2pd folks swear people can control weight by >limiting the weight of their food to two pounds per day. Roger that sounds like you're baiting the trolls! You know better than that. > I've measured the weight difference after a bowel >:: movement and it is much smaller than people think. Water waste is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >:: 350/321/Mar-315/200 >:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > Hi all, > I'm in the second week of induction and things have been going well for me [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Opinions? calories count. being in ketosis doesn't mean you're losing bodyfat. not losing for "the last few days" is not a stall, it's normal during weightloss: we don't lose measurable weight on a daily basis, we do it over weeks and months and sometimes years. aerobics are not nearly as beneficial as lifting weights. || calories count. being in ketosis doesn't mean you're losing bodyfat. | not losing for "the last few days" is not a stall, it's normal during | weightloss: we don't lose measurable weight on a daily basis, we do it | over weeks and months and sometimes years. QOCAJ, I agree with this completely. Although I'm a defender (and loose follower) of the Atkins plan, one of the things he never really explains clearly is that after his "induction" phase is over, calories do count. He basically gives permission to "pig out" on induction (eat as much as you want). This seems to work for a week or two as the body's glycogen stores are depleted -- along with the water attached to them -- because of the reduced carbs, . There's dramatic initial weight loss. But then if one keeps eating and eating, regardless of how low the carbs are, the calories outweigh the benefits of the reduced carbs and weight loss stops. I think Dr. Atkins just assumed that because eating a high-fat/reduced-carbohydrate diet tends to reduce hunger, that everyone will automaticallty eat less. Some people have to be told to eat less. My first time around on a low-carb plan nobody pointed it out to me, and after initial weight loss I kept eating too large a quantity of low-carb foods and lost frustratingly slowly with many, many stalls and plateaus. This time I've been limiting calories (quantity) as well as carbs, without going hungry or being unsatiated; and I've been losing very steadily now for three months at a rate of about 3 pounds per week. By limiting calories also, I've lost as much weight in 12 weeks as it took me over a year to lose last time! Of course I have to add this is IMHO, and YMMV. I know that a lot of people recommend *increasing* calories when weight loss stalls. This theory never made very much sense to me, although if it works for them, great!. To me though it's like recommending eating more cheese to someone who's constipated. :-) SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > I know that a lot of people recommend *increasing* calories when weight >loss stalls. This theory never made very much sense to me, although if it >works for them, great!. To me though it's like recommending eating more >cheese to someone who's constipated. LOL! I know some people DO need to increase their calories. Although I don't see many of them on this board. The "Breakfast was a cup of coffee, lunch was a side salad with no dressing, and dinner was half a chicken breast. I'm doing Atkins, why am I not losing!? This diet doesn't work!" people. (who, yes, aren't doing Atkins at all, but think they are because, see, they ate a piece of meat!) LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/223/140 & hubby- 310/244/180 > I'm in the second week of induction Then you're not stalled. Reality check. Words have to actually mean something. If people were allowed to define stall on their own, everyone would be stalled at all time. So stall *must* have a formal defintion. I don't even have to read farther into your post that you don't even slightly approaching 4+ weeks in ketosis without a new low and without a lot inch. Get off the scale. If you're going to freak out at perfectly normal realistic success, you shouldn't even *own* a scale. OFF! > Sins? Massively unrealistic time scale. That's it as far as sins go. > My menu is mostly eggs, beef, pork, chicken. Wait a minute. Where are the mandatory veggies? > Opinions? Stop owning a scale. You should not step on the scale AT ALL during Induction. >Hi all, >I'm in the second week of induction and things have been going well for me >with a loss of 14 lbs - though I've been stalled the last few days. >This puzzles me because I've been keeping the ketostix purple to the tune of >"light" to "moderate" on the bottle color chart. You've lost well over a pound a day, and are shocked that you don't for a couple? Oh come on! You're in for a hard time after induction when your loss really slows. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/223/140 & hubby- 310/244/180 Sincere thanks for all the responses. I was going to make a simple spreadsheet to track food exercise, weight etc, but I'm sure there has to be something good on the 'net. Links? Thanks again, Mike >Sincere thanks for all the responses. I was going to make a simple >spreadsheet to track food exercise, weight etc, but I'm sure there has to be >something good on the 'net. > >Links? http://www.fitday.com/ >Thanks again, > >Mike DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > >Sincere thanks for all the responses. I was going to make a simple > >spreadsheet to track food exercise, weight etc, but I'm sure there has to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.fitday.com/ Wow, awesome site. Yesterdays totals: Cals: 1464 Fat: 102 Carbs: 25 (more than I thought) Protien: 113 Question: With excercise, is it advisable to try for a target of 2 lbs lost per week? Mike > > >Sincere thanks for all the responses. I was going to make a simple > > >spreadsheet to track food exercise, weight etc, but I'm sure there has to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Mike PS: I'm 5'6", 240 lbs. 41 YO. >> Yesterdays totals: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >PS: I'm 5'6", 240 lbs. 41 YO. I'm guessing your final weight should be between 125 and 155 depending upon your frame size. With 85-115 pounds still to loose you may see that until you weight come down. With 120-150 lbs to lose I'm dropping about 3.5lbs per weeks. As my weight decreases so should my weekly loss. The important thing is to find your CCLL and lose weight at the best rate. With a lot of exercise you may have to have carb-up days to give you the energy to sustain large workouts. Others here have discussed such things. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 ::::: Sincere thanks for all the responses. I was going to make a ::::: simple spreadsheet to track food exercise, weight etc, but I'm [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] :: :: PS: I'm 5'6", 240 lbs. 41 YO. Yes, somehwere between 1 and 2 lbs per week is good goal until you get closer to where you need to be. Then it will probaby become harder to keep it up... > Question: With excercise, is it advisable to try for a target of 2 lbs lost > per week? On a philosophical point, it is NEVER advisable to try for any particular loss rate. Try for taking ACTIONS. Track the result of those actions over a period of months and adjust your actions. But as far as loss rates go, bodies have their own agenda. You simply can't decide to lose and have it happen, so trying for a loss rate is aiming in the wrong direction. But on to expectations. Studies of people who managed to keep their loss more than 5 years all show that most who keep it off lost at 1 per week. So the ideal loss rate is 1 per week. All definitions of fast and slow must take that into account. Anything over 1 is fast. No one likes this fact because everyone dreams of a magic bullet. There aren't any magic bullets. And keeping it off for 5 years is extremely important. What good will it do to lose 100 this year, and gain 101 next year? Fat is 3500-4000 calories per pound. Human metabolism ranges widely in the 1000-3000 calorie per day range. Practically speaking, if your diet system works by calories it's physically impossible to expect to lose more than 2 pounds of fat per week ever. So 2 per week is a great ideal to hope for. But Atkins doesn't work by calories alone. Find even one person who is losing faster than 2 per week and you establish that. At any one time there are more than one person on ASDLC losing faster than 2 per week. It happens, but it's rare. If you ever lose more than 2 per week, celebrate the fact that you have a low "metabolic resistance" to be able to have that happen, but also fuss that it implies the are also more suseptible to regain than most. Read about the 4 phases and Maintenance. On to how much you have to lose and what it means. Folks with 100+ to lose lose it faster. Two or more per week is common. Folks with under 100 to lose might lose it at the fastest possible 2 per week, might at the ideal rate of 1. Folks with only 10 can't lose fast. More to lose faster to lose, less to lose, slower to lose. Since you have 100+ to lose, don't be surprised at 2, but be thrilled at any week above that. And never think that the time scale for loss is actually week to week. It's month to month. A few weeks without a new low isn't a stall. It is a part of how the world works. Loss is really averaged over a month. >> Question: With excercise, is it advisable to try for a target of 2 lbs lost >> per week? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >rate is 1 per week. All definitions of fast and slow must take that into >account. Anything over 1 is fast. Doug, I wonder how much of this is just a statistics thing. I'm sure by the time I reach a reasonable weight(years from now) the average weight loss will be close to 1/week, despite the fact that I'm losing 3.5 lbs/week for 8 weeks now. Using a decreasing formula I'm estimating that the soonest I could hit 200 lbs(the top of the range for my body) would be 96 weeks. (150 lbs/96 wks = 1.56 lbs a week) The next ten pounds may take 30+ weeks.(1.26 lbs/week overall) And if the people weren't 100+ overweight the average weight loss would naturally be lower, not because it was a healthy weight loss rate but because they had less to lose to start with. >No one likes this fact because everyone >dreams of a magic bullet. There aren't any magic bullets. And keeping it [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >It's month to month. A few weeks without a new low isn't a stall. It >is a part of how the world works. Loss is really averaged over a month. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > >On a philosophical point, it is NEVER advisable to try for any particular > >loss rate. Try for taking ACTIONS. Track the result of those actions [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > estimating that the soonest I could hit 200 lbs(the top of the range > for my body) would be 96 weeks. (150 lbs/96 wks = 1.56 lbs a week) Good point. Studies of folks who already lost and managed to keep it off are inherrently retroactive to find common factors, so they don't address methods used. But studies of folks who already lost and managed to keep it off are also about people extremely far into their plan. An average loss rate of 1 per week (4ish per month really) could well have meant at the theoretical max of 2 per week in most of the way, down to 1 per week near the end, and 1 per month for the last few but still long enough to pull the average down to 1. The conventional wisdom runs like this - The reason folks who only lost 1 per week were able to *keep* it off is they made a change that is both mild and possible to sustain forever. But is that convential wisdom wrong? It doesn't address methods at all, just whether an approach is sustainable. Ah well, at least it supports moving on to the later phases of plans like DANDR, SBD and PP that start out radical and then moderate later. It also supports milder plans like CAD that many find sustainable from day one. So my conclusion is that your objection is completely valid. It shows that the conventional wisdom is very likely to be wrong about actual loss rates because of what the word "average" means and the fact that the last pounds take much longer than the first. But it also pushes folks to moderate their plan to make it sustainable and that's an unmixed good. It also gives folks a longer perscpective that 1 per week is 50 per year and that's a lot. Losing at 3.5 per week, you're one of the people that prove that low carbing is not merely about calorie reduction. Some must have changed in your metabolism to get it to drop fat at 2000 calories per day. Most dieters see their BMR slowly go down as their bodies hoard stored fat to survive the famine, but *your* body is spending stored fat like you're surrounded by food and your BMR has gone up. Talk about metabolic edge. The metabolic edge may not happen to everyone, and it may happen to no one in their last 20 pounds, but it sure is happening to you. The fun thing about pronouncements with "everyone" and "only" in them is they are subject to disproof with a counterexample and you are one of those counterexamples. Doctors who claim that the metabolic edge is a falsehood need to have you waved under their nose. Doctors who claim that the only mechanism of low carbing is reduced caloric intake need to have you waved under their nose. Sure, sure, their claim is true for a lot of people and probably for everyone below a certain amount to lose, but their grand pronouncements are nonsense. >> >On a philosophical point, it is NEVER advisable to try for any particular >> >loss rate. Try for taking ACTIONS. Track the result of those actions [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >The metabolic edge may not happen to everyone, and it may happen to >no one in their last 20 pounds, but it sure is happening to you. I'm not convinced of that part. Metabolic is a vague term that so loosely defines so many things going on it the body that it isn't easy/possible to pin down. While I'm tracking that I'm spending about 11 cals/lb to maintain weight. A two-week moving average varies from 10 to 12 cals/lb. This 20% variance is because so much affects this calculated number. If i run a temperature, activity level, how cold it is, variouss hormone and complex processes, how i'm digesting food, and a few hundred other things all going on in my body. Totally untrackable!! Atkins called it the metabolic edge and it is equally vague. While studies showed LC'ers could lose more focused fat than traditional diets, and even eat more, how exactly these things were done is blurred. One recent thought -- I'm doing more reading on Leptin. Leptin is "released" from fat cells, both adipose tissue as well as dietary. I assume dietary too since Leptin infers data about both body fat and well as consumption. As Leptin levels decrease, your body eventually cranks down metabolism. If I have a high fat diet, am I artificially inducing higher Leptin levels and possibly avoiding Leptin drops and metabolic plateaus? Just a thought out loud. Still reading... The calc estimated that I would have been eating about 3800 calories a day to maintain my original 350lb weight. That is possible. I drank milk/soda/sweetend icetea/lemonnade/tomato juice all day and I could easily consume 1200 calories just in drinks daily. All of that is gone. Diet alone could account for an awful lot of the negative--remember I'm coming down off of 350 lbs -- 150 to 170 lbs overweight. ALthough it is interesting that I only lost 9 pounds during induction. Which, according to atkins DANDR, would put me at the high-resistance end of the scale for a guy. The one thing I feel is working very strongly for me is appetite control, staying away from sugars and relearning eating. I don't believe, conceptually, in being hungry--short-term starvation. I eat when I'm hungry--as do most healthy people. Tiny snacks knock off in-between meal hungers. SMaller portions are satisfying. Without enforcing any caloric limit I'm down to 2100 calorie/day. At 11cals/lbs that may put me around 190 lbs for maintenance. Well with acceptable weight for my height and frame. If these numbers play out, the way I'm eating(volume/calories) will sustain me at my eventual goal. I would have never gotten this low through will power, nor sustained it for the last two months. I don't see any reason I can't continue this. Something beyond simple calorie counting is happening with LC. While people have said the reason people lose weight is because they are eating less I laugh and think--yeah but they aren't necessarily TRYING to eat less. Yet the diet helps most to do this. Which is HUGE! The pharmacuetical companies have been trying to develop a reliable appetite suppresant for 30 years and have had some miserable failures. This is a more natural success. My biggest concern for the future is maintaining control as I add more carbs through Phases 2,3,4. >The fun thing about pronouncements with "everyone" and "only" in them is >they are subject to disproof with a counterexample and you are one of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for a lot of people and probably for everyone below a certain amount to >lose, but their grand pronouncements are nonsense. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 > >Losing at 3.5 per week, you're one of the people that prove that low > >carbing is not merely about calorie reduction. Some must have changed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > diets, and even eat more, how exactly these things were done is > blurred. ... > Something beyond simple calorie counting is happening with LC. Let's phrase it simply: LC folks lose faster with more calories than comparable LF or LCal folks. THAT is the metabolic edge. Study after study after study in recent years has confirmed that it exists. So let's ask a simple question about mechanisms and science: If you don't know the mechanism for an observed fact, does that observed fact go away in a puff of lack of explanation? No! The metabolic edge of low carb is an observed fact. From a practical level of actually losing weight and chosing what foods to eat, does knowing a mechanism really help all that much? Knowing a mechanism can increase a newbie's faith, but it doesn't change the fact of loss. There is a way that knowing the mechanism can help, though. Consider a car driver on a commute to work. (S)he doesn't need to know the detailed mechanisms of how the car works. Now consider a professional truck driver making a living driving. (S)he bloody well better know a fair amount about engine maintenance to be able to keep schedules. Now consider a professional race car driver. (S)he needs to know the mechanisms of how cars work down to the tiniest detail or drivers who *do* know that will win almost every race. And also consider automotive engineers who design and build cars. They need to know the mechanisms as well. So each low carber needs to ask where they choose to put themselves in that spectrum. Most want to be a consumer. Read the plan, follow the directions, acheive the loss, read more, do maintenance, keep it off. Folks with accute obesity need to be at least at the truck driver level. Folks doing professional competitive body building need to be at the race car level. Someone somewhere needs to be at the automotive engineer level. Names like Atkins, Atgaston, Eades, Heller, MacDonald come to mind. And as always for a field to advance some need to be at that level. > One recent thought -- I'm doing more reading on Leptin. > Leptin is "released" from fat cells, both adipose tissue as well as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Leptin drops and metabolic plateaus? Just a thought out loud. Still > reading... Right. I make a living as an engineer in the computer field. I decided to select the automotive engineer in the above spectrum, but as a hobbiest not as a professional. I have spent years reading and searching and studying and counting postings to gather stastical data and to find trends. As a result I can address your question somewhat. Why does eating more fat lead to more loss? (For the same total calories, without going into the over eating range, more fat and less protein leads to more loss.) The mechanisms for that are at levels 1 and 2 while leptin is at level 3 or so. Level 1 - Aerobic respiration inside the cell. Carbs and protein only feed into the top of the Krebs Citric Acid Cycle. So they are like gas into a carburator. But fat feeds into both the top and the side. Fat is a bit like a supercharger in aerobic respiration. More supercharging, more horsepower produced, more fuel consumed, more weight lost. Level 2 - Blood sugar and ketone levels. Dietary carb directly causes insulin release. Insulin suppresses ketosis. Go below a threshold of dietary carbs, go below a threshold of insulin, and ketosis occurs. But go farther down in carbs and the suppression is already gone so it does not cause more ketosis. Dietary fat indirectly causes glucagon release. Glucagon pulls fat out of storage. More dietary fat, more glucagon, more stored fat withdrawn, more weight lost. The indirect release of glucagon is the interesting part. Excess dietary fat can trigger indirect insulin release instead, so enough over eating of fat and this more-is-better effect stops. Unsurprisingly over eating is not the best approach. That's why a high fat medium protein diet works better than a medium fat high protein diet. The leptin comes in at the next level, and it is where CCLL and carb intake come in. Level 3 - T3, leptin and metabolic rate. At the lower levels, more fat led to more loss as long as we're in ketosis. From that theory alone it should come out that no matter where you eat from 0 to CCLL your loss rate sohuld be largely effected by your total calorie intake. And since on Atkins as you increase carb 5 at a time you also taper off fat by roughly the same calories to avoid over eating, there should be no change whatsoever in loss rate anywhere you go in that range. But the actual folks positng don't report that. Tons of folks stall at 20. The farther folks are from their CCLL the more often they stall. Many lose more as they increase their carbs while few lose less as they increase their carbs but both groups do exist. There has to be an additional level controlling loss that has to do with carbs not fat. There is. T3 thyroid output and leptin. Keep carbs too low, and starting in the third week T3 starts to go down. Keep it too low even longer and leptin starts to go down. CCLL addresses the thyroid issue. Reffeds address the leptin issue. > My biggest concern for the future is maintaining control as I add more > carbs through Phases 2,3,4. Good thing you're on Atkins then. The two halves of the Atkins process address that concern completely. Atkins is competely the reverse of the obvious in numerous points and this is one of them. Taking it as a goal to locate those foods that destroy your control is a *goal* in Atkins, something to be pursued not avoided. Why could that be? Because knowledge is power. If you merely avoid all risky foods forever, a feeling of deprivation builds up (the biochemist in me yearns for a Level 4 in the chart above that explains this! Something about seratonin and melatonin most likely). So Atkins is a system to introduce risks one at a time. Find the bad ones and you know what to avoid forever. Find the problemless ones and you know what carby foods are allowed to you in your maintennace phase. Atkins is NOT obvious. Atkins works. Obvious runs like "If few carbs are good, less carbs must be better" but that leads to stalls. Obvious runs like "If little fat is good, less fat must be better" but that leads to a society were obesity chases smoking as the largest avoidable cause of death. Obvious does not mean true. If weight loss were obvious, no one would need an anti-obvious two-halves-working-together process like Atkins. Doug there is some much good information in your head. Thanks for being so willing to spread it around. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/318/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 >> >Losing at 3.5 per week, you're one of the people that prove that low >> >carbing is not merely about calorie reduction. Some must have changed [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] >one would need an anti-obvious two-halves-working-together process like >Atkins. Though I am not in favor of high carb diets,(can't, I am diabetic and think the ADA is totally full of crap) the most recent studies have shown that after a year, those on LF diets have lost as much weight as those on LC diets. Sleepy --------------------------------- The True Axis of Evil Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld --------------------------------- > Though I am not in favor of high carb diets,(can't, I am diabetic and > think the ADA is totally full of crap) the most recent studies have > shown that after a year, those on LF diets have lost as much weight as > those on LC diets. The same collection of studies show that low carbing works better early on, even after you take into account the initial water loss from emptying the liver. So what do those results mean? Partially that a lot of folks have lost in a year close to all they are going to lose. On a time scale of a year, so what if the initial loss is fast? Well, encouragement tocontinue among other things. Partially that low fat plans work for some. No news that. But what percentage of the population do low fat and low carb fail for? The studies don't address that. Neither number is zero of course. Nothing works for everyone, not even a custom tuned process like Atkins. So let's brush away that first year when nearly all of the loss happens and let's look at that second year. Some people find low fat easy. They should stay on low fat programs. Many people find low carb easy. To me that relative number of some/many is the biggest advantage that low carbing has over other plans. Very few find low calorie easy, yet it must be continued forever to keep the weight off. Some find low fat easy, yet it must be continued forever to keep the weight off. Many find low carb easy, and it must be maintained forever to keep the weight off. In maintenance, easy beats hard every time. More people find low carb easy than find low fat easy than find low calorie easy. Keeping it off beats taking it off. Use any method you like to lose it, but if you gain it all back your efforts were ultimately wasted. Find and easy method to keep it off and even if it takes years to lose it in the first place, it's not hard. >> Though I am not in favor of high carb diets,(can't, I am diabetic and >> think the ADA is totally full of crap) the most recent studies have [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >and easy method to keep it off and even if it takes years to lose it in >the first place, it's not hard. The key, beside finding what works for you, IMO is exercise. Some learn to love exercise (eg a lot of joggers) some hate it so much, that once they reach their goal, even if they maintain their WOE,(which in itself is tough) the weight piles back on. Sleepy --------------------------------- The True Axis of Evil Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld --------------------------------- > The key, beside finding what works for you, IMO is exercise. Some > learn to love exercise (eg a lot of joggers) some hate it so much, > that once they reach their goal, even if they maintain their > WOE,(which in itself is tough) the weight piles back on. > > Sleepy What if they didn't exercize much when they were losing? Think they would gain back then if they stay low carb/low calorie? Your pal, katie k >> The key, beside finding what works for you, IMO is exercise. Some >> learn to love exercise (eg a lot of joggers) some hate it so much, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >katie k IMO yes, as we metabolize more slowly as we age. Your Pal, Sleepy --------------------------------- The True Axis of Evil Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld --------------------------------- >>> The key, beside finding what works for you, IMO is exercise. Some >>> learn to love exercise (eg a lot of joggers) some hate it so much, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >IMO yes, as we metabolize more slowly as we age. I diasagree. If (A) eats 1500 cals and performs 300 cals of exercise daily they maintain their weight. As they age they may slowdown and gain weight. If (B) eats 1200 cals and doesn't exercise they maintain their weight. As they age they may slowdown and gain weight. No net difference. Exercise burns what you eat, so you eat more to be able to exercise more without weight change. Unless there is some ascertion that those that exercise don't "age" and their metabolism doesn't progress at the same rate as someone who isn't as active. I've never heard of a study addressing that. While being active generates better health long term, I don't know if it slows the body's natural "aging". DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/316/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 >>>> The key, beside finding what works for you, IMO is exercise. Some >>>> learn to love exercise (eg a lot of joggers) some hate it so much, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >350/316/Mar-315/200 >Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 You have noted that both (A) and (B) "As they age they may slowdown and gain weight." Again, JMO, but therin lies the rub. It has seemed to me that the more active you are as you age, the better shape you stay in. Just being active is a form of exercise. And again JMO I think the more active you are as you age, you metabolize things better. But then again there is always Jim Fixx syndrome, so I guess YMMV. I just think of my adult onset T1 grandfather, who played a full 18 holes any sunny day when he could get a ride to the course, and if he couldn't get a lift he would take his clubs, walk a 1/2 a mile to the bus stop, take several busses to get to the course, and then play his 18. I know he played the 18 as I caddied for him enough, and he was no slouch with the clubs. He did that till he was 85. He died that year. Sleepy --------------------------------- The True Axis of Evil Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld --------------------------------- > The key, beside finding what works for you, IMO is exercise. Some > learn to love exercise (eg a lot of joggers) some hate it so much, > that once they reach their goal, even if they maintain their > WOE,(which in itself is tough) the weight piles back on. Exercisers regain much less often than nonexercisers, but that does not make it a simple cause and effect relationship. There is no down side to exercise, but it is not the only effect. Many lose while doing little exercise. Many who start a regular exercise plan only do so after losing most of their loss. Some manage to keep it off without an exercise plan. Exercise greatly increases your odds but there is more at work. Exercise, peer pressure to cheat, the temptation of addictions, the false idea that once lost going back to the old ways is possible, hunger during maintenance. All contribute to regain or keeping it off. >> The key, beside finding what works for you, IMO is exercise. Some >> learn to love exercise (eg a lot of joggers) some hate it so much, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not make it a simple cause and effect relationship. There is no > down side to exercise, but it is not the only effect. There are lots of downsides to exercise. There's injuries (personally, I've had tendinitis in my ankle and one shoulder, a partially torn rotator cuff muscle, and a knee injury), cost, getting up at 4:40 in the am while others are asleep so that you can go workout, etc. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply Try eating less. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > Hi all, > I'm in the second week of induction and things have been going well for me [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mike > Try eating less. Any other trolls I should killfile? Stay fat then. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > > Try eating less. > > Any other trolls I should killfile? > Stay fat then. I'm empowered to do that if I wish, just as you are empowered to continue trolling. Now shoo little troll, I'm not going to feed you anymore. Congratulations. You take idiocy to new heights. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > > Stay fat then. > > I'm empowered to do that if I wish, just as you are empowered to continue > trolling. > > Now shoo little troll, I'm not going to feed you anymore. > > Try eating less. > > Any other trolls I should killfile? Occasionally there's discussion of a two pound diet. All of its proponents can be safely killfiled after you read about it and have a chuckle. ::: Try eating less. :: :: Any other trolls I should killfile? That's good advice. ::: Try eating less. :: :: Any other trolls I should killfile? Actually, you should be eating less now, and so if you keep doing what you're doing you'll continue to lose. If not, try eating still less or increase exercise. > ::: Try eating less. > :: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you're doing you'll continue to lose. If not, try eating still less or > increase exercise. So is ~1500 calories/day too many for OWL?? >> ::: Try eating less. >> :: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >So is ~1500 calories/day too many for OWL?? Depends upon too many things. Important thing is too learn to eat low-carb and not be hungry. If you feel deprived will just be ahrder to stay with the diet. Mike, in an earlier thread Carmen showed a formula for calculating your metabolic calories/lbs and letting you determine what you average calorie consumption would be maintenance for. I can't say it accurately plays out but it makes mathematical sense. You need to be further along in the diet. The numbers/weight loss in the initial week or two have more to do with water than actual weight loss--so they foul calculations. I remove them from most calculations I do. Say you track everything for week 3&4. For just those two weeks... FIgure out your average daily calorie consumption = DCC Figure out your average daily weight loss = DWL (non-negative number). Figure out your average weight during the two weeks = AW (DCC + (DWL * 3500)) / AW = metabolic rate(MR) in calories per pound. You can now ... DCC / MR = maintenance weight for current calories consumed. It is an interesting number to look at--see what weight you are eating at currently. However if your metabolic rate varies (which it likely will at some point) the maintenance level for the same amount of calories will move about. I"m averaging 2017 calories a day for weeks 3-8. I lost 0.51 lbs a day. My average weight 331.26. (.51 * 3500) = 1785 + 2017 = 3802 for 331 lbs. MetaRate of 11.49 cals/pound. So 2017 calories should maintain 175 lbs. It is an interesting calculation. Won't know how well it holds up against what my body does in the long run. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.