Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004
a year to go?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Cubit - 12 Mar 2004 16:42 GMT My birthday is Sunday. On my FitDay software I have my birthday in 2005 as my goal date for the diet. I'm on track, so far.
I figure I am one year from my goal.
Links to Charts:
http://techmart.com/~cubit/Chart13C.gif
http://techmart.com/~cubit/Chart13B.gif
http://techmart.com/~cubit/Chart13A.gif
Cubit 308/266/165 started dieting: November 2003 started Low Carb: 12/01/2003
Marcusj - 12 Mar 2004 16:59 GMT Congratulations on your weight loss so far, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! However, to me at least, setting goals like that is discouraging. You might be different, but for me weight loss doesn't fit a nice linear chart like that starting from the day I started low-carb until the day I reach my ultimate goal. Anyway, not trying to throw a monkey wrench in, best of luck!
 Signature Mark S. J. 316/254/155 --Pull the weeds to reply by email-- --
> My birthday is Sunday. On my FitDay software I have my birthday in 2005 as > my goal date for the diet. I'm on track, so far. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > started dieting: November 2003 > started Low Carb: 12/01/2003 emkay - 12 Mar 2004 18:46 GMT >Congratulations on your weight loss so far, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! >However, to me at least, setting goals like that is discouraging. >You might be different, but for me weight loss doesn't fit a nice linear >chart like that starting from the day I started low-carb until the day I >reach my ultimate goal. >Anyway, not trying to throw a monkey wrench in, best of luck! It probably wouldn't work for everyone, but it worked for me. When I started attempting to lose weight, I drew up a chart with weekly goal weights, and with some of them highlighted: the no-longer-obese day, the no-longer-overweight day, the 100-pounds-lost day, and the half-my-bodyweight-lost day. It was a little discouraging at first because the chart went out a little over two years into the future. But tracking it was fun, especially when I beat my date targets for the first two main ones. And I amazed myself by hitting the 100-pound and the half-bodyweight goals on the exact dates that I had targeted for them so long before.
Em
Marcusj - 12 Mar 2004 19:27 GMT Emkay, I agree that setting a goal can be fun, as long as the goal is realistic and not based on keeping the exact same rate of loss as the first months of loss. I think the reason a lot of people go off diets is unrealistic goals. Too many people look at how much weight they have lost the first month or two and then project that exact same rate of loss out all the way to goal weight. Since you were ahead of goal for the first two main checkpoints, obviously you didn't base your goal on keeping the exact same rate of loss that you had the first 3 months.
Mark.
> >Congratulations on your weight loss so far, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! > >However, to me at least, setting goals like that is discouraging. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Em emkay - 12 Mar 2004 19:54 GMT >Emkay, >I agree that setting a goal can be fun, as long as the goal is realistic and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Mark. True. When I drew up the chart, I estimated 6 pounds/month for the first 6 months, then down to 5, 4, and finally 3 pounds/month for the next three six-month increments.
Some weeks I was slightly higher than my estimate, and some slightly lower, but on the whole, I pretty much kept to the target rates of loss.
Em
Marcusj - 12 Mar 2004 20:26 GMT > >Emkay, > >I agree that setting a goal can be fun, as long as the goal is realistic and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Em Em, It sounds like you set (and met) very reasonable goals, and it is an accomplishment to be very proud of ! The goals in the original post and graphs call for a straight-line 1000 Kcal loss per day for the next year all the way to goal weight. While not impossible at all, I think it is an example of the type of goal that can really bring on disappointment.
Mark.
Sseaott - 12 Mar 2004 18:39 GMT why would it take you that long to get to your goal? If you stay on induction, it should take no longer then 8 months or so at your weight.
> My birthday is Sunday. On my FitDay software I have my birthday in 2005 as > my goal date for the diet. I'm on track, so far. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > started dieting: November 2003 > started Low Carb: 12/01/2003 RT - 12 Mar 2004 20:15 GMT For some people, even (or sometimes because of ) staying on Induction their lows slows down significantly. Some others are lucky and lose quickly and reach their goals within the first few months. It has to do with so many factors that there's no "safe" prediction.
> why would it take you that long to get to your goal? If you stay on > induction, it should take no longer then 8 months or so at your weight. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > started dieting: November 2003 > > started Low Carb: 12/01/2003 Doug Freyburger - 15 Mar 2004 15:55 GMT > For some people, even (or sometimes because of ) staying on Induction their > lows slows down significantly. In fact for a huge number loss stops completely if they stay at 20. Read this group for a while and you'll notice posters who stayed at 20 for *years* without losing an ounce, then started losing again when they switched back to the core Atkins process and found their CCLL.
> Some others are lucky and lose quickly and > reach their goals within the first few months. It has to do with so many > factors that there's no "safe" prediction. For everyone who continues to lose at 20 there are several who stall at 20. But there's a fun statistical trend involved. The more you have to lose, the less likely the stall. Folks with 100+ to lose you can count somewhere close to 50-50 losers and stallers staying at 20, maybe even a majority of losers. Folks with under 100 to lose you can count somewhere in the range of 1-to-6 losers to stallers.
No guarantees, just statistical trends. One fun part is watching people who expect/require absolute certainty onto their world. They see one counterexample and decide a statistical trend has been disproved. And then they stall.
DigitalVinyl - 12 Mar 2004 21:27 GMT >why would it take you that long to get to your goal? If you stay on >induction, it should take no longer then 8 months or so at your weight. Weight loss is absolutely not linear. It doesn't make sense that it would be. Just by reading the posts here or looking at the low-carb challenger data you can see that those with less to lose loss less per week. . The heavier you are the more you lose, the closer to your optimal weight the much slower. Weight loss will look like a curve.
Here a chart showing an estimated trend. My actual weight (in yellow) is closely following it so far. I will adjust my calculation to better follwo the trend over time.
http://members.aol.com/digitalvinyl66/EstimatedTrend.gif
The graphs shows almost two and a half years to go from 350 to 190. The formula that is working for me is 2.3% of overweight a week. Overwieght being the difference between current weight and a healthy minimum(something your body would be very, very resitant to sink below without illness forcing it). I guesstimated my minimum at 180(6'3", large frame, male)
(current weight - minimum) * 0.023 = a week's loss.
I imagine that 0.023 is probably a personal number, unless there is some universal maximum. I'm far from being an active, exercising adult. Theory is if I exercised, I would increase this(greater than 3.35 lbs per week!).
If it drops faster than that, wonderful. But my mind just doesn't see that as realistic. Otherwise people would drop holiday weight in a week or two and be done with it.
Also, Sseaott, Induction is not necessarily the best way to lose weight. You are thinking like a person trained on low-fat, eat less fat means I'm less fat. Less carbs does not mean less fat. Carbs are controlling blood sugars and appetite. Hopefully the appetite suppression and retraining yourself to look for danger foods will get you through to a point where you consume a more reasonable amount of food, naturally-thereby causing weight loss without starvation. BUt your body may shed pounds best at 30,40,50,60 carbs a day. Until you ride out OWL you won't know. I'm spending two weeks at each 5-gram level because I find the first week seems to rollercoaster a bit. At 25 and 30 grams I lost just as much weight as I did at 20gms. Heavily resitant people may be forced to stay at induction or lower levels, but until you spends weeks in OWL you won't know that about your body. Also YOU may find the diet is more sustainable a 1.5 lbs/week at 50carbs than 2.5lbs/week at 20carbs. And if you can't reasonably stick with the diet then the diet you are following has failed. (and Induction is not an official diet, merely the first few weeks of one)
While it may be discouraging to realize you won't always lose weight super fast, it should not be used as excuse to quit. By the time your weight loss slows, you will already be much healthier than you were.
I've lost 30 lbs, less than 20% of what I should actually lose. I know my weight loss will slow, but I'm already wearing clothing that stopped fitting two years ago. I'm seeing inches disappear (and from other threads I should see an inch gain someplaces ;-). These are the things that matter most. Some people keep saying "you're still on that diet?" Simply because everyone has been taught that dietary changes are temporary. Diet for a little while and your weight problems will all go away. Atkins/LC isn't temporary. If you do have a lot of success LCing, I imagine that means carbs are an issue for you and if you return to 200-300carbs a day all the "issues" will come back.
>> My birthday is Sunday. On my FitDay software I have my birthday in 2005 >as [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> started dieting: November 2003 >> started Low Carb: 12/01/2003 DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) 350/321/Mar-315/200 Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
Doug Freyburger - 15 Mar 2004 16:00 GMT > Induction is not necessarily the best way to lose > weight. You are thinking like a person trained on low-fat, eat less > fat means I'm less fat. Less carbs does not mean less fat. Actually, low fat plans that insist that driving fat as low as possible don't work any better than the milder ones that suggest a best intake level of fat. Sure enough, there is a starvation-mode resistance associated with fat intake just like there is a starvation-mode resistance associated with carbs. I don't know the hormonal driving for for the fat based starvation mode because I don't study low fat plans anywhere nearly as closely as I study low carb plans. For low carb plans, the hormonal mechanism is based on T3 thyroid going down after 3 weeks and leptin going down on a longer time scale.
Doug Freyburger - 12 Mar 2004 22:47 GMT > why would it take you that long to get to your goal? If you stay on > induction, it should take no longer then 8 months or so at your weight. Because less carbs does not mean more loss. Does not matter if you can quote from the book to claim otherwise. It isn't true in the actual world of what actually works. C's doing great.
TavliGal - 13 Mar 2004 00:13 GMT >> why would it take you that long to get to your goal? If you stay on >> induction, it should take no longer then 8 months or so at your >> weight. "Cubit" <no@no.not> wrote in message >> news:5Ml4c.23253$3z6.22317@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com... S, you haven't listened to anything anyone has said to you here have you? I remember the threads when you first started and I also remember that people gave you some really good advice.
Most of all, you have to remember that most people here are not as young as you. If I recall correctly, I believe you said you were 19 or so? I'll also assume that your friend who lost a whack of weight in 6months on Induction is close to your age. People in their 30's 40's and plus do NOT lose weight at the same rate as opposed to younger people around your age. Please keep that in mind before you post, as you have a couple of times already, and tell people they must not be doing something right because they don't lose as quickly as you or your friend do. Peace, Monica
 Signature ______________________________________ Started 01/20/04 362/330.6/250 ______________________________________ "First do no harm." - Hippocrates
Sunshyne - 12 Mar 2004 23:47 GMT > My birthday is Sunday. On my FitDay software I have my birthday in 2005 as > my goal date for the diet. I'm on track, so far. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > started dieting: November 2003 > started Low Carb: 12/01/2003 I think that chart thing is cool. I am in the process of making one in excel. I like doing graphs within excel also.
I get discouraged some, when it comes out being a year to goal, or longer. But not giving up nonetheless. Patience I guess. Congrats on the weight loss you have going so far, way cool!
|
|
|