 |
 | 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 / General Topics / May 2004Importance of Pacing?
I've been looking at my progress chart over the past 3 months, and happily noticed that my daily "averaged" weight measurements have nearly all been within 1 lb of my intended pace of loss. Last week the "smoothed average" was getting close to a lb under my projected weight, so I went and got some protein supplements to help pad out the calories, especially for breakfast. I think there is a great temptation when seeing losses to go for broke and try to keep losing at this accelerated pace, and while I lack the reading and science, my intuition is that trying to lose too fast like this is counter-productive in the long run -- related to both losing muscle mass and going into starvation mode too often. I've read mixing it up helps keep the body out of one metabolic regime, and I think reacting to periods of losing too fast by upping daily calories and scaling back strenuous exercise sessions might be a useful weight loss tool, to keep the graph point down over the long-term, by giving the body a mini vacation from the daily calorie deficit, which in my case is 1000 kcal or more. My general loss pattern seems to be ~4 days of sequential weight loss then 4 or more days of "stall". Right now I'm crossing into a former "set-point" (200lbs / 90kg) that I held to 1998-2000, so we'll see how my intuition holds up to theory pretty soon :) Heywood 232/201/182 A 24 May 2004 14:44:03 -0700, imouttahere@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) escribió: > I think there is a great temptation when seeing losses to go for broke > and try to keep losing at this accelerated pace, and while I lack the > reading and science, my intuition is that trying to lose too fast like > this is counter-productive in the long run -- related to both losing > muscle mass and going into starvation mode too often. That's not clear. Many of us lost weight, steadily and substantially, over a period of time, and have maintained the weight loss for the long-term. My guess is that success has more to do with adequate protein consumption and consistent weight-bearing exercise than slow pacing. -- bicker® "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan http://humanist.net http://www.csicop.org http://www.skeptic.com If it aint broke, don't fix it! Don't mess with success. Congrats! > I've been looking at my progress chart over the past 3 months, and > happily noticed that my daily "averaged" weight measurements have [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > 232/201/182 > If it aint broke, don't fix it! Don't mess with success. Congrats! well, in the 'battle of the bulge' I've lost just about as much from my upper body as I can afford . . . In the near future I *will* be joining a gym (unless the gym is crowded all-day in the summer with rugrats) to start putting muscle on where I lost fat/muscle mass. At worst, a daily push-up, pull-up, and isotonic regime is in order. Hadn't thought of it, but doing a single pull-up session daily would have been very encouraging . . . I could have increased my reps from both increased strength and lost weight. I'm researching now the best approach to switch from 2lbs/week loss to ~1lb/week loss with some muscle gain. At the current weight loss pace I foresee starting maintenance after July, but people's advice to start muscle-preserving exercise is well-taken. Heywood, Re: muscle mass - sounds like a good plan. I like Dr. Mirkin's website for fitness advice, see www.drmirkin.com It's probably best to take a day off between exercises of a given body part - don't do pushups two days in a row. You need to injure the muscle fibers slightly then allow them at least 48 hours to recover. Personally I do 1/3 of my body each day - e.g. Monday chest, Tuesday back, Wed. legs. > > If it aint broke, don't fix it! Don't mess with success. Congrats! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I foresee starting maintenance after July, but people's advice to > start muscle-preserving exercise is well-taken. > I think there is a great temptation when seeing losses to go for broke > and try to keep losing at this accelerated pace, and while I lack the > reading and science, my intuition is that trying to lose too fast like > this is counter-productive in the long run -- related to both losing > muscle mass and going into starvation mode too often. The standard fear is that folks who focus on the fastest possible loss far too often ignore the prospect of maintenance because they are paying attentino to loss. Then when it comes to trying to maintain the loss acheived it becomes a case of "Failing to plan is planning to fail". Very few ever manage to keep off lost weight. Some lost it fast, but most lost it slower. I don't know that anyone has really good statistics on it, though. > I've read mixing > it up helps keep the body out of one metabolic regime, and I think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > body a mini vacation from the daily calorie deficit, which in my case > is 1000 kcal or more. There are hormonal reasons that mixing it up works best. I've learned about how hormones interact when low carbing and carbing up and calorie-ing up both help at times. Similar must apply to low fat or low calorie systems. > > I think there is a great temptation when seeing losses to go for broke > > and try to keep losing at this accelerated pace, and while I lack the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > maintain the loss acheived it becomes a case of "Failing to plan > is planning to fail". this guy's site: http://stl.caltech.edu/diet.shtml worries me since I think he went about the loss wrong (1300 kcal/day deficit), and he stopped updating after he hit is goal. His comment on the rate of loss: "Is that healthy? Probably not, but being overweight is even less healthy. Furthermore, burning so much means that when I do finish my diet, I will be able to consume a large amount of food and still not gain weight. I will still need to watch my intake, of course" is evidence that he neglected the importance of retaining and adding muscle mass in his loss regimen. Whether or not I've added a lot of new fat cells or just mostly expanded the existing ones, it's clear I won't be able to eat like a care-free diet, unless I sell my car and cycle everywhere like I did in college. > > > I think there is a great temptation when seeing losses to go for broke > > > and try to keep losing at this accelerated pace, and while I lack the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > worries me since I think he went about the loss wrong (1300 kcal/day > deficit), and he stopped updating after he hit is goal. Agreed. Since I started my undergrad work at Caltech I know the places he referenced. Clearly he ended up falling off his diet, falling out of Caltech, something. > His comment on the rate of loss: > "Is that healthy? Probably not, but being overweight is even less > healthy. He wasn't overweight enough for the ill effects of obesity to outweigh the ill effects of poor diet in my opinion. > Furthermore, burning so much means that when I do finish my > diet, I will be able to consume a large amount of food and still not > gain weight. I will still need to watch my intake, of course" > > is evidence that he neglected the importance of retaining and adding > muscle mass in his loss regimen. Exactly. One fun consideration - He noticed that his caloric burn rate decreased between terms. He couldn't explain that. I think he ignored the fact that the brain burns a lot of calories and thinking burns plenty. It takes a LOT of powerfull thought to avoid flunking out of Caltech. Heck, it even takes a LOT of powerfull though to just plain funk out of Caltech, says the voice of experience. Could it take 1000 calories per day of thought? Maybe. I recall the quote but not the source: "Thinking is such hard work. That's why so few do it." > > One fun consideration - He noticed that his caloric burn rate decreased > between terms. He couldn't explain that. I think he ignored the fact > that the brain burns a lot of calories and thinking burns plenty. It > takes a LOT of powerfull thought to avoid flunking out of Caltech. yup, the brain is a machine and really needs good fuel. I thought IV'ing Mt Dew was a shortcut, but learned like all drugs caffeine & HFCS-55 is a bitch. heh, HFCS should be a schedule-A substance IMO. LOL > Heck, it even takes a LOT of powerfull though to just plain funk out > of Caltech, says the voice of experience. Could it take 1000 calories > per day of thought? Maybe. I experience my greatest loss in March when I was working at my desk 12 hrs a day. > I recall the quote but not the source: > "Thinking is such hard work. That's why so few do it." and why I websurf so much. la-la-la off I go... |
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.