 |
 | 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 / December 2005losing weight too fast...
Hi guys, I seem to have lost 1.5 - 2 kg over the last 7 days. I am using a Swedish nutrition/exercise program called "halsovakten" to track my food intake and exercise. My weight is 88kg and body fat is around 15% (using body calipers), I want to lose 3-4 kilos fat. According to the program, I need 2100 calories a day, and if I type in the exercise that I did for the day, the program increases this value - typically to 2600 calories a day. I tried to stay at 20% under this value, i.e. 1600-2100 a day, in order to lose fat. Eating 500cals less a day means I should lose 500gram of weight a week, but I lose more than 500grams a week. According to what I have learnt in this newsgroup to this point, this means that I will lose muscles as well as fat - in fact, I seem to lose too much muscle mass. Could it be that my basic calorie requirements of 2100 cal/day are estimated too low, particularly when I seem to have more muscles than the average person assumed by the program? Since muscles use more energy, this means that I probably need more calories? Chris > Hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Chris Don't forget that when you restrict calories (diet) you will also lose water weight especially if you're just starting. It's not uncommon to lose at least 2 kg when just starting out. In fact most of the weight you lose the first week is most likely due to water. > Hi guys, > > I seem to have lost 1.5 - 2 kg over the last 7 days. > > Eating 500cals less a day means I should lose 500gram > of weight a week, but I lose more than 500grams a week. Eating 500 calories less a day equals a 3500 calorie deficit for the week which is said to be equal to a pound of scale weight, so you are abit above target having lost about 1.5 -2lbs over 7days. Not an overly big loss (someone mentioned water weight change at first on any diet) and that can even fluctuate from week to to week or even day to day. Give it time and dont stress over it. Let us know how it goes in say 12 weeks from now if you have reached your main goal. joanne Ah - yes, that makes sense. Why do you lose water in the first week? Because protein, fat, carb molecules are bound to water molecules? Chris >>Hi guys, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > joanne On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:11:09 +1100 in sci.med.nutrition, cguttman <4everclever4@web.de> wrote, >Why do you lose water in the first week? Because protein, fat, carb >molecules are bound to water molecules? Because glycogen, the fast-access, first depleted energy store, is bound to water. > >Why do you lose water in the first week? Because protein, fat, carb > >molecules are bound to water molecules? > > Because glycogen, the fast-access, first depleted energy store, is > bound to water. And because no matter what plan you use one way or another it's going to reduce the amount of energy your body keeps in short term storage. The short term storage system is glycogen and the water it takes to dissolve that glycogen. It's quite easy to see why a low carb plan would do that. Burn off all the stored carbs then switch to burning fat. It's less easy to see why a low-fat/high-carb system would result in storing less carbs short term but that does happen. >> Because glycogen, the fast-access, first depleted energy store, is >> bound to water. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > short term storage. The short term storage system is glycogen > and the water it takes to dissolve that glycogen. The short term? What do you think is used for long term? > It's quite easy to see why a low carb plan would do that. Burn off > all the stored carbs then switch to burning fat. If your referring to burning off all your glycogen you are now in bonk land. You're not trying to suggest that we burn of all the glycogen and then silently start to burn fat? It does not work that way. Once you glycogen stores are gone it's like trying to run you gas car on diesel oil, you spit and sputter. Fat burns in the carbo flame - no flame no burn. > It's less easy to > see why a low-fat/high-carb system would result in storing less > carbs short term but that does happen. If you don't get sufficient carbs to replenish your glycogen stores in your liver and muscles it will be painful to exercise. If your LCing and walking around the block then maybe. Turn up the duration or intensity the tank goes dry rapidly. -DF > >> Because glycogen, the fast-access, first depleted energy store, is > >> bound to water. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The short term? What do you think is used for long term? Lean and fat. This isn't difficult stuff. > > It's quite easy to see why a low carb plan would do that. Burn off > > all the stored carbs then switch to burning fat. > > If your referring to burning off all your glycogen you are now in bonk > land. Except for what actually happens. "Bonk land" is for people doing levels of exercise in excess of their current fitness and/or who are doing it too soon after switching to low carb. > You're not trying to suggest that we burn of all the glycogen and > then silently start to burn fat? It does not work that way. Yes it does. There's a smell involved in going into ketosis but the body doesn't make a clicking noise or any other type of noise. And for many there's a burst of energy just like for many there's a lack of energy. > Once you > glycogen stores are gone it's like trying to run you gas car on diesel > oil, you spit and sputter. Except for what actually happens in real practice. But do keep on with your cool sounding theories. > Fat burns in the carbo flame - no flame no burn. Since fat is cut into fatty acids plus glycerol and the glyercol goes to glucose, roughly 10% of the energy from burnging fat comes from glucose. It's enough that dietary fat is not essential to life. On the other hand because fat burns in a flame of carbs, the 10% level is generally not ideal for the best burning. This is why there is not a single low carb plan out there that teaches that less is better so go towards zero. Each and every plan out there teaches to find a reasonable-but-low carb intake level. Sure enough, the plans are teaching what in automotive terms would be a richer mixture of fuels. > > It's less easy to > > see why a low-fat/high-carb system would result in storing less > > carbs short term but that does happen. > > If you don't get sufficient carbs to replenish your glycogen stores in > your liver and muscles it will be painful to exercise. Except for what happens in the real world of people paying attention to the directions. Take it easy for the first couple of weeks then as you build up your carb intake also build up the insensity of your exercise plan. > If your LCing and > walking around the block then maybe. Turn up the duration or intensity > the tank goes dry rapidly. It's like you think the only levels of exercise in existance are walking around the block and running a marathon. No wonder you don't make any sense. > Except for what actually happens. "Bonk land" is for people doing > levels of exercise in excess of their current fitness and/or who are > doing it too soon after switching to low carb. Then you better sets your goals for glorifies walks in the park. LC puts a giant limiting factor on what you can do. >> You're not trying to suggest that we burn of all the glycogen and >> then silently start to burn fat? It does not work that way. > > Yes it does. No it doesn't but keep telling yourself that or keep your exercise slow and within the palty glocgen you manage to store. > There's a smell involved in going into ketosis but the It's your body telling you it's in desparate need of some missing nutrients. The smell is mother nature telling you it's not happy. I guess you can tell yourself it the purging of some evil goop. >> Once you >> glycogen stores are gone it's like trying to run you gas car on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Except for what actually happens in real practice. But do keep > on with your cool sounding theories. Not my theory but voulumes exercise physiology. Your welcome to believe the world is flat. > It's like you think the only levels of exercise in existance are > walking > around the block and running a marathon. No wonder you don't make > any sense. I use walking beause it is common for discussion. I use the marathon because it also common to enduance. Regardless of the flavor of exercise it's bounded by glycogen. Did you find some exercise that burns K-Mart Co2 canisters rather than carbs? Talk about senseless. -DF > > Except for what actually happens. "Bonk land" is for people doing > > levels of exercise in excess of their current fitness and/or who are > > doing it too soon after switching to low carb. > > Then you better sets your goals for glorifies walks in the park. LC puts > a giant limiting factor on what you can do. I saw the effects of a low-carb diet this summer while biking with one of my friends. He's an avid cyclist who thinks nothing about riding 40+ miles but after two weeks on a low-card diet he wasn't able to finish a 20 mile ride. Thankfully his wife was meeting us for lunch and she loaded him and his bike up and took them home as he wasn't able to ride any longer. About 12 miles into the ride he just couldn't keep up the 15-18 mph pace and I had to slow it down to 10-12 for him. Even at this pace he was struggling. He said he had learned his lesson and will be sure to be properly fueled in the future. > > > Except for what actually happens. "Bonk land" is for people doing > > > levels of exercise in excess of their current fitness and/or who are > > > doing it too soon after switching to low carb. Huh??? That's not it. > > Then you better sets your goals for glorifies walks in the park. LC puts > > a giant limiting factor on what you can do. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it down to 10-12 for him. Even at this pace he was struggling. He said he > had learned his lesson and will be sure to be properly fueled in the future. Low carb us wrong for athletes. Athletes NEED carbs. From Chris Carmichael's book: Food for Fitness: Not only to power, endurance, stamina and strength decrease as a result of carbohydrate depletion; athletes sometimes feel nauseated, dizzy and/or lightheaded too. While most endurance athletes have experienced these symptoms associated with "bonking" at some point, bonking usually occurs hours into a long workout as the result of low blood sugar. The symptoms of bonking catch athletes off-guard when they appear within the first 30 minutes of exercise, so your body is reacting to the same scenario. Glucose is the primary fuel your brain and central nervous system can directly use for energy, so your body acts defensively to preserve whatever glucose it has left. Bonking is your body's way of forcing you to stop exercising while there is still enough glocuse in your blood to maintain normal bodily functions. Althetes eating low-carbohydrate diets bonk much earlier than normal because they start workouts glycogen-depleted. As a result, they have far less fuel than they need to supply energy for muscles and the central nervous system. He goes on, but you get the picture. It's a great book that I highly recommend. Thank god that trend's going away.....Common sense is the only thing that works. That and working your a.s off. : ) Martha > I saw the effects of a low-carb diet this summer while biking with one of my > friends. He's an avid cyclist who thinks nothing about riding 40+ miles but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it down to 10-12 for him. Even at this pace he was struggling. He said he > had learned his lesson and will be sure to be properly fueled in the future. Crazy timing to do the exact wrong thing. The initial effects of low carbing last around two weeks and then the body adjusts. So the third or forth week more carbs won't be needed with no other changes but the calendar advancing more days and the body doing the natural sequence of adjustments. For an avid cyclist in good shape it's no surprise he bonked in the first two weeks. Expected part of the plan and all that. For an avid cyclist to completely ignore the known sequence of events and trash the two week ajustment period by recarbing, dumb. Go through all that work to trash it because you haven't bothered to read up on the expected and known sequence of events ... Forty miles is a good example size. Well over a casual ride so it shows the rider is in good physical condition and thus shows the rider isn't a couch potato. Well under a competitive endurance run and thus shows the rider isn't a competitive athlete who blows normal dietary needs out of the water. Lessons learned - First two weeks you're supposed to take it easy, so duh, do that. And later weeks you'll be able to build rapidly back up to previous levels, so duh, follow the directions don't carb load just as it stops being needed. > > I saw the effects of a low-carb diet this summer while biking with one of my > > friends. He's an avid cyclist who thinks nothing about riding 40+ miles but [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > rapidly back up to previous levels, so duh, follow the directions > don't carb load just as it stops being needed. He switched to a low calorie diet that included the nutrients he needed to fuel bike rides. Since switching he's had no problems and has lost the 15lbs he wanted to shed. I think everyone has to follow the diet that allows them to live their lifestyle and still lose weight. For me that simply means counting calories and choosing healthy fat, carbs and protein. > > > I saw the effects of a low-carb diet this summer while biking with one > of my [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > lifestyle and still lose weight. For me that simply means counting calories > and choosing healthy fat, carbs and protein. Yes, IOW, to live a healthy life. To be phobic about anything, be it fat or carbs doesn't make any sense. Martha >> > I saw the effects of a low-carb diet this summer while biking with one > of my [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > calories > and choosing healthy fat, carbs and protein. On an earlier attempt I had simliar results. I had a superficial knowledge of the diet and simply ate about 20g of carbs until I was left completely exhausted (after two and a half weeks). Of course, I wasn't following any real diet, just what I thought was a real diet. Most of the LC diets don't have you stay in "induction" for more than two weeks. > > > He's an avid cyclist who thinks nothing about riding 40+ miles ... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fuel bike rides. Since switching he's had no problems and has lost the > 15lbs he wanted to shed. Which says zero about the known feature of low carb diets that there is a two week adjustment period. It does he he never learned about it and quit just as he completed that. So while what he's doing now works, that does NOT imply that what he did earlier didn't work. All it implies is he bailed out at the wrong time for the wrong reason and ended up falling into rose petals. >> Which says zero about the known feature of low carb diets that > there is a two week adjustment period. It does he he never > learned about it and quit just as he completed that. So while > what he's doing now works, that does NOT imply that what he > did earlier didn't work. All it implies is he bailed out at the wrong > time for the wrong reason and ended up falling into rose petals. And any diet that demands your body to go through an implosion even two weeks and call it an adjustment period is a crock. Beverly, trust your body and your instincts and eat balanced and may a bit less by restricting of obvious junk food. High fat and high protein is for people with no personal self control and want to look thin. Choose an eating style that cares for you from stationary to oodles of endurance. Any diet that only plays in the beginning is simply to lose weight. Adopt an eating style that covers every physical situation and lets you loose weight. Of course this is cross posted so they need to justify their fad. -DF >>> Which says zero about the known feature of low carb diets that >> there is a two week adjustment period. It does he he never [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -DF Errr... my diet covers every physical position. > > Hi guys, > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > day. Give it time and dont stress over it. Let us know how it goes in > say 12 weeks from now if you have reached your main goal. My experience has been that the body fights back against rapid weight loss. Each time I have to have a colonosciopy I have to do a liquid fast several days in advance and usually lose four pounds which gradually returns in the weeks following. Diva Diva > Hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the average person assumed by the program? Since muscles use more > energy, this means that I probably need more calories? You lose all kinds of tissue: water, fat, muscles, etc. If you initially lose a few extra pounds, that is not at all abnormal. When you lose, you need to have a deficit that is somewhat lower than 3,500 calories to lose a pound of weight. The reverse of this is that when people gain, they need to have less than 3,500 calorie (equivalent to 1 lb of fat) calorie surplus to gain weight. i |
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.