A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Weight loss per week



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 16th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Chris Braun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:50:36 GMT, "Beverly"
wrote:


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
One reason folks like to weigh weekly is to find out if
they are doing something wrong. By the time you're on
Maintenance that becomes important - It's easy to
gradually drift off you system and start gaining and
you don't want to be a month in before you catch it.
For folks on a published plan, though, if you actually
need a scale to tell whether you had a problem means you
didn't understand the written plan or you haven't
tracked what you've eaten. Who in their loss phase ever
cheats without knowing it? Problem is you don't mention
a published plan and folks who roll their own don't have
that sort of certainly to build upon.

What are you referring to when you say 'published plan' ?


I wondered the same thing. And I think after two years of weight
loss, I had a pretty high confidence level in my "roll-my-own"
approach. Certainly maintenance hasn't posed any big challenge so
far.

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004
  #12  
Old August 16th, 2005, 01:01 AM
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:50:36 GMT, "Beverly"
wrote:


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
One reason folks like to weigh weekly is to find out if
they are doing something wrong. By the time you're on
Maintenance that becomes important - It's easy to
gradually drift off you system and start gaining and
you don't want to be a month in before you catch it.
For folks on a published plan, though, if you actually
need a scale to tell whether you had a problem means you
didn't understand the written plan or you haven't
tracked what you've eaten. Who in their loss phase ever
cheats without knowing it? Problem is you don't mention
a published plan and folks who roll their own don't have
that sort of certainly to build upon.

What are you referring to when you say 'published plan' ?


I wondered the same thing. And I think after two years of weight
loss, I had a pretty high confidence level in my "roll-my-own"
approach. Certainly maintenance hasn't posed any big challenge so
far.

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004


I thought he was referring to WW, Atkins, South Beach, etc and I had the
same comment about the "roll-your-own" methods. I've been able to maintain
with my own plan for quite awhile. IIRC most of the people in the weight
registry (can't remember correct name at the moment) used a plan of their
own, too.

Beverly
177/142/~140


  #13  
Old August 16th, 2005, 03:21 AM
Nunya B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Beverly" wrote in message
. ..

"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:50:36 GMT, "Beverly"
wrote:


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
One reason folks like to weigh weekly is to find out if
they are doing something wrong. By the time you're on
Maintenance that becomes important - It's easy to
gradually drift off you system and start gaining and
you don't want to be a month in before you catch it.
For folks on a published plan, though, if you actually
need a scale to tell whether you had a problem means you
didn't understand the written plan or you haven't
tracked what you've eaten. Who in their loss phase ever
cheats without knowing it? Problem is you don't mention
a published plan and folks who roll their own don't have
that sort of certainly to build upon.

What are you referring to when you say 'published plan' ?


I wondered the same thing. And I think after two years of weight
loss, I had a pretty high confidence level in my "roll-my-own"
approach. Certainly maintenance hasn't posed any big challenge so
far.

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004


I thought he was referring to WW, Atkins, South Beach, etc and I had the
same comment about the "roll-your-own" methods. I've been able to
maintain
with my own plan for quite awhile. IIRC most of the people in the weight
registry (can't remember correct name at the moment) used a plan of their
own, too.

Beverly
177/142/~140


I believe the split in Thin for Life was about 50-50.
--
the volleyballchick


  #14  
Old August 16th, 2005, 02:46 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Beverly wrote:
"Dunston" wrote in message
...

I have a fairly active job, I work outdoors and I'm up and down
ladders every day. I've also taken to bike riding for 30mins a couple
of times a week.



There are several in the group who use biking for exercise....it's always
nice to have another biker join us.

Beverly



What Beverly said!

--
jmk in NC
  #15  
Old August 16th, 2005, 03:37 PM
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Beverly wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

For folks on a published plan, though, if you actually
need a scale to tell whether you had a problem means you
didn't understand the written plan or you haven't
tracked what you've eaten. Who in their loss phase ever
cheats without knowing it? ...


What are you referring to when you say 'published plan' ?


One of the non-fad systems that has a book available.
It would need to have certain features. Designed
using some amount of nutritional knowledge so a book
that says ketosis equals ketoacidosis or that denies
that certain polyunsaturated fats are essential would
be disqualified. Tested on numerous people so a book
like Banting's famous low carb plan from the 1860s
that describes what he did himself wouldn't count.
Has a Maintenance phase so the cabbage soup diet
would be disqualified. I'm a huge Atkins fan but
note that the Maintenance phase in the 1972 edition
was woefully inadequate so for Atkins it really
needs to be 1993, 1999 or 2002 editions once you're
several months in. It's a judgement about the
quality of a plan irrespective of popular opinions
of it but rather focusing on what it actually says.

WW, Atkins, South Beach were mentioned in responses.
Plenty of other plans would qualify. Several of the
less extreme low fat plans for example The T Factor
Diet that was popular throughout the 1980s and 1990s
(it acknowledged that fat is an essential nutrient
so it discussed types of fats and minimum amounts).
Moderate low calorie systems other than WW as well.
Elimination systems designed to isolate food
intolerances would qualify, several paleolithic
systems in addition to Atkins and the Texas
Elimination system.

Chris and Beverly both mentioned roll your own. Both
experienced and well-read folks years into their
process. Neither newbies. Good illustration that
context *counts*. Someone five years in on a roll
your own is not in the same educational state as
someone one week in still asking about "weight loss
per week". Someone one week in hasn't had time to
design a good roll your own. In the "make vs buy"
spectrum, time, context and prior education *matter*.
Someone a week in on a roll your own system has a
low chance of having addressed non-obvious issues
that keep coming up versus someone several years
in who's had time to deal with topics. It is a
good idea to start in a quality published plan,
spend time learning the topic well, then transition
to a roll your own. Starting on a roll your own
from the gate is a much lower percentage shot.
Published plans work.

It's interesting that advice in this thread has
included eating more. Yet another example of how
knowledge built into published plans exceeds the
obvious that drives early roll your own systems.
Knowledge applied is power. Knowledge applied is
condensed in published plans. Knowledge is
available outside of published plans but there is
a lot of it to gather before roll your own can
acheive quality.

I'm a huge Atkins fan. For 6 years I've studied
the dance of the hormones to the point I know why
and how low carb systems work. I am aware that
should I study low fat for 6 years, or moderate
low calorie for 6 years, etc, I would understand
how those systems work. Right now I am qualified
to do a roll your own low carb system. Since
fat types and fat as an essential nutritient are
included parts of low carb science, I could maybe
study for another year and be qualified to start
a roll your own low fat system. No way am I
qualified now, and no way am I qualified to try it
with other types of systems. I lack the knowledge
and knowledge applied is the power to trigger
fat loss without rebound.

  #16  
Old August 16th, 2005, 04:19 PM
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Doug Freyburger wrote:
Beverly wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

For folks on a published plan, though, if you actually
need a scale to tell whether you had a problem means you
didn't understand the written plan or you haven't
tracked what you've eaten. Who in their loss phase ever
cheats without knowing it? ...


What are you referring to when you say 'published plan' ?


One of the non-fad systems that has a book available.
It would need to have certain features. Designed
using some amount of nutritional knowledge so a book
that says ketosis equals ketoacidosis or that denies
that certain polyunsaturated fats are essential would
be disqualified. Tested on numerous people so a book
like Banting's famous low carb plan from the 1860s
that describes what he did himself wouldn't count.
Has a Maintenance phase so the cabbage soup diet
would be disqualified. I'm a huge Atkins fan but
note that the Maintenance phase in the 1972 edition
was woefully inadequate so for Atkins it really
needs to be 1993, 1999 or 2002 editions once you're
several months in. It's a judgement about the
quality of a plan irrespective of popular opinions
of it but rather focusing on what it actually says.

WW, Atkins, South Beach were mentioned in responses.
Plenty of other plans would qualify. Several of the
less extreme low fat plans for example The T Factor
Diet that was popular throughout the 1980s and 1990s
(it acknowledged that fat is an essential nutrient
so it discussed types of fats and minimum amounts).
Moderate low calorie systems other than WW as well.
Elimination systems designed to isolate food
intolerances would qualify, several paleolithic
systems in addition to Atkins and the Texas
Elimination system.

Chris and Beverly both mentioned roll your own. Both
experienced and well-read folks years into their
process. Neither newbies. Good illustration that
context *counts*. Someone five years in on a roll
your own is not in the same educational state as
someone one week in still asking about "weight loss
per week". Someone one week in hasn't had time to
design a good roll your own. In the "make vs buy"
spectrum, time, context and prior education *matter*.
Someone a week in on a roll your own system has a
low chance of having addressed non-obvious issues
that keep coming up versus someone several years
in who's had time to deal with topics. It is a
good idea to start in a quality published plan,
spend time learning the topic well, then transition
to a roll your own. Starting on a roll your own
from the gate is a much lower percentage shot.
Published plans work.

It's interesting that advice in this thread has
included eating more. Yet another example of how
knowledge built into published plans exceeds the
obvious that drives early roll your own systems.
Knowledge applied is power. Knowledge applied is
condensed in published plans. Knowledge is
available outside of published plans but there is
a lot of it to gather before roll your own can
acheive quality.


Thanks for the clarification. I see your point and agree that a
knowledge of nutrition and exercise is essential to a successful roll
your own plan.

I wonder if the age at which obesity occurs might also be a factor? I
never had a weight problem until my mid 40's (onset of menopause) so I
had several years of eating at a maintenance level under my belt.

I also used WW in my mid 40's after gaining 20 pounds in the previous
year. I knew what to do but I think I needed the accountability to
keep on track. I chose WW after looking at other published plans since
it was a closer fit to my food preferences. I also went back to WW in
'96 when I quit smoking and gained weight. Again I think it was more
for accountability. I've never followed the plan to a "T" and often
tracked calories rather than points.

Beverly

  #17  
Old August 16th, 2005, 05:06 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Freyburger wrote:


Arguably the best way to handle it is to use an arithmatic
smoothing formula. The simplist is to weigh 2 days in
a row and average them. From there on add today's weight
plus yesterday's average. Average those 2 numbers by
dividing by 2. Write that one down for tomorrow. This
makes the daily bounce of water have much less effect.
Even better is to use 3 or 4 in place of the 2's above to
get more gradual smoothing. There are very fancy formulas
that are a trivial improvement on this simple method.


I use a graph and watch the trends.

--
jmk in NC
  #18  
Old August 16th, 2005, 06:08 PM
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jmk wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Arguably the best way to handle it is to use an arithmatic
smoothing formula. The simplist is to weigh 2 days in
a row and average them. From there on add today's weight
plus yesterday's average. Average those 2 numbers by
dividing by 2. Write that one down for tomorrow. This
makes the daily bounce of water have much less effect.
Even better is to use 3 or 4 in place of the 2's above to
get more gradual smoothing. There are very fancy formulas
that are a trivial improvement on this simple method.


I use a graph and watch the trends.


Intuitive smoothing formulas work at least as well
as formal ones. As long as the person looks at the
trend rather than the daily noise-ridden number and
avoids freaking out, all is well. As long as enough
data points are taken that a trend can be found,
all is well. I don't want anyone to overreact and
only weigh monthly on the principle that the time
scale for loss is month to month. The water retention
noise needs more data to resolve the monthly trend.

  #19  
Old August 16th, 2005, 06:25 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Doug Freyburger wrote:
jmk wrote:

Doug Freyburger wrote:


Arguably the best way to handle it is to use an arithmatic
smoothing formula. The simplist is to weigh 2 days in
a row and average them. From there on add today's weight
plus yesterday's average. Average those 2 numbers by
dividing by 2. Write that one down for tomorrow. This
makes the daily bounce of water have much less effect.
Even better is to use 3 or 4 in place of the 2's above to
get more gradual smoothing. There are very fancy formulas
that are a trivial improvement on this simple method.


I use a graph and watch the trends.



Intuitive smoothing formulas work at least as well
as formal ones. As long as the person looks at the
trend rather than the daily noise-ridden number and
avoids freaking out, all is well. As long as enough
data points are taken that a trend can be found,
all is well. I don't want anyone to overreact and
only weigh monthly on the principle that the time
scale for loss is month to month. The water retention
noise needs more data to resolve the monthly trend.


Agreed. FWIW, I weigh daily.

As an aside, this has helped me a lot this summer. I've been riding my
bike a lot and as a result my hydration status has been flucuating a lot
lately so the daily swings in my weight on the scale has been a lot
larger than I was used to seeing. I check the graph every now and then
to confirm what I already know (my clothing fits fine, etc.) but it's
nice to see it on the screen.

--
jmk in NC
  #20  
Old August 16th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Nunya B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Beverly" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Beverly wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

For folks on a published plan, though, if you actually
need a scale to tell whether you had a problem means you
didn't understand the written plan or you haven't
tracked what you've eaten. Who in their loss phase ever
cheats without knowing it? ...

What are you referring to when you say 'published plan' ?


One of the non-fad systems that has a book available.
It would need to have certain features. Designed
using some amount of nutritional knowledge so a book
that says ketosis equals ketoacidosis or that denies
that certain polyunsaturated fats are essential would
be disqualified. Tested on numerous people so a book
like Banting's famous low carb plan from the 1860s
that describes what he did himself wouldn't count.
Has a Maintenance phase so the cabbage soup diet
would be disqualified. I'm a huge Atkins fan but
note that the Maintenance phase in the 1972 edition
was woefully inadequate so for Atkins it really
needs to be 1993, 1999 or 2002 editions once you're
several months in. It's a judgement about the
quality of a plan irrespective of popular opinions
of it but rather focusing on what it actually says.

WW, Atkins, South Beach were mentioned in responses.
Plenty of other plans would qualify. Several of the
less extreme low fat plans for example The T Factor
Diet that was popular throughout the 1980s and 1990s
(it acknowledged that fat is an essential nutrient
so it discussed types of fats and minimum amounts).
Moderate low calorie systems other than WW as well.
Elimination systems designed to isolate food
intolerances would qualify, several paleolithic
systems in addition to Atkins and the Texas
Elimination system.

Chris and Beverly both mentioned roll your own. Both
experienced and well-read folks years into their
process. Neither newbies. Good illustration that
context *counts*. Someone five years in on a roll
your own is not in the same educational state as
someone one week in still asking about "weight loss
per week". Someone one week in hasn't had time to
design a good roll your own. In the "make vs buy"
spectrum, time, context and prior education *matter*.
Someone a week in on a roll your own system has a
low chance of having addressed non-obvious issues
that keep coming up versus someone several years
in who's had time to deal with topics. It is a
good idea to start in a quality published plan,
spend time learning the topic well, then transition
to a roll your own. Starting on a roll your own
from the gate is a much lower percentage shot.
Published plans work.

It's interesting that advice in this thread has
included eating more. Yet another example of how
knowledge built into published plans exceeds the
obvious that drives early roll your own systems.
Knowledge applied is power. Knowledge applied is
condensed in published plans. Knowledge is
available outside of published plans but there is
a lot of it to gather before roll your own can
acheive quality.


Thanks for the clarification. I see your point and agree that a
knowledge of nutrition and exercise is essential to a successful roll
your own plan.

I wonder if the age at which obesity occurs might also be a factor? I
never had a weight problem until my mid 40's (onset of menopause) so I
had several years of eating at a maintenance level under my belt.


I happen to think that it does. Take a person who has been obese all of
his/her life. It's more likely that person never learned how to eat
properly and even that there may be some underlying factor that made him/her
prone to obesity which required even more tweaking and learning how to eat
and still maintain a normal weight. OTOH you have someone who didn't have a
weight problem until sometime in adulthood. That person still has to learn
how to eat to deal with the changes happening in his/her body, but they
already had some kind of decent base to start out with.

Of course there are exceptions, those folks who could always eat a truckload
of calories and never gain an ounce, but they're rare despite the
perceptions of those who struggle with weight.

It's like getting a good base in algebra before trying to learn calculus.
--
the volleyballchick


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
additional protein limits weight regain Doug Skrecky General Discussion 12 June 12th, 2005 09:49 AM
Weight Loss Strategies Gary Matthews Weightwatchers 0 June 6th, 2005 06:04 AM
Induction and weight lifting? Comments plz Slider Low Carbohydrate Diets 9 June 18th, 2004 06:29 AM
Water: the key to weight loss Philip Miranda Weightwatchers 6 April 18th, 2004 10:22 AM
Some WW recipe sites LIMEYNO1 Weightwatchers 1 January 17th, 2004 05:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.