About that metabolic syndrome I don't have

I posted at the beginning of the month that I was on Induction, my
metabolism was crap, that I had blown up adrenals and that was why my
weight loss was so slow. Due to drugs and adrenal rearrangement, my
metabolism was officially resistant, I said.

This, I realize, is possibly wrong. I came to that conclusion after
randomly opening DANDR to the page where DrA talks about being able to
judge what kind of metabolic resistance you're dealing with by how
much weight you lost on Induction. (Somebody reproduced it he
http://www.newportschools.com/lowcar..._resistant.htm)

So I did a little retracing. Started on Sep. 21. I posted a big whiny
re-introduction of myself and bemoaned all the drugs I had been on and
notedly enthusiastically how sloooooowwwwwly I was losing. However, I
had already lost five pounds on October 5. I whooshed on the 6th and
went down another four. That's a total of 9 on Induction, which is,
unfortunately, pretty damn good.

I then lost another four pounds, so within the first month I lost 13
pounds, after being on drugs and eating real cereal for breakfast for
four months and laying on my bed watching back to back episodes of CSI
all summer long thinking I should probably go for a walk or
something.

So there is the possibility that I am just fat. That would be bad
news. I wouldn't be able to lay around and berate my inadequate
endocrine system. I couldn't post about my noble efforts to maintain
health, wellness and Good Cheer despite the handicap of a bum
metabolism. I'd actually have to exercise and stuff. No sidling up
to the doctor for amphetamines. No tootsie rolls from the tootsie
roll drawer at work for my "hypoglycemia" .

According to the book, I'm apparently metabolically normal, if not a
little fast.

Does that suck or what?

c
fork in mouth disease

writes:
Well, I don't have much medical training but I'm pretty sure that
anything ending in "oma" is sort of bad. Sorry to hear it.

Oklahoma?

wrote:

I posted at the beginning of the month that I was on Induction, my
metabolism was crap, that I had blown up adrenals and that was why my
weight loss was so slow. Due to drugs and adrenal rearrangement, my
metabolism was officially resistant, I said.

This, I realize, is possibly wrong. I came to that conclusion after
randomly opening DANDR to the page where DrA talks about being able to
judge what kind of metabolic resistance you're dealing with by how
much weight you lost on Induction. (Somebody reproduced it hehttp://www.newportschools.com/lowcar..._resistant.htm)

So I did a little retracing. Started on Sep. 21. I posted a big whiny
re-introduction of myself and bemoaned all the drugs I had been on and
notedly enthusiastically how sloooooowwwwwly I was losing. However, I
had already lost five pounds on October 5. I whooshed on the 6th and
went down another four. That's a total of 9 on Induction, which is,
unfortunately, pretty damn good.

There are some problems with using how much you lost on
Induction to judge your "metabolic resistance" aka how easy
it will be to both lose down to goal and also to regain with one
bite of bad food.

1) Certain food intolerances cause water retention bloating.
There are folks who lose 20ish pounds of water during Induction
who can eat one meal containing wheat (or beans or corn or
whatever their specific intolerance is) and boom those 20 pounds
of water bloat are back on in a day. Then reinduct and the 20
pounds are gone again. So large losses during Induction may
be from the eliminate-and-challenge isolation half of the Atkins
process not from the use-carbs-as-a-tool half of Atkins.

2) Induction includes water loss and that's poorly correlated
with later loss rates. It seems to be correlated with starting
size but I would want to gather a lot more data before I become
convinced of that. Since folks with more to lose lose it faster
and folks with less to lose lose it slower, using initial amount to
lose doesn't make sense for resistance/suseptibility. Resistance
and suseptibility should be about rate of fat loss at a specific
amount ot lose.

3) An older edition used how high or low your CCLL is. Fall
out of ketosis at 25, low resistance. Fall out of ketosis at 85,
high resistance. The trouble with that is I've never been able
to see trends in loss rate based on CCLL the way I have been
able to with amount left to lose.

That's why I would rather have folks start a count at the point
they find there CCLL. The loss rate in the second month
after that point divided by amount to lose at that point should
be the useful number for measuring resistance. But assuming
a common CCLL of 55 and also assuming moving on to OWL
on schedule and also assuming not finding any trigger foods
in that time, the counts by week would go like this - 20, 20, 25,
30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 (out of ketonuria), 20, 55 (clock starts),
55, 55, 55, 55 (first recorded weight), 55, 55, 55, 55 (second
recorded weight). That's the end of month 4 to know how fast
you'll be losing when compared to others. So what, folks know
their loss rates long before that and it is far more often a bad
idea to compare against others than it is a good idea.

I then lost another four pounds, so within the first month I lost 13
pounds, after being on drugs and eating real cereal for breakfast for
four months and laying on my bed watching back to back episodes of CSI
all summer long thinking I should probably go for a walk or
something.

Ice skating works just fine during the summer. ;^)

So there is the possibility that I am just fat. That would be bad
news. I wouldn't be able to lay around and berate my inadequate
endocrine system. I couldn't post about my noble efforts to maintain
health, wellness and Good Cheer despite the handicap of a bum
metabolism. I'd actually have to exercise and stuff. No sidling up
to the doctor for amphetamines. No tootsie rolls from the tootsie
roll drawer at work for my "hypoglycemia" .

According to the book, I'm apparently metabolically normal, if not a
little fast.

Does that suck or what?

Folks love to think they aren't normal or not near the average, but
most do end up near the norms in most ways.

On Oct 24, 9:48 am, DJ Delorie wrote:
writes:
Well, I don't have much medical training but I'm pretty sure that
anything ending in "oma" is sort of bad. Sorry to hear it.

Oklahoma?

My point *exactly*.

Oklahoma has a state percussive instrument.

It's the drum.

Now that's just inexplicable.

c
And don't even get me started on Port Silt Loam.

There are some problems with using how much you lost on
Induction to judge your "metabolic resistance" aka how easy
it will be to both lose down to goal and also to regain with one
bite of bad food.

Well, I also know that generally I haven't had much problem with
regaining unless I basically deliberately trashed my own diet. The
only time I even wondered if I was seriously resistant -- is right
now, after a major FUBAR of my personal person.




3) An older edition used how high or low your CCLL is. Fall
out of ketosis at 25, low resistance. Fall out of ketosis at 85,
high resistance. The trouble with that is I've never been able
to see trends in loss rate based on CCLL the way I have been
able to with amount left to lose.

That's why I would rather have folks start a count at the point
they find there CCLL. The loss rate in the second month
after that point divided by amount to lose at that point should
be the useful number for measuring resistance. But assuming
a common CCLL of 55 and also assuming moving on to OWL
on schedule and also assuming not finding any trigger foods
in that time, the counts by week would go like this - 20, 20, 25,
30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 (out of ketonuria), 20, 55 (clock starts),
55, 55, 55, 55 (first recorded weight), 55, 55, 55, 55 (second
recorded weight). That's the end of month 4 to know how fast
you'll be losing when compared to others. So what, folks know
their loss rates long before that and it is far more often a bad
idea to compare against others than it is a good idea.


Doug, I gotta be honest, I was never too good with the CCLL thing. I
bet you balance your checkbook, too, doncha? You're just ruining it
for everyone, you know that, right?

Folks love to think they aren't normal or not near the average, but
most do end up near the norms in most ways.

Yeah, that's what I keep finding out. I used to believe that I was
especially doomed to be massive, based on my genetics and temperament
and...you know those theories -- I had the wrong kind of virus when I
was a kid, I was born with a slow metabolism( not true), I had a
thyroid problem( don't, never did, I've had it checked at least five
times)- and etcetera. I've been searching for the Special Thing That's
Wrong with Me for years and tend to always come up with jack.

c
on the bellcurve

wrote:
There are some problems with using how much you lost on
Induction to judge your "metabolic resistance" aka how easy
it will be to both lose down to goal and also to regain with one
bite of bad food.


Well, I also know that generally I haven't had much problem with
regaining unless I basically deliberately trashed my own diet. The
only time I even wondered if I was seriously resistant -- is right
now, after a major FUBAR of my personal person.




3) An older edition used how high or low your CCLL is. Fall
out of ketosis at 25, low resistance. Fall out of ketosis at 85,
high resistance. The trouble with that is I've never been able
to see trends in loss rate based on CCLL the way I have been
able to with amount left to lose.

That's why I would rather have folks start a count at the point
they find there CCLL. The loss rate in the second month
after that point divided by amount to lose at that point should
be the useful number for measuring resistance. But assuming
a common CCLL of 55 and also assuming moving on to OWL
on schedule and also assuming not finding any trigger foods
in that time, the counts by week would go like this - 20, 20, 25,
30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 (out of ketonuria), 20, 55 (clock starts),
55, 55, 55, 55 (first recorded weight), 55, 55, 55, 55 (second
recorded weight). That's the end of month 4 to know how fast
you'll be losing when compared to others. So what, folks know
their loss rates long before that and it is far more often a bad
idea to compare against others than it is a good idea.



Doug, I gotta be honest, I was never too good with the CCLL thing. I
bet you balance your checkbook, too, doncha? You're just ruining it
for everyone, you know that, right?

Folks love to think they aren't normal or not near the average, but
most do end up near the norms in most ways.

Yeah, that's what I keep finding out. I used to believe that I was
especially doomed to be massive, based on my genetics and temperament
and...you know those theories -- I had the wrong kind of virus when I
was a kid, I was born with a slow metabolism( not true), I had a
thyroid problem( don't, never did, I've had it checked at least five
times)- and etcetera. I've been searching for the Special Thing That's
Wrong with Me for years and tend to always come up with jack.

c
on the bellcurve



Maybe it is the screwball men that you meet that gives you the
impression you have about abnormality.

Well, it could be the screwball women, just to be gender equal.

c
WHERE on the bellcurve is the question.

On Oct 24, 10:48 am, DJ Delorie wrote:
writes:
Well, I don't have much medical training but I'm pretty sure that
anything ending in "oma" is sort of bad. Sorry to hear it.

Oklahoma?

Definitely!

Hook'em Horns!