Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie

On Feb 7, 11:18 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Feb 7, 6:10 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Feb 6, 11:29 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Caleb" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Feb 6, 8:42 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message

groups.com...

"teachrmama" wrote:

So do you think he deliberately plans to regain it? Or do you
think
he
fails to plan (a maintenance program) therefore he "plans to
fail"
because
of the lack of a maintenance program?

That's it. The first year it was fails to plan. The second year
it
was fails
to plan. By the fourth year it was plans to fail. Each year
there
has to
be some expectation of learning. At some point it evolves from
fails
to
plan to plans to fail to intends to regain.

And nobody else here has ever done
something similar (gaining and losing a number of times before
they
got
it
right)? Caleb is very up front with his successes and failures,
so
it's
easy to criticize him. How many of us would like our successes
and
failures
paraded out in similar fashion? I know I wouldn't!! (Or maybe
I'm
the
only
one here who ever lost, regained, lost, regained, before I
finally
got
it
right)

I lose and regain as well. What I finally learned is that if I
declare an
end date that means I have declared a day when I plan on starting
to
regain. Lots of people on ASD have tried various ways to get
that
through to Caleb so I picked a way of saying that same thing that
I
couldn't find anyone else had used.

Having phases last some number of days is fine. Having the diet
last some number of days isn't. Though I lose and regain, I stay
on
some phase of my plan. It is a mental difference - Staying on
plan
is the right thing to do so when I am regaining I'm doing the
wrong
thing not returning to normal.

I don't even consider the way I am choosing to eat now to be a
diet.
It
is
a way of life. I agree with you about arbitrary end dates. It's
like
saying that the train takes 12 hours to get to Chicago, aso I'm
getting
off
in 12 hours no matter what. But telling somebody that the fact
that
they
set an end date makes them an untouchable because they have don the
same
thing so many times before is not going to be helpful at all. I'm
glad I
was never given up on as hopeless.

About the arbitrary deadline -- Well, we end school classes at a
certain time (perhaps 50 minutes), pay taxes at a certain time, go
in
for yearly check-ups at a certain time, do Spring cleaning at a
certain time.

When I used to run long distances, I would set for myself a goal of
getting to a distant point, and then once I made that point, I would
set another goal.

Seems to me that a lot of people do similar things, perhaps clean
their houses while a certain record is playing, etc. Whatever it
takes
to help them focus on the task at hand and maintain their behavior
over time. Perfection is certainly an ideal to be striven for, but
if
we tell people that perfection is required, as is the total
commitment
to a given way of behavior for the rest of their lives, I think a
lot
of people would be scared away, and a lot would see any faltering as
clear proof that the goals are beyond them. Also it is unrealistic
to
demand that people comply with such a regimen, I think.

Just my two cents about different methods of maintaining motivation
over some difficult portions of time.

Rather that a time goal, I do have a certain weight loss goal. That is
when
I will begin the Maintenance portion of my new way of life. I would
certainly like to ahve reached my goal one year from when I
started--but
I
will not change back to how I ate before when I getto ether the one
year
mark or the weight goal. And the way of eating I follow now is not a
stringent "thou shalt not" sort of plan. It is liveable--which is why
it
is
working for me. I agree with you about the perfection thing--even the
smallest thing can spoil perfection, which makes it unworkable for the
vast
majority of the human race. So--just because I am insatiebly
curious--how
exactly are you setting up your eating program when you get to
maintenance?
You've mentioned the scale, but do you have any sort of a food plan in
mind?
=c)

Teachrmama -- I don't know exactly exactly. My daughter is vegetarian
and I certainly will emphasize the green and growing things. Limited
meals, reasonable amounts of exercise, less or no beer -- those
things all make sense to me. Like most people, i have difficulty
tracking calories regularly but I sure am willing to do this if the
scales show a reason to.

And as I said, I'm taking pictures of myself each Monday evening and I
will keep a series of those in my kitchen. It's too easy to forget
where one has been as time goes on. Reminds me of the quote by the
psychologist Zimbardo who said that the elderly think of themselves as
young, only in older skin. I agree with that also with a lot of
overweight people -- that is, they still think of themselves as less
overweight. So I think pictorial evidence of previous overweight vs
current standard weight is likely to be very useful. Indeed, perhaps a
weekly picture from here on out will be useful.

I think the scale is the most important thing, however, because it is
the canary in the coal mine well before other important and negative
consequences of overweight arise.

The scale and I will continue to be great friends! (I'm thinking of
hanging my car keys on it, and so whenever I drive somewhere, I will
weigh myself. Might even help with global warming!)

And of course other behavioral methods are good -- leave the kitchen
at 7 PM and eat nothing more after that -- that by itself will save a
lot of evening calories.

Sounds really good, Caleb. I wish you well in your maintenance efforts.
=c)

Teachrmama --

Thanks for your words!

These are the results of the three 100 Day programs I've completed
thus far. (I tried to complete another one but got too involved in
answering messages, etc.)

Starting on 8-17-99 I went from 276 to 226, a loss of 50 pounds.

On 8-10-01, I went from 241 to 200, a lost of 41 pounds, and

On 8-19-02, I went from 239 pounds to 198 pounds.

I'm pretty much on schedule now to match the early schedules - perhaps
a pound behind the lines for the first and third schedule.

All three of these were quite simple to do - very painless - and they
certainly demonstrated to me the effectiveness of calorie restriction
in losing weight. The three programs also demonstrated other things as
well, including:

1. the problems with bad or distractive advice,
2. the need to focus on calories and exercise,
3. the need to just keep at it even if people are highly critical of
what you are doing (it sure is the case that people live in food-toxic
environments),
4. for me, the importance of daily weighing (this might bother some
people but the way I do it is very motivating to me),
5. adopting a simple eating schedule with a limited variety of foods,
and
6. avoiding bread and putting away the alcohol.
(Also, if I eat too much in one day, I try to make up for it in the
next several days.)

I hope never to have to go on a weight control diet after this one but
I sure know how to go about losing weight again if I do gain. Still
then, I sure wish I was at appropriate weight right now, but that will
come in the fullness of time.

Again, this process is just not that painful.

I am more fortunate than most people here on this Usenet group in
terms of losing weight. I'm a guy, and so it's easier for me to lose
weight than it would be for a woman. Also my weight is fairly high -
245 pounds - and so even carrying the extra 45 pounds requires about
585 calories a day (45 times 13). If I were a 130 pound female who
didn't exercise, I'd need only about 130 times 11 calories to maintain
my weight (1430). And any more than that and I probably would put on
some weight (everything else being equal). I could eat 1430 in a big
breakfast and still want another heap of pancakes - at least I could
when I was eating freely. But those days are over. (Sigh!)

On the other hand, I've heard nutritionists say that our dietary goals
in general should be something like 1400 calories for women and 1700
calories for men. Sounds pretty glum to me but, as Franklin said, "We
should eat to live and not live to eat!" I guess, suppose, can
convince myself, etc., that he was right. Death and disability have a
way of ruining our time here on earth. I'd hate to rush out early!

I certainly wish you the best, Caleb. I understand your desire to get rid
of the unwanted weight quickly. I know, for me, going totally outside of my
usual eating patterns just to solve the problem of excess pounds always came
back and bit me in the proverbial tush later on, because I had not formed
any good habits along the way. This time, I have adopted a way of eating
that I can follow forever. Like you, I monitor my weight daily, and
restrict my choices--but only for breakfast and lunch--dinner can be just
about anything. (Tonight I baked some delicious honey-barbecue
chicken--yum!!) I think, perhaps, the crux of your whole experience this
time will be how you do in your maintenance phase. I hope you keep posting
here so we can see how you do. ou certainly know well enough how calories
work, and you have made a commitment not only to weight loss, but to
maintaining that loss this time around. May January 08 see you looking back
at January 07 as your last 100 day diet. =c)

Teachrmama--

Thanks! I do intend to keep posting. Gaining weight again is foolish
(and certainly not good from a medical perspective, social
perspective, etc.) but I'm in harness again and I don't intend to stop
until I get to where I want to be. And I hope to maintain the weight
lost with an ongoing focus on the weight. (I think a daily diet
journal would also be very good for me.)

Yours truly,

Caleb

On Feb 1, 3:37 pm, "Caleb" wrote:
This is an invitation to anyone who would like to join
alt.support.diet.low-calorie - I've started another 100 Day Diet and
am posting on alt-support.diet.low-calorie. Seems to be going quite
well and I sure intend to keep posting through May and maybe
(hopefully) longer.

If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
them there!

Hi Caleb;

I read *some* of the other posts in this thread and learned that you
do this diet every year and gain some of the weight back. If you
read up a bit you will discover that this is extremely bad for your
health. It isn't just about losing weight it is also about how long
you can keep that weight off.

People who are successful at keeping lost weight off only lose 1 - 2
pounds a week, monitor their weight on a regular basis, monitor their
calorie intake on a regular basis, and exercise.

If you like calorie counting another poster recently mentioned this
diet, which counts and reduces calories, but is far more practical
( and better for your health ) then what you have been doing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker%27s_diet

On Feb 8, 9:55 am, "Steve" wrote:
On Feb 1, 3:37 pm, "Caleb" wrote:

This is an invitation to anyone who would like to join
alt.support.diet.low-calorie - I've started another 100 Day Diet and
am posting on alt-support.diet.low-calorie. Seems to be going quite
well and I sure intend to keep posting through May and maybe
(hopefully) longer.

If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
them there!

Hi Caleb;

I read *some* of the other posts in this thread and learned that you
do this diet every year and gain some of the weight back. If you
read up a bit you will discover that this is extremely bad for your
health. It isn't just about losing weight it is also about how long
you can keep that weight off.

People who are successful at keeping lost weight off only lose 1 - 2
pounds a week, monitor their weight on a regular basis, monitor their
calorie intake on a regular basis, and exercise.

If you like calorie counting another poster recently mentioned this
diet, which counts and reduces calories, but is far more practical
( and better for your health ) then what you have been doing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker%27s_diet


Steve -- Thanks for your input!

I think I already mentioned the Hacker's Diet in this thread (or
perhaps it was on ASDLC) and I agree generally where you're coming
from. (I also emailed the author, having had to solve a little algebra
problem in order to send him an email. I never got a response but I am
sure he's busy.)

About losing weight and regaining it over the years -- there are some
health risks associated with that, but I don't think the risks for me
are not generally not huge if I stick to 1000 calories a day or more.
(Increased risk of gall stones is a problem for lower-calorie
approaches.) A lot of studies have found no great risk as a result of
weight-recycling. If there were huge problems, certainly animal and
other studies would clearly.

And certainly if one is overweight, one is better off just losing the
weight, the data show.

I've done this before, as you know, and while I hope never to have to
do it again, a fairly rapid weight loss is more reinforcing to me
(helps me retain task focus, etc.) than a slower weight loss. My
physician is very pleased with the program I'm on and is encouraging
me to KEEP AT IT! A slower weight loss rate would be more difficult to
sustain.

You noted:

People who are successful at keeping lost weight off only lose 1 - 2
pounds a week, monitor their weight on a regular basis, monitor their
calorie intake on a regular basis, and exercise.

I sure don't think this is true for everyone. A lot of people lose
weight fairly rapidly and then manage to keep it off. Also, this
statement doesn't take into account the many, many millions of
Americans who give up on diets quickly because they don't see a fairly
rapid weight loss. Should these people be more practical? Certainly.
And I should floss my teeth every day, but sometimes I don't. For me a
faster weight loss can do the trick when other methods have never done
so. I think this is true for many other people as well.

Also, what is the strongest proof (i.e., research) that weight-
recycling (once every several years, perhaps) is harmful? Does
anything come to mind? (I have heard people say time and again that if
one recycles, one loses more muscle, one finds it more difficult to
lose wight the next time, etc., and the Ravussin study, other studies,
and my experience show these fears are over-stated.)

By the way, what has your weight-loss history been? I'm sure
interested in getting learning as much on these issues as I can.

Yours truly,

Caleb

Hi Caleb;

I think many of your assumptions about weight control may not be
correct.

There is an organization called The National Weight Control Registry
that tracks the experiences of people who have lost a lot of weight
and who have kept it off for at least 5 years.

You can go use the information on that site as a guide to what will
have a better chance for working for you:

http://www.nwcr.ws/

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Mu wrote in article
:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:42:41 -0800, Don Kirkman wrote:

A Google search for Andrew Chung in ultramarathon results came up empty.
Since ultra running is such a small, tight-knit community I think the
sudden appearance of an unknown would have been remarked on by somebody
along the way.

[. . .]

This tight knot community, of which I trained several ultra-athletes,
not o one of them comes up on any search yet i watched them myself start
and finish.

And of course you are always forthcoming with details of your claims,
just like the Good Doctor tm.
--
Don Kirkman

convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

snip


Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while
obese
typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which
often
is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What
is
clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from
eating
less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously
more
comfortably and with less injury.

Indeed, that has been my own
personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
tissue (VAT),

Hey, that's pretty cool...

The truth is cool.

I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
"training strategy".

The world class athletes already know that the hungrier they are the
more capable they physically become.

Bizarre...

Truth seems bizarre to the untruthful.

No...you seem bizarre to the rational.

Your false belief that you write for the rational is a delusion of
grandeur.

can you cite any studies or articles supporting this assertion
(other than the voices in your head)?

Simply recall the history of ex-champion Mike Tyson.

Or, in other words, "No", you can't.

The toilet paper you use works even though there are no studies
proving its efficacy.

Let us know when you choose to stop using it because of lack of
studies so that folks around you will know to steer clear.

It was lean&trim&hungry Mike Tyson that was feared.

When an athlete loses in a competition where s/he was a physical match
with his/her competitor, s/he knows that s/he was not hungry enough.

Again...any proof of this?

This is common knowledge.

No, it's not.

Simply listen for the common saying concerning the losing SuperBowl
team:

"They weren't hungry enough."

LORD Almighty GOD is the Source of all true knowledge and wisdom.

Your lack of knowledge simply shows you are without GOD's favor.

Your thinking that you have "God's favor" is pretty ironic...did your God
"favor" you when he got you fired from your one and only job as a
cardiologist after less than 3 months?

Wouldn't be blessed with my current wonderful cardiology practice if I
had unwisely sided with my untruthful ex-employers in their request
that I falsify the medical records of my patients.

In countries where the brainwashing that "hunger is bad" does not
occur (ie Kenya), the runners are leaner, trimmer, and much faster
because they know in their hearts that "hunger is good."

Yeah, I heard the Auschwitz 10,000 meter relay team was world class.

Starving people are not hungry.

BTW - as usual, you ducked my earlier question: "Have you ever actually
completed an ultramarathon...?"

In the Holy Spirit, I know HE has made me able.

Or, in other words, "No", you've never actually run an ultramarathon, or a
standard marathon.

Did not run the first half-marathon before doing it for the first
time. In the Holy Spirit, I knew that HE had made me able. Sang
praise songs and shared stories about LORD Jesus Christ during the
half-marathons (both the first and the second).


You asserted in your post above that you were capable of running an
"ultramarathon" (typically, 50 or 100 miles, per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon ). Have you done so, or is
this
just another delusion of grandeur on your part?

It is knowledge from the Holy Spirit.

Be careful with that...if the "Holy Spirit" voice in your head tells you
that you can fly off of a tall building because you've been granted "God's
favor", you may find that the laws of science can trump your most fevered
faith.

The Holy Spirit is GOD and not a voice.

"With man this is impossible but with GOD all things are possible." --
LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:26)

Amen ! Laus Deo ! ! ! Marana tha ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts

Clearly, you remain possessed by the voices in your head.

Again, the Holy Spirit is GOD and not a voice.

May you wisely choose to surrender to HIM by publicly confessing with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay

Marana tha !

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com

On Feb 8, 1:18 pm, "Steve" wrote:
Hi Caleb;

I think many of your assumptions about weight control may not be
correct.

There is an organization called The National Weight Control Registry
that tracks the experiences of people who have lost a lot of weight
and who have kept it off for at least 5 years.

You can go use the information on that site as a guide to what will
have a better chance for working for you:

http://www.nwcr.ws/

Steve --

The registry is very interesting and useful in many ways. But not
eveyrone there follows all of the guidelines. (As you may have
noticed, there are ranges of responses in the behaviors of people
there.)

I don't feel right basing myself completely on what "the aaverage"
person does.

If there are proved high risks to what I'm doing, then certainly I
would like to know about those risks and yes, I might be willing to
change the behaviors in question, especially if my physician suggests
that I do.

However, in some ways, this reminds me of the story a scout master
told my son's scout troop one night about a farmer's dog that was
supposed to track down a vicious wolf. The dog started off well-
enough, with ravening teeth, etc., and then it crossed the path of a
pit-bull, and so it started following the smell of the pit bull. Then
it was sidetracked by something else, and then something else. At the
end of the day the farmer found the dog had given up in its final
quest to dig up a mole. That is, I don't want to be side-tracked by
vague possibilities of things. As Franklin said, "Well begun is half
done" and I think I have begun well.

Also, I think the alternative to what i'm doing is probably to my
remaining quite overweight, unless all major sources of food are gone.
I don't think a slow weight loss would be nearly as motivating.

Anway, thanks for your input!

What is your own weight history? I'd like to know what worked for you!

Yours truly,

Caleb

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
article .com:

[. . .]

Simply recall the history of ex-champion Mike Tyson.

It was lean&trim&hungry Mike Tyson that was feared.

Lean and hungry Mike Tyson, at a height reported variously between 5' 9
1/2" and 5' 11", weighed between 218 and 239 pounds during his active
career, mostly in the 230s if Google reports are accurate. And if the
reports of boxers' typical training diets are to be believed, they're
never hungry.
--
Don Kirkman

convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

[. . .]

Simply recall the history of ex-champion Mike Tyson.

It was lean&trim&hungry Mike Tyson that was feared.

Lean and hungry Mike Tyson, at a height reported variously between 5' 9
1/2" and 5' 11", weighed between 218 and 239 pounds during his active
career, mostly in the 230s if Google reports are accurate. And if the
reports of boxers' typical training diets are to be believed, they're
never hungry.

It was clearly a much leaner&trimmer Buster Douglas who beat Mike
Tyson and a pudgier Buster Douglas, who lost to him.

Athletes are at their prime when lean&trim&hungry. When they stop
being lean&trim&hungry, they end up being retired and not the other
way around as the world would have you believe in the following
article:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...17/ai_75348393

Being hungry was their edge and helped these athletes be more
competitive. Their putting up with being hungry was what kept them
from overeating. Once retired the incentive to stay hungry is gone
and the weight gain accelerates because of the brainwashing that
"hunger is bad."

"Hunger is good." -- Holy Spirit

Amen.

"Blessed are you who hunger now for you will be satisfied." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)

Amen ! Laus Deo ! ! ! Marana tha ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love

"Caleb" wrote:
"Steve" wrote:

I think many of your assumptions about weight control may not be
correct.

Obvious does not equal correct, and often the obvious is wildly
incorrect.
What Caleb does year to year is the obvious.

I don't feel right basing myself completely on what "the aaverage"
person does.

Nonetheless, if you can't explain exactly why you deviate from the
average you can't justify trying something that diverges from the
best chance for the average.

If there are proved high risks to what I'm doing, then certainly I
would like to know about those risks and yes, I might be willing to
change the behaviors in question, especially if my physician suggests
that I do.

Then google about refeeds after starvation. Rapid loss is correlated
with higher chance of regain and there are reasons why that is true
that go beyond "easy go, easy come back" of mental attitude.
There are evolved hormonal mechanisms that resist rapd change
and avoiding those mechanisms is done with slower loss.

However, in some ways, this reminds me of the story a scout master
told my son's scout troop one night about a farmer's dog that was
supposed to track down a vicious wolf. The dog started off well-
enough, with ravening teeth, etc., and then it crossed the path of a
pit-bull, and so it started following the smell of the pit bull. Then
it was sidetracked by something else, and then something else. At the
end of the day the farmer found the dog had given up in its final
quest to dig up a mole. That is, I don't want to be side-tracked by
vague possibilities of things. As Franklin said, "Well begun is half
done" and I think I have begun well.

Yet you explicitly dive into the distraction of rapid loss knowing it
leads to regain more of the time.

Also, I think the alternative to what i'm doing is probably to my
remaining quite overweight, unless all major sources of food are gone.

Why do you think that, knowing that thee are plenty of folks i
the registry? An interesting point about the registry - The way
they ask their question (as of a few years ago) ensured that a
low carber couldn't report that their loss had been acheived through
low carbing.

I don't think a slow weight loss would be nearly as motivating.

Definitely an issue. But consider - Maintenance is a period of
extended deliberately not losing. if you depend on the scale for
motivation there isn't any way you'll be able to survive maintenance.

Motivation has to be found somewhere other than the scale, a
point that can never be streessed too much. Use the scale for
your motivation, doom yourself in the long run. Start NOW
finding some other source of motivation.

What is your own weight history? I'd like to know what worked for you!

I low carb. The advantage that low carb has for me (and for lots of
other folks) is that while I eat on-plan I am almost never hungry.
The disadvantage that low carb shares with all other plan types is
when I eat off-plan that advantage is lost. Temptation stops so I
cycle back and forth between eating right and drifting down and
eating wrong and drifting back up again. But at least I never quite
reach my highest starting point and usually hover around half way
between my highest and lowest.