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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 04:03 AM |