Update on my weight regain

Ignoramus11139 wrote:
After becoming certain of that, last week I decided to try "eating
less". I skipped breakfast and lunch and ate a good sized meal in the
evening.

Skipping meals(in effect not eating all day)and then having one big
meal is going to mess with your metabolism. You will find it harder and
harder to lose any stored bodyfat and your body will probably store as
much as possible from that one big meal. Starving makes you fatter not
leaner. The scale lies. http://skwigg.tripod.com/id12.html
This also reminded me of an article I read about Olympic athletes and
food timing - you would think they would all know better, but the ones
who skipped meals were the fattest of the lot. Those who ate smaller
portioned meals 5-6 times a day were the leanest. So you could be
'eating less' but portioned out thruout the day for best results.


joni

In the months just before the regain were you still eating Paleo, or had you
added grain and starch based foods back in?


"Ignoramus11139" wrote in message
...
As I mentioned earlier, about a month ago (could be aa little more) I
regained 3-4 lbs, quite suddenly, for no known reason.

I was hoping that I could re-lose that weight by eating low carb,
without expressly trying to "eat less". In the few previous regains of
1-2 lbs, that worked just fine. JC Der Koenig expressed doubt that it
would work.

I must say that JC was correct. I was eating super cleanly, and was
neither gaining nor losing weight, not coming back to 173.

After becoming certain of that, last week I decided to try "eating
less". I skipped breakfast and lunch and ate a good sized meal in the
evening.

That did it and as of today, I was at my desired weight of 173.6
lbs. (the middle number in my weight signature is the average of last
7 weights and is slow to reflect changes).

I will try to lose 1-2 more lbs next week and staying at or below 173
lbs.

--
223/175.6/180

Ignoramus8220 wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:54:14 GMT, Cubit wrote:

In the months just before the regain were you still eating Paleo, or had you
added grain and starch based foods back in?

The amount of weight you are losing or gaining is very small. It's just
a few extra calories a day. Maybe look at slightly larger portion sizes
or a decrease in your exercise.

I would not think that a single event, like a birthday indulgence would be
the trigger. The clues to the change would be in the regular everyday menu.
IMHO

Adding a few pounds a year is the typical symptom of the modern diet. I was
expecting that eating Paleo would avoid the list of possible causes for that
gain.

Thanks for keeping us updated.

I'm 5' 8" and this weight (we are almost exactly the same weight now) is
obviously too high for me. I'm carrying fat in a paunch and on my upper
arms near my shoulders. I'm thinking I should set a new goal around 150.
I plan to wait until I reach the original goal of 165 before changing my
goal officially. Are you taller, or heavy boned, or very muscular?


"Ignoramus8220" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:54:14 GMT, Cubit wrote:
In the months just before the regain were you still eating Paleo, or had
you
added grain and starch based foods back in?

I was still eating paleo, however I deviated from it by drinking some
wine on my birthday party etc, plus I ate cheese. I may have eaten
something starchy inadvertently, it is possible, but I have no
specific recollections.

It is also possible that my body is adjusting to low carb in some way
and, possibly, I can now gain weight even on this diet. Time will
tell.

i


"Ignoramus11139" wrote in message
...
As I mentioned earlier, about a month ago (could be aa little more) I
regained 3-4 lbs, quite suddenly, for no known reason.

I was hoping that I could re-lose that weight by eating low carb,
without expressly trying to "eat less". In the few previous regains of
1-2 lbs, that worked just fine. JC Der Koenig expressed doubt that it
would work.

I must say that JC was correct. I was eating super cleanly, and was
neither gaining nor losing weight, not coming back to 173.

After becoming certain of that, last week I decided to try "eating
less". I skipped breakfast and lunch and ate a good sized meal in the
evening.

That did it and as of today, I was at my desired weight of 173.6
lbs. (the middle number in my weight signature is the average of last
7 weights and is slow to reflect changes).

I will try to lose 1-2 more lbs next week and staying at or below 173
lbs.





--
223/175.6/180

Ignoramus8220 wrote:
Well, I was hoping, rightly or wrongly, that by eating low carb and
with some exercise, I would naturally regulate how much I eat, without
thinking too much or going hungry.

There is no such thing as natural weight regulation, at least for a good
portion of people. Guess which group you are in? Your drive to eat is
omnipresent, encoded in multiple overlapping systems. It doesn't matter
what you eat. Food is survival. Your body wants you to eat. That's how
you survive on the savannha.

So, I am concerned that as my body adjusted to LC, this diet will stop
working as well. Time will tell if that's so. I am very busy with some
projects right now, and I would very much like to be on some sort of
diet that lets me concentrate on something else besides eating. LC was
"it", but now I am beginning to have concerns.

It's a daily struggle. There's no "it." The good news you have been
doing well and can continue to do well. It's just not automatic.

I could do what you suggested, also (eating less but in several
meals). I figure, a week of eating once a day should not do any damage
and it was relatively easy to do for a week. After all, all I had to
lose was 2-3 lbs.

Yes, anything will do for losing a few pounds, that's what crash diets were
created for: people who need to shake off a few pounds quickly. The problem
starts when obese people want to drop 50 or 100lbs on one of these plans,
you can live on cabbage soup for a week but not for 6 months.

I have become relatively skeptical about all these claims about
metabolism, lately.

True. After all, it's a question of physics: if it takes a certain amount of
energy for something (chemical reaction, motion, temperature change, etc.)
to happen, how can it happen on a lot less energy? I've seen claims that
your metabolism 'will drop down to 50%', this doesn't make any sense, after
all if your body could be run on half the energy, why not do it all the
time? If you could tweak your car to run on 50% of the fuel, would you tweak
it back to use the full amount? There are energy-saving tips'n'tricks for
drivers that will reduce fuel consumption by modest amounts, this must be
the kind of thing that your body does when it goes into 'starvation' mode,
i.e. trying to save bits of energy here & there, which is why people feel
cold & tired when they don't eat.

Our bodies must have been designed for irregular eating, otherwise why the
limitless ability to store fat? If we were designed to eat 3 or 4 regular
meals day in day out, we'd only be able to store a few pounds of fat for,
say, a period of sickness during which we couldn't eat. If there's any BMR
change, it's likely to be +/- 10% or thereabouts and only temporarily, it's
not like if you starve yourself for a week you'll have a lower BMR forever.

Ignoramus8220 wrote:
: On Sun, 08 May 2005 08:13:34 -0700, Stacey Bender
: wrote:
: Ignoramus8220 wrote:
: On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:54:14 GMT, Cubit wrote:
:
: In the months just before the regain were you still eating Paleo,
: or had you added grain and starch based foods back in?
:
: The amount of weight you are losing or gaining is very small. It's
: just
: a few extra calories a day. Maybe look at slightly larger portion
: sizes
: or a decrease in your exercise.
:
: Well, I was hoping, rightly or wrongly, that by eating low carb and
: with some exercise, I would naturally regulate how much I eat,
: without thinking too much or going hungry.
:

As a former fat person, I just don't think it will ever be that way for you.
Sorry.


: I started eating low carb at normal weight, way after I lost 50
: lbs. The main rationale for going LC was to be able to maintain
: weight
: without being hungry all the time, like I was when I was maintaining
: weight on a general "eat less" diet. That was the hope.

Well, you weren't hungry all the time...were you? It seems you were
successful.

:
: It worked quite beautifully in the first 8 months. I was eating all I
: wanted, and was not gaining. Sometimes I would gain a couple of lbs
: temporarily and they would go away in a couple of weeks. It was a
: fairly carefree existence. Then I gained 3-5 lbs in March, and it
: would not go away until I decided to tough it out and "eat less" for
: one week.

Seems like I recall they came very quickly and, according to this, you lost
them in a week. Not bad if you ask me.

:
: So, I am concerned that as my body adjusted to LC, this diet will
: stop
: working as well. Time will tell if that's so. I am very busy with
: some projects right now, and I would very much like to be on some
: sort of
: diet that lets me concentrate on something else besides eating. LC
: was "it", but now I am beginning to have concerns.

IMO, you're worrying about nothing. Keep doing what you're doing, and if
you pick up a few pounds, restricting eating for a week to settle down.
It's just your way...live it with.

Polar Light wrote:
I have become relatively skeptical about all these claims about
metabolism, lately.

True. After all, it's a question of physics:

But it's not. I find it hard to believe people don't think the body can
adapt to survival by making choices of where to spend resources. Plus it
has been shown to happen, so there's not much to argue about.

if it takes a certain amount of
energy for something (chemical reaction, motion, temperature change, etc.)
to happen, how can it happen on a lot less energy? I've seen claims that
your metabolism 'will drop down to 50%', this doesn't make any sense, after
all if your body could be run on half the energy, why not do it all the
time?

When my car is low on gass i drive slower. Why don't i drive slower all
the time?


Our bodies must have been designed for irregular eating, otherwise why the
limitless ability to store fat? If we were designed to eat 3 or 4 regular
meals day in day out, we'd only be able to store a few pounds of fat for,
say, a period of sickness during which we couldn't eat.

But interestingly we don't store other things like essential fatty acids
and proteins. But we store fat.

"Ignoramus11139" wrote in message
...
On 7 May 2005 21:40:09 -0700, joni wrote:

Ignoramus11139 wrote:
After becoming certain of that, last week I decided to try "eating
less". I skipped breakfast and lunch and ate a good sized meal in the
evening.


How do you know the weight you gained was fat you needed to lose and not
muscle you want to keep?

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

"Ignoramus8220" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 May 2005 14:02:20 -0500, None Given
wrote:
"Ignoramus11139" wrote in message
...
On 7 May 2005 21:40:09 -0700, joni wrote:

Ignoramus11139 wrote:
After becoming certain of that, last week I decided to try "eating
less". I skipped breakfast and lunch and ate a good sized meal in the
evening.


How do you know the weight you gained was fat you needed to lose and
not muscle you want to keep?


Well, I did not change my exercise routine in any way...

And I guess you didn't start taking steroids either... it's not possible to
gain several pounds of muscle in a week or two, I think the average gain is
more like10lbs/yr or thereabouts.