Sort of frustrated again...should I make any changes?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:45:49 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

When I began to stall what worked to get me off it was to vary my intake
like the "Wendy plan". Basically eating more points two days of the week (a
lot more) and sticking to the low end of the range for five days. It worked
great. If you are eating a consistent 1500, try going 1250 for several days
with an 1800 or so day tossed in there a couple of times a week. Bet you
lose big.

I'd also encourage something like this. While I never took quite such
a structured approach, while losing I often had a higher calorie day
or two during the week, with lower-than-average days in between. This
frequently seemed to lead to a couple of pounds of weight loss.

Also, just be patient. During the 23 months I was losing, my monthly
loss (after the first month) ranged from 1 pound to 7 pounds. But, if
I looked at it on a monthly basis, it went down every single month.
There were just a couple of the 1-2 pound months, and in those months
I definitely went up some weeks, but what matters is the long term.
Hang in there!

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

Doug, take a breath !

Just my opinion.. but I really think you're just trying too hard... smell
the roses.. and all that stuff..

Core might help, do core and divide your plate, this much for starch, this
much for other veggies, this much for proteines.. or do flex, and don't go
below your point target..

my bet is that at 1500 calories.. that ain't enough to maintain a guy's
metabolism..


--
Will~

"... so that's how liberty ends, in a round of applause."

Queen Amidala, The revenge of the Syth.


"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
This morning my weight was 104.2 kg. My weight when I weighed this past
Friday was 103.4 kg. The week before was 103.8 kg. So this morning I
weighed
more than I did two weighings ago.

It's very frustrating. I really wanted to get into "two digits" by the end
of the year!

I'm doing everything I should. My average daily net calories (after
exercise) have been in the 1500-1600 calorie/day range for weeks now. I've
been really GOOD and I want the universe to do it's part and cooperate and
let me lose a decent amount every week.

On the one hand I feel like I am settled into a low-calorie routine I can
follow. On the other hand, after 25 weeks of this I am feeling bored too.

I wonder if I should try something like Weight Watcher's "Core" for a
week.

But the problem with that is that I *tried* Core before going on this diet
and didn't lose weight because what I ended up doing was gravitating to
all
the higher-calorie, starchy vegies that are allowed, like corn and
legumes,
rather than the very low calorie vegies I eat now. Plus there was no
guidance on serving sizes, so I would end up eating much more chicken and
fish and eggs than I do now that I am counting every calorie. So I think I
was really eating a lot of calories on Core.

I guess I just talked myself out of trying Core again. But I feel like I
need to do something to get my metabolism speeded up. I've been completely
ignoring carbs and other values - and just counting calories. But my long
experience with Atkins proved to me that low-calorie dieting is more
effective than low-carbing. After 25 weeks of low-calorie eating I've lost
47.5 lb. After 175 days of Atkins in 2003 I lost 34.1 lb. And that was
starting at a higher initial weight. So low-calorie diet has been about
1.4
times as effective as Atkins for my first 175 days.

But these stalling periods are really mentally exhausting. I wish there
was
a way of speeding up my metabolism more!

doug

In article , Doug Lerner
wrote:

snipped, cuz we know what Doug said

My thought would be that your metabolism's adjusted to your standard
intake. I've heard of several people who, on the Flex plan, would use 5
points every day of the week, making every day the same point value (and
thus approximately the same calorie value, to within 50 calories or so).
But this is a constant rate, and as such, lulls your body into a routine
that it gets comfortable with. So, they were doing everything exactly
right, technically, but after four or five months, their loss would stall
out. Which sounds similar to your case.

I'd say, three days a week, consecutively, go up to 2000 calories from
your regular 1500. That will get your metabolism running higher to deal
with the extra intake, and then when you cut back down for the next four
days, it'll keep on keepin' on, and you'll (hopefully) burn off more fat,
just in time for it to start slowing back down again, just in time for you
to rev it back up again.

So that's my two cents. Which is like two and a half yen, which makes it
sound at least a little better

-Tay

Doug Lerner wrote:
This morning my weight was 104.2 kg. My weight when I weighed this
past Friday was 103.4 kg. The week before was 103.8 kg. So this
morning I weighed more than I did two weighings ago.

It's very frustrating. I really wanted to get into "two digits" by
the end of the year!

I'm doing everything I should. My average daily net calories (after
exercise) have been in the 1500-1600 calorie/day range for weeks now.
I've been really GOOD and I want the universe to do it's part and
cooperate and let me lose a decent amount every week.
snip

To keep your metabolism up you must eat enough calories to maintain it. BMR
(basal metabolic rate) is the minimum amount of calories needed to maintain
life. (Cell and tissue regeneration, body temperature, proper organ
functions, muscle maintenance, etc) You should not be eating under this
amount. If you do eat too few calories for an extended period of time your
metabolism will slow in response and you will not lose fat. It's simply
conservation of energy.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

This calculator will tell you the amount of calories you need to maintain
BMR and the number of calories you need to take in to maintain your weight
for your current level of exercise. Your calories should be somewhere above
the BMR number and below the total calories number to lose weight in a
healthy way.

Make sure to check out the definitions of the different levels of
activities. I think many people also overestimate the amount of calories
they burn for the amount and type of exercise they do.
--
Jeri
"Change is inevitable, except from vending machines."

Well, I'm definitely absolutely not underestimating my calories. Of
everything I'm doing I'm most confident about my calorie count. I am
excruciatingly careful about that and never rely on guesses. I always rely
on packaging, printed menus or actual measures and reliable databases, like
Calorie King.

The problem is, I not only want to lose weight I want to keep it off
forever.

If it turns out I can't do this with the average of 1600 calories per day
I'm eating I don't feel confident I can stay on this plan forever. I feel
I'm pushing it right now with this caloric amount. That's why I do hope it
is a temporary slowdown!

Otherwise I really would like to investigate other means of increasing
metabolic rate.

doug



On 11/29/05 2:01 PM, in article ,
"Ignoramus4324" wrote:

Doug, I am confused as to what your objective is. If it is to lose
weight, then you need to eat less. You are on the broadest possible
eat less plan, more or less, as you limit certain "points" (similar to
calories). That limiting makes you lose weight. If so, I am not sure
just how meaningful would it be to switch to any other plan that is
similar in nature.

You are doing quite well, you have a stall like everyone else. If your
stall lasts for a few more weeks, it would be a good idea to
re-evaluate just how carefully you count calories, and make sure that
you eat under calorie balance.

As for slow loss being boring, imagie weight maintenance -- it is also
quite boring.

i

On 11/29/05 5:40 PM, in article ,
"Tayra" wrote:

My thought would be that your metabolism's adjusted to your standard
intake. I've heard of several people who, on the Flex plan, would use 5
points every day of the week, making every day the same point value (and
thus approximately the same calorie value, to within 50 calories or so).
But this is a constant rate, and as such, lulls your body into a routine
that it gets comfortable with. So, they were doing everything exactly
right, technically, but after four or five months, their loss would stall
out. Which sounds similar to your case.

I'd say, three days a week, consecutively, go up to 2000 calories from
your regular 1500. That will get your metabolism running higher to deal
with the extra intake, and then when you cut back down for the next four
days, it'll keep on keepin' on, and you'll (hopefully) burn off more fat,
just in time for it to start slowing back down again, just in time for you
to rev it back up again.

So that's my two cents. Which is like two and a half yen, which makes it
sound at least a little better

The yen is dropping in value, isn't it? I'm glad my salary is paid in
dollars!

Thanks for your suggestion. I've heard that theory too. I don't know what to
believe though. Half the people here say lower my calories. The other half
say to increase it. That averages out to not changing anything at all.

Anyway, I'm not going to change anything this week and see how things go up
until Friday again and then possibly rethink...

doug

On 11/29/05 6:41 PM, in article ,
"Jeri" wrote:

Doug Lerner wrote:
This morning my weight was 104.2 kg. My weight when I weighed this
past Friday was 103.4 kg. The week before was 103.8 kg. So this
morning I weighed more than I did two weighings ago.

It's very frustrating. I really wanted to get into "two digits" by
the end of the year!

I'm doing everything I should. My average daily net calories (after
exercise) have been in the 1500-1600 calorie/day range for weeks now.
I've been really GOOD and I want the universe to do it's part and
cooperate and let me lose a decent amount every week.
snip

To keep your metabolism up you must eat enough calories to maintain it. BMR
(basal metabolic rate) is the minimum amount of calories needed to maintain
life. (Cell and tissue regeneration, body temperature, proper organ
functions, muscle maintenance, etc) You should not be eating under this
amount. If you do eat too few calories for an extended period of time your
metabolism will slow in response and you will not lose fat. It's simply
conservation of energy.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html

This calculator will tell you the amount of calories you need to maintain
BMR and the number of calories you need to take in to maintain your weight
for your current level of exercise. Your calories should be somewhere above
the BMR number and below the total calories number to lose weight in a
healthy way.

That's interesting, but it tells me that with 24 hours "at rest" my body
(103.4 kg, 49 years old, 174 cm) needs 2028 calories per day. That means
that my CPP (Calories per Pound) would be just 8.9 rather than the 10.4 I
have been estimating.

If that is true, at my goal weight it means I really need only about 1500
calories per day (net calories, after exercise) rather than the 1800
calories per day I thought I needed.

That is real conservation of energy. This business about eating too FEW
calories slowing down your metabolism is more a biological theory than
conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy would tell me, based on this, I still need to eat
even less and/or exercise even more. sigh

There is probably just no way around this.

I just have to see what I can cut from my eating habits to reduce my food
even more...



Make sure to check out the definitions of the different levels of
activities. I think many people also overestimate the amount of calories
they burn for the amount and type of exercise they do.

The only exercise I actually count on the diet are the calories I read off
my exercise bike. It knows my weight and age and how far I've gone and how
fast I've gone, etc. I think that is pretty accurate. And I don't count
other exercise, like walks, at all.

doug

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:56:50 GMT, "Cubit" wrote:

Along my Fitday diet travels I found a close correlation between my Fitday
calories and the pounds I lost. Yet, I never took into account exercise.
There was a few months where I was going to the YMCA and doing weight
training on machines, and there was a week that I did a repair job on my
roof that involved lots of "exercise." I never saw a difference in my
numbers as compared to my usual periods of Zero exercise.

With this in mind, may I humbly suggest that you not use a "net" number for
calories. Just count 'em up and watch the math relative to weight.

I suspect that for exercise to shift the balance, it has to be *extreme*
exercise as shown on the awful US TV show "Biggest Loser."

Well, this just shows to go ya that one size does NOT fit all for
losing weight.

My intake of food matters far less to the scale than my exercise does.

I've had weeks where I ate nothing but green veggies and lean proteins
and stayed strictly within my limits for food, and lost very little or
maintained.

I've also had weeks where I was on vacation and ate hush puppies and
french fries and cupcakes, but was swimming in the ocean every day and
lost weight.

--
Kristen

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:04:55 +0900, Doug Lerner
wrote:

On 11/29/05 12:45 PM, in article ,
"Lesanne" wrote:

When I began to stall what worked to get me off it was to vary my intake
like the "Wendy plan". Basically eating more points two days of the week (a
lot more) and sticking to the low end of the range for five days. It worked
great. If you are eating a consistent 1500, try going 1250 for several days
with an 1800 or so day tossed in there a couple of times a week. Bet you
lose big.

I'll try some variations. Thanks.

Here's a link for the Wendie plan:

http://www.stormpc.com/ww/wendie_plan.htm

--
Kristen

Also something else that works for me really well is changing my normal
exercise routine to something else. I ride a bicycle most of the time, it is
my preferred exercise. When I want to take off a few pounds (like now, after
a bit of overholidaying) I ride for half of my time, then get off and take a
couple mile walk/jog. Or I toss in a couple of step aerobic tapes. Whatever.
I really think if you do the same thing day after day for intake and
exercise your body will do it's very best to conserve your body weight to
wait out the famine or whatever is going on. Those big eating days surprise
it (oh my, there isn't actually a famine....) and the lower ones are not
enough to slow your metabolic rate back down. I picked up 3 pounds over
thanksgiving and one of them is gone already.

--
Lesanne
"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...
I'll try some variations. Thanks.

doug



On 11/29/05 12:45 PM, in article
,
"Lesanne" wrote:

When I began to stall what worked to get me off it was to vary my intake
like the "Wendy plan". Basically eating more points two days of the week
(a
lot more) and sticking to the low end of the range for five days. It
worked
great. If you are eating a consistent 1500, try going 1250 for several
days
with an 1800 or so day tossed in there a couple of times a week. Bet you
lose big.