hi (intro and long)

Hi group,

Nice to "meet" you. My name is Lisa. I've been reading a
couple days and I'd like to ask a question. What follows is
some personal info with question at the end (for those who
don't enjoy small novels masquerading as posts).

I began my diet January 1st as my main new year's
resolution. I've quite a way to go:

01/01/06 - 365lbs / 166kg (kg's are approximate)
01/16/06 - 358lbs / 163kg
goal for June 1 - 315lbs / 143kg
goal for Dec. 31st, '06 - 265lbs / 120kg
long term goal - 175lbs / 80kg

I'm 37, mother of three, and this is the first time I've
ever been on a diet. I've been overweight (over 200lbs.)
for the past 20 years. This is also the first time I've
ever made a serious commitment to changing my lifestyle and
taking this weight off for final.

Beginning Jan. 1 I let myself get hungry so I could
determine what that felt like. It happened that I didn't
feel my stomach grumble and really feel like I couldn't go
another moment without food until 12:00 noon to 1:00pm.
Then I had a normal-sized serving lunch and water. Later I
had a normal-sized serving dinner. The results of this were
very noticeable in the way I felt and the way my body reacted.

Next day I let it go a bit further and ate even later to
determine where my limits were. I discovered if I didn't
eat anything during the day, at around 4:00pm in the
afternoon I began to really feel shaky like my muscles
weren't going to carry me around. Then I had another
normal-sized dinner and a low calorie drink.

After this two day experiment I went back to my pattern of
letting my body determine when it needed to eat, which seems
to be around noon each day, skipping breakfast. I'm just
not hungry in the morning.

What I noticed happening was, I had a very quick 10lb weight
loss, then this morning I noticed I've put 2 of those pounds
back on without really changing the amount I eat. I'm not
counting calories seriously just yet, more noticing the
calorie amounts in the foods I'm attracted to and getting my
footing on how to begin.

The question is: to maintain a slow, steady weight loss is
it better to -

a.) eat small servings at regular intervals throughout the
day, no matter if I'm hungry or not

b.) eat three normal-serving meals at set times, whether I'm
hungry or not

c.) continue to eat only when I'm hungry

In the near future I plan to add a light exercise regimen to
my diet but haven't begun yet because at this size just
walking around makes me short of breath. The thought of
doing any real exercise is a bit overwhelming although I
know I must to get my body past famine mode and into burning
the fat. But that's another post.

Thanks in advance for your help and opinions.

"LisatheSequel" wrote in message
...
Hi group,

Nice to "meet" you. My name is Lisa. I've been reading a couple days and
I'd like to ask a question. What follows is some personal info with
question at the end (for those who don't enjoy small novels masquerading
as posts).

I began my diet January 1st as my main new year's resolution. I've quite
a way to go:

01/01/06 - 365lbs / 166kg (kg's are approximate)
01/16/06 - 358lbs / 163kg
goal for June 1 - 315lbs / 143kg
goal for Dec. 31st, '06 - 265lbs / 120kg
long term goal - 175lbs / 80kg

I'm 37, mother of three, and this is the first time I've ever been on a
diet. I've been overweight (over 200lbs.) for the past 20 years. This is
also the first time I've ever made a serious commitment to changing my
lifestyle and taking this weight off for final.

Beginning Jan. 1 I let myself get hungry so I could determine what that
felt like. It happened that I didn't feel my stomach grumble and really
feel like I couldn't go another moment without food until 12:00 noon to
1:00pm. Then I had a normal-sized serving lunch and water. Later I had a
normal-sized serving dinner. The results of this were very noticeable in
the way I felt and the way my body reacted.

Next day I let it go a bit further and ate even later to determine where
my limits were. I discovered if I didn't eat anything during the day, at
around 4:00pm in the afternoon I began to really feel shaky like my
muscles weren't going to carry me around. Then I had another normal-sized
dinner and a low calorie drink.

After this two day experiment I went back to my pattern of letting my body
determine when it needed to eat, which seems to be around noon each day,
skipping breakfast. I'm just not hungry in the morning.

What I noticed happening was, I had a very quick 10lb weight loss, then
this morning I noticed I've put 2 of those pounds back on without really
changing the amount I eat. I'm not counting calories seriously just yet,
more noticing the calorie amounts in the foods I'm attracted to and
getting my footing on how to begin.

The question is: to maintain a slow, steady weight loss is it better to -

a.) eat small servings at regular intervals throughout the day, no matter
if I'm hungry or not

b.) eat three normal-serving meals at set times, whether I'm hungry or not

c.) continue to eat only when I'm hungry

In the near future I plan to add a light exercise regimen to my diet but
haven't begun yet because at this size just walking around makes me short
of breath. The thought of doing any real exercise is a bit overwhelming
although I know I must to get my body past famine mode and into burning
the fat. But that's another post.

Thanks in advance for your help and opinions.

When and how often to eat is an individual choice. If you have had problems
with binge eating in your life it's not a good thing to let yourself get too
hungry since this can trigger a binge. Some people here eat once or twice a
day, the rest of us eat small meals regularly. Most successful losers do
eat breakfast. Starving yourself is not going to be helpful in the long
run.

You should probably record everything you eat for a while. It's another
tool to help with weight loss that works for most people who do it. Then
you can determine a calorie level that is sustainable in the long run. You
want to make sure your eating pattern is sustainable for the long run.

Exercise is important but not critical at this point since you want to avoid
injury.

Starting out as you are with small changes is a good way to go since it will
be less overwhelming. That you have set short-term or mini goals is a good
way to continue to receive some kind of reinforcement along the way of what
is going to be a long journey. Having started out at over 300 lbs. myself I
can tell you that it's worth the effort.
--
the volleyballchick
100+ lbs lost

LisatheSequel wrote in message
...

c.) continue to eat only when I'm hungry

For this to work, you must be able to eat something at any time of the
day and you must always have access to healthy food. If you are unable
to meet one of these requirements you may find that either of the
other two options will work better. In general, routine works better
than "flying by the seat of your pants" and a little planning works
better than very extensive planning or not planning at all.

LisatheSequel wrote:

01/01/06 - 365lbs / 166kg (kg's are approximate)
01/16/06 - 358lbs / 163kg
goal for June 1 - 315lbs / 143kg
goal for Dec. 31st, '06 - 265lbs / 120kg
long term goal - 175lbs / 80kg

Seriously consider switching to *behavioral* goals. The
thing is behavior is controllable but our bodies aren't.
Your body might just decide to get stuck at some weight
for a few months and you'd end up frustrated and start
doing extreme stuff if your goals are in pounds. But if
your goals are in behavior and you're on-process then
you'll have time to do mild stuff during a stall. Extreme
actions tend to cause burn-out.

I'm 37, mother of three, and this is the first time I've
ever been on a diet.

Good news at this point. You haven't done yoyo so your
metabolism is undamaged. If you stick with mild actions
you won't damage your metabloism and you won't end
up on the yoyoy rollercoaster.

I've been overweight (over 200lbs.)
for the past 20 years. This is also the first time I've
ever made a serious commitment to changing my lifestyle and
taking this weight off for final.

Permanent lifestyle change is the only way to keep it off.
There are lots of ways to lose but if it isn't permanent the
weight returns.

But over time do consider switching from one type of plan
to another. No one plan works for everyone so feel free to
try one type for 6 months, another for 6 months, just to
see what works best or easiest for you.

Beginning Jan. 1 I let myself get hungry so I could
determine what that felt like.

There's a national registry of folks who maintain loss. The
biggest thing they have in common is they don't skip
meals. Why is a question that leads to speculation.

After this two day experiment I went back to my pattern of
letting my body determine when it needed to eat, which seems
to be around noon each day, skipping breakfast. I'm just
not hungry in the morning.

If letting your body decide worked, you wouldn't be here
with us now. Consider that correlation of cause and effect.

What I noticed happening was, I had a very quick 10lb weight
loss,

Water bounce. You went without carbs for a while, so your
body burned stored carbs. Carbs are stored dissolved in
water so when the carbs went so did the dissolving water.
It can lead to big bounces without any meaning in change
of underlying stored fat. Lesson to be learned - It's the
trend across longer than a week that matters not today's
bounce.

then this morning I noticed I've put 2 of those pounds
back on without really changing the amount I eat.

Right. Recharged stored carbs some, some water came
back.

I'm not
counting calories seriously just yet, more noticing the
calorie amounts in the foods I'm attracted to and getting my
footing on how to begin.

Thinking it over, more there's a wise approach.

The question is: to maintain a slow, steady weight loss is
it better to -

a.) eat small servings at regular intervals throughout the
day, no matter if I'm hungry or not

On the average this works for the most people. How to tell
if you're average in this sense? Experiment. But since it
works for the most people it is definitely the option to try
first. Go with the highest chance first, see if it works for you.

b.) eat three normal-serving meals at set times, whether I'm
hungry or not

Tends to work great for low carbers.

c.) continue to eat only when I'm hungry

You already know this didn't work for you in the form of
skipping breakfast. You have skipped breakfast for many
years, right? And you have drifted up all that time. Not a
great way to start - More of what already didn't work.

I have a theory on why eating when you're not hungry works
for more people on the average:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I think that on the average it keeps folks from overeating
later and so it means lower portions over all.

But that's only on the average and for more people than not.
It doesn't run anywhere near 90%. It's still the highest
percentage shot you've got at the start so you may as well
start with it.

In the near future I plan to add a light exercise regimen to
my diet but haven't begun yet because at this size just
walking around makes me short of breath.

Walking counts as exercise. Never allow yourself into the
trap of thinking that if it doesn't happen at the gym it doesn't
count as exercise.

Go ahead and walk as much as you can. In time you'll be
able to walk more and more. At some point you'll reach a
point where you can walk an hour on the flat and wonder
if that really should count as exercise. When it comes down
to it, that's a point of acheivement. From that point on
you'll already be in okay shape working on better, not in
poor shape working towards okay. So take that as your goal.
Walk a bit more each day until it gradually becomes easy.
Worry about the fancy stuff when you've acheived long walks.

The thought of
doing any real exercise is a bit overwhelming

Get that out of your thoughts *today*. Walking IS *real*
exercise. Walking on the flat is the starting point and
walking on the flat shows the difference between poor
condition and okay condition.

although I
know I must to get my body past famine mode and into burning
the fat. But that's another post.

Uh, no. You don't need to get *past* famine mode. You need
to trigger loss *without* triggering famine mode. Overdo it and
your body will respond by working harder and harder to regain.
This is a right-size issue not a less-is-better issue. You want
to lose but you also want to avoid rebound. The way to do that
is to stay mild no matter how tempting it is to go to extremes.

Think about it. How has an all-or-nothing plan ever worked for
you? The vast majority of the time it leads to crash and burn
and nothing. A steady effort wins the race. The rabbit sprinted
amd burned out. The turtle hiked and never tired out and won.

Nunya B. wrote:

snipped
When and how often to eat is an individual choice. If you have had problems
with binge eating in your life it's not a good thing to let yourself get too
hungry since this can trigger a binge. Some people here eat once or twice a
day, the rest of us eat small meals regularly. Most successful losers do
eat breakfast. Starving yourself is not going to be helpful in the long
run.


Okay. Noted.


You should probably record everything you eat for a while. It's another
tool to help with weight loss that works for most people who do it. Then
you can determine a calorie level that is sustainable in the long run. You
want to make sure your eating pattern is sustainable for the long run.


Good idea. I've heard of that in the past but I didn't
think of it now. I'll start immediately.


Exercise is important but not critical at this point since you want to avoid
injury.

Starting out as you are with small changes is a good way to go since it will
be less overwhelming. That you have set short-term or mini goals is a good
way to continue to receive some kind of reinforcement along the way of what
is going to be a long journey. Having started out at over 300 lbs. myself I
can tell you that it's worth the effort.


Hearing someone else has attempted this and been successful
is great news. Congratulations to you. I had my youngest
son in 2004. I nursed and lost a great deal of weight
without effort. My weight went down to 286 lbs. (130kg) and
I felt like a completely different person. I had more
energy, didn't feel so depressed and tired, I could get thru
a day without having to take a nap, etc. It was a whole new
existence. I can't get that out of my mind and I want it
again. There's got to be a way to achieve it.

Nunya is a wonderful example of how persistent one can be! She has done
wonders and I look up to her advice.

For me what works best, though this is now for everyone, is to eat 5
smaller meals a day. I eat three meals with two snacks. I really pay
attention to serving size and what I eat. For instance, last night
after dinner I was quite hungry, so I had a snack of 11 whole almonds
(yes, I counted) and 1/4 cup diced dried fruit. It was just enough to
tied me over and I still loast a pound from yesterday.

Martha

Matthew Venhaus wrote:
LisatheSequel wrote in message
...

c.) continue to eat only when I'm hungry


For this to work, you must be able to eat something at any time of the
day and you must always have access to healthy food. If you are unable
to meet one of these requirements you may find that either of the
other two options will work better. In general, routine works better
than "flying by the seat of your pants" and a little planning works
better than very extensive planning or not planning at all.


I'm a housewife so I'm home most of the day. I also do the
shopping and make the decisions on most of the food my
family eats. So at the moment it's possible for me to have
access to healthy food at any time of the day.

I agree with you that planning is key. If I don't have a
plan I tend to go for whatever is easiest.

I have been enjoying this discussion and have learned a lot from it.
Good luck to Lisa and thanks to all who have responded to her post. I
will use the suggestions also. cc in oregon

Doug Freyburger wrote:

snipped
Seriously consider switching to *behavioral* goals. The
thing is behavior is controllable but our bodies aren't.
Your body might just decide to get stuck at some weight
for a few months and you'd end up frustrated and start
doing extreme stuff if your goals are in pounds. But if
your goals are in behavior and you're on-process then
you'll have time to do mild stuff during a stall. Extreme
actions tend to cause burn-out.


Agreed. Don't have to consider that at all, behavior
modification is the plan - replacing bad habits with good ones.


snipped
Beginning Jan. 1 I let myself get hungry so I could
determine what that felt like.

There's a national registry of folks who maintain loss. The
biggest thing they have in common is they don't skip
meals. Why is a question that leads to speculation.


I've heard small meals spaced evenly out during the course
of a day keep the metabolism constant and the body out of
"famine" mode. I haven't experienced it, though, being too
new at this.

Right now I'm trying to decide whether or not to eat only
when I'm hungry - which seems logical - or try and achieve a
constant metabolism - which seems more practical.


After this two day experiment I went back to my pattern of
letting my body determine when it needed to eat, which seems
to be around noon each day, skipping breakfast. I'm just
not hungry in the morning.

If letting your body decide worked, you wouldn't be here
with us now. Consider that correlation of cause and effect.


Thing is, I never let my body decide. I ate with my
emotions. That's what got me into this mess. I ate when I
was stressed, tired, sad, bored, etc. Almost never when I
was actually hungry.


What I noticed happening was, I had a very quick 10lb weight
loss,

Water bounce. You went without carbs for a while, so your
body burned stored carbs. Carbs are stored dissolved in
water so when the carbs went so did the dissolving water.
It can lead to big bounces without any meaning in change
of underlying stored fat. Lesson to be learned - It's the
trend across longer than a week that matters not today's
bounce.


Agreed. I'm not really interested in short term results
other than to formulate a plan of action. I'm not going to
let a week's time determine my outlook when like another
poster said, I'll be doing this for a lifetime.


snipped
Thinking it over, more there's a wise approach.

The question is: to maintain a slow, steady weight loss is
it better to -

a.) eat small servings at regular intervals throughout the
day, no matter if I'm hungry or not

On the average this works for the most people. How to tell
if you're average in this sense? Experiment. But since it
works for the most people it is definitely the option to try
first. Go with the highest chance first, see if it works for you.


b.) eat three normal-serving meals at set times, whether I'm
hungry or not


Tends to work great for low carbers.


c.) continue to eat only when I'm hungry


You already know this didn't work for you in the form of
skipping breakfast. You have skipped breakfast for many
years, right? And you have drifted up all that time. Not a
great way to start - More of what already didn't work.


No, didn't skip breakfast for many years. More like ate way
too much for breakfast for many years and even though I
wasn't hungry, just because the clock told me it was time to
eat.

But - if skipping a meal is going to slow my metabolism and
make it harder for me to lose the weight, I'm leaning toward
the small meals spaced out evenly.


I have a theory on why eating when you're not hungry works
for more people on the average:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I think that on the average it keeps folks from overeating
later and so it means lower portions over all.


Hm. Could be.


But that's only on the average and for more people than not.
It doesn't run anywhere near 90%. It's still the highest
percentage shot you've got at the start so you may as well
start with it.


In the near future I plan to add a light exercise regimen to
my diet but haven't begun yet because at this size just
walking around makes me short of breath.

Walking counts as exercise. Never allow yourself into the
trap of thinking that if it doesn't happen at the gym it doesn't
count as exercise.


Heh, my husband said just that. He said if I don't raise my
heartbeat and break a sweat it isn't exercise, and since
walking in a level area doesn't do that it isn't exercise.

It's obvious to me he's never walked around in a 365lb body
before so he may not know just what a chore this is.


Go ahead and walk as much as you can. In time you'll be
able to walk more and more. At some point you'll reach a
point where you can walk an hour on the flat and wonder
if that really should count as exercise. When it comes down
to it, that's a point of acheivement. From that point on
you'll already be in okay shape working on better, not in
poor shape working towards okay. So take that as your goal.
Walk a bit more each day until it gradually becomes easy.
Worry about the fancy stuff when you've acheived long walks.


That sounds like a good plan.


The thought of
doing any real exercise is a bit overwhelming

Get that out of your thoughts *today*. Walking IS *real*
exercise. Walking on the flat is the starting point and
walking on the flat shows the difference between poor
condition and okay condition.


Okay.


although I
know I must to get my body past famine mode and into burning
the fat. But that's another post.

Uh, no. You don't need to get *past* famine mode. You need
to trigger loss *without* triggering famine mode. Overdo it and
your body will respond by working harder and harder to regain.
This is a right-size issue not a less-is-better issue. You want
to lose but you also want to avoid rebound.


Exactly.


The way to do that
is to stay mild no matter how tempting it is to go to extremes.

Think about it. How has an all-or-nothing plan ever worked for
you? The vast majority of the time it leads to crash and burn
and nothing. A steady effort wins the race. The rabbit sprinted
amd burned out. The turtle hiked and never tired out and won.


So true. Thanks for your advice!

Black Metal Martha wrote:

Nunya is a wonderful example of how persistent one can be! She has done
wonders and I look up to her advice.

For me what works best, though this is now for everyone, is to eat 5
smaller meals a day. I eat three meals with two snacks. I really pay
attention to serving size and what I eat. For instance, last night
after dinner I was quite hungry, so I had a snack of 11 whole almonds
(yes, I counted) and 1/4 cup diced dried fruit. It was just enough to
tied me over and I still loast a pound from yesterday.


That's a great example of what I meant by small meals. When
I first began toying with the idea of this I got the US
Dept. of Agriculture Food Guide for 2005 and looked at what
constituted a normal-sized serving. Boy was I shocked.
Most restaurants don't even serve normal portions anymore,
and if I go by that guide, just by eating a dinner out
you're sure to get 2-3 times more than you should be eating
to maintain a healthy weight.

Portion size is going to be very important to my goal I can
tell.