Ok, fine, whatever, I give up

In ,
DigitalVinyl stated
|| I count calories so
|||| I can watch for bad carbs. But I still have to be wary. I've gotten
|||| used to having something low-carb & chocolatey now. It is not the
|||| best thing for me to do even though I am not overeating at all. BUt
|||| I do look for something chocolatey late in the day now... which
|||| would be bad if no low-carb chocolate is around. But chocolate has
|||| always been a weakness.
||
|| Then you'd be advised to limit your chocolate for continued success.
|
| Yep, it is my current concern, despite the last two weeks representing
| a decrease in total calories from about 1900 to under 1700. I find
| myself looking forward to a taste of chocolate (always have). I can't
| figure out if it is a good thing that I've found that a small amount
| of chocolate (one 10g 1" square brownie, 1/2 cup of ice cream, two
| kershey kisses) satisfies me enough or bad that I still want them.
| Even when I had no chocolate I still wanted it.

I don't think it is helpful to fight yourself too much on these things. If
something satisfies you and fits into your plan eat it. I find that often
after a meal, particularly in the evening, I don't feel satisfied until I
have something sweet. I can keep munching other things endlessly without
satisfaction but something sweet puts an end to it. Sweet things don't have
to be bad for you, SF Jello, cream cheese with Splenda and some
flavoring--lemon juice is my favorite and my latest discovery. A glass (8
oz) of Hood's Homogenized with a splash of DaVinci's Kahlua syrup tastes
just like an Arby's jamocha shake, one of my lifelong faves. I have yet to
try partially freezing it, bet that would make even the texture right.

Luna wrote:
:: In article .net,
:: RRzVRR wrote:
::
::: Luna wrote:
:::
::: I've been working out 5 - 6 days a week, weight lifting 3x a
::: week, cardio
:::: as a warm up on weight days, and more cardio on non-weight days.
:::: I'm pushing myself as hard as I can on the working out. I've been
:::: averaging around 1200 calories a day, about 30g of carbs a day.
:::
::: Tell us exactly what you've been doing: lifts, weight, sets, reps,
::: and some equally exact numbers for your cardio work.
::
:: The cardio warm up is usually 10 - 15 minutes on an eliptical
:: machine, as hard as I can go without my heart rate getting too high.
:: I don't have a heart rate monitor, so I judge it by my breathing -
:: if I can still talk, it's not too high.
::

Interesting......have you considered upping the intensity?

http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/hiit.htm

http://www.stumptuous.com/fartlek.html

This is definitely something you don't want to just start doing with no
background in cardio. But, if you believe the studies, it can result in the
increased burning fat. Since it is very intense over short intervals, you
will definitely be way out of your comfort zone, and your heart rate will
definitely enter into the "too high" catagory. With practice, that is not
such a dangerous thing, provided you use an exercise vehicle that is
relatively low impact, which helps in preventing injury.


:: The cardio on non-weight days is either a cardio dance class or a
:: yoga/pilates class. Since the yoga/pilates doesn't get my heart
:: rate up much, I do about 15 minutes of brisk walking on those days
:: too, as a warm up for the class. Or if the walking track is closed,
:: I go up and down the stairs 10 times.
::
:: My other cardio activities are sporadic and include stuff like
:: playing soccer or tag with the kids I work with, but I don't "count"
:: that stuff as an official part of my workout.
::
:: For my weight lifting, I do 2 sets of 8-12 reps on each of these
:: machines, currently at these weights, when I get to 12 reps I up the
:: weight by 5 pounds.
::
:: Leg Press: 85
:: Leg Curl: 40
:: Leg Extension: 15
:: Chest Press: 20
:: Row/Rear Delt: 35
:: Overhead Press: 15
:: Arm Curl: 20
:: Arm Extension: 25
:: Ab Crunch: 45
:: Back Extension: 60

Maybe it's ime to move up to 3 sets.

::
:: All of these weights are higher than when I started except the leg
:: extension. That one is so difficult even at such a low weight that I
:: wonder if maybe I'm deformed and I was actually born without those
:: muscles, lol.

I hate leg extensions. You definitely don't want to go heavy on those.

"Roger Zoul" wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote:
::
::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
::::: Luna wrote:
:::::
:::::: In article , DJ Delorie
:::::: wrote:
::::::
::
::: Luna, just recently, was posting about how she was overeating and
::: upset by it. Here, just a scant few weeks later, it's all this
::: exercise and no eating.
:: Was she overeating (high calorie consumption over days) or
:: mini-binge-ing at a meal(large single meals).

I think both, and also eating way more some days and way less others.

Cause she descirbes
:: starving herself until she eats large meals cause she's so hungry.
:: Despite this she says she's at 1200 a day.

See -- the use of the word starving....just eating 700 kcals on two days
right behind eating 1800 kcals the prior two days ain't starving.

Well it depends upon what your body actually needs. If Luna really
needs 1600 to maintain 125 lbs and her activity level, it is. That's
the big mystery for *all* of us, exactly how many calories is right
for our weight and activity level. Until we get there and stay
there--we won't know. Screwed up, but reality.

It might
be fair to refer to it as going hungry, but it damn sure ain't starving. I
do that and I weigh a good bit more than Luna does.

I like "starving" because it implies a forced action, where "eat less"
is very passive. I am "eating less"--I'm not "starving" myself. I do
not experience hunger and then deny myself food in an effort to force
my weight lower. I've eaten 800 BUT I was satisfied at 800--not
because I told myself I MUST NOT EAT.

If in review the hunger seems unjustified then it is time to
re-evaluate.

::: But yet, there's undereating here then getting hungry and
::: overeating there. And now you're ready to "call into doubt" and
::: using phrases such as "you're doing all this exericse, you're
::: eating *VERY* little and not loosing weight?" Perhaps there are
::: other reasons for that....
::
:: Yes! But a common reaction is reduce your intake--like JesusChrist
:: der King always says.



:: She isn't loosing weight, so the "WAY" to lose
:: weight is to exercise more eat less. Using this hammer-logic she's
:: overeating or simply too inactive. Unless she is exaggerating here, I
:: wouldn't think that is the case, possibly the opposite!

Another possibility is simply that enough time hasn't gone by. I read this
group daily and I follow Luna's post, so I keep track of what she reports.
Not very long ago she reported of eating too much. I don't believe this is
a simple matter of just exerscising like crazy, starving, and not losing
weight. Also, one needs to examine that types of exercise being done and
the cardio being done. No detail was given in these posts about that.

I agree, time is a factor. I can see there being a natural rate of
loss for the body. Exceed it and the body fights back. Sure you can
always force weight loss, but don't expect the body to just go along
with your plans. Even without understanding the sciences, this *seems*
a logic thing for the body to do.

Though
:: obviously she is leaning that way--she is thinking she should eat
:: less even though she is going hungry every day and doesn't want to
:: eat less. I wouldn't be surprised if pushing herself so low with the
:: elevated activity is the why the stall has lasted. My landlord(60yr
:: female) who doesn't have much to lose has also been stalled 3 months.
:: Her doctor said eat less. She already thinks she is eating very
:: little and was feeling frustration by the generic, starve-yourself
:: more advice.

Hey -- losing weight is hard. Doing things that are hard bring on
frustration for many. That's life. However, how one things about the
process can have a big impact on whether or not one gets frustrated.

More is probably in our heads than we ever want to admit.

::::: Something has to be
::::: wrong there. I've seen people basically answer stalls with starve
::::: yourself more. That has always seemed like such an insane answer.
::::: What healthy person constantly starves their body? Only dieters
::::: think this is normal behavior.
:::
::: Eating less does not equal constantly starving. Geez....Eating less
::: to achieve a weight goal is normal behavior. It's only considered
::: non-normal by those who find the notion of eating less abnormal.
::
:: People often talk about sending the body into "starvation mode", you
:: don't seem upset by that terminology, even though no one is actually
:: looking like some african starvation victim. She may simply not be
:: ready to lose more weight in a healthy way. Frustrating herself at
:: lower calories and not loosing weight seems an unhealthy thing to do.
:: I guess I have to add, IMO

Yes, I agree that frustrating oneself is very unproductive. But the part
about lowering calories, exercising, and not losing weight is yet to be
determined, imo. I do think that for very heavy people or very sedentary
people, and for those with severe metabolic issues there are exceptions.
For example, for those who are very heavy, the best approach to weight loss
initially is just to restrict carbs to generate reduced appetite. That
generated quick easy weight loss -- up to a point. This is where Luna was
and most likely where you are now.

I'm still in free fall for the most part. My weight has stagnated the
last nine days but no real issue yet. I think it was in response to
losing 7.5 pounds in 7 days. That's two weeks of loss in just one.
This is one of the experiences that makes me question whether stalls
are often just the body fighting back. I think I lost weight too
quickly(still unsure why) and now my body is in conservation mode.
Hopefully it will relax and let things resume.

Luna now has to deal with the fact that
weight loss won't be so easy anymore. I'd feel sorry for her but this is a
facet of what it means to to gain control over one's weight. She, like us
all, must deal with it.

Actually, one of my curiosities is the EXACT symptoms of how a stall
starts. Do people go from losing consistently to nothing, or is there
a gradual backing off from loss. Most people probably don't track
enough to evaluate this properly. I wonder if a stall is a suddden
stop. I would expect reaching a maintainence-plateau would result in
very gradual reductions in loss.

::::: If you could eat 2000 and maintain and now you are eating 1200, I
::::: would think you are starving your body and simply making it
::::: desperate to survive the hard famine it is currently experiencing.
:::
::: If that is what is really happening, and if that is happening over
::: an extended period of time - then maybe. But you need to be
::: certain of the facts before making conclusions. And even if those
::: conclusions are correct for Luna, it is entirely another matter as
::: to whether they are correct for YOU.
::
:: Uh, duh. Unfortunately we only have what Luna gives us to go on.
:: Since I'm not allowed to make conclusions then perhaps I should use
:: more tentative phrases such as "I would think", oh wait I did.
:: friendly sarcasm
::
:: IMHO, YRMV, I personally don't think of my current eating as weight
:: loss, but as maintenance. It is just maintenance for some future
:: weight level. I don't know what that weight level is yet. The weight
:: loss/gain is just the body balancing out the scales. The way I'm
:: eating TODAY ***IS*** the way I would eat FOREVER at that weight
:: level. If the way I'm eating can only get me down to 250 lbs then I
:: will have to learn to live with that. If I want to become the person
:: that exercises five times a week to get down to 200 lbs, then I will
:: have to do that FOREVER. If I don't, my weight will come back to the
:: 250 level whenever I let up onthe activity level. To me this is
:: common sense.

:: Exercising for the purpose of losing weight doesn't
:: make sense. Exercising for physical fitness and personal enjoyment
:: does.

See...here you should have included a "IMO"

LOL!

When you're heavy, exercising to lose weight makes a great deal of sense.
And if exercise helps you to get to 200 lbs, then that doesn't imply that
you have to maintain that same level to maintain that weight. That exercise
level, in addition to your weight and eating, creates a rate of loss. If you
stop the exercise, you simply end up somewhere else. If you control your
eating, have good muscle mass, and get some exercise, you CAN maintain your
weight.

Mathematically I have to disagree. Eat 2000 and have an exercise
program of 500, that means net amount is 1500. If this brings you down
to 150lbs then 1500 maintains 150lbs. If you reduce your exercise
cause you're "done losing weight" you've efffectively raised your
caloric intake. So you eat 2000 but only do 250 in exercise. You're
250 over 1500 now, which will result in weight creep. YES, you *CAN*
further lower your eating to compensate for lower exercise, but that
is just my point. If that body of work and diet was required to get
there, I don't understand how it wouldn't be required to stay there.
There are choices (eat less exercise more), but if you aren't prepared
to net out that 1500 you aren't prepared to weigh 150. I think people
set sights on a number and go to extremes to get there and then bounce
back cause they can't maintain that extreme. And maybe that extreme
forced the body to a weight that wasn't very maintainable (yet).

Your thinking above seems, to me anyway, to be coming from an attitude of
not liking exercise.

We never know how much is in our heads...

:: Whatever regimen you have during the weight loss is what you must
:: continue forever.

Says who? Sure, eating is the biggest factor in weight loss. Things such
as exercise are secondary to weight loss (but still important to health).
Hence, if you control the eating, the exercise can vary. IMO, and IME, your
statement is untrue.

::
::: THis is were
::::: calorie-in-calorie-out really doesn't f***ing matter. Your body is
::::: capable of conserving energy so much so that your non-exercising
::::: life (including breathing, eathing, pumping blody) now only
::::: requires 700 calories a day. (1200-500 of cardio) Sound severe
::::: enough yet?
:::
::: Hey, I weigh way more than Luna and have done more exercise and eat
::: less, and I lost weight.
::
:: My point is there are lot more important factors of what is going on
:: in the body. And those factors can make reduced-caloric goals useless
:: in the face of those other factors.

But you called the entire notion into question -- that's quite different
than a YMMV kind of thing like you're saying here, DV.

My problem is calorie counting is made the THING to do not the thing
to watch. It likes trying to regulate your body temperature. Yes you
can take your temperature and it can tell you important things. You
can even raise and lower your body temperatures, but controlling it
all the time is too complex. LCing finally addresses not the symptom
of excess calories, but a CAUSE. Just reducing calories to force
weight loss is treating a symptom, not identifying why weight loss
isn't happening. That's why I think people are a bit misguided by
focusing on just eating less without knowing why.

Carbs-insulin is only one
:: example. You can try to eat 1200 calories but if you have a
:: carb-insulin problem you will likely fail because reduced calorie
:: isn't dealing with what is wrong. COunting calories alone is dealing
:: with a symptom.

But Luna is doing both.

::
::::: I think you have to introduce more food into your diet and let
::::: your body work under more normal circumstances.
:::
::: What are normal circumstances?
::
:: For me (and I'm guessing people with insulin-carb issues), learning
:: that the appetites you used to have AREN'T normal. The way my body
:: eats now is totally different from my entire life before. My appetite
:: shrunk so much it freaked me out at first. What I consider a meal
:: then and now are different. I'm also not afraid of my hunger. I acan
:: trust my body more to tell me when I need food. When i introduce
:: something that alters my hunger(upward) I realize I'm eating more
:: than I have needed to. I have a new sense of what is normal without
:: carbs. I still have 2500 calorie days and I have even 800 calories
:: days--no big deal--that's normal now. But my average is floating
:: from 1600 to 1900. And it tends to increase with activity-which
:: makes sense to me.

That's great!

::
::::::: Next, "a change is as good as a vacation." Something like a
::::::: CKD or UD2 carb-up, or a high-calorie fat "fast", or even just a
::::::: "food-up", might kick-start your metabolism again. Some folks
::::::: have to carb-up regularly to keep their metabolism going, others
::::::: just need to food-up.
::::::
:::::: I'm wary of "carbing up" since the more carbs I eat, the
:::::: hungrier I get.
:::::
::::: That's why you have to spend months on just introducing carbs. To
::::: build up your menu with safe items that have proven safe. People
::::: fool themselves into being ultra-low is best but it means they
::::: have no idea how to eat to maintain when they are done.
:::
::: that may be true. She may need to adjust her carbs upwards.
:::
::: I count calories so
::::: I can watch for bad carbs. But I still have to be wary. I've
::::: gotten used to having something low-carb & chocolatey now. It is
::::: not the best thing for me to do even though I am not overeating
::::: at all. BUt I do look for something chocolatey late in the day
::::: now... which would be bad if no low-carb chocolate is around. But
::::: chocolate has always been a weakness.
:::
::: Then you'd be advised to limit your chocolate for continued success.
::
:: Yep, it is my current concern, despite the last two weeks
:: representing a decrease in total calories from about 1900 to under
:: 1700. I find myself looking forward to a taste of chocolate (always
:: have). I can't figure out if it is a good thing that I've found that
:: a small amount of chocolate (one 10g 1" square brownie, 1/2 cup of
:: ice cream, two kershey kisses) satisfies me enough or bad that I
:: still want them. Even when I had no chocolate I still wanted it.

IMO, it is not bad that you still want them. Also, IMO, is great that you
have learned to limit yourself.
IMO, that is a big sign of future success.

Just worries me what happens when no low-carb chocolate is around and
the real stuff starts calling.

BTW, are you female or male? Someone referred to you in a post a while back
as a female. I commented back saying I thought you were a guy. Which is
it? DV doesn't exactly tell one much. Guys and girls have different ideas
and viewpoints, sometimes very subtle differents, though, on matters
involving body image, dieting, exercise, adn weight loss. I find that
knowing someones gender provides a more complete picture when trying to
understand someones POV.

I agree. Although I was fairly comfortable with my size and weight
except for the last 18 months, we all have chinks in the armor. We're
all self conscious in one way or another. I am male, 37, overweight
since before the age of 5. I'm 6'3" large frame. I never developed the
volleyball-belly look. My body stored my weight all over. A lot is
across my wide shoulder blades-which was a blessing I never understood
before. I've lost 6 inches across my chest measure, but only 3 at my
waist. Last year I suddenly grew a new "beard" that was clearly
forming a second chin. Thankfully that vanished during the first three
weeks on Atkins. I was never one to try diets. My weight yo-yo'd from
job activity not dieting. Working a retail sales floor kept me the
lightest about 300 lbs(maybe even 285-295). Unemployed got me up to
350.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/302/Apr-299/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

"FOB" wrote:

In ,
DigitalVinyl stated
| Yep, it is my current concern, despite the last two weeks representing
| a decrease in total calories from about 1900 to under 1700. I find
| myself looking forward to a taste of chocolate (always have). I can't
| figure out if it is a good thing that I've found that a small amount
| of chocolate (one 10g 1" square brownie, 1/2 cup of ice cream, two
| kershey kisses) satisfies me enough or bad that I still want them.
| Even when I had no chocolate I still wanted it.

I don't think it is helpful to fight yourself too much on these things. If
something satisfies you and fits into your plan eat it. I find that often
after a meal, particularly in the evening, I don't feel satisfied until I
have something sweet. I can keep munching other things endlessly without
satisfaction but something sweet puts an end to it. Sweet things don't have
to be bad for you, SF Jello, cream cheese with Splenda and some
flavoring--lemon juice is my favorite and my latest discovery. A glass (8
oz) of Hood's Homogenized with a splash of DaVinci's Kahlua syrup tastes
just like an Arby's jamocha shake, one of my lifelong faves. I have yet to
try partially freezing it, bet that would make even the texture right.

But what about when I'm around real chocolate and no low carb
options...

My concern is I will be too used to having it and cave. So far I've
managed those situations fine. On easter I had my first slice of
actual cake since the first of the year. It was small, about half a
normal serving. I also had one hershey's kiss. I only went a few carbs
over for the day but was calorie-low. Low carb treats make eating
chocolate manageable, I just wonder if a managed chocolate craving is
the chocoholic in me telling a convincing lie.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/302/Apr-299/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

Here's where guys have a problem, if you were a woman I would say keep a
couple of ZCarb bars in your purse and you would always have "emergency
chocolate". They would probably melt in your pocket. G

In ,
DigitalVinyl stated
|
| But what about when I'm around real chocolate and no low carb
| options...
|
| My concern is I will be too used to having it and cave. So far I've
| managed those situations fine. On easter I had my first slice of
| actual cake since the first of the year. It was small, about half a
| normal serving. I also had one hershey's kiss. I only went a few carbs
| over for the day but was calorie-low. Low carb treats make eating
| chocolate manageable, I just wonder if a managed chocolate craving is
| the chocoholic in me telling a convincing lie.
|
| DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
| 350/302/Apr-299/200
| Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
| OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

Michelle, you are clearing having a VERY bad day! I recommend that you find
something breakable, but expendable, throw it with extreme velocity at a wall
(I'm NOT kidding) -- you WILL, however, have to clean it up before you go to bed
:-)

{{{{{{{{{ MICHELLE }}}}}}}}}}

Michelle,

I knew a therapist who use to recommend taking a dozen (or more if
needed) eggs out to the back yard and throwing them at a tree. Or
taking a kids plastic baseball bat (the fat kind) and beating the heck
out of the couch.

These were some good relatively inexpensive ideas for letting off
steam and aggression without causing real damage.

just don't forget to wash off the tree

Susan

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: "FOB" wrote:
::
::: In ,
::: DigitalVinyl stated
:::: Yep, it is my current concern, despite the last two weeks
:::: representing a decrease in total calories from about 1900 to under
:::: 1700. I find myself looking forward to a taste of chocolate
:::: (always have). I can't figure out if it is a good thing that I've
:::: found that a small amount of chocolate (one 10g 1" square brownie,
:::: 1/2 cup of ice cream, two kershey kisses) satisfies me enough or
:::: bad that I still want them. Even when I had no chocolate I still
:::: wanted it.
:::
::: I don't think it is helpful to fight yourself too much on these
::: things. If something satisfies you and fits into your plan eat it.
::: I find that often after a meal, particularly in the evening, I
::: don't feel satisfied until I have something sweet. I can keep
::: munching other things endlessly without satisfaction but something
::: sweet puts an end to it. Sweet things don't have to be bad for
::: you, SF Jello, cream cheese with Splenda and some flavoring--lemon
::: juice is my favorite and my latest discovery. A glass (8 oz) of
::: Hood's Homogenized with a splash of DaVinci's Kahlua syrup tastes
::: just like an Arby's jamocha shake, one of my lifelong faves. I
::: have yet to try partially freezing it, bet that would make even the
::: texture right.
::
:: But what about when I'm around real chocolate and no low carb
:: options...

Don't be around real chocolate for long...Also, low carb options are really
any better...they are loaded with calories and the SA have their own
issues...so you're almost as well off with the real thing as with the fake.
I say almost because, in my case at least, the fake stuff doesn't create
cravings. As usually, YMMV.

::
:: My concern is I will be too used to having it and cave.

Then limit it, at least for now while you're on a good roll..

So far I've
:: managed those situations fine. On easter I had my first slice of
:: actual cake since the first of the year. It was small, about half a
:: normal serving. I also had one hershey's kiss. I only went a few
:: carbs over for the day but was calorie-low. Low carb treats make
:: eating chocolate manageable, I just wonder if a managed chocolate
:: craving is the chocoholic in me telling a convincing lie.

Well, the longer you go the hard it will be to abstain from something you
really enjoy. At that time it will be important that you learn how to
include this stuff without falling completely off the wagon. That's part of
what you're trying to do.

I'm someone unlike a lot of people here. They report that they no longer
even enjoy the foods that made them fat. I can't say that. I enjoy
everything -- everything -- that I ever ate that worked to make me fat. I
don't crave it, and that is the key. I get tempted by it when I see it, and
if I'm not feeling strong and don't want to break, I just get away from it.
But since I'm not about condemning myself to dietary hell, I do take some
days every month where I eat some of the stuff I like. But I do it in
conjuction with my weight training and other exercise, so it all comes out
in the wash.

"Roger Zoul" wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: "FOB" wrote:
::
::: In ,
::: DigitalVinyl stated
:::: Yep, it is my current concern, despite the last two weeks
:::: representing a decrease in total calories from about 1900 to under
:::: 1700. I find myself looking forward to a taste of chocolate
:::: (always have). I can't figure out if it is a good thing that I've
:::: found that a small amount of chocolate (one 10g 1" square brownie,
:::: 1/2 cup of ice cream, two kershey kisses) satisfies me enough or
:::: bad that I still want them. Even when I had no chocolate I still
:::: wanted it.
:::
::: I don't think it is helpful to fight yourself too much on these
::: things. If something satisfies you and fits into your plan eat it.
::: I find that often after a meal, particularly in the evening, I
::: don't feel satisfied until I have something sweet. I can keep
::: munching other things endlessly without satisfaction but something
::: sweet puts an end to it. Sweet things don't have to be bad for
::: you, SF Jello, cream cheese with Splenda and some flavoring--lemon
::: juice is my favorite and my latest discovery. A glass (8 oz) of
::: Hood's Homogenized with a splash of DaVinci's Kahlua syrup tastes
::: just like an Arby's jamocha shake, one of my lifelong faves. I
::: have yet to try partially freezing it, bet that would make even the
::: texture right.
::
:: But what about when I'm around real chocolate and no low carb
:: options...

Don't be around real chocolate for long...Also, low carb options are really
any better...they are loaded with calories and the SA have their own
issues...so you're almost as well off with the real thing as with the fake.
I say almost because, in my case at least, the fake stuff doesn't create
cravings. As usually, YMMV.

::
:: My concern is I will be too used to having it and cave.

Then limit it, at least for now while you're on a good roll..

So far I've
:: managed those situations fine. On easter I had my first slice of
:: actual cake since the first of the year. It was small, about half a
:: normal serving. I also had one hershey's kiss. I only went a few
:: carbs over for the day but was calorie-low. Low carb treats make
:: eating chocolate manageable, I just wonder if a managed chocolate
:: craving is the chocoholic in me telling a convincing lie.

Well, the longer you go the hard it will be to abstain from something you
really enjoy. At that time it will be important that you learn how to
include this stuff without falling completely off the wagon. That's part of
what you're trying to do.

I'm someone unlike a lot of people here. They report that they no longer
even enjoy the foods that made them fat.

As inflammatory as it is to say I don't believe them.

I can't say that.

Neither can I. I think it must have tasted bad in order for it not to
taste good anymore. Like smokers who say a cigarette tastes good. ONly
cause you forced yourself to taste it over and over.

We all have minor changes of taste over time--some psychological. For
three years I couldn't eat shrimp with suffering nausea and a metallic
taste in my mouth. I found in the last few years a preference for
darker chocolates than milks. I don't hate milk chocolate though. I
never hated dark, just didn't care for it.

I enjoy
everything -- everything -- that I ever ate that worked to make me fat. I
don't crave it, and that is the key. I get tempted by it when I see it, and
if I'm not feeling strong and don't want to break, I just get away from it.
But since I'm not about condemning myself to dietary hell, I do take some
days every month where I eat some of the stuff I like. But I do it in
conjuction with my weight training and other exercise, so it all comes out
in the wash.

I've had opportunities but like you they were easy enough to avoid. I
just keep little mental post-its on items like this to watchdog
myself. Some other poster mentioned a habit only takes 21 days to set
in, but it takes 5 minutes to break down.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/302/Apr-299/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote:
::
::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" wrote:
:::::
:::::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
:::::::: Luna wrote:
::::::::
::::::::: In article , DJ Delorie
::::::::: wrote:
:::::::::
:::::
:::::: Luna, just recently, was posting about how she was overeating and
:::::: upset by it. Here, just a scant few weeks later, it's all this
:::::: exercise and no eating.
::::: Was she overeating (high calorie consumption over days) or
::::: mini-binge-ing at a meal(large single meals).
:::
::: I think both, and also eating way more some days and way less
::: others.
:::
::: Cause she descirbes
::::: starving herself until she eats large meals cause she's so hungry.
::::: Despite this she says she's at 1200 a day.
:::
::: See -- the use of the word starving....just eating 700 kcals on two
::: days right behind eating 1800 kcals the prior two days ain't
::: starving.
::
:: Well it depends upon what your body actually needs. If Luna really
:: needs 1600 to maintain 125 lbs and her activity level, it is. That's
:: the big mystery for *all* of us, exactly how many calories is right
:: for our weight and activity level. Until we get there and stay
:: there--we won't know. Screwed up, but reality.

I'm quite certain Luna is not going to starve herself to death, DV. As long
as she has access to food that won't happen.


::
::: It might
::: be fair to refer to it as going hungry, but it damn sure ain't
::: starving. I do that and I weigh a good bit more than Luna does.
::
:: I like "starving" because it implies a forced action, where "eat
:: less" is very passive.

Eat less is passive? I disagree. "Eat less" implies action! Starving
implies something is beyond your control, and since it ain't, it's not
accurate.

I am "eating less"--I'm not "starving"
:: myself. I do not experience hunger and then deny myself food in an
:: effort to force my weight lower.

Why? Is hunger a dirty four-letter word? We Americans have it too easy.


:: I've eaten 800 BUT I was satisfied
:: at 800--not because I told myself I MUST NOT EAT.
::

Control your world.

:: If in review the hunger seems unjustified then it is time to
:: re-evaluate.

Hmm...

::
:::::: But yet, there's undereating here then getting hungry and
:::::: overeating there. And now you're ready to "call into doubt" and
:::::: using phrases such as "you're doing all this exericse, you're
:::::: eating *VERY* little and not loosing weight?" Perhaps there are
:::::: other reasons for that....
:::::
::::: Yes! But a common reaction is reduce your intake--like JesusChrist
::::: der King always says.
:::
:::
:::
::::: She isn't loosing weight, so the "WAY" to lose
::::: weight is to exercise more eat less. Using this hammer-logic she's
::::: overeating or simply too inactive. Unless she is exaggerating
::::: here, I wouldn't think that is the case, possibly the opposite!
:::
::: Another possibility is simply that enough time hasn't gone by. I
::: read this group daily and I follow Luna's post, so I keep track of
::: what she reports. Not very long ago she reported of eating too
::: much. I don't believe this is a simple matter of just exerscising
::: like crazy, starving, and not losing weight. Also, one needs to
::: examine that types of exercise being done and the cardio being
::: done. No detail was given in these posts about that.
::
:: I agree, time is a factor. I can see there being a natural rate of
:: loss for the body. Exceed it and the body fights back. Sure you can
:: always force weight loss, but don't expect the body to just go along
:: with your plans. Even without understanding the sciences, this
:: *seems* a logic thing for the body to do.

Well, my body goes along with most of my plans No, I'm no drop-dead
gorgeous hunk that every women wants, so it's not playing along there. But
it went along with my getting up to 367 lbs and it going along with my
losing it, too. I just have to realize that it ain't gonna happen
overnight.

::
::: Though
::::: obviously she is leaning that way--she is thinking she should eat
::::: less even though she is going hungry every day and doesn't want to
::::: eat less. I wouldn't be surprised if pushing herself so low with
::::: the elevated activity is the why the stall has lasted. My
::::: landlord(60yr female) who doesn't have much to lose has also been
::::: stalled 3 months. Her doctor said eat less. She already thinks
::::: she is eating very little and was feeling frustration by the
::::: generic, starve-yourself more advice.
:::
::: Hey -- losing weight is hard. Doing things that are hard bring on
::: frustration for many. That's life. However, how one things about
::: the process can have a big impact on whether or not one gets
::: frustrated.
::
:: More is probably in our heads than we ever want to admit.

That's what I've found.

::
:::::::: Something has to be
:::::::: wrong there. I've seen people basically answer stalls with
:::::::: starve yourself more. That has always seemed like such an
:::::::: insane answer. What healthy person constantly starves their
:::::::: body? Only dieters think this is normal behavior.
::::::
:::::: Eating less does not equal constantly starving. Geez....Eating
:::::: less to achieve a weight goal is normal behavior. It's only
:::::: considered non-normal by those who find the notion of eating
:::::: less abnormal.
:::::
::::: People often talk about sending the body into "starvation mode",
::::: you don't seem upset by that terminology, even though no one is
::::: actually looking like some african starvation victim. She may
::::: simply not be ready to lose more weight in a healthy way.
::::: Frustrating herself at lower calories and not loosing weight
::::: seems an unhealthy thing to do. I guess I have to add, IMO
:::
::: Yes, I agree that frustrating oneself is very unproductive. But
::: the part about lowering calories, exercising, and not losing weight
::: is yet to be determined, imo. I do think that for very heavy
::: people or very sedentary people, and for those with severe
::: metabolic issues there are exceptions. For example, for those who
::: are very heavy, the best approach to weight loss initially is just
::: to restrict carbs to generate reduced appetite. That generated
::: quick easy weight loss -- up to a point. This is where Luna was
::: and most likely where you are now.
::
:: I'm still in free fall for the most part. My weight has stagnated the
:: last nine days but no real issue yet. I think it was in response to
:: losing 7.5 pounds in 7 days. That's two weeks of loss in just one.
:: This is one of the experiences that makes me question whether stalls
:: are often just the body fighting back. I think I lost weight too
:: quickly(still unsure why) and now my body is in conservation mode.
:: Hopefully it will relax and let things resume.

Who knows....it could just be poop in a holding pattern.

::
::: Luna now has to deal with the fact that
::: weight loss won't be so easy anymore. I'd feel sorry for her but
::: this is a facet of what it means to to gain control over one's
::: weight. She, like us all, must deal with it.
::
:: Actually, one of my curiosities is the EXACT symptoms of how a stall
:: starts. Do people go from losing consistently to nothing, or is there
:: a gradual backing off from loss. Most people probably don't track
:: enough to evaluate this properly. I wonder if a stall is a suddden
:: stop. I would expect reaching a maintainence-plateau would result in
:: very gradual reductions in loss.

Who knows....there are so many variable. You may start eating more, eating
different stuff, peeing more, crapping less, sweating more, exercisin/moving
more/less, etc.

::
:::::::: If you could eat 2000 and maintain and now you are eating
:::::::: 1200, I would think you are starving your body and simply
:::::::: making it desperate to survive the hard famine it is currently
:::::::: experiencing.
::::::
:::::: If that is what is really happening, and if that is happening
:::::: over an extended period of time - then maybe. But you need to be
:::::: certain of the facts before making conclusions. And even if
:::::: those conclusions are correct for Luna, it is entirely another
:::::: matter as to whether they are correct for YOU.
:::::
::::: Uh, duh. Unfortunately we only have what Luna gives us to go on.
::::: Since I'm not allowed to make conclusions then perhaps I should
::::: use more tentative phrases such as "I would think", oh wait I did.
::::: friendly sarcasm
:::::
::::: IMHO, YRMV, I personally don't think of my current eating as
::::: weight loss, but as maintenance. It is just maintenance for some
::::: future weight level. I don't know what that weight level is yet.
::::: The weight loss/gain is just the body balancing out the scales.
::::: The way I'm eating TODAY ***IS*** the way I would eat FOREVER at
::::: that weight level. If the way I'm eating can only get me down to
::::: 250 lbs then I will have to learn to live with that. If I want to
::::: become the person that exercises five times a week to get down to
::::: 200 lbs, then I will have to do that FOREVER. If I don't, my
::::: weight will come back to the 250 level whenever I let up onthe
::::: activity level. To me this is common sense.
:::
::::: Exercising for the purpose of losing weight doesn't
::::: make sense. Exercising for physical fitness and personal enjoyment
::::: does.
:::
::: See...here you should have included a "IMO"
::
:: LOL!
::
::: When you're heavy, exercising to lose weight makes a great deal of
::: sense. And if exercise helps you to get to 200 lbs, then that
::: doesn't imply that you have to maintain that same level to maintain
::: that weight. That exercise level, in addition to your weight and
::: eating, creates a rate of loss. If you stop the exercise, you
::: simply end up somewhere else. If you control your eating, have
::: good muscle mass, and get some exercise, you CAN maintain your
::: weight.
::
:: Mathematically I have to disagree. Eat 2000 and have an exercise
:: program of 500, that means net amount is 1500. If this brings you
:: down to 150lbs then 1500 maintains 150lbs.

Not necessarily....you failed to consider the rate of loss. If your rate of
loss is very very slow, so that the slope of the curve is nearly zero, then
yes, that is true. but if you have a very non-zero slope, then there is
some delta. IMO, however, most weight loss happens because of diet, not
exercise. Only the really heavy people like you and me typically can even
get to 500 kcals in exercise. Most people won't do that much daily.


If you reduce your
:: exercise cause you're "done losing weight" you've efffectively
:: raised your caloric intake. So you eat 2000 but only do 250 in
:: exercise. You're 250 over 1500 now, which will result in weight
:: creep. YES, you *CAN* further lower your eating to compensate for
:: lower exercise, but that is just my point. If that body of work and
:: diet was required to get there, I don't understand how it wouldn't
:: be required to stay there.

Because of what I mentioned about rate of loss. if your maintenance is X,
and you create deficit of Y+Z, where Y comes from diet and Z comes from
exercise, then you can use that deficit to get weight loss with a net intake
of X-Y-Z. If you get to a weight and your maintenace for what weight is X'
which is greater than X-Y-Z (very possible), then you only gain weight if
you eat more than X'. But since you are smaller now, you should need less
food (unless perhaps you signficantly increase muscle mass somehow, but that
doesn't happen much). So it is very possible that you can lower exercise
and easily eat at X'. Now, in the case taht you get to a weight were
X'=X-Y-Z then you'll basically stall and THEN you may very well gain weight
if you eat more than X'. But now you're overeating, so you should expect to
gain if you don't exercise.

There are choices (eat less exercise
:: more), but if you aren't prepared to net out that 1500 you aren't
:: prepared to weigh 150. I think people set sights on a number and go
:: to extremes to get there and then bounce back cause they can't
:: maintain that extreme. And maybe that extreme forced the body to a
:: weight that wasn't very maintainable (yet).
::
::: Your thinking above seems, to me anyway, to be coming from an
::: attitude of not liking exercise.
::
:: We never know how much is in our heads...
::
::::: Whatever regimen you have during the weight loss is what you must
::::: continue forever.
:::
::: Says who? Sure, eating is the biggest factor in weight loss.
::: Things such as exercise are secondary to weight loss (but still
::: important to health). Hence, if you control the eating, the
::: exercise can vary. IMO, and IME, your statement is untrue.
:::
:::::
:::::: THis is were
:::::::: calorie-in-calorie-out really doesn't f***ing matter. Your
:::::::: body is capable of conserving energy so much so that your
:::::::: non-exercising life (including breathing, eathing, pumping
:::::::: blody) now only requires 700 calories a day. (1200-500 of
:::::::: cardio) Sound severe enough yet?
::::::
:::::: Hey, I weigh way more than Luna and have done more exercise and
:::::: eat less, and I lost weight.
:::::
::::: My point is there are lot more important factors of what is going
::::: on in the body. And those factors can make reduced-caloric goals
::::: useless in the face of those other factors.
:::
::: But you called the entire notion into question -- that's quite
::: different than a YMMV kind of thing like you're saying here, DV.
::
:: My problem is calorie counting is made the THING to do not the thing
:: to watch.

Counting calories is the thing you do but CALORIES IN are the thing you
watch!


It likes trying to regulate your body temperature. Yes you
:: can take your temperature and it can tell you important things. You
:: can even raise and lower your body temperatures, but controlling it
:: all the time is too complex. LCing finally addresses not the symptom
:: of excess calories, but a CAUSE.

Right.

Just reducing calories to force
:: weight loss is treating a symptom, not identifying why weight loss
:: isn't happening. That's why I think people are a bit misguided by
:: focusing on just eating less without knowing why.

Yeah, but this is a LC ng...here, we LC...that is the primary tool for
weight loss. Counting calories is a fine-tuning tool...


::
::: Carbs-insulin is only one
::::: example. You can try to eat 1200 calories but if you have a
::::: carb-insulin problem you will likely fail because reduced calorie
::::: isn't dealing with what is wrong. COunting calories alone is
::::: dealing with a symptom.
:::
::: But Luna is doing both.
:::
:::::
:::::::: I think you have to introduce more food into your diet and let
:::::::: your body work under more normal circumstances.
::::::
:::::: What are normal circumstances?
:::::
::::: For me (and I'm guessing people with insulin-carb issues),
::::: learning that the appetites you used to have AREN'T normal. The
::::: way my body eats now is totally different from my entire life
::::: before. My appetite shrunk so much it freaked me out at first.
::::: What I consider a meal then and now are different. I'm also not
::::: afraid of my hunger. I acan trust my body more to tell me when I
::::: need food. When i introduce something that alters my
::::: hunger(upward) I realize I'm eating more than I have needed to. I
::::: have a new sense of what is normal without carbs. I still have
::::: 2500 calorie days and I have even 800 calories days--no big
::::: deal--that's normal now. But my average is floating from 1600 to
::::: 1900. And it tends to increase with activity-which makes sense to
::::: me.
:::
::: That's great!
:::
:::::
:::::::::: Next, "a change is as good as a vacation." Something like a
:::::::::: CKD or UD2 carb-up, or a high-calorie fat "fast", or even
:::::::::: just a "food-up", might kick-start your metabolism again.
:::::::::: Some folks have to carb-up regularly to keep their
:::::::::: metabolism going, others just need to food-up.
:::::::::
::::::::: I'm wary of "carbing up" since the more carbs I eat, the
::::::::: hungrier I get.
::::::::
:::::::: That's why you have to spend months on just introducing carbs.
:::::::: To build up your menu with safe items that have proven safe.
:::::::: People fool themselves into being ultra-low is best but it
:::::::: means they have no idea how to eat to maintain when they are
:::::::: done.
::::::
:::::: that may be true. She may need to adjust her carbs upwards.
::::::
:::::: I count calories so
:::::::: I can watch for bad carbs. But I still have to be wary. I've
:::::::: gotten used to having something low-carb & chocolatey now. It
:::::::: is not the best thing for me to do even though I am not
:::::::: overeating at all. BUt I do look for something chocolatey late
:::::::: in the day now... which would be bad if no low-carb chocolate
:::::::: is around. But chocolate has always been a weakness.
::::::
:::::: Then you'd be advised to limit your chocolate for continued
:::::: success.
:::::
::::: Yep, it is my current concern, despite the last two weeks
::::: representing a decrease in total calories from about 1900 to under
::::: 1700. I find myself looking forward to a taste of chocolate
::::: (always have). I can't figure out if it is a good thing that I've
::::: found that a small amount of chocolate (one 10g 1" square
::::: brownie, 1/2 cup of ice cream, two kershey kisses) satisfies me
::::: enough or bad that I still want them. Even when I had no
::::: chocolate I still wanted it.
:::
::: IMO, it is not bad that you still want them. Also, IMO, is great
::: that you have learned to limit yourself.
::: IMO, that is a big sign of future success.
::
:: Just worries me what happens when no low-carb chocolate is around and
:: the real stuff starts calling.

Well, keep some LC chocolate or learn to make that splenda sweetened
version.

::
::: BTW, are you female or male? Someone referred to you in a post a
::: while back as a female. I commented back saying I thought you were
::: a guy. Which is it? DV doesn't exactly tell one much. Guys and
::: girls have different ideas and viewpoints, sometimes very subtle
::: differents, though, on matters involving body image, dieting,
::: exercise, adn weight loss. I find that knowing someones gender
::: provides a more complete picture when trying to understand someones
::: POV.
::
:: I agree. Although I was fairly comfortable with my size and weight
:: except for the last 18 months, we all have chinks in the armor. We're
:: all self conscious in one way or another. I am male, 37, overweight
:: since before the age of 5. I'm 6'3" large frame. I never developed
:: the volleyball-belly look. My body stored my weight all over. A lot
:: is across my wide shoulder blades-which was a blessing I never
:: understood before. I've lost 6 inches across my chest measure, but
:: only 3 at my waist. Last year I suddenly grew a new "beard" that was
:: clearly forming a second chin. Thankfully that vanished during the
:: first three weeks on Atkins. I was never one to try diets. My weight
:: yo-yo'd from job activity not dieting. Working a retail sales floor
:: kept me the lightest about 300 lbs(maybe even 285-295). Unemployed
:: got me up to 350.
::
:: DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
:: 350/302/Apr-299/200
:: Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
:: OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)

"Roger Zoul" wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote:
::
::: DigitalVinyl wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" wrote:

SNIP for focus

I am "eating less"--I'm not "starving"
:: myself. I do not experience hunger and then deny myself food in an
:: effort to force my weight lower.

Why? Is hunger a dirty four-letter word? We Americans have it too easy.

It is a basic function of the body telling you it needs something.

:: I've eaten 800 BUT I was satisfied
:: at 800--not because I told myself I MUST NOT EAT.

Control your world.

What a foolish goal. ;-) Roger, are you a control freak? Come on ,
admit it.

SNIP

::: When you're heavy, exercising to lose weight makes a great deal of
::: sense. And if exercise helps you to get to 200 lbs, then that
::: doesn't imply that you have to maintain that same level to maintain
::: that weight. That exercise level, in addition to your weight and
::: eating, creates a rate of loss. If you stop the exercise, you
::: simply end up somewhere else. If you control your eating, have
::: good muscle mass, and get some exercise, you CAN maintain your
::: weight.
::
:: Mathematically I have to disagree. Eat 2000 and have an exercise
:: program of 500, that means net amount is 1500. If this brings you
:: down to 150lbs then 1500 maintains 150lbs.

Not necessarily....you failed to consider the rate of loss. If your rate of
loss is very very slow, so that the slope of the curve is nearly zero, then
yes, that is true. but if you have a very non-zero slope, then there is
some delta. IMO, however, most weight loss happens because of diet, not
exercise. Only the really heavy people like you and me typically can even
get to 500 kcals in exercise. Most people won't do that much daily.


If you reduce your
:: exercise cause you're "done losing weight" you've efffectively
:: raised your caloric intake. So you eat 2000 but only do 250 in
:: exercise. You're 250 over 1500 now, which will result in weight
:: creep. YES, you *CAN* further lower your eating to compensate for
:: lower exercise, but that is just my point. If that body of work and
:: diet was required to get there, I don't understand how it wouldn't
:: be required to stay there.

Because of what I mentioned about rate of loss. if your maintenance is X,
and you create deficit of Y+Z, where Y comes from diet and Z comes from
exercise, then you can use that deficit to get weight loss with a net intake
of X-Y-Z. If you get to a weight and your maintenace for what weight is X'
which is greater than X-Y-Z (very possible), then you only gain weight if
you eat more than X'. But since you are smaller now, you should need less
food (unless perhaps you signficantly increase muscle mass somehow, but that
doesn't happen much). So it is very possible that you can lower exercise
and easily eat at X'. Now, in the case taht you get to a weight were
X'=X-Y-Z then you'll basically stall and THEN you may very well gain weight
if you eat more than X'. But now you're overeating, so you should expect to
gain if you don't exercise.

I tried to see your logic here but I think you are inferring that your
weight loss goal is to overshoot the desired weight--which is what I
think people do in diet and exercise.

I think you are looking at this from a different angle than I am. You
can't really shoot for say 150 lbs, because you have no idea what
calories that requires. Once you REACH that body state it might
require (C) calories excluding any exercise regimen.

If I eat A calories & exercise off B calories I will eventually reach
a weight for which my body finds an equilibrium. Where the body at
said weight requires C calories to do the basics of everyday life.
This equilibrium is expressed as

A = C + E

There is no net. Given time, If I eat (A), and exercise (E), my weight
will eventually reduce so that C (metabolic processes of walking my
butt around) balance the equation. This is the basis of calorie-in
calorie-out.

If after acheiving that equilibrium (which we call maintenance), we
reduce exercise (E), the equation becomes unbalanced, weight creep.

I think most people use diet (A) and exercise(E) that would acheive a
lower weight (a weight below what C maintains, basically a smaller C
value). THis causes more rapid weight loss which is desired. WHen the
weight goal is acheived they back off the diet and don't gain weight
because they were dieting for a level below C. If they remained at
that rate of diet and loss they would undershoot the weight C
maintains.

However if you ate (A) at a level equivalent to (C) without exercise
your body would eventually balance the equation. Maybe slower than you
wanted but your eating would be exactly what is needed for that
weight, instead of dieting below that level.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)
350/302/Apr-299/200
Atkins since Jan 12, 2004
OWL-50 carbs/day (CCLL=?)