Lose Weight Slowly

AnonomissX aka ~Melodie~ wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: AnonomissX aka ~Melodie~ wrote:
::::: Just go ahead and ask, since I know what you are getting at since
::::: Amazon delivered the book to me:
:::::
::::: Here, I will phrase it for you:
:::::
::::: "Hey, I read that book by Gary Trudeau, and I want to know if its
::::: true, if taking hCG and doing the 500 calorie a day diet on phase
::::: 2 will work, and is it safe?"
:::::
::::: There, feel better?
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
::
:: Oh, great Roger of my Outlook Express newsgroup reader....I would
:: LOVE further comment....=)

I wouldn't want to risk offending you, dear!

got cha:-)

Well me personally, I've never really done the research on it. I remember
when I was in nursing school that someone came to see us from the health
dept. and she was going over food myths, such as the one that says you
shouldn't eat close to bedtime. She said that there was basically no
research that proved it was better OR worse. That it really depended on
one's body, shift worked etc. I think this is probably the same, you will
always find opinions on the internet on any given subject but having proof
to back them up, that's a bit harder to come by. Me personally though, I
think fast and hard is the better method for me:-)

Carol J




2Phat wrote:
Carol:

This has nothing to do with HCG or Kimkins. It's just a general
question/opinion/debate/data because so much of what you hear always
say 'lose weight slowly' and I decided to pose the question why? As
I've never seen any data to support the statement. SO I pose to the
group to come up with any data to support the overused statement and
in the process dialogue to have a conversation would be started.

And yes I'm very much sure I am a low carber for life, and I see what
I was doing wrong. I was doing my dieting on maintenance vs. on the
diet phase of low carb because that is what I was use to. So that is
over and done with and I've moved on.


"Carol J" wrote in message
. ..
My personal opinion is that folks reccomend slow loss as opposed to
fast loss is because most folks, if they make small changes daily,
then a person
may be more apt to stick with it. Alot of folks don't do well with a
huge
change in their diets/exercise. Also it's less of a shock for the
metabolic
system in general. I think when it gets right down to it, a person
has to know what will benefit them on a personal basis the most. If
hitting the solution hard and fast will meet your need and not harm
you overall then by
all means, that's the way to go. But if you're the kind of person
who needs
to put change into place slowly then that's the way they should go.
Both ways will get a person to their end result if they stick with
it. Some will
just get there quicker is all:-)

Like me, I choose to do the gastric by-pass route because at age 52
I'd tried everything else and nothing worked past losing the initial
20 lbs or so. I was still into the dense carb thinking though, was
still eating breads, potatoes etc.....thinking I was making healthy
choices. When I hit
350 lbs, I knew it was time to take drastic action. Losing it fast
and really learning what my body needs as fuel, that's been a much
better way for me personally to go. It ain't for everyone. But
it's worked for me. I'm down to 185 as of yesterday, almost to my
goal. It's been 14 months since the surgery so I'm doing pretty
good. You need to figure out what your body really needs to lose
weight and feel healthy, based on your recent
posts, I'm not sure that I think you really know how to meet that
need yet.
What works for me now would have worked for me prior to having the
surgery but I didn't realize it before getting all the processed
carbs out of my system. I take in about 900-1100 calories a day
now. I'm not very active,
working a desk job now.........and I have fibromyalgia on top of
everything
else so there's not much ability to weight train or walk for long
periods of
time. So I just boost my active level thoughout the day by walking
further,
walking purposely during my work day, going places just to be able
to walk like thrift stores and parks..........but like for 15
minutes at a time. When I'm able I also so work out for an hour at a
local gym in a heated pool. That helps with my fibro too. Doesn't
do alot for weightloss though.
My food choices are simple, a protein shake for breakfast with a
piece of honeydew melon or some other fruit that is low
glycemic........lunch is 4 oz
of protien be it meat, chicken, fish, etc. I have a portion of
natural veggie with that.......steamed cauilflower maybe or sliced
up steam zuchinni, something simple.........another piece of fruit
in the afternoon for a snack......then same thing for dinner with a
high protein snack near bedtime. It meets my body's needs. My labs
are always all good and I do feel better overall. I also take
centrum silver, extra Vit C, MSM, Omego 3/6/9, magnesium 2400 mgs a
day, Vit B complex, Vit D, and some other meds for my fibromyalgia
symptoms. It took me YEARS to come up with a system that does what
I need it to do for me though, you gotta find what works for
you. Good luck with that:-) It will probably be the hardest thing
you'll ever do for yourself? But man, the payoff is feeling like
living your life
each day instead of life just passing you by:-) At least that's how
I felt
when I was at my heaviest.

Carol j



2Phat wrote:
See I'm thinking that regardless if you lose slow or fast, in the
end it is your decision to keep it off and change your habits.

With all my diet research, I have never come across any hard fact
based reason for a slow lose. However, everyone claims that is the
way to go. Why?


"Hollywood" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 23, 9:17 am, "2Phat" wrote:
Why do people say you should lose weight slowly. What is the
scientific data, medical research and other criteria that support
this theory.

I will give me thought. This is not based in science, but
observation.

People who lose a lot of weight fast tend to do so by making
changes that are not sustainable in the long term. So, they lose,
go back to old habits, and gain the weight back very quickly. I
just saw, on TLC last night, inside the Brookhaven Clinic, the
story of Michael Hebranko (sp?) The guy, back in the day, weighed
over 1000 lbs. He lost down to sub 200 with Richard Simmons. He is
in the Guinness book as the guy who lost the most the fastest. On
a previous show, I saw him talk about getting to goal. Then he
went out and had a hot dog. Which turned into 4 with cheese &
chili. Which had to have gravy fries, which turned into multiple
orders. The guy hits goal, then tacks on 50 lbs the next week.
He's 580 now (so there is some maintenance) but he was crying
about the indignity of the ambulance company's inability to find a
solution to cart him from bed to Brookhaven. They wanted him to
slide down his steps on his butt. He said no. So, they tried to
wheel him down the steps in his wheel chair. But the FIVE people
couldn't handle him.

He's the sixth sigma out in every way. But, he lost fast, and he
gained fast. I've seen more than a few other people who did same on
the super morbid obese slow car crash shows on Discovery networks.
Starve hard, lose fast, gain with interest faster.

I'm sure there are metabolic explanations for this, that someone
else might offer (Roger, JBuch, Cubit?) but observation is enough
for me. You have to make permanent changes to make a permanent
change. And the things that make you lose real fast are things
that most people cannot do forever.

PS- Recall the aging and metabolic slowing issue. So, to maintain,
you have to make changes that you can scale down as you get older.
If you cut to 600 calories, can you do it forever? Can you scale
down to 500 in 12 years? I don't think I can. If you can, more
power to you.

Well now, I'm not sure that I think hitting a diet hard and fast is the same
as setting too high a goal though. I mean, I didn't have an unrealistic
number in my head after the surgery. I did have my own goal weight as far
as WHAT I wanted to weigh but not a particular date on when I needed to
reach that by. That's just too hard. But what I did do was decide that ten
lbs a month in the first year post-op was resonable so I did that. Now that
I'm 14+ months out, my goal is 5 lbs a month. I mean, you can have a
realistic goal but still hit the ground running on anything in life, not
just weightloss. I think whether we maintain our momentum has more to do
with who we are as a person as opposed to the task itself. If someone is
lacking in patience or the inability to set reasonable goals, and get
disappointed easily and walks away.......that's personality. I think the
key is knowing what is reasonable for the individual. Riding a bike just 1
mile a week for me would be detrimental. Walking ten, fifteen minutes a
day, now that I can usually handle, depending on how bad my fibro pain is
that day.

Carol J



Bob in CT wrote:
I think that setting any goal too high is detrimental. For instance,
you could set a goal to take up riding a bike and immediately think
that you'll be riding 100 miles a week in no time. You'll find that
you're wrong, but if that's your goal, you're going to hurt yourself.
It's much easier to set a goal you can meet, like 20-30 miles per
week and work from there. Similarly, setting a goal of losing too
much weight is detrimental.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:57:03 -0400, Doug Freyburger
wrote:

"2Phat" wrote:

Why do people say you should lose weight slowly.

I'll offer several answers for your consideration.

1) The regulars on ASDLC who have managed to keep it off for
years say it's the way to go and their success in the long term
beats yours. The fact that you rail at this advice speaks more
to problems in your temperment than in how correct their advice
is.

2) Compared to their starting expectations it often seems like
every dieter in history has lost slowly. Figure out an objective
way to judge what is fast and what is slow in loss (4 per month
ends up the roll-over point the longer you try to gather data)
but you still see new folks losing several times that amount
complaining that they are losing slowly. In the end this means
the problem is consistently about the expectations not about
the actual results.

3) Take an all-or-nothing approach and it comes with an iron
clad guarantee that your result will be nothing not all. The
exceptions are so rare they end up regulars here. The
correlary is that fast-or-nothing comes with an iron clad
guarantee that your result will be nothing not fast. Because
the reality is that fast loss is an expectation but slow loss is
a reality for most.

4) No matter discussion of water loss and metabolic advantage
and such, calories matter. Do the arithmetic with calorie
counts and you'll discover that loss rates over 8 pounds per
month must include losing water (limited resource) or lean
(harmful to lose) or be based on some metabolic change that
can not be sustained.

5) Lose rates follow a general trend of being proportional to
amount left to lose. Even the folks who lose well early on
can't continue to lose well later in their plan for this reason.
If the last 10 pounds are *supposed* to take a year, that ends
up skewing any data on folks who keep it off to make it look
like they lost slowly no matter their initial loss rates.

6) Stalls happen no matter how much effort is put into
avoiding them. Even though HCG injections are supposed to
keep stalls from happening, what's the chance that someone
who only has 30 pounds left to lose will still tolerate inujections
to not have a stall. Since a stall is not seeing a new low in
4+ weeks even one stall skews the numbers to slow.

7) Folks who quit during a stall end up gaining it back from
simple cause and effect. Folks who stay on plan through a
stall and resume loss end up with a slower average. Not a
difficult concept from the outside, agonizing to the person
going through it.

What is the scientific
data, medical research and other criteria that support this theory.

Surveys of folks who have managed to keep it off 5+ years
are the primary source of the data.

Here's the biggest open secret there is: The folks who are
the most successful are the folks who did not quit. Stay
with it long enough and your loss rate will be slow because
that's how it really works in the world of results not of
expectations.

And the correlary is if you quit, next year will happen anyways
and you'll be heavy again then. So don't quit and work on
improving your rate not on fighting to achieve the unreasonable.

Well and I think that's true what you say Roger........Lord knows I've been
on this weightloss journey for alot of years. I'm 52 years old now and have
only just these past few months really figured it out, what works for me. I
just tell people that they really need to know who they are and what they
respond to the best.......me I get ****ed off when someone tries to "tell me
what to do" and I will do the exact opposite just because I'm rebellious:-)
Now that I'm older (alittle wiser maybe?) I realize that I have no control
over anything except myself and even that some days is a far stretch-) I
think to a large degree that most of us are overweight because of our
behaviors, yes. Food, like our relationships, are just an extension of
what's inside of us. I mean our food choices. If we choose junk food or
fast food, whatever is instant gratification........it usually means that we
are inpatient and want things "our way" or no way. But when we're able to
take it slowly, nuture ourselves by taking the time to really cook up
something healthy or take a walk, whatever....it shows that we are good to
ourselves, that we care about ourselves. And that makes for a good partner,
a good friend, don't cha think? We focus on food here but really, isn't it
just another reflection of other traits in us? That's my thoughts
anyways....

thank you:-)

Carol j



Roger Zoul wrote:
Carol J wrote:
My personal opinion is that folks reccomend slow loss as opposed to
fast loss is because most folks, if they make small changes daily,
then a person may be more apt to stick with it. Alot of folks don't
do well with a huge change in their diets/exercise. Also it's less
of a shock for the metabolic system in general. I think when it
gets right down to it, a person has to know what will benefit them
on a personal basis the most. If hitting the solution hard and fast
will meet your need and not harm you overall then by all means,
that's the way to go. But if you're the kind of person who needs to
put change into place slowly then that's the way they should go.
Both ways will get a person to their end result if they stick with
it. Some will just get there quicker is all:-)

That sounds really nice. However, one can never know "how" they
really are until they've reached the other side. "Hitting the
solution hard and fast" has little meaning until you've accomplished
the goal long erm, because, again, you're dealing with deeply
ingrained habits and forces that are hard to overcome. I don't think
it's quite the same thing as tackling a big project at work or
building a new deck on your house!!!!


Like me, I choose to do the gastric by-pass route because at age 52
I'd tried everything else and nothing worked past losing the initial
20 lbs or so. I was still into the dense carb thinking though, was
still eating breads, potatoes etc.....thinking I was making healthy
choices. When I hit 350 lbs, I knew it was time to take drastic
action. Losing it fast and really learning what my body needs as
fuel, that's been a much better way for me personally to go. It
ain't for everyone. But it's worked for me. I'm down to 185 as of
yesterday, almost to my goal. It's been 14 months since the surgery
so I'm doing pretty good. You need to figure out what your body
really needs to lose weight and feel healthy, based on your recent
posts, I'm not sure that I think you really know how to meet that
need yet. What works for me now would have worked for me prior to
having the surgery but I didn't realize it before getting all the
processed carbs out of my system. I take in about 900-1100 calories
a day now. I'm not very active, working a desk job now.........and
I have fibromyalgia on top of everything else so there's not much
ability to weight train or walk for long periods of time. So I just
boost my active level thoughout the day by walking further, walking
purposely during my work day, going places just to be able to walk
like thrift stores and parks..........but like for 15 minutes at a
time. When I'm able I also so work out for an hour at a local gym in
a heated pool. That helps with my fibro too. Doesn't do alot for
weightloss though. My food choices are simple, a protein shake for
breakfast with a piece of honeydew melon or some other fruit that is
low glycemic........lunch is 4 oz of protien be it meat, chicken,
fish, etc. I have a portion of natural veggie with
that.......steamed cauilflower maybe or sliced up steam zuchinni,
something simple.........another piece of fruit in the afternoon for
a snack......then same thing for dinner with a high protein snack
near bedtime. It meets my body's needs. My labs are always all
good and I do feel better overall. I also take centrum silver,
extra Vit C, MSM, Omego 3/6/9, magnesium 2400 mgs a day, Vit B
complex, Vit D, and some other meds for my fibromyalgia symptoms.
It took me YEARS to come up with a system that does what I need it
to do for me though, you gotta find what works for you. Good luck
with that:-) It will probably be the hardest thing you'll ever do
for yourself? But man, the payoff is feeling like living your life
each day instead of life just passing you by:-) At least that's how
I felt when I was at my heaviest.

I'm glad everything has worked out for you, Carol!

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:10:13 -0600, Carol J wrote:

I
think to a large degree that most of us are overweight because of our
behaviors, yes. Food, like our relationships, are just an extension of
what's inside of us. I mean our food choices. If we choose junk food or
fast food, whatever is instant gratification........it usually means that we
are inpatient and want things "our way" or no way. But when we're able to
take it slowly, nuture ourselves by taking the time to really cook up
something healthy or take a walk, whatever....it shows that we are good to
ourselves, that we care about ourselves. And that makes for a good partner,
a good friend, don't cha think? We focus on food here but really, isn't it
just another reflection of other traits in us?

You better you better you bet it is, Carol.
--
http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html

You're showing your age with that music link:-) lol That's when rock was
really rockin':-)

Carol J

"Mu" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:10:13 -0600, Carol J wrote:

I
think to a large degree that most of us are overweight because of our
behaviors, yes. Food, like our relationships, are just an extension of
what's inside of us. I mean our food choices. If we choose junk food or
fast food, whatever is instant gratification........it usually means that
we
are inpatient and want things "our way" or no way. But when we're able to
take it slowly, nuture ourselves by taking the time to really cook up
something healthy or take a walk, whatever....it shows that we are good to
ourselves, that we care about ourselves. And that makes for a good
partner,
a good friend, don't cha think? We focus on food here but really, isn't
it
just another reflection of other traits in us?

You better you better you bet it is, Carol.
--
http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html

I agree with Roger and Bob in CT. I think the losing slowly idea is so that
your mind adapts to a new way of living. You gain patience. You realize that
the end goal is worth the journey. And, when you finally get to the end, if
you start to go back to the old ways, your "training" in the new way will
rear up and kick you in the behind.

That happened to me today.

Pat in TX

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:03:29 -0600, Carol J wrote:

You're showing your age with that music link:-) lol That's when rock was
really rockin':-)

Carol J

Or I could be a retrokid and I.....naw, you're right
--
http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html

lol My 29 year old is a retrokid:-) He knows good music when he hears
it:-)

Carol J

"Mu" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:03:29 -0600, Carol J wrote:

You're showing your age with that music link:-) lol That's when rock was
really rockin':-)

Carol J

Or I could be a retrokid and I.....naw, you're right
--
http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html

"2Phat" writes:

See I'm thinking that regardless if you lose slow or fast, in the
end it is your decision to keep it off and change your habits.

With all my diet research, I have never come across any hard fact
based reason for a slow lose. However, everyone claims that is the
way to go. Why?

I'm not basing this on facts, but as you say, that theory doesn't seem
to be either. But I would say a myth needs two things to survive:

1) It seems like it would be true.

2) People want it to be true.

(By "myth," I mean a theory that is unsupported by facts. It may or
may not be true, but its popularity doesn't require it to be true.)

In this case, it seems like it would be true that losing weight slowly
is better. "Good things come to those who wait." "No pain, no gain."
We tend to assume that cost=value, and we're suspicious of things that
seem to come too easy. This is smart when it comes to tangible
things: a $100 shirt is probably better quality than a $10 shirt,
although you still have to use your common sense and take the cost of
branding into account.

But in the case of intangible values like knowledge or relationships,
the formula really breaks down. You probably wouldn't say that your
most valuable friendship is the one that causes you the most pain. So
it doesn't necessarily follow that the diet which takes the most work
and time will be the best either.

On the second point, people want it to be true, because that way they
have an excuse not to do it. If diets are basically useless in the
long run, we're off the hook: there's no reason to start one. If
they're harmful to your health, or tend to cause you to gain more
weight in the long run, even better!

Going against conventional wisdom is always a little scary, whether
you're putting butter on everything, or home-schooling your kids, or
replacing Windows with another operating system. It's always more
comfortable to stay in the safe cocoon of society's beliefs. At least
that way if you turn out to be wrong, so is everyone else, so you'll
have lots of company and won't be blamed personally. If I die of a
heart attack at 50, everyone I know is going to say, "Yep, see what
happens when you eat all that fat and cholesterol?"

Any time you do something that goes against conventional wisdom,
you're going out on a limb, whether you like it or not. Most people
just aren't willing to do that unless they're hit with some sort of
epiphany that they can't ignore. Then the flood-gates open, because
once you realize that everything you were taught about A is crap, you
start to wonder how much of B-Z was true. Soon you're questioning
everything, and basically starting over the education you didn't get
when you were growing up. Hard work.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."