I didn't eat very well on vacation but managed to keep it to a modest gain (about 2 pounds). Some of that might be the bloat I get from getting glutened. I hope to get it back down by the weekend. I IF-ed Monday (and plan to on Friday) and am doing shakes only during the days, when hungry, otherwise.
I tried to eat only when hungry on vacation, much to my MIL's displeasure. It didn't always work, especially with dinners. I also IF-ed a few times, but that was more about just not being hungry than trying to fast.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Nuts
I figured out another reason last night why I haven't been losing weight recently.
I usually am physically hungry when I get home from work at 3:30. We don't eat dinner until about 6:30 most nights so I have been eating a little something to "tide me over". Lately that little something has been a handful of nuts.
We have these small 4 oz custard cups that hold about a handful (I have big hands). I usually have about half almonds and half cashews. I knew it was fairly high in calories but thought it was about 400 (two servings). I finally actually weighed the amount last night and calculated the calories.
708
For me, nuts and weight loss are mutually exclusive.
I usually am physically hungry when I get home from work at 3:30. We don't eat dinner until about 6:30 most nights so I have been eating a little something to "tide me over". Lately that little something has been a handful of nuts.
We have these small 4 oz custard cups that hold about a handful (I have big hands). I usually have about half almonds and half cashews. I knew it was fairly high in calories but thought it was about 400 (two servings). I finally actually weighed the amount last night and calculated the calories.
708
For me, nuts and weight loss are mutually exclusive.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Three month update
Semi-official 3 month update.
The last few week-ends haven't been very good, so I am pretty much just maintaining at the moment. I have been holding around 189-190 during this time.
I have added in resistance training again over the last three weeks, which may be affecting my weight. I doubt that I have added much muscle during that time but they definitely feel fuller, so I am probably holding more glycogen and water, which keeps the weight up.
My goal from here through the holidays is simply to maintain. The holiday season has always been brutal. It starts with the trip to K's folks, which is next week. It seems like I usually just lose it from then until after my birthday (Feb 1). I plan on continuing on with the waiting for hunger and the two times a week 24 hour fasting. I am hoping that allowing myself to still have a little bit of the goodies will be satisfying enough that I can keep control.
I can resume the weight loss after the holidays.
The last few week-ends haven't been very good, so I am pretty much just maintaining at the moment. I have been holding around 189-190 during this time.
I have added in resistance training again over the last three weeks, which may be affecting my weight. I doubt that I have added much muscle during that time but they definitely feel fuller, so I am probably holding more glycogen and water, which keeps the weight up.
My goal from here through the holidays is simply to maintain. The holiday season has always been brutal. It starts with the trip to K's folks, which is next week. It seems like I usually just lose it from then until after my birthday (Feb 1). I plan on continuing on with the waiting for hunger and the two times a week 24 hour fasting. I am hoping that allowing myself to still have a little bit of the goodies will be satisfying enough that I can keep control.
I can resume the weight loss after the holidays.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Two month update
I do my "official" weigh-in on Saturday mornings right after I get up. This way, the conditions are close to the same every week and I don't get distracted by the daily ups and downs that everyone has. This last Saturday (the 25th), I weighed 188.4. This is down 3.4 lbs from last month, for a total of 15.4 lbs. It is nice to see the 180's again.
After the loss during the first month, the weight loss slowed to almost nothing for a couple of weeks, less than a pound during that time frame. I was still waiting for hunger but still eating too much at a time. Throw in a couple of slips and it was a recipe for very slow losses.
Around that time, I became aware of a blog by the author of the book Eat Stop Eat. The book is his take on intermittent fasting (IF). There is a little more to it but, essentially, you fast for 24 hours once or twice a week, depending on if you are trying to lose weight or just maintain. The 24 period is a period starting from right after one meal to right before the same meal the next day. So, for example, if you finish dinner at 7 PM on Sunday night, you wouldn't eat again until after 7 PM on Monday night. The fast period is absolutely zero calories - no juice, no cream in coffee, no broth, etc.
I have tried IF in the past, using the "window method", where you would fast for 18 hours and then eat during a window of time for the next 6 hours. I liked a lot of things about it but I didn't like eating so much during the window, though I was trying to get a certain level of macronutrients in during that time which was leading to overeating.
The nice thing about Brad Pilon's (the author of Eat Stop Eat) blog is it is backed up completely scientifically and really does a nice job destroying the nutrition myths. He has convinced me that my muscles aren't going to fall off if I don't eat 150 grams of protein every single day, that it is possible to maintain or even gain a little muscle while in calorie restriction, there is no "starvation mode" (or at least what most dieters believe is starvation mode), etc. It has also lead me to realize that I don't have to eat the second my stomach growls. I think waiting a little leads to a healthier attitude towards food (I'm not bowling over small children and old ladies on my way to the food the second my stomach growls) and also leads me to better choices as I have time to think about what I am really hungry for.
The last few weeks I have added two fast days - Monday and Friday. Monday is to "recover" from the weekend, which tends to be higher carb, and Friday is because that is a day I tended to go off of the rails with my eating. Simply not eating is easier for me than to not overeat, even with the constraints of hunger.
This has ramped up the weight loss. The fast days are easy, though I have to watch that I don't over do it when I break the fast. I still eat within the constraints of hunger and fullness the rest of the time, so "suffering from hunger" doesn't happen. I enjoy it.
Eat Stop Eat blog
After the loss during the first month, the weight loss slowed to almost nothing for a couple of weeks, less than a pound during that time frame. I was still waiting for hunger but still eating too much at a time. Throw in a couple of slips and it was a recipe for very slow losses.
Around that time, I became aware of a blog by the author of the book Eat Stop Eat. The book is his take on intermittent fasting (IF). There is a little more to it but, essentially, you fast for 24 hours once or twice a week, depending on if you are trying to lose weight or just maintain. The 24 period is a period starting from right after one meal to right before the same meal the next day. So, for example, if you finish dinner at 7 PM on Sunday night, you wouldn't eat again until after 7 PM on Monday night. The fast period is absolutely zero calories - no juice, no cream in coffee, no broth, etc.
I have tried IF in the past, using the "window method", where you would fast for 18 hours and then eat during a window of time for the next 6 hours. I liked a lot of things about it but I didn't like eating so much during the window, though I was trying to get a certain level of macronutrients in during that time which was leading to overeating.
The nice thing about Brad Pilon's (the author of Eat Stop Eat) blog is it is backed up completely scientifically and really does a nice job destroying the nutrition myths. He has convinced me that my muscles aren't going to fall off if I don't eat 150 grams of protein every single day, that it is possible to maintain or even gain a little muscle while in calorie restriction, there is no "starvation mode" (or at least what most dieters believe is starvation mode), etc. It has also lead me to realize that I don't have to eat the second my stomach growls. I think waiting a little leads to a healthier attitude towards food (I'm not bowling over small children and old ladies on my way to the food the second my stomach growls) and also leads me to better choices as I have time to think about what I am really hungry for.
The last few weeks I have added two fast days - Monday and Friday. Monday is to "recover" from the weekend, which tends to be higher carb, and Friday is because that is a day I tended to go off of the rails with my eating. Simply not eating is easier for me than to not overeat, even with the constraints of hunger.
This has ramped up the weight loss. The fast days are easy, though I have to watch that I don't over do it when I break the fast. I still eat within the constraints of hunger and fullness the rest of the time, so "suffering from hunger" doesn't happen. I enjoy it.
Eat Stop Eat blog
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Blood Glucose
I found a quote by Dr. Eades yesterday buried in the comments in his blog that I found interesting. He was helping a woman who was struggling with a low carb diet. After helping her set up her macronutrients, he wrote:
Low Carb and Gymnasts
Anthony Colpo wrote a while back that ketogenic diets were catabolic (muscle wasting) and was jumped on by the low carb community. Here, Dr. Mike verifies that it is true.
Some of this can probably be avoided by dramatically raising your protein intake. Since glucogensis (converting protein to glucose) is very inefficient (I've seen anywhere from 35 to 70% efficient), it would take an additional 150 to 200 grams of protein a day on top of your regular protein intake to make up that deficit. That is an additional 600-800 calories, not counting any other calories that ride along with the protein source (i.e. fat). Not all of calories will "count", as some are lost in the glucogensis conversion, but it is still a net gain in the energy balance.
Now, most women reading this are probably thinking "So? I don't want to be bulky anyway". The problem is that if carbs are kept that low, you will need to burn that protein up every day, regardless whether you lose any fat in the process. This means you can lose muscle ahead of the fat, which can lower the basal metabolic rate which can make it harder to lose the fat later on.
You see a lot of people on the various low carb boards that claim they lost X number of pounds by just reducing carbs to a really low level but seem to be eternally stuck 25-40 pounds overweight. A big portion of those X pounds were probably muscle and now they have settled into a lower metabolic state.
As an aside, after the fat is gone, the body will readjust the muscle levels down, so losing just fat won't turn one into a muscle bound freak.
I know carbs are villified by low carbers, but there are advantages to a slightly higher intake over increasing protein intake. For one thing, carbs can be stored in the body as glycogen in the muscles and liver. From there, it can be used to maintain blood glucose levels and for quick energy when needed. Protein isn't stored, except as lean tissue (protein's amino acids circulate in the blood stream for a while but are eventually cleared). Also, some insulin is necessary for nutrient uptake into the tissues of the body (it is excess insulin that can cause problems). Finally, 100 grams of carbs is only 400 calories verses the almost double amount needed with protein).
Lyle McDonald recommends about 100 grams of carbs a day. At this level, the body is still ketogenic (yes, it really is), so the ketones are still used but you have enough carbs to make up the difference instead of using muscle. It is also a low enough level that high insulin doesn't become a problem.
So what does this mean for me, since I am not counting anything? It just verifies my decision to include some carbs along with my protein heavy meals. For example, last night, I had a small bowl of beef stew for dinner. K makes the stew heavy on the beef, but there are a few carrots and potatoes. Since I don't eat a lot at a time, I doubt there was more than 25 grams of carbs in the whole thing.
Based on caring for a large number of patients, I would assume that your body fat right now is around 33-35 percent. At 189 pounds, this means you are carrying about 60 pounds of fat and 129 pounds of lean body mass. At your ideal weight and body fat percentage, you will have a lean body mass of 104 pounds, which means you will lose 25 pounds of lean body mass. Which is okay since you won’t need that lean mass when you are 59 pounds lighter. (As a corollary, if you want to gain lean body mass all you have to do is strap on a 59 pound pack and wear it 24/7.) |
Low Carb and Gymnasts
Anthony Colpo wrote a while back that ketogenic diets were catabolic (muscle wasting) and was jumped on by the low carb community. Here, Dr. Mike verifies that it is true.
Some of this can probably be avoided by dramatically raising your protein intake. Since glucogensis (converting protein to glucose) is very inefficient (I've seen anywhere from 35 to 70% efficient), it would take an additional 150 to 200 grams of protein a day on top of your regular protein intake to make up that deficit. That is an additional 600-800 calories, not counting any other calories that ride along with the protein source (i.e. fat). Not all of calories will "count", as some are lost in the glucogensis conversion, but it is still a net gain in the energy balance.
Now, most women reading this are probably thinking "So? I don't want to be bulky anyway". The problem is that if carbs are kept that low, you will need to burn that protein up every day, regardless whether you lose any fat in the process. This means you can lose muscle ahead of the fat, which can lower the basal metabolic rate which can make it harder to lose the fat later on.
You see a lot of people on the various low carb boards that claim they lost X number of pounds by just reducing carbs to a really low level but seem to be eternally stuck 25-40 pounds overweight. A big portion of those X pounds were probably muscle and now they have settled into a lower metabolic state.
As an aside, after the fat is gone, the body will readjust the muscle levels down, so losing just fat won't turn one into a muscle bound freak.
I know carbs are villified by low carbers, but there are advantages to a slightly higher intake over increasing protein intake. For one thing, carbs can be stored in the body as glycogen in the muscles and liver. From there, it can be used to maintain blood glucose levels and for quick energy when needed. Protein isn't stored, except as lean tissue (protein's amino acids circulate in the blood stream for a while but are eventually cleared). Also, some insulin is necessary for nutrient uptake into the tissues of the body (it is excess insulin that can cause problems). Finally, 100 grams of carbs is only 400 calories verses the almost double amount needed with protein).
Lyle McDonald recommends about 100 grams of carbs a day. At this level, the body is still ketogenic (yes, it really is), so the ketones are still used but you have enough carbs to make up the difference instead of using muscle. It is also a low enough level that high insulin doesn't become a problem.
So what does this mean for me, since I am not counting anything? It just verifies my decision to include some carbs along with my protein heavy meals. For example, last night, I had a small bowl of beef stew for dinner. K makes the stew heavy on the beef, but there are a few carrots and potatoes. Since I don't eat a lot at a time, I doubt there was more than 25 grams of carbs in the whole thing.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Labor Day Weekend Results
I showed a loss on the scale everyday of the weekend, getting down to 193.6 yesterday, about a four pound loss. However, I only ended up eating once yesterday but it ended up being a larger meal than usual. We had a BBQ and K made potato salad, which is really rare as I am the only one in the family that likes it. I over-did it a bit, which was stupid, as I can have it any time I get hungry. 
The result of all of those extra carbs was a bounce up of 2 pounds. Considering that the whole meal had to be less than 2000 calories (I wasn't that full), I am sure it is just water from the carbs.
Still, all in all, I am down around 2 pounds for the long weekend. I am back on track now and will probably shed that water fairly quickly.
The result of all of those extra carbs was a bounce up of 2 pounds. Considering that the whole meal had to be less than 2000 calories (I wasn't that full), I am sure it is just water from the carbs.
Still, all in all, I am down around 2 pounds for the long weekend. I am back on track now and will probably shed that water fairly quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)