success or?

Hi, I posted a while back and have been lurking since.

I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.

Question is, have I done this too fast? My method was to get the body
moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.

I've also tentatively started exercising. Here and there to start, but
I've decided today, right this minute in fact, to commit to a walking
program I found on the American Heart Association website for people
who're exercise beginners. I've been sedentary for... ever.

It begins with a 5 min. warm-up walk, a 5 min. brisk walk, and a 5 min.
cool down. You continue this for a week, walking every day, and the
next week you up your brisk walking time to 7 minutes. Every week
thereafter you add two minutes more until your walking time is
approximately 40 minutes per day in twelve weeks.

Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and
exercise the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months,
until it finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.

Anyone else experience this?

One more thing... my husband continually says the major part of the
weight I've lost is water. I'm getting really discouraged with this.
Is it possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?

Eleya
370/318/175

On Feb 10, 9:47 am, eleya <a...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi, I posted a while back and have been lurking since.
>
> I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> Question is, have I done this too fast? My method was to get the body
> moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>
> I've also tentatively started exercising. Here and there to start, but
> I've decided today, right this minute in fact, to commit to a walking
> program I found on the American Heart Association website for people
> who're exercise beginners. I've been sedentary for... ever.
>
> It begins with a 5 min. warm-up walk, a 5 min. brisk walk, and a 5 min.
> cool down. You continue this for a week, walking every day, and the
> next week you up your brisk walking time to 7 minutes. Every week
> thereafter you add two minutes more until your walking time is
> approximately 40 minutes per day in twelve weeks.
>
> Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and
> exercise the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months,
> until it finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
>
> Anyone else experience this?
>
> One more thing... my husband continually says the major part of the
> weight I've lost is water. I'm getting really discouraged with this.
> Is it possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>
> Eleya
> 370/318/175


No, you haven't taken off 52 pounds of water. The rate of weight loss
depends on your starting weight and how overweight you were. If you
started out at 450 pounds, 52 pounds might be reasonable for the
first 2 months, but now weight loss should be more gradual. One good
rule of thumb is to take the weight you want to be at and multiply
that by 10 to determine the calories you should be eating, but not to
go under 1200 calories. As you lose weight, you need fewer calories. A
small person might only need 1400 cal a day, but a larger person might
need 2500. Your size is the main thing.

I think it is important to see quick results on a diet, so I also lost
a lot of weight quickly, but then slowed down until my weight
stabilized. I went from 230 to 133 and am still there. It takes me
1500 calories a day to maintain 133, with moderate exercise 6X a week.
dkw

"eleya" <ask@me.com> wrote in message news:eqkpfa$odp$1@aioe.org...
> Hi, I posted a while back and have been lurking since.
>
> I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> Question is, have I done this too fast? My method was to get the body
> moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I
> eat. For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more
> veggies, etc.
>
> I've also tentatively started exercising. Here and there to start, but
> I've decided today, right this minute in fact, to commit to a walking
> program I found on the American Heart Association website for people
> who're exercise beginners. I've been sedentary for... ever.
>
> It begins with a 5 min. warm-up walk, a 5 min. brisk walk, and a 5 min.
> cool down. You continue this for a week, walking every day, and the
> next week you up your brisk walking time to 7 minutes. Every week
> thereafter you add two minutes more until your walking time is
> approximately 40 minutes per day in twelve weeks.
>
> Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and
> exercise the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months,
> until it finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
>
> Anyone else experience this?
>
> One more thing... my husband continually says the major part of the
> weight I've lost is water. I'm getting really discouraged with this.
> Is it possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>
> Eleya
> 370/318/175

no, you didn't lose 52 pounds of water. Your husband sounds like an
idiot. Is he overweight as well? Perhaps he feels threatened by your
accomplishment, and that is why he is not supportive. On the other hand,
4 pounds a week seems like a lot. There is a certain minumum one needs
to eat to get adequate nutrition and prevent loss of lean tissue,
although that is less than many of us ate. way less.

The walking program is excellent.

del

"eleya" <ask@me.com> wrote in message news:eqkpfa$odp$1@aioe.org...
> Hi, I posted a while back and have been lurking since.
>
> I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> Question is, have I done this too fast? My method was to get the body
> moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>
> I've also tentatively started exercising. Here and there to start, but
> I've decided today, right this minute in fact, to commit to a walking
> program I found on the American Heart Association website for people
> who're exercise beginners. I've been sedentary for... ever.
>
> It begins with a 5 min. warm-up walk, a 5 min. brisk walk, and a 5 min.
> cool down. You continue this for a week, walking every day, and the next
> week you up your brisk walking time to 7 minutes. Every week thereafter
> you add two minutes more until your walking time is approximately 40
> minutes per day in twelve weeks.
>
> Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and exercise
> the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months, until it
> finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
>
> Anyone else experience this?
>
> One more thing... my husband continually says the major part of the weight
> I've lost is water. I'm getting really discouraged with this. Is it
> possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?

Congrats on the 52 pounds!! I know you must be feeling better already.
It's true that at the beginning of a diet, much of the first weight lost is
water--but that's only the first couple of weeks--not several months later.
Has your husband seen you lose weight before, only to gain it back? Perhaps
he is trying to protect you from disappointment.

The walking program sounds great. I love to walk. It's one exercise you
can do any time, and don't need special equipment for. By the time you get
to the 12th week, you won't be able to imagine how you got through all these
years without walking! <smile> Keep up the great work!

On Feb 10, 3:56 pm, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
> "eleya" <a...@me.com> wrote in messagenews:eqkpfa$odp$1@aioe.org...
> > Hi, I posted a while back and have been lurking since.
>
> > I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> > Question is, have I done this too fast? My method was to get the body
> > moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> > For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>
> > I've also tentatively started exercising. Here and there to start, but
> > I've decided today, right this minute in fact, to commit to a walking
> > program I found on the American Heart Association website for people
> > who're exercise beginners. I've been sedentary for... ever.
>
> > It begins with a 5 min. warm-up walk, a 5 min. brisk walk, and a 5 min.
> > cool down. You continue this for a week, walking every day, and the next
> > week you up your brisk walking time to 7 minutes. Every week thereafter
> > you add two minutes more until your walking time is approximately 40
> > minutes per day in twelve weeks.
>
> > Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> > contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> > heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> > safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and exercise
> > the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months, until it
> > finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
>
> > Anyone else experience this?
>
> > One more thing... my husband continually says the major part of the weight
> > I've lost is water. I'm getting really discouraged with this. Is it
> > possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>
> Congrats on the 52 pounds!! I know you must be feeling better already.
> It's true that at the beginning of a diet, much of the first weight lost is
> water--but that's only the first couple of weeks--not several months later.
> Has your husband seen you lose weight before, only to gain it back? Perhaps
> he is trying to protect you from disappointment.
>
> The walking program sounds great. I love to walk. It's one exercise you
> can do any time, and don't need special equipment for. By the time you get
> to the 12th week, you won't be able to imagine how you got through all these
> years without walking! <smile> Keep up the great work!

GREAT JOB! And also ditto the comment about your husband. I sure hope
he's not like this continuously. (Maybe he's jealous of your great
progress?) Your progress is very inspirational!!!

Terrific about the exercise program!

I hope you've checked with your medical provider -- if you have one.
He/she would probably be delighted at the progress you have made and
may want to adjust medication levels for you (if you're taking meds
now).

TERRIFIC PROGRESS!!!!!!! KEEP IT UP!!!!!

Yours truly,

Caleb

Terrific loss...Just how many calories are you eating a day?4 lbs a week is
very quick...Water weight might account for a very small part of the loss
but certainly not that much...To have lost that amount of weight with
minimal exercise to this point does not seem healthy...I'm no expert but I
lost 50 some lbs over a 6 month period and exercised 5 days a week...I know
we are all different but you want to be sure and do this in a way you can
live with...Have you seen your Doctor?...Rapid weight loss can be
dangerous...If your measures are to extreme it won't last...That said
whatever works for you and makes you happy and keeps you healthy is all that
matters...Good luck...GG
"eleya" <ask@me.com> wrote in message news:eqkpfa$odp$1@aioe.org...
> Hi, I posted a while back and have been lurking since.
>
> I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> Question is, have I done this too fast? My method was to get the body
> moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>
> I've also tentatively started exercising. Here and there to start, but
> I've decided today, right this minute in fact, to commit to a walking
> program I found on the American Heart Association website for people
> who're exercise beginners. I've been sedentary for... ever.
>
> It begins with a 5 min. warm-up walk, a 5 min. brisk walk, and a 5 min.
> cool down. You continue this for a week, walking every day, and the next
> week you up your brisk walking time to 7 minutes. Every week thereafter
> you add two minutes more until your walking time is approximately 40
> minutes per day in twelve weeks.
>
> Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and exercise
> the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months, until it
> finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
>
> Anyone else experience this?
>
> One more thing... my husband continually says the major part of the weight
> I've lost is water. I'm getting really discouraged with this. Is it
> possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>
> Eleya
> 370/318/175

About how many calories per day are you eating? 52 lbs is alot. You need
to level out the loss to about 1-2 lbs per week, or you will wind up losing
a great deal of muscle. In almost every "diet", or when you are eating at a
caloric deficit, your body will burn a certain amount of muscle along with
the fat. The best way to minimize muscle loss and maximize fat loss is to
not lose too quickly, and exercise. The body burns muscle in a caloric
deficit because muscle takes the most amount of calories to maintain. So it
figures out how to live on less calories by dumping the muscle. Exercise
tells the body that it really does need that muscle you're carrying around.
Walking is a great start. Keep it up! After 12 weeks, you may be ready to
try something a little more demanding, like ever so often adding a few
seconds of jogging or fast walking every now and then into your walk.

Your husband is ignorant. Best thing to do is, educate yourself, and then
educate him! No, you haven't lost 52 lbs of water. Initially, a great deal
of weight loss IS water loss, but after the first week or so, it is a
combination of fat and muscle loss.

If I were you, I would track my food intake somewhere like www.fitday.com.
It is free and many people on this board use it. Try to not lose more than
2 or maybe 3 lbs a week. Once you get down around 200 lbs or so, you really
need to slow the weight loss further to spare muscle. I am guessing that
you probably would maintain your weight at about 3000-3500 calories per day.
To reach a 2-3 lb per week loss, you should aim for around 2000-2500
calories per day.

Good luck!

"eleya" <ask@me.com> wrote in message news:eqkpfa$odp$1@aioe.org...
> Hi, I posted a while back and have been lurking since.
>
> I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> Question is, have I done this too fast? My method was to get the body
> moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>
> I've also tentatively started exercising. Here and there to start, but
> I've decided today, right this minute in fact, to commit to a walking
> program I found on the American Heart Association website for people
> who're exercise beginners. I've been sedentary for... ever.
>
> It begins with a 5 min. warm-up walk, a 5 min. brisk walk, and a 5 min.
> cool down. You continue this for a week, walking every day, and the next
> week you up your brisk walking time to 7 minutes. Every week thereafter
> you add two minutes more until your walking time is approximately 40
> minutes per day in twelve weeks.
>
> Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and exercise
> the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months, until it
> finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
>
> Anyone else experience this?
>
> One more thing... my husband continually says the major part of the weight
> I've lost is water. I'm getting really discouraged with this. Is it
> possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>
> Eleya
> 370/318/175

eleya <a...@me.com> wrote:
>
> I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.

Two completely separate and conflicting points:

1) The folks who manage to keep it off for 5+ years generally
average a loss rate of 4 per month.

2) The more you have to lose the faster it comes off the less
you have to lose the slower it comes off.

> Question is, have I done this too fast?

Adding up the context, nope. You started with a lot to lose
so you started out losing quickly. Not to worry, the rate will
gradually taper off.

> My method was to get the body
> moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.

In other words doing the right thing A to Z. Excellent.

> Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and
> exercise the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months,
> until it finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
> ...
> Is it possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?

There's no way you lost 52 pounds of water. It is quite likely
you've lost 10-20 pounds of water. Think of it in these terms:
If you lost 20 of water then you lost 32 of fat and while that's
very fast it isn't completely unhealthy. But also think of it in
these terms: There's only just so much water to lose and you
have already lost that much. Don't worry about it other than
to understnad that the water will return just as fast should
you quit. It's the easy-go-easy-return part.

> Eleya
> 370/318/175

On Feb 11, 2:37 pm, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> eleya <a...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> Two completely separate and conflicting points:
>
> 1) The folks who manage to keep it off for 5+ years generally
> average a loss rate of 4 per month.
>
> 2) The more you have to lose the faster it comes off the less
> you have to lose the slower it comes off.
>
> > Question is, have I done this too fast?
>
> Adding up the context, nope. You started with a lot to lose
> so you started out losing quickly. Not to worry, the rate will
> gradually taper off.
>
> > My method was to get the body
> > moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> > For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>
> In other words doing the right thing A to Z. Excellent.
>
> > Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> > contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> > heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> > safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and
> > exercise the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months,
> > until it finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
> > ...
> > Is it possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>
> There's no way you lost 52 pounds of water. It is quite likely
> you've lost 10-20 pounds of water. Think of it in these terms:
> If you lost 20 of water then you lost 32 of fat and while that's
> very fast it isn't completely unhealthy. But also think of it in
> these terms: There's only just so much water to lose and you
> have already lost that much. Don't worry about it other than
> to understnad that the water will return just as fast should
> you quit. It's the easy-go-easy-return part.
>
> > Eleya
> > 370/318/175

Doug -- What's your citation for the loss of 4 pounds a week being a
better method for keeping weight off? I'd be interesting in reading
about that.

I'd also be interested in looking at how motivating it is for people
to maintain such a weight-loss diet if that is their maximum weight
loss.

Yours,

Caleb

On Feb 11, 2:37 pm, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> eleya <a...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>
> Two completely separate and conflicting points:
>
> 1) The folks who manage to keep it off for 5+ years generally
> average a loss rate of 4 per month.
>
> 2) The more you have to lose the faster it comes off the less
> you have to lose the slower it comes off.
>
> > Question is, have I done this too fast?
>
> Adding up the context, nope. You started with a lot to lose
> so you started out losing quickly. Not to worry, the rate will
> gradually taper off.
>
> > My method was to get the body
> > moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
> > For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>
> In other words doing the right thing A to Z. Excellent.
>
> > Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
> > contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
> > heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
> > safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and
> > exercise the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months,
> > until it finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
> > ...
> > Is it possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>
> There's no way you lost 52 pounds of water. It is quite likely
> you've lost 10-20 pounds of water. Think of it in these terms:
> If you lost 20 of water then you lost 32 of fat and while that's
> very fast it isn't completely unhealthy. But also think of it in
> these terms: There's only just so much water to lose and you
> have already lost that much. Don't worry about it other than
> to understnad that the water will return just as fast should
> you quit. It's the easy-go-easy-return part.
>
> > Eleya
> > 370/318/175

Doug -- Sorry -- I meant four pounds a month loss, not four pounds a
week loss.

Yours,

Caleb

On 11 Feb 2007 21:52:17 -0800, "Caleb" <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 2:37 pm, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> eleya <a...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>>
>> Two completely separate and conflicting points:
>>
>> 1) The folks who manage to keep it off for 5+ years generally
>> average a loss rate of 4 per month.

<rest of Doug's post snipped>

>Doug -- What's your citation for the loss of 4 pounds a week being a
>better method for keeping weight off? I'd be interesting in reading
>about that.

I don't know what Doug's citation is, but you should note that he said
4 pounds/month, not 4 pounds/week.


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

On 11 Feb 2007 21:53:12 -0800, "Caleb" <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 2:37 pm, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> eleya <a...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I've got some good news, I think. Since Dec. 1, '06 I've lost 52lbs.
>>
>> Two completely separate and conflicting points:
>>
>> 1) The folks who manage to keep it off for 5+ years generally
>> average a loss rate of 4 per month.
>>
>> 2) The more you have to lose the faster it comes off the less
>> you have to lose the slower it comes off.
>>
>> > Question is, have I done this too fast?
>>
>> Adding up the context, nope. You started with a lot to lose
>> so you started out losing quickly. Not to worry, the rate will
>> gradually taper off.
>>
>> > My method was to get the body
>> > moving more, albeit slowly, and to change the amounts and the way I eat.
>> > For instance cutting back salt, more normal portions, more veggies, etc.
>>
>> In other words doing the right thing A to Z. Excellent.
>>
>> > Point is, I think moving the bod around more and changing the diet has
>> > contributed to the weight loss, but still, it seems a bit much. I've
>> > heard a person should only lose 2 lbs. per week if they want to do it
>> > safely, but in the past I've found whenever I change my diet and
>> > exercise the weight just pours initially, for the first couple months,
>> > until it finally plateaus and takes more exercise to start up again.
>> > ...
>> > Is it possible I've only taken off 52lbs. of water?
>>
>> There's no way you lost 52 pounds of water. It is quite likely
>> you've lost 10-20 pounds of water. Think of it in these terms:
>> If you lost 20 of water then you lost 32 of fat and while that's
>> very fast it isn't completely unhealthy. But also think of it in
>> these terms: There's only just so much water to lose and you
>> have already lost that much. Don't worry about it other than
>> to understnad that the water will return just as fast should
>> you quit. It's the easy-go-easy-return part.
>>
>> > Eleya
>> > 370/318/175
>
>Doug -- Sorry -- I meant four pounds a month loss, not four pounds a
>week loss.
>
>Yours,
>
>Caleb

Oops -- spoke too soon.

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

"Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) The folks who manage to keep it off for 5+ years generally
> > average a loss rate of 4 per month.
>
> Doug -- What's your citation for the loss of 4 pounds a week being a
> better method for keeping weight off? I'd be interesting in reading
> about that.

As pointed out - 4 per month.

Most studies of folks who've managed to keep off their loss for 5+
years show the rate they lost it clusters tightly near 1 per week.
I am quite insistant that the time scale for losing fat is month to
month so I express that number in terms in months not weeks.

There's an interesting problem with the rate - It appears to be
done by comparing start and target weight and length of the loss
phase. Since folks with more to lose lose faster and folks with
less to lose lose slower, there's some sort of expected curve if
you graph the numbers. Since the rate tapers to slower and
slower as it approaches target it is very possible that the end
of the trend overwhelms the beginning.

> I'd also be interested in looking at how motivating it is for people
> to maintain such a weight-loss diet if that is their maximum weight
> loss.

A common theory is the reason these folks are able to keep it off
is the changes they made to acheive the loss are sustainable.

Motivation includes an internal mental driver, external social
pressures, and physical drivers.

There isn't much to do about the social pressures - Who can do the
12-step approach of removing yourself from the people you were
around when you were overeating? Either you stop giving in to the
temptation or you don't, but the tempation sure never ends.

The physical drivers are another story. Slower loss does not trigger
the body's reaction to the same degree as fast loss. Fast loss
equals starvation to the hormone feedback loops in the body and
those feedback loops trigger powerfull trends to refeed. Simply
put, less drive to fall off equals more ability to stay on. There's
more than the mental involved.

The sustainable theory is also applicable to the internal mental
driver issue as well. If you aren't willing to let it happen at it's
own
rate, can you really say you have the type of motivation that lasts
5 years? There are types of motivation. Yours is to solve a problem
*now*, but you already know what happens when it gets solved.
The type found by those 5+ year people is the type that wants the
problem to *not come back*.

On Feb 12, 7:58 am, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > 1) The folks who manage to keep it off for 5+ years generally
> > > average a loss rate of 4 per month.
>
> > Doug -- What's your citation for the loss of 4 pounds a week being a
> > better method for keeping weight off? I'd be interesting in reading
> > about that.
>
> As pointed out - 4 per month.
>
> Most studies of folks who've managed to keep off their loss for 5+
> years show the rate they lost it clusters tightly near 1 per week.
> I am quite insistant that the time scale for losing fat is month to
> month so I express that number in terms in months not weeks.
>
> There's an interesting problem with the rate - It appears to be
> done by comparing start and target weight and length of the loss
> phase. Since folks with more to lose lose faster and folks with
> less to lose lose slower, there's some sort of expected curve if
> you graph the numbers. Since the rate tapers to slower and
> slower as it approaches target it is very possible that the end
> of the trend overwhelms the beginning.
>
> > I'd also be interested in looking at how motivating it is for people
> > to maintain such a weight-loss diet if that is their maximum weight
> > loss.
>
> A common theory is the reason these folks are able to keep it off
> is the changes they made to acheive the loss are sustainable.
>
> Motivation includes an internal mental driver, external social
> pressures, and physical drivers.
>
> There isn't much to do about the social pressures - Who can do the
> 12-step approach of removing yourself from the people you were
> around when you were overeating? Either you stop giving in to the
> temptation or you don't, but the tempation sure never ends.
>
> The physical drivers are another story. Slower loss does not trigger
> the body's reaction to the same degree as fast loss. Fast loss
> equals starvation to the hormone feedback loops in the body and
> those feedback loops trigger powerfull trends to refeed. Simply
> put, less drive to fall off equals more ability to stay on. There's
> more than the mental involved.
>
> The sustainable theory is also applicable to the internal mental
> driver issue as well. If you aren't willing to let it happen at it's
> own
> rate, can you really say you have the type of motivation that lasts
> 5 years? There are types of motivation. Yours is to solve a problem
> *now*, but you already know what happens when it gets solved.
> The type found by those 5+ year people is the type that wants the
> problem to *not come back*.



Doug -- let's tease out several issues you have here.

The first one is this:

> The sustainable theory is also applicable to the internal mental
> driver issue as well. If you aren't willing to let it happen at it's
> own
> rate, can you really say you have the type of motivation that lasts
> 5 years?

Seems to me you are suggesting here that if people don't have the
motivation to continue their weight loss slowly, they should just give
up. This is rather like a selection variable then that excludes some
people from the group of people who will successfully maintain weight
loss. Seems to me, however, that this flies in the face of so many
people who HAVE lost quickly and who maintained the loss over time.

As I have noted before, the caloric intake of people varies hugely
from day to day. A slow and predictable weight-loss implies that a
person controls his/her diet carefully, rigorously. (Before you can be
sure that you are 500 calories in deficit, you have to be sure that
you're eating the same number of calories each day.) I think a lot of
people would have very great difficulty with this, that fluctuations
occur on an ongoing basis. ("Hey, Charlie! Want to grab a dinner after
school?" "Oh, happy birthday, sweetheart!" "Oh, I got you your
favorite pizza!" etc. etc.)

This reminds me a bit of a "Murder She Wrote" script in which the
killer scratched a line on his liquor bottle, saying, "This far and no
more!" (This was to indicate how much he would drink.) For me -- maybe
it's not true of everyone -- if I had a perfect but inflexible diet
laid out before me, with a total calorie intake of 1833 calories
(e.g.), I would probably have a heck of a hard time following it. (One
teaspoon of this, a dab of that, don't forget the antioxidants, etc.,
etc.) I'm probably always going to be eating the vagrant cracker, etc.
Therefore there is always going to be some fluctuation in calories
taken in, and I think the job is to control the variance somewhat and
also to take immediate corrective steps when that dreaded scale number
goes higher.

Let's say I have 50 pounds to lose (which, son-uv-a-gun!) is about
right. I would find it much more difficult to maintain task focus for
a year (a pound a week) than to maintain task focus for 3 months. Now
if I could lose a pound a week and still maintain task focus, that
would be great! Heck, a pound every two weeks might be great, even if
the benefits of lower weight (such as low blood pressure) were
somewhat delayed. However, that kind of weight loss is just not very
motivating to me or to most people, I think. (Let's take the extreme
case and say that by following our program we can reach one pound loss
a month. There would be few takers for the program. It would not
motivate many people to maintain related weight-loss behaviors day
after day.)

There appears to be a lower limit on calorie intake for most people
(I am not a physician, nurse, medical expert, etc.). And the lowest
safe limit maybe something like 1000 to 1200 calories a day over time.
More than that and gallstones are increasingly likely and other bad
events may happen (e.g., electrolyte imbalances, cannibalization of
essential muscle tissue, etc.).

If you did have a study advising a slow loss as being generally more
effective than a fast loss (and certainly there are many, many
counterexamples to this), then again I would suggest that the slow-
loss people probably are different in many ways from the fast-loss
people. They may be more organized, have less interruption, perhaps
there are male-female or age-related differences, etc. For me, a more
rapid loss just helps me focus better and helps me know that I don't
have to worry about this forever.

This summer I will be able to backpack for far longer distances, will
be able to give up a hypertension medication, will be at lower risk
for a variety of problems, will be able to live a far more active life-
style, etc.

One poster (on a blogpage) noted that the appropriate comparison group
for people who weight-cycle is probably not made up of people at the
lowest weight -- the goal weight. The comparison group may be a
combination of groups of people, from those at their heaviest, to less
heavy, etc. That makes sense to me. Over a ten year period, I sure
would think that having high blood pressure for three years is a lot
healthier than having it for ten years. But these are my own views and
I'd be interested in what the literature has to say.

Also, I don't intend to gain the weight back and I think I can apply
my little watch number, graphing, and scale methods to the task of
maintaining my weight loss, as the hero of the "Hacker's Diet" has
done successfully. We'll see.

But today it's day 43 and 23 pounds are gone and the wind is at my
back!

Yours,

Caleb