Help me lose weight


log in or register to remove this ad

OK, so i weighed myself.

In the past week, I didn't lose 3 pounds. No where near.

I lost ten. In seven days -- friday to friday. That's a lot. Do I still sound crazy and as if I am of the Flat Earthers?
 

Eolin said:
OK, so i weighed myself.

In the past week, I didn't lose 3 pounds. No where near.

I lost ten. In seven days -- friday to friday. That's a lot. Do I still sound crazy and as if I am of the Flat Earthers?
That is excellent. I'm glad to hear what you are doing is working for you.

OTOH, it still PROVES nothing. Not scientifically, anyway. Just to you.
 

Torm said:
That is excellent. I'm glad to hear what you are doing is working for you.

OTOH, it still PROVES nothing. Not scientifically, anyway. Just to you.


What it does do is raise the rational subjective lillihood that such a thing is true.

The current best model for scientific discovery making is Bayes Theorem, which states:

P (H | E & B) = P(E|H) * P(H | B) / P(E|B) ... if i recall correctly, which I should.

What that says is that our rational degree of believe in a hypothesis H, is dependent upon Evidence and Background assumptions.

Anyway, what I have done is increase the evidence, which, while likely given my assumption that what I'm doing makes sense (aka, the evidence confirms my hypothesis) , the evidence also *disconfirms* the hypothesis that I'm a quack, and the hypothesis that my sort of dieting doesn't make any sense.

That, gentlemen, is conditional belief. And its scientific. Sure, there's not a whole lot of evidence and it is not the case that it has drastically changes the comparitive probabilities -- but it is evidence and cannot be simply thrown out.

I'd love to get three hundred people and put 200 of them on different diets to experiment. If anybody has got me 300 willing subjects, let me know. But as that hasn't happened, the only sort of evidence that we do have is individual -- and mine is just as valid as anyone elses. Granted, you may discount my evidence by thinking I'm lying, but if I am telling the truth (which I know I am), then it is the case that the epistemic probability of my hypothesis just went up.
 

Eolin said:
OK, so i weighed myself.

In the past week, I didn't lose 3 pounds. No where near.

I lost ten. In seven days -- friday to friday. That's a lot. Do I still sound crazy and as if I am of the Flat Earthers?

Torm said:
That is excellent.

I wouldn't say so. In fact, it'd worry me a little.

Any expert you ask will tell you that 1-2 lbs. per week is the maximum healthy weight loss rate. Anything higher than that, and you are likely losing either water weight (dehydrating yourself) or weight from non-fat tissues (losing muscle mass). Either way it's not a good thing to do to your body, and you'll be more likely to put the weight back on afterward for two reasons...

First, muscle cells burn more calories than fat cells do... even when you are resting. Simply having more muscle makes it easier to stay slim. But if you are burning up all your muscles with a fast, then in the end, you'll be burning fewer calories for the same amount of body weight. You sabotage your own diet.

Second, when you fast and lose weight that quickly, your body automatically suddenly realizes, "Hey, I'm not getting enough food to maintain my muscles... We're starving!" Your metabolism goes way down to conserve energy. Once the diet's over, it takes a bit of time for your body to get out of the 'starvation' mode. In the mean time, you store up all that fat you just got rid of.
 

I have found that in terms of a diet (not dieting), that the best way to achieve a healthy eating habit is to eat 4 - 6 meals a day. For an average reasonably active male, you should have a caloric intake of of approximately 2700 calories. If you are overweight and trying to lose some excess pounds, drop your intake by 4-500 calories for a short time and then gradually increase to a normal level.

Breakfast should be roughly 1/3 of you daily caloric intake. with the other 2/3 spread amongst your remaining meals. the reason for this is that you have the majority of your day in order to process the calories and the other meals act as a sort of boost to the main meal of the day.

lots of vegetables, some fruits.
whole grains and nuts
protein.

avoid refined sugars and flour.
milk is nasty. though cheese is good.

plus lots of excercise.
 

Andor said:
Subjective

I have been following this debate with great intrest. It reminds me of the debates I have had woth family and friends and my doctor several years ago when I first went on Atkins before the low carb craze hit.

Everyone kept telling me it would hurt my heart well my cholesrtral levels went down, my insulin levels stablized and I took less diabetic medicine and my kidneys are fine. When I argued this point I was told it was not scientfic but subjective.

Now all these scientfic studies are coming out showing that if your kidneys are normal a low carb diet does not hurt them insluin does play a big part in weight gain and not all fat is bad for you.

Just because a scientfic study has not been done on something does not make it hookum. So saying show me a scientfic study and then I will believe it is showing a closed mind. Using the Atkins as examle again he used some studies out Switzerland based on insluin and heart disease and his own finding to develop the diet. None of the naysayers ever did any study to back up their claims. It has only been in the last three years that a real effort has been made to study the effects of the diet.

I am not trying to hijack the thread into a debate on low carb diets I was just using it as an example because it is an example that I am aware of.
 

Elf Witch said:
I am not trying to hijack the thread

Why not? It woudn't be the first time this thread has been hijacked.

To the others: Yeah, ten pounds in a week is more than is thought to be healthy. I know. I look at myself now compared ot then and can tell you with a fairly reasonable degree of certainty that it was fat. It sure wasn't water fat, I was drinking 3 to 4 liters of water a day.

And I don't think it was muscle -- if it was, I don't think my pot belly would have reduced, and I don't think my legs would feel all muscly instead of fatty.

In short, I don't think this diet starves you. You don't get as many calories, but you do get all the nutrients and such that you really need.
 

generally speaking, when starting a diet, the most dramatic weight loss occurs in the first 2 -4 weeks of the diet. A radical change in eating style, foodstuffs, and exercise regimen throws your body out of equilibrium and it takes time for your body to adjust. once it has adjusted to the new habits, your weight loss will diminish dramatically. A great deal of weight (over 5 pounds) lost in the first week of a new diet is not overly alarming in and of itself but if you continue to lose weight at that rate however, it is a serious red flag.
 

I think you guys are making the mistake of comparing low carb diets to diets that require way more self-discipline and work way more slowly. Atkins is a tool for making a transition to a healthier life than you would otherwise have not for making a transition to a healthier life than you would ideally have.

Most of those of us who have had good experiences with Atkins simply would not have had the strength required to lose weight 80% slower for 500% more work. Now, once you're on Atkins and your blood sugar is stable, you're feeling better about your body, your energy is up and, in many cases for the first time ever, you have actually been able to take some control over your physical self, then you should make a transition to a healthier diet and exercise regime. Atkins is a bridge not a destination.

There is no way I could have built the confidence, willpower and energy to start exercising again without the Atkins diet providing me with my first ever experience of setting a goal for my physical body and actually realizing it after 30 years of failing and failing again.
 

Remove ads

Top