|weight loss pt. 2
||[May. 18th, 2010|07:32 am]
Since I last posted (late March), I've lost less than two pounds a week, only breaking three hundred pounds this morning. My body seems to have almost fully adjusted to roughly three thousand kcal every two days, which is pretty absurd at three hundred pounds, and I'm wondering what else I need to do. Some options are exercise, carefully eating less on days I eat, and arranging eat days to get fewer of them. Of course, the first two of those defeat part of the point of the diet I'm on, which is to be able to pay as little attention to the diet as possible, since the more choices I give myself, the more likely it is I'll choose in a way I'll regret later.
So, right now the plan is to continue doing what I'm doing until I go on vacation Memorial Day weekend, pay no attention through vacation, insofar as I'm able, and consider what to do on the other side of it. A possibility I'm considering, as a type of option three, above, is to eat on Saturday, Sunday, and Wednesday, raising the number of no eat days from three and a half per week to four, on average.
The problem is that there are certain biological triggers that are set off at various levels of dietary intake. Going a day without, effectively, eating may be temporarily putting your body into starvation mode -- which conserves calories drastically.
When I'm dieting, I eat exactly 2,000 calories a day, 500 morning, 250 lunch, 1250 dinner. This works well and has the advantage that I finish the day not feeling as though I starved myself.
Try going from 3000kcals every two days to 1500kcals per day. And at that, do 5 300kcal meals in a day, spaced evenly apart during your waking hours.
The trick is to balance "don't stop eating" with "don't eat a lot", so you'll always have something like an apple or an orange or a bunch fo grapes or something going on. Carrots and celery, etc.
The problem with these suggestions is that they haven't been sustainable, in the past, for me.
Eat some days, don't eat other days? I can do that indefinitely, because it takes longer than a day to get hungry, physically, and knowing I'm not going to eat at all on a given day frees me from even thinking about it, so it's hardly any bother at all.
However, any diet which requires, basically, that I can only have certain amounts at certain times, or only certain kinds of food, seem far more restrictive, even if I end up taking in more calories.
In the end, I don't want to lose weight badly enough to constantly torture myself about it, so I'm likely to try other things that allow me to continue not being irritated by my diet. One idea is to go off diet for a while, like a week or two, and then back on the one-on, one-off, to try to get back the 5-7 pounds a week drop I was getting at first. Since I have the vacation coming up, there's already going to be *something* of this sort, and I might as well give that a shot.
2010-05-19 01:51 am (UTC)
Maybe if you make food a workout then.
I did, it's helped.
Goto hulu.com and watch Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. It's only 6 episodes. As you start cooking from scratch rather than buying processed stoof, you put a lot of effort into making a small meal.
At least at first, it gets quicker and quicker as you go.
I replied to iptv_tech, but it's also a reply to you. :)
I would not call "losing less than 2 pounds a week" having a body that is "almost fully adjusted". My reading on diet suggests that 0.5 - 2 lbs/week is the normal range of losing weight. Isn't a pound like 3300 calories? So 2lbs/week is burning 7000 more calories than you take in - if you are taking in 3000*3.5 = 10,500 cals/week, then losing 2lbs a week means you are burning 17,000.
Unless I've messed up my math, that's not even *close* to being fully adjusted and needing to worry about changing things.
But...but... it doesn't provide the instant gratification which I demand and expect! ;)