Weight loss back on track (I think/hope)

While I agree that an upper-body workout is a good thing, and my exercise regime is less than ideal without it, I cannot use ellipticals. They put my feet too far apart.

I have a NordicTrac machine, which I used for a long time but don't use these days, though that gives a good upper-body workout. And I have both a treadmill and a stationary bike, both of which I use regularly. Also the Bowflex, which I'm not using now because of my shoulders, but which I expect to resume using at some point.

I'm not looking to buy any more exercise equipment right now.

People lose weight on Atkins, too. For a while. Then they put the weight back on. And the diet is harmful to their health because it is so unbalanced. There's also the placebo effect. Any scheme you can come up with for eating less will work for some people, just because they expect it to. But the bottom line is that the only way to lose weight and remain healthy is to burn more calories than you eat. Drugs (like amphetamine or ephedra) that cause you to burn more calories, do serious damage to your body. This leaves exercise as the only healthy way to burn calories, and limiting your portion size as the only way to consume less.

Beyond that, there are many strategies to stay on track, which work for different people. WW works for me. OA works for some. NutriSystems may work for some, though I didn't like it.

Pills or injections are never a healthy way to lose weight; most don't even work; and those that work will leave you putting the weight back on.

Thanks, Justin. It's hard, but not a thousandth part as hard as what you're going through! I think I speak for everyone here when I say we admire your courage and fortitude immensely.

My aunt had her own "special" diet: She ate exactly the same things she always did, but half as much. I'm glad you managed to get back to your desired weight. You lost the same amount I needed to. I'm inspired by that.

Ever since I cut dairy fats out of my diet, a few years after quitting meat, I've eaten a diet that has ranged from extremely healthy to reasonably healthy. My downfall has been portion size. I need two things to beat that: I need to be exercising regularly, which is easy for me since I'm an exercise addict, though injuries play havoc with my attempts at dieting; and I need the support of some kind of structured program, which at present WW is providing for me. I'm only 8 pounds over my goal today, and that's a small enough difference that I'd be okay if I stayed here. But there's something to be said for going all the way, and for summer hiking up in B.C., every pound makes a difference. I noticed a big difference this summer, and I'm going to be even lighter next summer.

Sundays are my weigh-in day at WW, though I weigh myself every day at home. And today I was down a pound from last week, and only up half a pound from what I was after summer hiking, when I had some difficulty getting back on the program and gained 2 or 3 pounds.

 

"Common sense" is not always correct. It's "common sense" that if I exercise more I'll eat more. But in fact that's not what happens. Like davesrose, when I am exercising more than some critical amount, my appetite comes more into line with a healthy quantity of food.

It's hard for me to quantify where that critical point comes, but when I get sick or hurt and am unable to exercise, I get hungrier, and it is much more difficult to moderate my eating.

When I go hiking up in Canada in the summer, I spend between 5 and 7 hours on the trail on a typical day. I walk between ten and twenty-odd kilometers, and I gain between 1,500 and 4,000 feet of elevation in a day. I make no attempt to "diet" except that I limit myself to one cookie or brownie or similar in my lunch pack, and most days I ask for fruit instead of the pastry for dessert at supper. And I don't gain weight. That exercise brings my appetite into proportion with my actual calorie needs. Yet when I am at home, exercising 2 1/2 to 5 hours a week, I have to struggle to lose weight or maintain, and when I'm unable to exercise I feel hungry all day long even if I'm overeating.

Exercise is critical for maintaining the metabolic balance between calories required and appetite.

Obesity is as much a disease of sedentary living as of overeating.

 

A bit of a milestone today. Lowest weight this year, which means lowest weight in several years. After the summer hiking season my weight hit a low of 141.2 lbs., just about six pounds over my interim goal of 135. When I hit 135 I plan on going to maintenance to let my body get accustomed to what will be a healthy weight, before trying for my long-term goal of 130, which is what I used to weigh back when I was jogging 20 miles a week.

Anyway, with just 2 1/2 weeks between trips, I did not get back on the program and I gained a few pounds. A month or so ago (shortly before starting this thread) I got my eating back under control, and a couple of weeks ago Weight Watchers revised downwards the minimum amount they recommend eating so that my daily "points plus" target went from 29 to 26. (The heavier you are, the more you can eat. But 29 was the lowest they recommended for anyone, until the new revision.)

So this morning, at 140.8 lbs., I am finally below the lowest weight I had reached after the hiking season. Which means my lowest weight since beginning this program. At this rate, in a week or two I should get my twenty-pound award, and be just 5 pounds away from my interim goal.

It took me about a month to lose the first 5 lbs., and another month to lose the next 5 lbs. But it took me two months after that to lose the next 5 lbs., and with this summer's backsliding (and the fact that I was not trying to lose weight while hiking or on my snorkeling-with-dolphins trip) this 5 lbs. looks like taking about another six months. I'm aiming for about two months for the next 5. Losing weight too fast is not healthy, and in fact diets that promise too-fast weight loss are either lying or damaging your health. WW says that 1/2 to 2 lbs. per week is a healthy rate of weight loss, and I would add that the higher number is for people who have more weight to lose. The closer you get to your right weight, the slower you will lose if you are following a healthy plan.

Anyway, just wanted to share this minor milestone.

 

I actually started at 160 this time. Lately I've been only losing about 1/3 pound per week, which IMO is a bit slow, though any loss is in the right direction. But I think that with the new daily points target (as WW recognized that for people in my weight category the old target was too high) I should be able to lose half a pound a week. WW says that 1/2 to 2 pounds per week is healthy. Weight watchers has a whole scientific division that studies diet, and they revise their program as new evidence comes in, making it constantly better and better.

I've never had my body fat tested by underwater weighing, but I've had skin-fold measurement and electrical resistance measurement, and everything suggests that at 135 pounds my body fat percentage is healthy, and at 130 it is still within healthy limits. The old height/weight charts would allow me to be 125 and still be healthy, considering my light bone structure and that I don't have a lot of muscle.

Oh, and my doctor agrees that 130 is a good healthy goal. But as I said, I plan on holding it at 135 for a while before trying to lose the last 5.

Weight watchers is a life-long plan, and in fact it's free after you reach your goal. The program for weight maintenance is basically the same as for weight loss, but with a higher daily points target.

 

I suspect the idea was not to actually fit the demographic, but to try to find recommendations that Americans would be willing to shoot for. The logic being you do more good if you recommend 10 lbs over and get some people to get there, rather than recommend zero lbs over and nobody even tries.

I think the same thing happened with the American Heart Association's recommendation for percentage of calories from fat. Rather than recommend an ideal number, they recommend a higher number that they think they can convince Americans to shoot for.

The definition of obese is 20% over your healthy weight. America is so fat that we see someone who is obese and we think they are "normal." We see someone who is grossly obese and we thing they are fat. We don't think "obese" until a person is morbidly obese. And when we look at a person who is at an ideal weight for health, we think they are skinny.

People constantly tell me "Don't worry about gaining weight. t's normal to gain weight as you get older." Well, in America it's normal. But it's not healthy. I've been fat and I've been healthy-thin. And I can testify that it FEELS one whole hell of a lot better to be thin.