Weight loss back on track (I think/hope)

If you are 5' 6" I don't think 124 could be called overweight. But of course you have to go for what you're comfortable with. As long as you are exercising, portion control is key.

Weight loss always (always for me, at least) involves a lot of fluctuations that have little or nothing to do with fat. I can fluctuate from one day to the next as much as my underlying weight (fat) loss for a month. So this is probably more due to fluctuation than underlying loss, but it's still good: At my weigh-in today I had lost 20.2 pounds since I joined WW. (This was two pounds less than a week ago, which is why I mention fluctuations, since I know I didn't lose two pounds of fat in one week on my present regimen. But still, the first day I hit a new low is worth celebrating. I will "celebrate" by having baked tilapia today, but without eating any more than my daily target.)

 

I figure the fluctuations are water, and whether or not I've had a good poop recently. I lose about 1/4 pound per hour in the morning hours until I've had my morning coffee. So if I don't weigh myself at 6:00 a.m. I'll make the appropriate adjustment when I record my daily weight. As I said, I can gain or lose 2 pounds of weight (not fat!) from one day to the next depending on what I ate and whether or not I had a good poop. I also record my average weight for the week and my average net "points" consumption for the week, as well as my official WW weigh-in weight, which is always fully dressed, a few minutes before 9:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings, and almost always after exercise.

With just 6 pounds to my interim goal, and 11 pounds to my long-term goal, I'm feeling pretty confident that I'll make the interim goal for next summer's hiking and the long term goal for the summer after.

 

It's true that fat is what matters, not weight. However, once you know your approximate fat percentage, you know your target weight, and it's easy to weigh yourself but hard to measure fat percentage.

Nobody puts muscle on their waist. Therefore, the waist is a pretty good indication of whether you are fat or muscular.

As for walking vs. running vs. cycling...

It's mostly a matter of preference: The exercise you enjoy is the one you're most likely to keep up with. I would say that very slow cycling is not better than walking. I like jogging because if I am in a jogging cadence my heart rate will be in the target zone. If I am cycling, I have to push myself hard to get my heart rate up. I can cycle (or swim!) at such a slow rate that I never get my heart rate up. Both cycling and swimming are low impact, but I ruined my shoulders swimming, and for several years I could not cycle due to an inflamed I.T. band. I was able to run when I could not cycle. So there are no absolutes.

Contrary to some misconceptions and advertisements, there is no way to choose where you will gain or lose weight. All you can do is aim for a healthy weight (fat percentage). You can build up specific muscles, but fat will come and go where your body (not your brain) decides.

 

Congrats on finding a place you like and sticking with it. I've gone to gyms when my circumstances have made exercise at home impractical, and they usually seem about equally divided between weight lifters and people using the aerobics machines, with a few people doing both. On the aerobics machines there are usually some clearly overweight people, and some very healthy-looking people. On the weight machines, some very strong people and some even weaker than me.

All types and kinds seem to go. So I'd encourage anyone who wants to get exercise but thinks they'd feel out of place in a gym to give it a try.

 

Update:

It's been slow, but this morning my weight is just a shade below 140. That's a real milestone. That puts me just 5 pounds from my interim goal, which I'll be satisfied with for six months or a year, and ten pounds from my ideal weight. Because I weigh myself at home naked in the morning, and I weigh myself at Weight Watchers fully clothed after having drunk water and exercised, my WW weight does not exactly track my home weight, and I'm probably six pounds from my declared WW goal. Unless I take my shoes off, since it's my home weight that matters to me.

I'd actually be happy in the long term to be anywhere between 130 and 135. I used to weigh 130, but I was younger and was jogging 20 or 21 miles a week. Now that I cannot run that many miles, 130 might be too difficult to maintain.

I'm going on a trip soon (so I'll be off line for a bit), and will probably gain some weight. But with no travel plans after that until spring, I am very optimistic about starting the hiking season at 135.

 

Update.

It's been slow. Most of January my weight was stagnant, and towards the end of the month I spent a week in Santa Fe, gallery-hopping and eating in restaurants, and my weight hit 143.

But I've been coming back down again since then, and this morning I was at 139, which is a new low since starting this diet. After my large morning mug of decaf, 45 minutes on the exercise bike, and a shower, I was 137.8, which I don't really count, but what the hey. My official Weight-Watchers weigh-in this morning, fully dressed including shoes, because I don't take my shoes off at WW, was 141.8, again a new low for this diet, and 1.2 pounds below last week (which doesn't mean much because last week I was retaining water -- those water fluctuations can be more than my actual weekly loss.)

I weigh myself every morning, and take the average for the week, and that's the number I consider "real" for gauging my actual progress. And on that number I've been steadily loosing half a pound a week this whole month.

Since I weigh myself fully dressed at WW, and naked at home, there is a slight discrepancy in my goals. As of this morning I am 4.8 pounds from my officially declared WW goal of 137 dressed, but only 4 pounds from my own actual short-term goal of 135 naked. In the long term I want to get to 130, but that can wait until I reach 135 and maintain it for a half a year.

 

Good going, wick1ert.

Maybe not always true, but very often true. I'm small-boned, so I need to be a bit lighter for my heights than the average.

You still have to do it yourself. I see a lot of people making no or little progress. But at the meeting I attend, there are several lifetime members: People who have lost considerable weight (75 pounds in one case, 95 in another, lesser amounts in other cases). It's not a "magic bullet" but it does work for some people.

You do not have to buy their food. You're thinking of Nutri-System, where you have to buy meals from them. WW sells foods, but they are just a convenience. I never buy WW foods.

They are good because they offer a well-balanced plan that works if you follow it, but you still have to follow it. And they offer group support, which is helpful for some people.

Too true! And they want to be able to lose weight without exercising. If you lose weight without exercising, you're either taking a very harmful drug (such as amphetamine or something that works like it) or you have a wasting illness (such as hyperthyroidism or something that has similar effects) or you have worms. Once upon a time there was a "diet pill" that contained a worm egg. You only had to take one pill once and then you'd lose weight. Getting rid of the worms was a whole 'nuther problem.

Oh, then there's the Atkins diet, which is effective for a while, if you ignore that it wreaks havoc with your metabolism, greatly increases your risk of heart attack, and is unsustainable for the long term since it denies you the essential fuel your body needs, forcing it into metabolic pathways that completely screw it up.

Weight watchers is working for me. It does not require me to buy their foods. There are no required foods and no prohibited foods. Just a plan for well-balanced eating and portion control with group support. Following the plan is up to you. It's not easy and there are no magic bullets. None at all. If you'd care to share how you lost weight without exercising and while eating more calories than ever, I'm sure we'd all be interested.

 

Sorry about that.