|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
munkey
|
|
response 63 of 332:
| 
Sep 29 03:16 UTC 2003 |
I lost weight on dorm food. It was all fatty foods. It was a huge campus and
i was walking alot, that probably helped.
|
tod
|
|
response 64 of 332:
|
Sep 29 05:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 65 of 332:
|
Sep 29 12:52 UTC 2003 |
Some things to keep in mind in this discussion: (1) not all people
are alike (as murph has pointed out), (2) not all carbs are alike,
and (3) not all fats are alike. Carbs high in fiber (e.g. whole
grains) are a better choice than high-density, low-fiber carbs
(e.g. balloon bread), because the fiber slows digestion and delays
absorbtion of sugars and fats. This helps control the insulin
response described in #59. Monounsaturated and poly- unsaturated
fats (e.g. nuts, avacados, olive oil) are better choices than
saturated fats (e.g. red meat) and trans-fats (e.g. french fries,
crackers).
Current nutrition research indicates that the low-fat, high-carb
approach to weight control popular a few years ago, and enshrined
in the USDA Food Pyramid, is simply wrong. Five years ago I lost
25 pounds following a diet that was 30% fat (the absolute maximum
recommended by the USDA and anybody else this side of Atkins), 30%
protein, and 40% carbohydrate. Not quite "low carb", but certainly
less carbohydrate that the usual mainstream recommendations that you
see, and certainly not the Food Pyramid. It was a low-calorie diet
but I didn't feel hungry and had plenty of energy. I was working
out regularly, which I'm sure was an important factor.
Anyone who embarks on a weight-loss campaign can benefit from
educating themselves about nutrition and exercise. An excellent
one-stop resource is _Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy_ by Walter Willett,
chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public
Health and an outstainding researcher in the field of nutrition.
He's very down on the USDA Food Pyramid and substitutes one of his
own that, among other things, has exercise and calorie control at
the base of the pyramid and emphasises the distinction between "good
fats" and "bad fats", something the USDA pyramid totally ignores.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 66 of 332:
|
Sep 29 13:49 UTC 2003 |
I'll keep the book in mind
I remember reading that poly-unsaturated fats weren't as good for you as once
thought, and now it's becoming mandatory to report poly-unsaturated fat
content along with saturated fat content? I'm very vague on this. I read this
before I became really interested in nutrition.
What I am finding hard is finding low-carb (as in not the insanely high) fiids
that I really like. Most foods I like have more carbs than fat.
One new food that is healthy, and that I really like is the Yogurt Dip I got
from Trader Joe's. That is definitely going on my regular shopping list.
Healthy and tasty - yum. Excellent substitute to sour cream, ad I love my sour
cream.
yesterday's workout was good, again. Didn't get as much running as I would
have liked, but still lost about 250 cals on the aerobics (at least as
reported by the machines. I'm not sure how accurate they are). Yesterday I
incorporated weights. Worked the legs, outer thigh, hamstring, calves, back,
oblique abdominals and abdominals, buceps, triceps, glutes. I think it was
a pretty good workout, and I think I stood up pretty well, considering I had
my period, and tend to get tired a lot faster at this time.
exchanged the digital scale for a digital scale with a fat analyser. It seems
my weight is in the higher 150s - fluctuating between 158 and 159.5. This I
expected after my first weighin at the gym whuich put me at 161. Bdy fat
content is about 36%. The literature that came with the scale states hat for
women in my age-group, the appropriate body fat i 20%. That's lower than what
I heard at 25%. need to do more research before I lose all the essential fat
in my body. However, it'll take me a while, so I'm not to worried right now.
(The fiance is pissed off at the old scale, which pegged him at 165lbs. Turns
out he's closer to 175 lbs. He says that if he knew he had crossed 170 he
would have done something a whole lot sooner. He plans to buy 20lb weights
and use them on teh new scale regularly to be sure that ut's still calibratd
right :P)
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 67 of 332:
|
Sep 29 18:55 UTC 2003 |
As I was leaving for work, I heard a commercial on TV for SlimFast. SlimFast
now has PASTA!!. One reason that i've resisted the SlimFast diet is that I
can't fathom a milk-shake or nutrient bar for lunch. Lunch needs to be
something more tangible than that. With the introduction of the pastas, it
may be a viable solution, at least for one meal a day.
I was speaking to a colleague today who's sister lost 20 lbs in two weeks by
going on the all meat diet (Atkins) 2 eggs and bacon for breakfast, meat for
lunch and meat for dinner. I love meat, but that just seems like way too uch
meat for me. And 2 eggs and bacon for breakfast everyday? Sounds like too much
cholestrol. He said that she didn't eat ANYTHING else. I'm not sure I can do
that, though the results sure are tempting.
Today's lunch was not a very healthy one. It was half a pound of roast turkey,
on a hamburger roll. City Barbecue has some great meat, but wayt too much.
Maybe I should have had half the meat on my sandwich.
|
keesan
|
|
response 68 of 332:
|
Sep 29 20:23 UTC 2003 |
It is not possible to lose 20 pounds in 2 weeks unless you do an awful lot
of exercise. 1 pound is okay for your health. You normally only eat enough
food to equal 3-4 pounds/week.
|
glenda
|
|
response 69 of 332:
|
Sep 29 21:19 UTC 2003 |
You can lose 20 pounds in 2 weeks if you are very overweight. Most of the
big loses you hear about in the first 2-3 weeks of a new diet are usually
water weight. A big person holds a lot more water than a small person. The
last time I went on weight watchers I lost 9 pounds the first week and 6
pounds the second week. After that I only lost 1/2 to 2 pounds a week. I
notice that when I consciously increase my water consumption, I lose more
weight. Drinking extra water somehow helps flush the already existing water
out. It also helps to keep you feeling full so you don't eat as much.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 70 of 332:
|
Sep 29 21:28 UTC 2003 |
That makes sense, losing more weight at first when you are more heavy. I am
trying to make a conscious effort to have more water these days.
|
keesan
|
|
response 71 of 332:
|
Sep 29 23:20 UTC 2003 |
If you stop eating salt after having eaten a lot of salt (anything from a
restaurant or any prepared food and most canned foods) you will lose water.
|
katie
|
|
response 72 of 332:
|
Sep 30 20:39 UTC 2003 |
Re 49, John: Yes, no carbs. Thus the 30-day limit.
|
remmers
|
|
response 73 of 332:
|
Sep 30 23:01 UTC 2003 |
Wow. The brain needs carbs. Hope you didn't lose IQ points.
|
edina
|
|
response 74 of 332:
|
Oct 1 18:38 UTC 2003 |
Sapna, get off the scale on a daily basis. You'll make yourself crazy.
I would honestly recommend Weight Watchers to you. When I did it (and stayed
with it), I would drop 2-3 lbs. a week - but I'm bigger than you. What I
liked about it is that it took into consideration different kinds of foods
when counting points. That way, you have some guidance.
|
tod
|
|
response 75 of 332:
|
Oct 1 19:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 76 of 332:
|
Oct 2 01:12 UTC 2003 |
Does walking on the damn treadmill in the gym count? That's about 2 miles a
day.
Brooke, you're right. The damn scale went up another pound. Thanks to the
skewed reading I got from my older scale when I first started, I'm not really
sure if I lost any weight, a lot or a little. Even if I did lose some, I'm
not sure if I weigh lighter because I had my period (I bloat quite a bit
before my period) or whether I actually lost fat.
My workout today was less than satisfactory, As it was the day before
yesterday. I attribute the lack of stellar workout to heavier than normal
lunch. I guess it's not digested enough to really have a good work out without
feeling too heavy. Yesterday's was pretty good, including the weights. I can't
wait to start the 11:00am to 7:00 pm shift at work so I can work out in the
morning before breakfast, and won't be at the gym till 8:30 at night.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 77 of 332:
|
Oct 2 01:24 UTC 2003 |
re76: it counts!
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 78 of 332:
|
Oct 2 06:03 UTC 2003 |
resp:74 resp:76 if you're going to be on the scale daily like I do...
then do what I do. Get a digital scale (Tanita) that measures lbs.
and body fat percentage. *Then* chart out both sets of measurements
on a graph. *Ignore* the daily readings and look at your progress over
a few weeks or so. Oh yeah, don't forget to do some tape measurements
every so often-- have someone help you. Hips, waist, thigh, bicep.
Take a look at the averages of those measurements over time. Then
compare them to your charts, and see how your clothes are fitting
after a while... and you'll have a better indicator than watching the
scale everyday.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 79 of 332:
|
Oct 2 10:18 UTC 2003 |
I am graphing m daily weight, and rying not to let the slight increases and
very slight decreases worry me too much :) The body-fat percentage has been
pegged to around 36.7% I had taken initial tape measurements, (I need to find
them) and though I *think* my tummy may have gone in a little, I can't be too
sure till I find the original readings and take another measurement.
|
murph
|
|
response 80 of 332:
|
Oct 2 14:17 UTC 2003 |
Maybe you should be looking at a running average, rather than day-to-day
measurements? Take the average of the last five days of actual readings;
it'll smooth out the single-day fluctuations.
Hooray for spreadsheets!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 81 of 332:
|
Oct 2 14:21 UTC 2003 |
]I'm trying to keep that in mind. It's still not very encouraging to see the
damn scale go up half a pound!
|
tod
|
|
response 82 of 332:
|
Oct 2 15:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 83 of 332:
|
Oct 2 15:29 UTC 2003 |
I don't!! Not any more at least.
|
tod
|
|
response 84 of 332:
|
Oct 2 15:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 85 of 332:
|
Oct 2 15:46 UTC 2003 |
I can barely manage 5 :(
|
remmers
|
|
response 86 of 332:
|
Oct 2 15:57 UTC 2003 |
Yep, running averages (or "moving averages", as I call them) smooth
fluctuations out nicely.
|
edina
|
|
response 87 of 332:
|
Oct 2 17:25 UTC 2003 |
I know it's hard to get a lot of water in. I shoot for two liters a day -
I just can't drink a lot at once. But the rewards are infinite - better skin,
healthier body . . .and it flushes the fat away.
I still think getting on the scale once a day is not helping you - weight loss
is such a psychological thing, that if the numbers aren't going down, it can
be discouraging. A once a week thing, or once every two weeks might be
better.
|