I started this as a comment to the other post but it got too long so new post.
Mine weight loss was absolutely pure fat. I have not lost an ounce of anything but pure fat in this whole 50-pound swing, unless you count the normal ups and downs of water weight. I have changed no other aspect during this diet -- I recreate at the same rate (sand volleyball thrice a week, football twice a month, occasional softball and mountain biking) and I work out exactly as much as before (zero). The only variable is my diet.
My body, as Scott can tell you, has lost only fat. I got professionally measured for Shelley's wedding -- all my weight loss has been in my gut and face. Legs are identical. Shoulders same width. Even my love handles are pretty much the same. (I've been told they're the last to go.) I know Nilk well enough to know there is no convincing him, but for the rest of you, I have lost 50 pounds of pure fat in seven months.
Low-carb diets work through the process of ketosis -- the process by which your body burns fat for fuel. It does this because it stops burning glucose, because you stopped eating carbohydrates, especially sugar and flour and stuff. There are arguments about whether this in turn causes a metabolic change or if the increased protein levels are just making people not eat as much, but fuck that noise. I'm losing weight.
I'm putting aside all concerns about the healthfulness of this diet in this argument, since the issue here is simply weight loss. I've been hovering around a 242-pound plateau for a couple of months, and I'm not really sure how to get off the diet. My initial goal was abstract -- to be able to take off my shirt while playing volleyball and not be embarassed. I arbitrarily assigned a value of 225 pounds to this state. Now I don't know if I'm ever going to reach either. I'm fine with my gut where it is but damn those love handles.
Conclusion: Nilk is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 months ~ 210 days
ReplyDelete50lbs/210 days = weight loss rate of .238lbs per day
.238lbs per day = net negative requirement of only 833 cals per day
That is imminently more believable than the previous assertion of literally more than 4 times that rate.
It also goes without saying that carbohydrates = crippling amount of calories. So, color me shocked that you cut out a big calorie source and then lost weight. I never would have guess that.
Hoo-ah.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how proudly I would take my shirt off at 242?
ReplyDeletei would proudly walk around town displaying my 179 pound fatbelly. anyways most of my shame comes from the fact that i am clear.
ReplyDeleteI should have noted that my caloric intake remains the same, especially what with these carb-free candies that I eat that are loaded to the gills with calories. It's the only sweet thing I can eat.
ReplyDeleteBut I absolutely stand by my one pound per day for the first 20 days claim. I invite any doubters to email Carrie and ax her. But it's well-documented on newsgroups and the like that this is a common phenomenon, though nutritionists differ on their explanations of why.
In any case, 20 pounds in 20 days is not only possible, but likely during the induction phase of any low-carb diet, and some others as well. Weight loss naturally planes off after that period of time, which accounts for my current average. And remember I said I haven't lost a net pound for almost three of those months.
What if you cut a big calorie source yet replace it with another huge one? Like saaaaaaaay sausage?
ReplyDeletei think the low-carb folks would argue that x amount of calories in a sausage is not the same as those same calories in a slice of wonder bread. i think you would lose lots of weight if you ate only bacon-wrapped sausage. i think the science backs that up.
ReplyDeleteI guess you don't digest all the calories and pooh out food matter? Kinda like how you can really corn it up?
ReplyDelete