After some reflection, I realized that I was beginning to repeat old advice in the text sections of the entries. This repetitiveness has convinced me that I really have nothing new to add. So, there seems to be little point in me continuing this blog. From now on, I'm dieting quietly.
If you want the experience of me going through the earlier diet, you can "relive" it from Day 1, or from "Day Zero" when I announced the plan that I would follow.
I realize that I had announced that I would be doing a with-and-without test of the Plateau Buster, but there seems little point in it now. Perhaps such a test is best left to professional dieticians, or other people more focused on the goal. The small E-book I wrote is still up, and it's fairly self-explanatory.
In closing, I would like to thank any readers who stopped by. I do not intend to delete this blog, as a certain update is indicated. It'll come, perhaps, around March.
UPDATE (March 8): I hit a snag that lasted more than two weeks previous to this part. As luck would have it, I got on a "weight treadmill" almost two months after I resumed the latest diet installment. For the last seventeen or so days, my weight (unclothed) has fluctuated between 210 and 215 lbs.
This could be chalked up to me going off the diet with regularity one night per week (sometimes twice per week), but any added food has been counterbalanced by a lot of added exercise - specifically, snow shovelling. It's been a heavy winter for the snow.
Most likely, my body has become acclimatized to the 1000 calorie/day norm by slowing my metabolism. I would like to think that this treadmilling is a result of me finally straddling the "overweight" and "normal" categories, but I suspect that others have been on this treadmill themselves while still overweight, or even obese.
When even the Plateau Buster doesn't fool the body anymore, the only fallback strategy seems to be the nip-and-tuck. If sustained dieting has pulled down body energy use, then a sustained holiday from the diet will (presumably) bring it up again. Undoubtedly, this will result in regaining some weight, but there seems no other option if metabolism confounds. So, that will be the next test, which may yield a useful tip for chronic treadmill-weight dieters: whether or not the nip-and-tuck technique (two months on, three weeks off) will get the regular weight losses back.
So, to test this, I'm pulling myself off until the beginning of April and then going back on. I hope this nip-and-tuck will enable me to reach that 200 pounds - for me, the midrange of normal.
Final Update: As of April 19th, 6 PM, I stepped on the scale, unclothed, and weighed in at exactly 200 pounds. I've made it.
As it turns out, going on an extended diet holiday proved to be just the trick. I shot up to 215 pounds, for about a five-pound gain, but stayed roughly there until April began. Evidently, my appetite was crimped even when I could eat what I wanted. When April began, I started off at the same 215 pounds.
Yes, it was a metabolism speed-up that kicked in. When I went back on the diet, which included judicious uses of the Plateau Buster, my weight only dawdled at the same 210-pound block point. 205 was a little more of a challenge, but I started sailing through it as of a couple of days previously. April 19 marks the end of it, making for a loss rate slightly greater than that featured in the free E-book I wrote.
Evidently, dehabituation through a diet holiday works. My body had been so good at calorie-burning efficiency, it's actually debatable whether I would have reached 200 pounds by Apr. 19th without that diet holiday. Regardless, I found that it's easier to stick to a diet that's working, so the faster rate gave me extra psychological wherewithal to stick to the final installment.
Before I sign off, I want to make one important point. I lost 15 pounds in 20 days even though I took myself off the diet each Sunday (and not just for a social meal, either.) I also had a "hunger attack" on Wednesday the 16th. Despite this lack of rigor, I still ended up reaching my goal of losing 15 additional pounds, in somewhat less time than I thought it would take. The point I'm trying to make is that one day's eating frenzy does not a ruined diet make. The trick is to make the dieting normal, and diet breaks or diet holidays the exception. The only way to do this is to shrug off the previous eat fest and see a return to diet mode as a return to habit. Obviously, this works best if you hold off from any diet break, or diet holiday, until you've habituated yourself to the calorie restriction. I suggested, and still suggest, three weeks without any kind of break in order to establish the pattern. Then, they will seem like exception-making rather than up-giving (sorry.)
Related to this point is a fallback one. If a diet becomes too much, try as much as you can to limit your daily food intake to weight-maintenance calorie level. This'll roughly hold your weight to your gain, enabling you to mark time until you have the psychological whereithal to diet again.
I don't know where I'll be, weight-wise, in the future. I undertook this diet primarily for the challenge, to see if I could get off weight I put on last year and more. (I'm more than twenty pounds lighter than I've been in years: my regular pants are all loose-fitting now, and my old belt is now too big for me.) This weight is around normal for someone of my height and build. If I chose to make a quest for the "body beautiful," I could probably lose another 15-20 pounds.
Even if I bob back up, though, going through this experience has given me the confidence that I can lose weight again, because I have. That success can't be taken away from any accomplished dieter, no matter how much weight he or she subsequently gains. The fat may come back, but the experience stays.
(Besides, it might come in handy if a doctor reads me the riot act someday.)
----------
If you don't mind a final self-plug of the free diet book, the download link to "How I Lost 40 Pounds In 60 Days" can be found here.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Fourth Day: What To Do When Leftovers Arrive
On the last run, I discussed what to do when social outings require a temporary deviation from the diet plan. I recently faced a special one - a going-away dinner - and I followed the procedure I set out beforehand for "cheating:" casting it as a temporary respite from a diet, one that will supply good memories to tide me over when the going gets especially lean. In its place, nostalgia works - which explains why "forceum" plans often don't.
This time 'round, though, I faced a greater challenge: I got some leftovers which I had to get rid of in some way.
I say "leftovers," as opposed to gifts of food, because that's what they were: a kind of hand-me-down package of food. Since I have qualms about getting rid of a whole load of food outright, I decided to eat it as speedily as possible. This decision, plus the dinner beforehand, put me up several pounds.
I can say to the weight-obsessed that such respites are little more than setbacks. A sense of overall perspective is needed: since a serious diet is going to take a month minimum, and possibly a couple or a few months, prolongation of it by a week or less isn't going to do that much harm. Perspective leads to robustness; lack of perspective may mean an underlying lack of staying power. "Efficiency-centred" often entails a certain brittleness.
Perspective also drains self-absorption. Someone who doesn't share my sense of mission in this regard may decide that I'm simply hungry, or that I'm starving myself disproportionately to my need to lose weight. Looking starved, no matter what weight you are, does tend to invite charity from people who really care for you.
This point being noted, though, I have come up with a procedure to limit a deviancy from becoming a new rule. In a word, it's sequestration. That's why I tend to polish off any extras I receive as soon as I can - to get them out of the way. I admit that this approach does tread towards Bulimia Land, but it seems the best way to make the diet the norm, and heavy eating the exception. That way, my sense of the norm, and my habits, are inclined towards weight loss.
As far as receiving extra food is concerned, this procedure is the one I'm following:
a) Work any received low-calorie items into the diet, if they do in fact fit.
b) Those that don't, eat as soon as practicable unless you have no qualms about throwing them out.
c) Don't mix your diet food with the "extras" - keep them apart.
d) Some items don't make up much of a meal by themselves, or in combination with the others you're received. For these, it is tempting to go to the grocery store for extra ingredients to make "real meals" from what you've got. This is the slippery slope that's likely to make you an ex-dieter. Why? Because ingredients almost never balance out. So one trip turns into two, which turns into three, which turns into a regular habit. (Consider also that it shows that you really needed the food that you received, which makes for a happy giver who'll be encouraged to give you more of the same.) If you have to eat like a wolf for a time, so be it. Doing so will make it less jarring to go back to the diet plan.
e) For the eat-a-rama, it may be best to down the high-calorie items first and the lower-calorie items later. This practice leads you back to low-cal food, and makes the climb back up to the diet plan less abrupt.
Another point: the more you go off the diet only to get back on, and stay on, the more practice you have cutting down your food, and the more acclimatized you become to cutting back. There's little wrong with yo-yoing as long as the overall net change is downwards.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 247 pounds - a five pound, if temporary, setback.
This time 'round, though, I faced a greater challenge: I got some leftovers which I had to get rid of in some way.
I say "leftovers," as opposed to gifts of food, because that's what they were: a kind of hand-me-down package of food. Since I have qualms about getting rid of a whole load of food outright, I decided to eat it as speedily as possible. This decision, plus the dinner beforehand, put me up several pounds.
I can say to the weight-obsessed that such respites are little more than setbacks. A sense of overall perspective is needed: since a serious diet is going to take a month minimum, and possibly a couple or a few months, prolongation of it by a week or less isn't going to do that much harm. Perspective leads to robustness; lack of perspective may mean an underlying lack of staying power. "Efficiency-centred" often entails a certain brittleness.
Perspective also drains self-absorption. Someone who doesn't share my sense of mission in this regard may decide that I'm simply hungry, or that I'm starving myself disproportionately to my need to lose weight. Looking starved, no matter what weight you are, does tend to invite charity from people who really care for you.
This point being noted, though, I have come up with a procedure to limit a deviancy from becoming a new rule. In a word, it's sequestration. That's why I tend to polish off any extras I receive as soon as I can - to get them out of the way. I admit that this approach does tread towards Bulimia Land, but it seems the best way to make the diet the norm, and heavy eating the exception. That way, my sense of the norm, and my habits, are inclined towards weight loss.
As far as receiving extra food is concerned, this procedure is the one I'm following:
a) Work any received low-calorie items into the diet, if they do in fact fit.
b) Those that don't, eat as soon as practicable unless you have no qualms about throwing them out.
c) Don't mix your diet food with the "extras" - keep them apart.
d) Some items don't make up much of a meal by themselves, or in combination with the others you're received. For these, it is tempting to go to the grocery store for extra ingredients to make "real meals" from what you've got. This is the slippery slope that's likely to make you an ex-dieter. Why? Because ingredients almost never balance out. So one trip turns into two, which turns into three, which turns into a regular habit. (Consider also that it shows that you really needed the food that you received, which makes for a happy giver who'll be encouraged to give you more of the same.) If you have to eat like a wolf for a time, so be it. Doing so will make it less jarring to go back to the diet plan.
e) For the eat-a-rama, it may be best to down the high-calorie items first and the lower-calorie items later. This practice leads you back to low-cal food, and makes the climb back up to the diet plan less abrupt.
Another point: the more you go off the diet only to get back on, and stay on, the more practice you have cutting down your food, and the more acclimatized you become to cutting back. There's little wrong with yo-yoing as long as the overall net change is downwards.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 247 pounds - a five pound, if temporary, setback.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Third Day: More About "No Exercise"
The supposed benefit-point of exercising while on a diet is that it burns more calories, thus enabling weight to be shed faster. Like all plausible ideas, though, there is a hidden catch. I've been experiencing what it is recently.
The more fitness-centred you are, the more "in the body" you are. This is a plus for a physical person, but not so much of one for a dieter. When you eat, you get up and you grab the food. When you're physically oriented, you tend to snap into action when you've made a decision or choice. To the extent that exercise makes you more physical, the more inclined you are to get up and physically follow through on your desires...
...including the desire to snag an extra snack. "Go-go-go" to the fridge, to put it one way.
Those people who think that exercise is a necessary component to a diet should ask themselves why there are so many ex-athletes around with protruding bellies, for the male variety.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 242 pounds.
The more fitness-centred you are, the more "in the body" you are. This is a plus for a physical person, but not so much of one for a dieter. When you eat, you get up and you grab the food. When you're physically oriented, you tend to snap into action when you've made a decision or choice. To the extent that exercise makes you more physical, the more inclined you are to get up and physically follow through on your desires...
...including the desire to snag an extra snack. "Go-go-go" to the fridge, to put it one way.
Those people who think that exercise is a necessary component to a diet should ask themselves why there are so many ex-athletes around with protruding bellies, for the male variety.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 242 pounds.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Second Day: Restlessness
Last night, I bumped into a side effect when trying to get to sleep. I've set up a diet plan that doesn't require exercise, but during this second run-through I'm finding myself getting restless. I would like to believe that I'm abnormal with respect to this need for activity.
More normal is, of course, tiredness. Try as I might, I can't find any way around that part of it.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 243 pounds again.
More normal is, of course, tiredness. Try as I might, I can't find any way around that part of it.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 243 pounds again.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
First Day: It's Easier The Second Time 'Round
Once again, I've felt the "empties" that come with the start of a diet. Having been through it once before, though, I had some idea of what was coming...which has made it easier. Also, the carrots, celery and cabbage pre-diet I've been through made coping with the fat-metabolism hunger easier.
There's something to be said for the people who try to diet, find that it's too hard for them at that point, and go back to their old ways for a time. The experience gained makes the second go-'round a little easier because the obstacles are clearer. When it comes down to it, unless a diet is medically necessary, there's no immediate need to shed the fat on the first go-round.
In fact, given that surgical and quasi-surgical help is now offered, there seems less reason to overdramatize. We do, afer all, live long lives.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 243 pounds (in part due to fluid loss.)
There's something to be said for the people who try to diet, find that it's too hard for them at that point, and go back to their old ways for a time. The experience gained makes the second go-'round a little easier because the obstacles are clearer. When it comes down to it, unless a diet is medically necessary, there's no immediate need to shed the fat on the first go-round.
In fact, given that surgical and quasi-surgical help is now offered, there seems less reason to overdramatize. We do, afer all, live long lives.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 243 pounds (in part due to fluid loss.)
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Back At It
It's now 2008; after some re-fattening up, I'm back on the diet track. Unfortunately, I didn't gain the amount of pounds that I wanted to play with this time 'round, so I'm going to limit my fooling around with the Plateau Buster to this one test: for the first four weeks of this phase of the diet, I'm not going to use it - plateau or not. For the next four weeks, I'm going to whenever I bump into a plateau. Instead of a sliding scale, I'm sticking to a straight 1,000 calories/day until my goal is reached. This eight-week straddle will determine whether or not the Plateau Buster speeds the weight-loss process up.
As far as the last five+ weeks are concerned, I spent them using what could be called the "inside straight" of dieting: eating as much as I want of three foods, all of which are low-calorie bulk foods: celery, cabbage and carrots. The plan is simple: eat as much as you can, whenever you want, of those foods. "Cheating," or deviation from this plan, is all-but mandatory for nutrition needs. The rationale behind it is to lose weight without enduring hunger pangs, as the stomach is kept full with low-calorie bulk food. Supposedly, this bulk-up makes for an easier diet.
Unforutunately for me (as well as for anyone else who has tried it, I suspect,) there are two types of "hungries." The first comes from an empty stomach, and is one which every dieter is familiar with. This type of hunger is avoided by the "CCC" diet. The trouble is, there's a second kind of hunger that does not go away with this kind of diet - the "hungries" that come with consuming a below-maintenance number of calories. This kind of hunger is essential to any diet, as it signals the body to metabolize some of its fat. I found that the disjoint between the lack of the first hunger and the presence of the second, instead of making me easier with the diet, instead made me feel querulous.
It is possible to lose weight with this diet, but only slowly. I "cheated" frequently while on it, including spells of outright backsliding. One of the lethal risks results from the much greater sugar hunger it engenders. Normally, I found, drinking a sugar-filled liquid made me queasy after a few swallows. Not while on this diet, though: shortly into it, I gulped down more than a cup of maple syrup (which I had to get rid of anyway or else mold would have gotten to it) without any quease that would indicate that enough sugar has gone down the gullet. In other words, my sugar hunger had increased dramatically. This side consequence meant that I had to abjure sugary foods as completely as I could. A sugar-laden diet would have taken away the safety-belt feature of this kind of diet: making cheating impracticable because of an already-filled stomach.
I did lose a few pounds while on it, although slowly: seven pounds over the course of four weeks. This kind of diet can work for someone who likes to lose weight slowly and doesn't mind putting up with the querulousness caused by the above-noted disjoint. It may suit a true endomorph well, and/or someone who's uncomfortable with rigid food restriction. At the price of feeling both full and hungry at the same time, of course.
It also may work as a prelude to a diet because of the resultant stomach fooling. One day, about two and a half weeks ago, I had to shovel a lot of snow. Because I had to get out there, I forgot to eat anything. By the time I remembered, it was dinner-time. Despite me going hungry all day, which I didn't notice for most of it, I only had room in my stomach for a regular-sized meal. Had I decided to start a more rigourous diet at that time, I might have found it easier to do so because my stomach was fooled into shrinking already.
Nevertheless, I have to confess that this approach, as a full diet in itself, isn't the one for me: I suppose I need a more structured approach. So, I'm back to the more rigid, fatburner method of eating five snack-sized meals a day, all of which total up to 1,000 calories. To start off, my weight as of about 6 PM today, unclothed, is noted just below. As is usual for this blog, I will be measuring myself in that state of undress for all of the measurements in order to whisk away the effect that different clothes have.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 246 pounds.
As far as the last five+ weeks are concerned, I spent them using what could be called the "inside straight" of dieting: eating as much as I want of three foods, all of which are low-calorie bulk foods: celery, cabbage and carrots. The plan is simple: eat as much as you can, whenever you want, of those foods. "Cheating," or deviation from this plan, is all-but mandatory for nutrition needs. The rationale behind it is to lose weight without enduring hunger pangs, as the stomach is kept full with low-calorie bulk food. Supposedly, this bulk-up makes for an easier diet.
Unforutunately for me (as well as for anyone else who has tried it, I suspect,) there are two types of "hungries." The first comes from an empty stomach, and is one which every dieter is familiar with. This type of hunger is avoided by the "CCC" diet. The trouble is, there's a second kind of hunger that does not go away with this kind of diet - the "hungries" that come with consuming a below-maintenance number of calories. This kind of hunger is essential to any diet, as it signals the body to metabolize some of its fat. I found that the disjoint between the lack of the first hunger and the presence of the second, instead of making me easier with the diet, instead made me feel querulous.
It is possible to lose weight with this diet, but only slowly. I "cheated" frequently while on it, including spells of outright backsliding. One of the lethal risks results from the much greater sugar hunger it engenders. Normally, I found, drinking a sugar-filled liquid made me queasy after a few swallows. Not while on this diet, though: shortly into it, I gulped down more than a cup of maple syrup (which I had to get rid of anyway or else mold would have gotten to it) without any quease that would indicate that enough sugar has gone down the gullet. In other words, my sugar hunger had increased dramatically. This side consequence meant that I had to abjure sugary foods as completely as I could. A sugar-laden diet would have taken away the safety-belt feature of this kind of diet: making cheating impracticable because of an already-filled stomach.
I did lose a few pounds while on it, although slowly: seven pounds over the course of four weeks. This kind of diet can work for someone who likes to lose weight slowly and doesn't mind putting up with the querulousness caused by the above-noted disjoint. It may suit a true endomorph well, and/or someone who's uncomfortable with rigid food restriction. At the price of feeling both full and hungry at the same time, of course.
It also may work as a prelude to a diet because of the resultant stomach fooling. One day, about two and a half weeks ago, I had to shovel a lot of snow. Because I had to get out there, I forgot to eat anything. By the time I remembered, it was dinner-time. Despite me going hungry all day, which I didn't notice for most of it, I only had room in my stomach for a regular-sized meal. Had I decided to start a more rigourous diet at that time, I might have found it easier to do so because my stomach was fooled into shrinking already.
Nevertheless, I have to confess that this approach, as a full diet in itself, isn't the one for me: I suppose I need a more structured approach. So, I'm back to the more rigid, fatburner method of eating five snack-sized meals a day, all of which total up to 1,000 calories. To start off, my weight as of about 6 PM today, unclothed, is noted just below. As is usual for this blog, I will be measuring myself in that state of undress for all of the measurements in order to whisk away the effect that different clothes have.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 246 pounds.
Friday, August 31, 2007
FREE and Redistributable E-book
The E-book, found at this Site, is PDF format; it's entitled "How I Lost 40 Pounds In 60 Days." It's a short one: 16 pages, and the word count is more suitable for a pamphlet, so you can get through it quickly. You may even like the design of it.
(If you have trouble with the main link, you can also access it through this alternate link. There's also another alternate access link from another holder Site.)
(If you have trouble with the main link, you can also access it through this alternate link. There's also another alternate access link from another holder Site.)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Day 60: Goal on Hold
I'm bringing the diet I'm currently on to an end. As of today's weighing, I've lost 40 pounds in 60 days, which is actually the title of an E-book that I've written.
There are three reasons that explain why I'm halting. First of all, although I have seen that the Plateau Buster technique does work, it nevertheless rates a test under conditions controlled in advance, so I can have a better idea of how it works. If you're a regular here, you may have noticed me introducing variations to it recently; to be honest, I'd like to introduce more, but I'm running out of fat.
The second reason relates to the first. The decision to introduce the sliding calorie scale did wind up confusing things for me; I shouldn't have. Instead, I should have stuck to a fixed caloric intake all the way through. The next time 'round, I will do so until I hit 200 pounds, after which point I'll worry about pulling my appetite up to normal.
The third reason is more involved. To be honest, I had this suspicion that the diet I'm ending has been relatively easy for me because I was a "recreational eater." The more intractable kind of overweight problem is one where you've hooked performance to eating. I haven't done that, so I have no tips to offer for someone that has to go down that more difficult road. This point has bothered me, as it implies that I had a relatively easy time reducing my weight.
Once the link to the finished E-book is posted, this blog will remain dormant until - yes, this date is deliberately chosen for effect - January 2, 2008. By that time, I should be in worse shape (both in terms of weight and of overeating dependancy) than I was as of the start of this diet in the beginning of July. I do plan to jack around in a manner similar to the way I did so here in June, but not on this blog. It's too anchored as a diet blog for that approach to make sense, so I'm going to be doing so on a newly-started, independent Blogger blog.
Regarding the E-book: I'll post a link to it on this blog, in a more recent entry, once I'm finished. It will be short, but down-to-earth; it's being done in PDF format. It will be both free and redistributable, in an unaltered form. One the link to the book is in place, that will be it for here until January 2, '08.
If you've been a regular, thanks for reading what I've posted, and I hope you've gleaned some useful tips from what I've written. A diet is a challenge, no doubt, and I hope I have either eased it somewhat or helped a little in terms of extra results.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 pounds.
There are three reasons that explain why I'm halting. First of all, although I have seen that the Plateau Buster technique does work, it nevertheless rates a test under conditions controlled in advance, so I can have a better idea of how it works. If you're a regular here, you may have noticed me introducing variations to it recently; to be honest, I'd like to introduce more, but I'm running out of fat.
The second reason relates to the first. The decision to introduce the sliding calorie scale did wind up confusing things for me; I shouldn't have. Instead, I should have stuck to a fixed caloric intake all the way through. The next time 'round, I will do so until I hit 200 pounds, after which point I'll worry about pulling my appetite up to normal.
The third reason is more involved. To be honest, I had this suspicion that the diet I'm ending has been relatively easy for me because I was a "recreational eater." The more intractable kind of overweight problem is one where you've hooked performance to eating. I haven't done that, so I have no tips to offer for someone that has to go down that more difficult road. This point has bothered me, as it implies that I had a relatively easy time reducing my weight.
Once the link to the finished E-book is posted, this blog will remain dormant until - yes, this date is deliberately chosen for effect - January 2, 2008. By that time, I should be in worse shape (both in terms of weight and of overeating dependancy) than I was as of the start of this diet in the beginning of July. I do plan to jack around in a manner similar to the way I did so here in June, but not on this blog. It's too anchored as a diet blog for that approach to make sense, so I'm going to be doing so on a newly-started, independent Blogger blog.
Regarding the E-book: I'll post a link to it on this blog, in a more recent entry, once I'm finished. It will be short, but down-to-earth; it's being done in PDF format. It will be both free and redistributable, in an unaltered form. One the link to the book is in place, that will be it for here until January 2, '08.
If you've been a regular, thanks for reading what I've posted, and I hope you've gleaned some useful tips from what I've written. A diet is a challenge, no doubt, and I hope I have either eased it somewhat or helped a little in terms of extra results.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 pounds.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Day 59: Still Thinning
The Plateau Buster has worked yet again, getting me slightly below the plateau I was stuck upon (with diet interruption) for eight days running. I've lost about four pounds since the start of the latest use of the Plateau Buster.
It's only been relatively recently that I've faced a hurdle that normal dieters normally face at the outset. Even though I'm entitled to a ration of 1,500 calories/day on the self-imposed scale I've been using, I'm hungrier than I was when fatter and eating less. Whatever the cue (I believe it's visual,) I've found that being thinner than "normal" makes a diet more intractable.
There are two options available to get through this added hurdle. One is to start off a diet at the normal-overweight level for you, and see the gnawing hunger as part of the initial shift-to-diet burden. The other, the option I chose, is to fatten up before commencing a diet, and then put off the gnawing experience until long after being habituated to calorie reduction. This option inculcates new habits to fall back on. With it, passivity is your aid. With the former option, fortitude is.
I don't know which one is best. The former option gets the bulk of the pain and discomfort out of the way at the outset. The latter option splits the discomfort in two. To be honest, part of me wishes that I had gone with the former option, even though doing so would have missed the experience of going abruptly from a huge appetite to a small one. In the final analysis, it's a value judgment, as is the decision to stay the course when things start to get tough. My own value judgments incline me towards toughing it through if I can, and deciding that I'm not committed (or ready) enough if I can't. There's nothing wrong, after all, with dress rehersals, pilot plants and practice runs - all three range between useful and vital.
I'm about five to ten pounds below my normal weight. If you're interested, my unconscious plays a trick on me when I weigh myself: I mis-remember the 220 level on my scale as 230. Chalk it up to diet anxiety.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 219 pounds.
It's only been relatively recently that I've faced a hurdle that normal dieters normally face at the outset. Even though I'm entitled to a ration of 1,500 calories/day on the self-imposed scale I've been using, I'm hungrier than I was when fatter and eating less. Whatever the cue (I believe it's visual,) I've found that being thinner than "normal" makes a diet more intractable.
There are two options available to get through this added hurdle. One is to start off a diet at the normal-overweight level for you, and see the gnawing hunger as part of the initial shift-to-diet burden. The other, the option I chose, is to fatten up before commencing a diet, and then put off the gnawing experience until long after being habituated to calorie reduction. This option inculcates new habits to fall back on. With it, passivity is your aid. With the former option, fortitude is.
I don't know which one is best. The former option gets the bulk of the pain and discomfort out of the way at the outset. The latter option splits the discomfort in two. To be honest, part of me wishes that I had gone with the former option, even though doing so would have missed the experience of going abruptly from a huge appetite to a small one. In the final analysis, it's a value judgment, as is the decision to stay the course when things start to get tough. My own value judgments incline me towards toughing it through if I can, and deciding that I'm not committed (or ready) enough if I can't. There's nothing wrong, after all, with dress rehersals, pilot plants and practice runs - all three range between useful and vital.
I'm about five to ten pounds below my normal weight. If you're interested, my unconscious plays a trick on me when I weigh myself: I mis-remember the 220 level on my scale as 230. Chalk it up to diet anxiety.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 219 pounds.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Day 58: Back To Bottom
As of this weighing, I'm back to 220 lbs, the low for this blog. After some time without wearing a belt, I have also found that my "pull it tight" habit involves me reaching for a notch that isn't there. The tightest notch fits, mostly comfortably.
The last round trip through a weight digit ending in a zero - 230 lbs. - lasted seven days. This present dally at 220 lbs. lasted eight days, from first touch at that level to today. Both interruptions included times when I pulled myself off the diet entirely. All in all, this wasn't a bad length of time, as my regular calorie consumption has gone from 1,000 calories/day to 1,250/day. The days at which I hit the 230-lb level were ones where I could go to 1,250 calories/day, and the ones where I hit the 220-lb. level were ones I could go up to 1,500/day. So, an extra day's round trip is understandable; it's less than 15% longer in terms of time.
I've been wondering, actually, if I set the threshold for increasing caloric intake too high. According to this body-mass-index calculator, someone like myself, with a large frame, should be at most 202 pounds. Perhaps, I should have set the threshold levels lower, or added more weight in between them.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 pounds even.
The last round trip through a weight digit ending in a zero - 230 lbs. - lasted seven days. This present dally at 220 lbs. lasted eight days, from first touch at that level to today. Both interruptions included times when I pulled myself off the diet entirely. All in all, this wasn't a bad length of time, as my regular calorie consumption has gone from 1,000 calories/day to 1,250/day. The days at which I hit the 230-lb level were ones where I could go to 1,250 calories/day, and the ones where I hit the 220-lb. level were ones I could go up to 1,500/day. So, an extra day's round trip is understandable; it's less than 15% longer in terms of time.
I've been wondering, actually, if I set the threshold for increasing caloric intake too high. According to this body-mass-index calculator, someone like myself, with a large frame, should be at most 202 pounds. Perhaps, I should have set the threshold levels lower, or added more weight in between them.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 pounds even.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Day 57: Binge Recovery
As I write this entry, I'm on the way down from a jump-up, thanks in part to the Plateau Buster. After ending a weekend binge and shifting to a more normal application of the Plateau Buster - a large slice of coffee cake as the main meal of the day - my weight is beginning to drop. It's one pound away from the all-blog low point I had established last week.
As the diet I'm on reaches the sixty-day point, I'm beginning to see glimmers of myself as a thin man. That pinch-the-stomach test I've brought up from time to time - in my case, it's "grab at all the fat you can around the area of the belly button" - shows 2 1/2 inches on the left side of the belly button and 2 5/8 inches on the right. One thing I've found is that your appearance changes in unexpected ways when you thin up. When I glanced at myself recently in a window that had served as a shadowy mirror, what struck me about my appearance was how wide-mouthed I appeared. As the "fat features" disappear, other features of the body become noticeable.
Of course, one of the drawbacks about the Saturday-night binge party I discussed in yesterday's entry is that it makes for a hungry Sunday. A heavy head might be bad enough for some, without the addition of a hungry stomach to it (even if water is zero calories.)
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 221 pounds.
As the diet I'm on reaches the sixty-day point, I'm beginning to see glimmers of myself as a thin man. That pinch-the-stomach test I've brought up from time to time - in my case, it's "grab at all the fat you can around the area of the belly button" - shows 2 1/2 inches on the left side of the belly button and 2 5/8 inches on the right. One thing I've found is that your appearance changes in unexpected ways when you thin up. When I glanced at myself recently in a window that had served as a shadowy mirror, what struck me about my appearance was how wide-mouthed I appeared. As the "fat features" disappear, other features of the body become noticeable.
Of course, one of the drawbacks about the Saturday-night binge party I discussed in yesterday's entry is that it makes for a hungry Sunday. A heavy head might be bad enough for some, without the addition of a hungry stomach to it (even if water is zero calories.)
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 221 pounds.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Day 56: Big Rebound
This last weekend, I ate, drank and was merry - and I have the weight gain to show it. As is customary for me, I threw myself off the diet for the length of the social occasion in question and am now back on, now that a normal schedule has been restored. I ate, drank and was merry from Friday night to Sunday morning, with a big "blow-out" on Saturday night - and now I have to repair the consequences.
This brings up an interesting question. Many people drink, but few are chronic drunks. That's because "social drinking" is socialized: beyond the Saturday night beer bust, the social drinker drinks little. This convention helps keep many drinkers from becoming drunks.
It's true that food does not have the same effect as alcohol; far from it. Also, food is a necessary for life, and alcohol really isn't. This difference, though, applies to food in general; it doesn't apply to specific foods.
There are already certain kinds of foods that are both delicious and deemed unhealthy if eaten chronically: corn syrup is a recent example. Foods of this sort do form a parallel with alcohol, with the noticeable exception of the hangover or lack of, and thus open themselves up to socializing in a similar manner. In fact, they can be mixed together.
It's true that a Saturday night "Sat Fat Fried Chicken And Beer Party" sounds a little odd, but it might not be if the dieting trend becomes general. People need a break, after all, and most are quite capable of indulging moderately but not excessively. With respect to alcohol, we've known it for decades (if not centuries or millenia.)
[If you're interested: a six-pack pulled me through the entire weekend; yes, I am a cheap drunk. Also: while I was choring away in the rain yesterday, I slipped and ripped the front closer out of my tight pants; I also ripped a little skin off a knuckle. Word from the slipped: if you spring for a new wardrobe in a lower and tighter size, save your old wardrobe for active days and use the newer stuff for dresswear until they're loose on you. Tailors cost.]
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today, after yesterday's hiatus: 223 pounds.
This brings up an interesting question. Many people drink, but few are chronic drunks. That's because "social drinking" is socialized: beyond the Saturday night beer bust, the social drinker drinks little. This convention helps keep many drinkers from becoming drunks.
It's true that food does not have the same effect as alcohol; far from it. Also, food is a necessary for life, and alcohol really isn't. This difference, though, applies to food in general; it doesn't apply to specific foods.
There are already certain kinds of foods that are both delicious and deemed unhealthy if eaten chronically: corn syrup is a recent example. Foods of this sort do form a parallel with alcohol, with the noticeable exception of the hangover or lack of, and thus open themselves up to socializing in a similar manner. In fact, they can be mixed together.
It's true that a Saturday night "Sat Fat Fried Chicken And Beer Party" sounds a little odd, but it might not be if the dieting trend becomes general. People need a break, after all, and most are quite capable of indulging moderately but not excessively. With respect to alcohol, we've known it for decades (if not centuries or millenia.)
[If you're interested: a six-pack pulled me through the entire weekend; yes, I am a cheap drunk. Also: while I was choring away in the rain yesterday, I slipped and ripped the front closer out of my tight pants; I also ripped a little skin off a knuckle. Word from the slipped: if you spring for a new wardrobe in a lower and tighter size, save your old wardrobe for active days and use the newer stuff for dresswear until they're loose on you. Tailors cost.]
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today, after yesterday's hiatus: 223 pounds.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Notice
There will be no entry tomorrow, as I'm going away for the weeked on one of those social occasions. This blog will resume on Sunday at the usual time. Enjoy your own weekend.
Day 54: Little Rebound
I may not have gotten much of a drop thanks to the use of a pre-plateau Plateau Buster over the last two days, but the side effect of the little drop has been little or no rebound. Despite having socked away three (small) meals so far today, I'm at almost the same weight as I was yesterday.
I've also noticed that the take-out plan, where you eat more calories as your weight approaches normal, has the consequence of making me feel more hungry throughout the day than I was when used to the diet rut. Once again, the closer you get to the norm, the more the old habits are brought up from the unconscious.
On a more sartorial note, I'm writing this entry while in pants that have been in my closet for years because they've been too small for me. I'm normally a 38/32; these pants are 36/32. Except for the waist and the legs, they basically fit, although I'm not confident enough to test 'em on an athletic field.
At a waist of my size, the appearance makes little difference around the hip area. The main difference in appearance is the effect of the narrower pants waist: my flest, and fat, bulge out a little over the top of the pants. So, the ironic consequence of trading down a waist size is more visible flab. I suppose this effect explains why it's urged: it tends to keep the momentum going in the drop towards a truly low-fat body.
Or, for those who didn't mind being fat, it leaves a residuum of flab to carry the good memories of the old days through...
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 1/2 pounds.
I've also noticed that the take-out plan, where you eat more calories as your weight approaches normal, has the consequence of making me feel more hungry throughout the day than I was when used to the diet rut. Once again, the closer you get to the norm, the more the old habits are brought up from the unconscious.
On a more sartorial note, I'm writing this entry while in pants that have been in my closet for years because they've been too small for me. I'm normally a 38/32; these pants are 36/32. Except for the waist and the legs, they basically fit, although I'm not confident enough to test 'em on an athletic field.
At a waist of my size, the appearance makes little difference around the hip area. The main difference in appearance is the effect of the narrower pants waist: my flest, and fat, bulge out a little over the top of the pants. So, the ironic consequence of trading down a waist size is more visible flab. I suppose this effect explains why it's urged: it tends to keep the momentum going in the drop towards a truly low-fat body.
Or, for those who didn't mind being fat, it leaves a residuum of flab to carry the good memories of the old days through...
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 1/2 pounds.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Day 53: Interrupted Plateau, Day 2
It looks, as of now, like the Plateau Buster only works for plateaus. After the second day of using the technique for a pre-plateau situation, I've found that my weight has dropped to where it was the day after the previous use of the technique. So, it looks like using the Plateau Buster to force weight gain in the absence of a plateau doesn't work very well.
I've also found that the use of more sugar-concentrated foods (such as the chocolate-covered biscuits I consumed this morning) doesn't make that much of a difference when compared to eating bulkier sugared foods with the same calorie level, such as donuts or danishes. Sugar seems to be essential, but the concentration isn't. All in all, if you plan to use the Plateau Buster, you'd get about the same effect through using sweetbreads as you would using, say, candies. Further caveat: it may not work at all for some people, as my digestive makeup may be unusual.
The above being said, though, the Plateau Buster has had the usual effect.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 pounds.
I've also found that the use of more sugar-concentrated foods (such as the chocolate-covered biscuits I consumed this morning) doesn't make that much of a difference when compared to eating bulkier sugared foods with the same calorie level, such as donuts or danishes. Sugar seems to be essential, but the concentration isn't. All in all, if you plan to use the Plateau Buster, you'd get about the same effect through using sweetbreads as you would using, say, candies. Further caveat: it may not work at all for some people, as my digestive makeup may be unusual.
The above being said, though, the Plateau Buster has had the usual effect.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 220 pounds.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Day 52: Interrupted Plateau, Day 1
As I mentioned yesterday, I've started a special use of the Plateau Buster technique, which has gotten a little extreme. (By "extreme," I mean overly focused on the sugar with no attention to either hunger or nutritional needs.) Today, I've consumed what might as well be liquid sugar, and that's all the eating I'll be doing for the day or night: as a special test, I consumed the entire day's ration at that one sitting. Day 2 of this Plateau Buster diet adjustment will be a little less extreme: I've got a small pack of chocolate-covered biscuits slated for tomorrow's breakfast, which total slightly less than 1000 calories. This will leave me a little more than 250 calories for the final meal of the day, the late supper.
If you're interested, the sight of all that sugary food did lead to a temporary hunger attack. Instead of just ignoring it, though, I did eat a 330-calorie meat pie at about that time. One benefit of the fat-burning five-(very light)-meal-a-day plan, late in a diet, is that hunger can be assuaged through the consumption of a very small meal. Unfortunately, though, this shrug-off comes with prior habituation to the fat-burner meal plan. Earlier in the diet, I had to either ignore or outright disown such hunger attacks.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: still 222 pounds.
If you're interested, the sight of all that sugary food did lead to a temporary hunger attack. Instead of just ignoring it, though, I did eat a 330-calorie meat pie at about that time. One benefit of the fat-burning five-(very light)-meal-a-day plan, late in a diet, is that hunger can be assuaged through the consumption of a very small meal. Unfortunately, though, this shrug-off comes with prior habituation to the fat-burner meal plan. Earlier in the diet, I had to either ignore or outright disown such hunger attacks.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: still 222 pounds.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Day 51: Rebound and Setback
As I expected, reaching the 220-pound level when unclothed, and thus rating a higher caloric intake per day, has resulted in a rebound. I've gained enough to push my daily ration back to 1,250 calories/day.
I suspect that this rebound isn't uncommon when following a plan of this sort. The shift in intake isn't enough to convince the body that the good eating times are back, but the extra calories do mount up. So, the body's metabolism rate stays stuck at semi-famine level while the calorie intake goes up, leading to a stoppage in weight loss or perhaps even a gain. Add fluid variation and the gain is explained.
Speaking of surprises: I'm going to deviate from procedure somewhat and use another application of the Plateau Buster to see if the metabolism-boost effect, or the fluid-release effect, is central to it. This version is going to be another "extreme" one, and it's not really recommended unless you have above-average control over your hunger. Like the last one, I'm doing it for test purposes. I want to see if I can use it to jack down my weight without having been on a plateau for some time. Based upon what I've seen, it probably won't have much of an effect - but it's worth a try in order to find the Plateau Buster's limits.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 222 pounds.
I suspect that this rebound isn't uncommon when following a plan of this sort. The shift in intake isn't enough to convince the body that the good eating times are back, but the extra calories do mount up. So, the body's metabolism rate stays stuck at semi-famine level while the calorie intake goes up, leading to a stoppage in weight loss or perhaps even a gain. Add fluid variation and the gain is explained.
Speaking of surprises: I'm going to deviate from procedure somewhat and use another application of the Plateau Buster to see if the metabolism-boost effect, or the fluid-release effect, is central to it. This version is going to be another "extreme" one, and it's not really recommended unless you have above-average control over your hunger. Like the last one, I'm doing it for test purposes. I want to see if I can use it to jack down my weight without having been on a plateau for some time. Based upon what I've seen, it probably won't have much of an effect - but it's worth a try in order to find the Plateau Buster's limits.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 222 pounds.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Day 50: Droppage Accomplished
As I write this entry, I'm wearing a pair of pants that I sent to the tailors a few weeks ago with a ripped crotch. They now fit comfortably.
The end of the latest use of the Plateau Buster has worked as expected. I now weigh in at an even 220 lbs. unclothed, which means that I'm now entitled to eat 1,500 calories/day. At this consumption level, I'm unlikely to lose much more for some time, as it's close to weight-maintenence level. Given my dance-around at the 230 lb. level, I'm also likely to go back to 1,250/day for a time.
That doesn't matter much, though. I've managed to lose 40 pounds in 50 days, with several diet interruptions along the way. These interruptions include experimenting with two other techniques that failed, as well as three social occasions and one deliberate "cheat test" for resolve.
In general, fat-burning does work, provided that you consume fewer calories than you use. I know because I've been trying it for most of the 50 days I've been on this diet - without exercise. To remind everyone, the Plateau Buster was developed as an add-on to a generic fat-burning diet.
One more disclosure: the only times I've eaten vegetables or fruits have been when they were given to me. The staples of this diet have been frozen and microwaveable food, ham slices, and small hamburger buns - generic fat-burning foods.
----------
"Different Scales, Different Weighings"
I have another disclosure to make: I switched scales in the middle of this blog. I didn't think it would make a difference, because one scale should give you the same weight as another, but I recently found out that it has. I started off with a (borrowed) basic spring scale with a small platform, which was already used but relatively new. What replaced it was a new, store-bought scale that's the same as the basic one I had used initially with one exception. It has a larger platform attached to the top of it. In addition to re-borrowing the small basic spring scale, I've also borrowed another one - also a spring, but more elaborate with a dial gauge. It's much older than the other two.
Here are the weighings - fully clothed, but with light slippers on - for all three scales:
The one I bought new: 225 pounds.
The one I used to start off this blog: 218 pounds.
The more upscale, but much older, one I borrowed: 209 pounds.
Yesterday, I made mention of the apparent fact that I was approaching my lowest weight since starting this blog. The above double-check shows that I've already been at my lowest weight in months for the past few days.
Based upon my disappointments during hospital physicals, I'll have to go with the newest one, and claim a weight of 225 lbs. fully clothed. This weighing puts me at an all-blog low anyway.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today, unclothed: 220 pounds, with the current scale.
The end of the latest use of the Plateau Buster has worked as expected. I now weigh in at an even 220 lbs. unclothed, which means that I'm now entitled to eat 1,500 calories/day. At this consumption level, I'm unlikely to lose much more for some time, as it's close to weight-maintenence level. Given my dance-around at the 230 lb. level, I'm also likely to go back to 1,250/day for a time.
That doesn't matter much, though. I've managed to lose 40 pounds in 50 days, with several diet interruptions along the way. These interruptions include experimenting with two other techniques that failed, as well as three social occasions and one deliberate "cheat test" for resolve.
In general, fat-burning does work, provided that you consume fewer calories than you use. I know because I've been trying it for most of the 50 days I've been on this diet - without exercise. To remind everyone, the Plateau Buster was developed as an add-on to a generic fat-burning diet.
One more disclosure: the only times I've eaten vegetables or fruits have been when they were given to me. The staples of this diet have been frozen and microwaveable food, ham slices, and small hamburger buns - generic fat-burning foods.
----------
"Different Scales, Different Weighings"
I have another disclosure to make: I switched scales in the middle of this blog. I didn't think it would make a difference, because one scale should give you the same weight as another, but I recently found out that it has. I started off with a (borrowed) basic spring scale with a small platform, which was already used but relatively new. What replaced it was a new, store-bought scale that's the same as the basic one I had used initially with one exception. It has a larger platform attached to the top of it. In addition to re-borrowing the small basic spring scale, I've also borrowed another one - also a spring, but more elaborate with a dial gauge. It's much older than the other two.
Here are the weighings - fully clothed, but with light slippers on - for all three scales:
The one I bought new: 225 pounds.
The one I used to start off this blog: 218 pounds.
The more upscale, but much older, one I borrowed: 209 pounds.
Yesterday, I made mention of the apparent fact that I was approaching my lowest weight since starting this blog. The above double-check shows that I've already been at my lowest weight in months for the past few days.
Based upon my disappointments during hospital physicals, I'll have to go with the newest one, and claim a weight of 225 lbs. fully clothed. This weighing puts me at an all-blog low anyway.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today, unclothed: 220 pounds, with the current scale.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Day 49: Plateau Buster Works As Usual
After close to a week at a plateau of 225-6 lbs., I've used the Plateau Buster for the second day in a row today, in an extreme version: using sugar-laden snack foods for my 1,250 calories/day. For the last day and a half, all I've eaten is snack cakes and caramel corn, and one more snack cake is all that I rate for supper.
This use of the Plateau Buster is, obviously, extreme because it's not nutritious. I Plateau Busted in this way because I wanted to test if it was the sugar that revved up my metabolism and got rid of the excess water in my body through urination. What I've found is that this is largely the case, although there seems to be no added "oomph" to using sugar-laden snack foods as opposed to foods with sugary components to them, like danishes or glazed donuts. To be honest, it seems better to go with the sweetbreads because they fill up your stomach and keep the hunger at bay longer. I will, however, be testing the more sugar-centric variant once more.
I've found that my metabolism has increased over the last day-and-a-half. I'm presently at work on a repetitive task, and have found that my endurance level when at it has gone up. Unfortunately, I've also found that the more sugar-centred variant has upset my sleep a bit. (The amount of coffee I drink during the day has stayed about the same throughout.)
I've also reached a kind of moment in this diet. I've weighed myself naked throughout the diet, in order to control for difference in clothes weight. Afterwards, though, I weighed myself fully clothed with light slippers, as I used to during the first month of this blog's existence. I weighed in at between 226 and 227 pounds clothed, which is within a pound of my lowest weight since June began. Tomorrow, day 50, is likely to be the point where I sink to the lowest weight I've had since May 31st.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 222 pounds.
This use of the Plateau Buster is, obviously, extreme because it's not nutritious. I Plateau Busted in this way because I wanted to test if it was the sugar that revved up my metabolism and got rid of the excess water in my body through urination. What I've found is that this is largely the case, although there seems to be no added "oomph" to using sugar-laden snack foods as opposed to foods with sugary components to them, like danishes or glazed donuts. To be honest, it seems better to go with the sweetbreads because they fill up your stomach and keep the hunger at bay longer. I will, however, be testing the more sugar-centric variant once more.
I've found that my metabolism has increased over the last day-and-a-half. I'm presently at work on a repetitive task, and have found that my endurance level when at it has gone up. Unfortunately, I've also found that the more sugar-centred variant has upset my sleep a bit. (The amount of coffee I drink during the day has stayed about the same throughout.)
I've also reached a kind of moment in this diet. I've weighed myself naked throughout the diet, in order to control for difference in clothes weight. Afterwards, though, I weighed myself fully clothed with light slippers, as I used to during the first month of this blog's existence. I weighed in at between 226 and 227 pounds clothed, which is within a pound of my lowest weight since June began. Tomorrow, day 50, is likely to be the point where I sink to the lowest weight I've had since May 31st.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 222 pounds.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Day 48: Back To The Usual, With A Twist
I've shifted back to the usual kind of Plateau Buster - one with sugared foods. In fact, after yesterday's debacle, I've shifted over to the other extreme, for test purposes. My "big breakfast" was a small bag of caramel corn and two snack cakes, both of which total 1,060 calories. The residuum of 190 calories is reserved for supper.
Before I reveal the result, I should add a warning about the "extreme" use of the Plateau Buster that I'm currently using. Once the morning ration of (in this case) approx. 1000 calories is gone, that's it for the end of the day except for supper. If you're on a, say, 1000 calorie/day limit, then approx. 800 calories' worth of sweet stuff is all you'll eat until a small snack-sized dinner at the end of the day.
The trouble with using candy or (in this case) caramel corn or snack cakes as a sugar booster is that they hardly fill up the stomach. Once again, I emphasize (with stomach growling) that once the big breakfast is done with, that's the end of the eating for the day except for the small supper. Danishes, donuts, et. al. seem to provide an adequate compromise between sugar-caloric and stomach-filling. Calorie-rich candy doesn't.
So, again, I say that this variant is only for experimental purposes, to see if it's the sugar that results in the metabolism boost/extra water clearout. So far, the answer to this question is "yes," but the full effect won't be seen until early next week. Happy rest-of-the-weekend.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 224 1/2 pounds.
Before I reveal the result, I should add a warning about the "extreme" use of the Plateau Buster that I'm currently using. Once the morning ration of (in this case) approx. 1000 calories is gone, that's it for the end of the day except for supper. If you're on a, say, 1000 calorie/day limit, then approx. 800 calories' worth of sweet stuff is all you'll eat until a small snack-sized dinner at the end of the day.
The trouble with using candy or (in this case) caramel corn or snack cakes as a sugar booster is that they hardly fill up the stomach. Once again, I emphasize (with stomach growling) that once the big breakfast is done with, that's the end of the eating for the day except for the small supper. Danishes, donuts, et. al. seem to provide an adequate compromise between sugar-caloric and stomach-filling. Calorie-rich candy doesn't.
So, again, I say that this variant is only for experimental purposes, to see if it's the sugar that results in the metabolism boost/extra water clearout. So far, the answer to this question is "yes," but the full effect won't be seen until early next week. Happy rest-of-the-weekend.
Weight as of approx. 6 PM today: 224 1/2 pounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)