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.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)