If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
About that metabolic syndrome I don't have
I posted at the beginning of the month that I was on Induction, my
metabolism was crap, that I had blown up adrenals and that was why my weight loss was so slow. Due to drugs and adrenal rearrangement, my metabolism was officially resistant, I said. This, I realize, is possibly wrong. I came to that conclusion after randomly opening DANDR to the page where DrA talks about being able to judge what kind of metabolic resistance you're dealing with by how much weight you lost on Induction. (Somebody reproduced it he http://www.newportschools.com/lowcar..._resistant.htm) So I did a little retracing. Started on Sep. 21. I posted a big whiny re-introduction of myself and bemoaned all the drugs I had been on and notedly enthusiastically how sloooooowwwwwly I was losing. However, I had already lost five pounds on October 5. I whooshed on the 6th and went down another four. That's a total of 9 on Induction, which is, unfortunately, pretty damn good. I then lost another four pounds, so within the first month I lost 13 pounds, after being on drugs and eating real cereal for breakfast for four months and laying on my bed watching back to back episodes of CSI all summer long thinking I should probably go for a walk or something. So there is the possibility that I am just fat. That would be bad news. I wouldn't be able to lay around and berate my inadequate endocrine system. I couldn't post about my noble efforts to maintain health, wellness and Good Cheer despite the handicap of a bum metabolism. I'd actually have to exercise and stuff. No sidling up to the doctor for amphetamines. No tootsie rolls from the tootsie roll drawer at work for my "hypoglycemia" . According to the book, I'm apparently metabolically normal, if not a little fast. Does that suck or what? c fork in mouth disease |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
About that metabolic syndrome I don't have
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
About that metabolic syndrome I don't have
wrote:
I posted at the beginning of the month that I was on Induction, my metabolism was crap, that I had blown up adrenals and that was why my weight loss was so slow. Due to drugs and adrenal rearrangement, my metabolism was officially resistant, I said. This, I realize, is possibly wrong. I came to that conclusion after randomly opening DANDR to the page where DrA talks about being able to judge what kind of metabolic resistance you're dealing with by how much weight you lost on Induction. (Somebody reproduced it hehttp://www.newportschools.com/lowcar..._resistant.htm) So I did a little retracing. Started on Sep. 21. I posted a big whiny re-introduction of myself and bemoaned all the drugs I had been on and notedly enthusiastically how sloooooowwwwwly I was losing. However, I had already lost five pounds on October 5. I whooshed on the 6th and went down another four. That's a total of 9 on Induction, which is, unfortunately, pretty damn good. There are some problems with using how much you lost on Induction to judge your "metabolic resistance" aka how easy it will be to both lose down to goal and also to regain with one bite of bad food. 1) Certain food intolerances cause water retention bloating. There are folks who lose 20ish pounds of water during Induction who can eat one meal containing wheat (or beans or corn or whatever their specific intolerance is) and boom those 20 pounds of water bloat are back on in a day. Then reinduct and the 20 pounds are gone again. So large losses during Induction may be from the eliminate-and-challenge isolation half of the Atkins process not from the use-carbs-as-a-tool half of Atkins. 2) Induction includes water loss and that's poorly correlated with later loss rates. It seems to be correlated with starting size but I would want to gather a lot more data before I become convinced of that. Since folks with more to lose lose it faster and folks with less to lose lose it slower, using initial amount to lose doesn't make sense for resistance/suseptibility. Resistance and suseptibility should be about rate of fat loss at a specific amount ot lose. 3) An older edition used how high or low your CCLL is. Fall out of ketosis at 25, low resistance. Fall out of ketosis at 85, high resistance. The trouble with that is I've never been able to see trends in loss rate based on CCLL the way I have been able to with amount left to lose. That's why I would rather have folks start a count at the point they find there CCLL. The loss rate in the second month after that point divided by amount to lose at that point should be the useful number for measuring resistance. But assuming a common CCLL of 55 and also assuming moving on to OWL on schedule and also assuming not finding any trigger foods in that time, the counts by week would go like this - 20, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 (out of ketonuria), 20, 55 (clock starts), 55, 55, 55, 55 (first recorded weight), 55, 55, 55, 55 (second recorded weight). That's the end of month 4 to know how fast you'll be losing when compared to others. So what, folks know their loss rates long before that and it is far more often a bad idea to compare against others than it is a good idea. I then lost another four pounds, so within the first month I lost 13 pounds, after being on drugs and eating real cereal for breakfast for four months and laying on my bed watching back to back episodes of CSI all summer long thinking I should probably go for a walk or something. Ice skating works just fine during the summer. ;^) So there is the possibility that I am just fat. That would be bad news. I wouldn't be able to lay around and berate my inadequate endocrine system. I couldn't post about my noble efforts to maintain health, wellness and Good Cheer despite the handicap of a bum metabolism. I'd actually have to exercise and stuff. No sidling up to the doctor for amphetamines. No tootsie rolls from the tootsie roll drawer at work for my "hypoglycemia" . According to the book, I'm apparently metabolically normal, if not a little fast. Does that suck or what? Folks love to think they aren't normal or not near the average, but most do end up near the norms in most ways. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
About that metabolic syndrome I don't have
On Oct 24, 9:48 am, DJ Delorie wrote:
writes: Well, I don't have much medical training but I'm pretty sure that anything ending in "oma" is sort of bad. Sorry to hear it. Oklahoma? My point *exactly*. Oklahoma has a state percussive instrument. It's the drum. Now that's just inexplicable. c And don't even get me started on Port Silt Loam. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
About that metabolic syndrome I don't have
There are some problems with using how much you lost on Induction to judge your "metabolic resistance" aka how easy it will be to both lose down to goal and also to regain with one bite of bad food. Well, I also know that generally I haven't had much problem with regaining unless I basically deliberately trashed my own diet. The only time I even wondered if I was seriously resistant -- is right now, after a major FUBAR of my personal person. 3) An older edition used how high or low your CCLL is. Fall out of ketosis at 25, low resistance. Fall out of ketosis at 85, high resistance. The trouble with that is I've never been able to see trends in loss rate based on CCLL the way I have been able to with amount left to lose. That's why I would rather have folks start a count at the point they find there CCLL. The loss rate in the second month after that point divided by amount to lose at that point should be the useful number for measuring resistance. But assuming a common CCLL of 55 and also assuming moving on to OWL on schedule and also assuming not finding any trigger foods in that time, the counts by week would go like this - 20, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 (out of ketonuria), 20, 55 (clock starts), 55, 55, 55, 55 (first recorded weight), 55, 55, 55, 55 (second recorded weight). That's the end of month 4 to know how fast you'll be losing when compared to others. So what, folks know their loss rates long before that and it is far more often a bad idea to compare against others than it is a good idea. Doug, I gotta be honest, I was never too good with the CCLL thing. I bet you balance your checkbook, too, doncha? You're just ruining it for everyone, you know that, right? Folks love to think they aren't normal or not near the average, but most do end up near the norms in most ways. Yeah, that's what I keep finding out. I used to believe that I was especially doomed to be massive, based on my genetics and temperament and...you know those theories -- I had the wrong kind of virus when I was a kid, I was born with a slow metabolism( not true), I had a thyroid problem( don't, never did, I've had it checked at least five times)- and etcetera. I've been searching for the Special Thing That's Wrong with Me for years and tend to always come up with jack. c on the bellcurve |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
About that metabolic syndrome I don't have
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
About that metabolic syndrome I don't have
On Oct 24, 10:48 am, DJ Delorie wrote:
writes: Well, I don't have much medical training but I'm pretty sure that anything ending in "oma" is sort of bad. Sorry to hear it. Oklahoma? Definitely! Hook'em Horns! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Low-Carb Diets Combat Metabolic Syndrome | valvejob | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | July 23rd, 2007 04:13 AM |
Metabolic syndrome predicts prostate cancer | Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 15 | November 5th, 2006 01:14 PM |
Low Carb Best for Metabolic Syndrome Improvement | jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | November 16th, 2005 01:13 PM |
new guidelines for the diagnosis and management of metabolic syndrome | Susan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | September 21st, 2005 11:20 PM |
'metabolic syndrome' epidemic shadowing obesity rate | tcomeau | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 16th, 2004 03:24 PM |