A question about calories - metabolism and "starvation mode" andWeight Watchers

I took my own advice and changed my behavior when what I was doing was
counterproductive. And frankly I wasn't fretting, needlessly or otherwise,
just stating that I wanted the results of Thanksgiving gone quickly so I did
everything that I know to do short of cutting my calories to an unacceptable
level to cause it to leave in a hurry.

And it did. Doug will do whatever Doug will do, but he could do worse than
follow advice from someone who has lost over 200 pounds and kept it off for
over two years. And yeah, slow and steady wins the race, but doing it smart
so you don't unnecessarily waste time is not a bad idea either.

There is plenty of nonsense in this thread, but very little of it is coming
from this front.

Lesanne
365/163(today)/164(WW goal)


So how does this relate to your "taking your own advice"? IIRC you
have given some sane advice in this thread, and then share your
example of fretting needlessly about an uptick in water weight. I
rather think Doug would be better off not following such nonsense.
--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.

Lesanne wrote in message
...
I took my own advice and changed my behavior when what I was doing
was
counterproductive.

So you are saying that Doug's current approach is counterproductive?

And frankly I wasn't fretting, needlessly or otherwise,
just stating that I wanted the results of Thanksgiving gone quickly

Considering the results of Thanksgiving was mostly an increase in
water weight that seems pretty pointless.

so I did
everything that I know to do short of cutting my calories to an
unacceptable
level to cause it to leave in a hurry.

And it did.

But water isn't fat. I don't think Doug is looking to lose water
weight.

Doug will do whatever Doug will do, but he could do worse than
follow advice from someone who has lost over 200 pounds and kept it
off for
over two years. And yeah, slow and steady wins the race, but doing
it smart
so you don't unnecessarily waste time is not a bad idea either.

Fat loss doesn't happen quickly. My sig says what is says because
countless newbies come in expecting to lose 5lbs of fat each week.
This thread itself was started by someone who has proven that he is in
the game for the long haul, but still has some unreasonable
expectations when it comes to losing scale weight every week. I'll bet
in the process of losing 200lbs, even you had a week or two where you
didn't lose scale weight even though you stuck to your new way of
life.

The point I am trying to make is that Doug should realize most short
term weight changes are caused by changes in hydration level, and that
water is not fat. He doesn't need to worry so much about short term
fluctuations. I was under the impression that most people posting to
this thread agreed with this sentiment. But your reaction to
Thanksgiving weight gain followed Doug's pattern, not a more sensible
long-term approach.

There is plenty of nonsense in this thread, but very little of it is
coming
from this front.

Well you are still top-posting.
--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.

I always top post because I can remember what is in the thread and don't
need to re-read every word.
And yes, there were lots of gains. No one loses over 200 pounds without
having a few eating issues. Water weight tends to push some old emotional
buttons, so I have to deal with that. Get over yourself. My only suggestions
to Doug were to not eat the same amount every day, day in and day out of the
same foods, or expect the exercise he is doing to be enough if he doesn't
increase it as he gets more fit. Those interventions kept me losing steadily
for the last 3 or 4 months of my weight loss with no real stalls. It should
have been the hardest time, but it was not. When I was doing it the way he
is early on I had a ton of stalls.
--
Lesanne
"Matthew Venhaus" wrote in message
...

Lesanne wrote in message
...
I took my own advice and changed my behavior when what I was doing
was
counterproductive.

So you are saying that Doug's current approach is counterproductive?

And frankly I wasn't fretting, needlessly or otherwise,
just stating that I wanted the results of Thanksgiving gone quickly

Considering the results of Thanksgiving was mostly an increase in
water weight that seems pretty pointless.

so I did
everything that I know to do short of cutting my calories to an
unacceptable
level to cause it to leave in a hurry.

And it did.

But water isn't fat. I don't think Doug is looking to lose water
weight.

Doug will do whatever Doug will do, but he could do worse than
follow advice from someone who has lost over 200 pounds and kept it
off for
over two years. And yeah, slow and steady wins the race, but doing
it smart
so you don't unnecessarily waste time is not a bad idea either.

Fat loss doesn't happen quickly. My sig says what is says because
countless newbies come in expecting to lose 5lbs of fat each week.
This thread itself was started by someone who has proven that he is in
the game for the long haul, but still has some unreasonable
expectations when it comes to losing scale weight every week. I'll bet
in the process of losing 200lbs, even you had a week or two where you
didn't lose scale weight even though you stuck to your new way of
life.

The point I am trying to make is that Doug should realize most short
term weight changes are caused by changes in hydration level, and that
water is not fat. He doesn't need to worry so much about short term
fluctuations. I was under the impression that most people posting to
this thread agreed with this sentiment. But your reaction to
Thanksgiving weight gain followed Doug's pattern, not a more sensible
long-term approach.

There is plenty of nonsense in this thread, but very little of it is
coming
from this front.

Well you are still top-posting.
--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.

It looks interesting...

Thanks,

doug


On 12/1/05 8:47 PM, in article ,
"Lesanne" wrote:

here try this one
http://www.heartratemonitorsusa.com/...M-choices.html

On 12/2/05 5:12 AM, in article ,
"Lesanne" wrote:

Doug will do whatever Doug will do, but he could do worse than
follow advice from someone who has lost over 200 pounds and kept it off for
over two years.

Indeed!

doug

On 12/2/05 8:53 AM, in article ,
"Ignoramus607" wrote:


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Hahaha. That is sort of funny.

I often top-post too though. I will reconsider.

But along with bottom posting comes a responsibility to snip out unnecessary
parts of the thread to avoid excessively long posts that force people to
scroll down just to see "me too" after 500 lines.

doug

"Doug Lerner" wrote in message
...



On 12/2/05 8:53 AM, in article ,
"Ignoramus607" wrote:


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Hahaha. That is sort of funny.

I often top-post too though. I will reconsider.

It depends on the group, really. I see that ASDWW posters do it a lot more
and it's acceptable there than in other groups I've been in. While it is
traditionally poor netiquette, I wouldn't really go taking netiquette advice
from someone who has repeatedly shown that he has no use for it when it
suits him.

But along with bottom posting comes a responsibility to snip out
unnecessary
parts of the thread to avoid excessively long posts that force people to
scroll down just to see "me too" after 500 lines.

Amen to that!
--
the volleyballchick

"Lesanne" wrote in message
...

My only suggestions to Doug were to not eat the same amount every day, day
in and day out of the same foods,

Which is perfectly reasonable advice.
--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.

Matthew Venhaus" wrote in message
...

"Lesanne" wrote in message
...

My only suggestions to Doug were to not eat the same amount every day,
day in and day out of the same foods,

Which is perfectly reasonable advice.

Thanks, Les
--
Matthew
Slow and steady wins the race.

In article , Doug Lerner
wrote:

But along with bottom posting comes a responsibility to snip out unnecessary
parts of the thread to avoid excessively long posts that force people to
scroll down just to see "me too" after 500 lines.

It can also be argued that just because you're posting above all that,
doesn't mean you don't still have a responsibility to snip. Leave enough
for context, of course, but if you're just going to agree, you don't need
the whole thing, regardless of whether it's top or bottom.

When I post, I snip out the stuff I'm not addressing, because either way,
nobody wants to scroll through it. Don't forget, there're still people
out there who page through usenet, and have to scroll through everything a
top-poster leaves on just to get to the next post, not even to a 'me too'
in the post they're currently reading.

Tops, bottoms, and swinging both ways. We better watch it or this will
become *very* off-topic

-Tay