I am up by just under a pound from yesterday. This is a plateau. I wish I could say that I enjoy plateaus. I can't. I don't.
This is not defeat, though. I have learned that plateaus are very temporary, and I am fully confident that I will eventually move past it. I was wondering, though, if I am somehow subconsciously sabotaging things. I set these short-term goals for myself -- 404.8 lbs was an undocumented first goal, and then 399 lbs, and now 398 lbs -- and at each one, there's a plateau just before I hit it. I wonder if I'm doing this to myself on some subconscious level. I'd like to get more data before I make the determination on this.
It was pretty smooth sailing going down, down, down until I was at 390 lbs, and then progress plateau'd. Now the odd thing is that these short-term goals I set are not at any one specific interval; they vary. This is the reason I think it has to be something I'm doing subconsciously. Only time will tell.
Starting weight: 415 lbs
Current weight: 391.2 lbs ⇧
Long-term Goal: 145 lbs
Short-term Goal: 389 lbs
I was hungrier than usual yesterday, and I'm not sure why. I ate an entire smoked sausage again, and then I ate some pork rinds and had about three spoonfuls of peanut butter. I was feeling hungry, and I have a sneaking suspicion that either the burritos I made or the sausage are one of my binge triggers.
I was really good about only eating half of one burrito. My husband had two whole burritos, and then he finished the 2nd half of mine. I still feel guilty about feeding him my extras, by the way. I really need to stop doing that. The fact that I only managed to go up by a pound (less than a pound, actually) is miraculous considering how much I actually consumed. Will this plateau last longer because of it? I don't know. I hope my weight starts dropping again tomorrow or the day after. I want to see 389 lbs on the scale soon.
When I feel bingey, I need to remember to be cognizant of it and utilize willpower to make sure it doesn't get the better of me. I showed some restraint this time, but not as much restraint as I would have liked. Ignoring the hunger monster is difficult. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a monster, right? It'd be, like, a hunger kitten.
Hunger is a monster, not a kitten graph:
I'm at work, and I didn't pack a lunch. Then I took my vitamins, and I started to feel nauseated. I got a package of Snapea Crisps. I love those things. I was horrified when I realized that this is package is one serving, and the serving packs a walloping 210-calorie punch! I feel so gluttonous. I shouldn't, though. It's not a lot, but I'm starting to obsess about my intake. I'm a bit obsessive, but that's part of my charm. The good news is that I have my husband who will ground me so I don't fly off into the rafters.
At my new weight, and according to weight-loss math, I'm burning fewer calories per day. Adding 210 more calories means that I will need to counteract those calories with some activity if I want to lose another pound.
Current weight: 391.2 lbs
Current BMR: 2,498 calories/day
Current Maintenance: 3,002 calories/day
To lose one pound of fat according to weight-loss math, it requires me to burn 3,500 calories. I'm already burning about 3,002 calories/day (this is the intake that is required to maintain my current weight), and I am taking in 480 calories of oil every day.
Intake: 480 + 210 so far today. I haven't eaten anything else. That's 690 calories beyond 3,500 that I need to burn to lose a pound of fat. That's a total of 4,190 calories to burn. I supposedly already burn about 3,002 calories, so that leaves 1,188 calories I need to burn through activity. I also plan to eat a little something for brinner when I get home from work.
Now, I can resign myself to losing under a pound a day, or I can increase my activity. On the other hand, I can eat nothing and only consume oil. I'd have 480 calories in addition to the 3,500 to lose, then, and that is a total of 3,980 calories. I'd have to burn 978 calories through activity.
To burn 1,000 calories at my weight and height (and considering that I am female) would require walking on a flat, firm surface at a slow pace (about 2.0 Mph) for roughly 206 minutes. This is about three-and-a-half hours of walking. I think someone needs to go to the mall.
The beauty of SLD is that I can choose to eat or to not eat "real' food in addition to the oil. While opting not to may not be the healthiest plan, if I watch how my body responds and counteract any negative effects, I think I can achieve it successfully.
Consider me a bit of a "breatharian" for the time being. Until I'm 145 lbs, I'm severely limiting my intake. The great thing is that I'm not ravenously hungry, and I don't feel like I'm missing much, generally. I have the freedom of eating what I want when I want it, and I don't have to deprive myself.
The "when I want it" part is what trips up a number of people, I noticed. There are two types of want: a desire for the enjoyment of the food itself versus a need to satisfy the feeling of hunger. For me, I'm not hungry, so if I were to consume something, it would be to satisfy the first type of want. My desire can be quelled by thinking about diet math. Is it really worth it?
Now all of this weight-loss math doesn't factor into the Seth Roberts' Shangri-La Diet. Roberts believed in a “set point” theory of weight control: at any given time, your body wants to be a certain weight, and it will increase or decrease feelings of hunger and its metabolic rate in order to achieve that weight. If my set-point lowers, my metabolic rate should change.
This means that I may not need to change my activity level and simply listen to my body for what it needs. And this seems to be evidenced by my experience thus far: I haven't changed a thing. I haven't added any exercise. I have only changed my intake based on what my body tells me it needs through hunger, and the pounds are dropping off at a rate of roughly a pound per day for the most part. I lead a relatively sedentary life, and the diet math doesn't seem to be adding up (as it were). It never has for me -- not until SLD. This method clearly has merit.
This is not defeat, though. I have learned that plateaus are very temporary, and I am fully confident that I will eventually move past it. I was wondering, though, if I am somehow subconsciously sabotaging things. I set these short-term goals for myself -- 404.8 lbs was an undocumented first goal, and then 399 lbs, and now 398 lbs -- and at each one, there's a plateau just before I hit it. I wonder if I'm doing this to myself on some subconscious level. I'd like to get more data before I make the determination on this.
It was pretty smooth sailing going down, down, down until I was at 390 lbs, and then progress plateau'd. Now the odd thing is that these short-term goals I set are not at any one specific interval; they vary. This is the reason I think it has to be something I'm doing subconsciously. Only time will tell.
Starting weight: 415 lbs
Current weight: 391.2 lbs ⇧
Long-term Goal: 145 lbs
Short-term Goal: 389 lbs
I was hungrier than usual yesterday, and I'm not sure why. I ate an entire smoked sausage again, and then I ate some pork rinds and had about three spoonfuls of peanut butter. I was feeling hungry, and I have a sneaking suspicion that either the burritos I made or the sausage are one of my binge triggers.
I was really good about only eating half of one burrito. My husband had two whole burritos, and then he finished the 2nd half of mine. I still feel guilty about feeding him my extras, by the way. I really need to stop doing that. The fact that I only managed to go up by a pound (less than a pound, actually) is miraculous considering how much I actually consumed. Will this plateau last longer because of it? I don't know. I hope my weight starts dropping again tomorrow or the day after. I want to see 389 lbs on the scale soon.When I feel bingey, I need to remember to be cognizant of it and utilize willpower to make sure it doesn't get the better of me. I showed some restraint this time, but not as much restraint as I would have liked. Ignoring the hunger monster is difficult. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a monster, right? It'd be, like, a hunger kitten.
Hunger is a monster, not a kitten graph:
I'm at work, and I didn't pack a lunch. Then I took my vitamins, and I started to feel nauseated. I got a package of Snapea Crisps. I love those things. I was horrified when I realized that this is package is one serving, and the serving packs a walloping 210-calorie punch! I feel so gluttonous. I shouldn't, though. It's not a lot, but I'm starting to obsess about my intake. I'm a bit obsessive, but that's part of my charm. The good news is that I have my husband who will ground me so I don't fly off into the rafters.
At my new weight, and according to weight-loss math, I'm burning fewer calories per day. Adding 210 more calories means that I will need to counteract those calories with some activity if I want to lose another pound.
Current weight: 391.2 lbs
Current BMR: 2,498 calories/day
Current Maintenance: 3,002 calories/day
To lose one pound of fat according to weight-loss math, it requires me to burn 3,500 calories. I'm already burning about 3,002 calories/day (this is the intake that is required to maintain my current weight), and I am taking in 480 calories of oil every day.
Intake: 480 + 210 so far today. I haven't eaten anything else. That's 690 calories beyond 3,500 that I need to burn to lose a pound of fat. That's a total of 4,190 calories to burn. I supposedly already burn about 3,002 calories, so that leaves 1,188 calories I need to burn through activity. I also plan to eat a little something for brinner when I get home from work.
Now, I can resign myself to losing under a pound a day, or I can increase my activity. On the other hand, I can eat nothing and only consume oil. I'd have 480 calories in addition to the 3,500 to lose, then, and that is a total of 3,980 calories. I'd have to burn 978 calories through activity.
To burn 1,000 calories at my weight and height (and considering that I am female) would require walking on a flat, firm surface at a slow pace (about 2.0 Mph) for roughly 206 minutes. This is about three-and-a-half hours of walking. I think someone needs to go to the mall.
The beauty of SLD is that I can choose to eat or to not eat "real' food in addition to the oil. While opting not to may not be the healthiest plan, if I watch how my body responds and counteract any negative effects, I think I can achieve it successfully.
Consider me a bit of a "breatharian" for the time being. Until I'm 145 lbs, I'm severely limiting my intake. The great thing is that I'm not ravenously hungry, and I don't feel like I'm missing much, generally. I have the freedom of eating what I want when I want it, and I don't have to deprive myself.
The "when I want it" part is what trips up a number of people, I noticed. There are two types of want: a desire for the enjoyment of the food itself versus a need to satisfy the feeling of hunger. For me, I'm not hungry, so if I were to consume something, it would be to satisfy the first type of want. My desire can be quelled by thinking about diet math. Is it really worth it?
Now all of this weight-loss math doesn't factor into the Seth Roberts' Shangri-La Diet. Roberts believed in a “set point” theory of weight control: at any given time, your body wants to be a certain weight, and it will increase or decrease feelings of hunger and its metabolic rate in order to achieve that weight. If my set-point lowers, my metabolic rate should change.
This means that I may not need to change my activity level and simply listen to my body for what it needs. And this seems to be evidenced by my experience thus far: I haven't changed a thing. I haven't added any exercise. I have only changed my intake based on what my body tells me it needs through hunger, and the pounds are dropping off at a rate of roughly a pound per day for the most part. I lead a relatively sedentary life, and the diet math doesn't seem to be adding up (as it were). It never has for me -- not until SLD. This method clearly has merit.
Comments
Post a Comment