 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / May 2008A success story
I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success story, just to show it can be done! In December of 2006 I was diagnosed diabetic. At that time I had a total cholesterol of 262 and an A1c of 11. I also had a number of other numbers that were not good, including a very high microalbumin. My blood pressure was a bit on the high side too (roughly 140/90). My doctor started me on Metformin, a beta blocker and Zocor. I weighed in at 240 pounds at that point. In February 2007, I had a total cholesterol of 169 and an A1c of 7.4. The meds were doing their job it seems. In April of 2007, I had an A1c of 5.9 (no cholesterol test done at that time). By this time I had gotten my weight down to around 230 pounds. In August of 2007, I had a total cholesterol of 140 and an A1c of 5.8. At this point my doctor cut my Metformin dosage in half (to 500mg twice daily). Other dosages stayed the same. In November of 2007, I had a total cholesterol of 140 again and an A1c of 5.7. My weight was now 225 pounds. At this point I stopped testing my blood multiple times a day, and in fact skipped some days. My readings were nearly always very good, right around 100 pretty consistently. I just had my latest round of testing this week. Total cholesterol: 138. A1c: 5.7. Every single number across the board aside from those are in excellent shape. As I sit here writing this tonight I weigh 217 pounds. My doctor has directed me to stop Metformin entirely and get another A1c in 3 months, plus daily finger sticks, and he's also cut my beta blocker dosage in half. My blood pressure was at 118/74 in the office and was 114/72 just a minute or so ago when I checked it. Needless to say, I am ecstatic, and my doctor is too. After my full physical this week, he said he fully expects things to stay good with the reduction in meds (he even made a comment that many professional athletes would kill to have my EKG results!). I have no obvious health problems at this point. I still have 20-30 pounds to lose before I'm at what I consider a good weight, but I've been making progress (I seem to be at a bit of a plateau though... I've been between 215-219 for a couple of months now). My secret? Honestly, there's only been two big changes in my life over the past year or so: I haven't had a drop of regular soda since 12/06 (I previously drank *A LOT* of the stuff, and I personally believe it's what's responsible for my condition in the first place... no one else in my family history ever had diabetes), and I exercise *at minimum* 3 times a week for roughly 30 minutes or so of moderate to heavy effort (not enough that I feel dead afterwards, but enough that I know I did some work). I do a diverse mixture of weights and aerobic exercises (mostly treadmill, but other stuff mixed in). I definitely do watch what I eat more than ever before, I try to keep calories around 1600-1800 daily and keep carbs reasonably low, but there's almost nothing I don't eat, it's just a matter of moderation and paying attention. I eat a number of small snacks throughout the day and I actually feel LESS hungry most of the time than I did before I started paying attention to what went in my body! My home testing numbers are rarely above 130 even after not-so-good meals, and are nearly always in the 100-110 range (I'd like them to be lower personally, but my doctor says unless I start seeing 150+ in any sort of consistent way, things are fine... I'm personally aiming lower, but the latest A1c indicates I'm doing a good job in any case). So, I feel real good about things and I wanted to share, as much for myself as for others who hopefully can see that there is hope, there is good news if you work at it. Of course, I could find that my numbers go crazy with no Metformin at all, but my doctor doesn't believe that will be the case, and I have reason to be optimistic too. At this point though, all indications are that I'm a success story, someone who beat this damned disease, and I couldn't be happier about it! >I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success > story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doctor started me on Metformin, a beta blocker and Zocor. I weighed > in at 240 pounds at that point. <snip> Congrats, but you might want to rethink that Beta Blocker. They are not usually recommended for diabetics. An ACE or ARB is better. > Congrats, but you might want to rethink that Beta Blocker. They are not > usually recommended for diabetics. An ACE or ARB is better. I don't think they're recommended for anyone any more, because they cause diabetes. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think they're recommended for anyone any more, because they cause > diabetes. Yep. And if you have diabetes, they can cause loss of control of BG, either hypos or highs. I was on one at the time of diagnosis and it was a BG rollercoaster for me! >>I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success >> story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Congrats, but you might want to rethink that Beta Blocker. They are not >usually recommended for diabetics. An ACE or ARB is better. There seems to be a lot of confusion and disagreement on that. For example, this is a highwire search on "" where every paper seems to disagree with the next one.beta blockers diabetes http://tinyurl.com/3qbpgv or http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/searchresults?andortopics=and&pubdate_year=&vol ume=&firstpage=&author1=&author2=&title=&titleabstract=&fulltext=beta+blockers+d iabetes&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=&andorexactfulltext=and&src=ml&jc _favj=&fmonth=Jan&fyear=2000&tmonth=May&tyear=2008&flag=&RESULTFORMAT=1&hits=10& hitsbrief=&sortspec=relevance&sortspecbrief=&resourcetype=1&tdatedef=3+May+2008& fdatedef=1+January+1812& Worth reading the differing conclusions on the first four or five just to see how confusing it gets. However, this later one tends to convince me that beta blockers will never be part of my regimen: "Incidence of new-onset diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in patients with recent myocardial infarction and the effect of clinical and lifestyle risk factors." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17720018 "Independent risk factors for new-onset diabetes or impaired fasting glucose included older age, hypertension, use of beta-blockers, lipid-lowering medications (protective), and diuretic use." There was another recent negative paper but I've lost the link. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html > I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success > story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > someone who beat this damned disease, and I couldn't be happier about > it! An excellent success story, indeed. Keep up the good attitude and good work, and don't get complacent! ;-) Take care.  SignatureNick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families! I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War. They are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~ Absolutely! I've said it before, but I actually view my diagnosis as a positive in some respects... I had definitely let myself go in terms of my eating and exercise habits, which is a shame because I was actually a champion gymnast all through high school, a pretty good pitcher early in college and then in excellent shape in the military, so there really was no excuse other than I had gotten lazy. So, I would have preferred a different way obviously, but it was an eye-opener if nothing else. >> I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success >> story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >Take care. Well done, a number of folk here have been able to drop the Metformin without any problems, some never need to go on it all. Good luck with further weight loss. >I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success > story, just to show it can be done! > I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success > story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > numbers go crazy with no Metformin at all, but my doctor doesn't > believe that will be the case, and I have reason to be optimistic too. Metformin does suppress appetite in many. It is likely that without it, you would start overeating and that it is the overeating that has been the problem from the outset. > At this point though, all indications are that I'm a success story, > someone who beat this damned disease, and I couldn't be happier about > it! The key is losing the VAT (black fat) as you are likely doing with the weight loss: http://HeartMDPhD.com/BlackFat Therefore, it remains smarter to eat less, down to the right amount: http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart Here is a simple parable given in hopes of promoting greater understanding: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable Life in industrialized countries is life in a blessed feed lot. Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow > Metformin does suppress appetite in many. > > It is likely that without it, you would start overeating and that it > is the overeating that has been the problem from the outset. Remember if one's appetite is suppressed then that person is not hungry and according to the 2PD Blah Blah, hunger is wonderful (formery good), so taking that medication is not good. OTOH, the Golden Bowl Chickenfeed WAY (not a diet and not even an approach, but THE WAY) is Fantastic (not good or wonderful), but fantastic) is the WAY to go. satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > according to the 2PD Blah Blah, hunger is wonderful (formery good), so taking > that medication is not good. Indeed, metformin is associated with lactic acidosis, which has a high mortality rate. Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling you to unwittingly demonstrate that you are: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Charlatansatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels On May 3, 6:46 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Indeed, metformin is associated with lactic acidosis, which has a high > mortality rate. But what is the mortality rate of metformin? Huh Chung? And what is the incidence of lactic acidosis among those using metformin as instructed? Huh Chungboi? It remains your goal to misinform and misconstrue, as long as it suits your delusional agenda, Chung. You give crap medical advice and twist words and concepts to fit your sick,delusional view of the real world. You are evil Chung. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Stupidsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels On May 3, 3:12 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Stupidsatan > > <>< > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels Chung, reply like a man and a real doctor rather than posting your stupid links that no one reads. If you have something to refute what I've said or you want to expand on what you've said, then do so. Otherwise, you remain the liar and bringer of medical misinfromation that you have been proven to be, time and time again. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Valuelesssatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels On May 3, 4:53 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Valuelesssatan > > <>< > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels So Chung, is this how you plan to behave when you are called before the Georgia Medical Board or the IRS? You truly are a mentally ill man. You are evil. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Stupidsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels People with hypoglycemia are hungry, which according to the 2PD Blan Blah is "wonderful" But with the Golden Bowl Chickenfeed WAY, that is not a problem because it is not based on people being hungry 24/7 so is a much better WAY. >I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success >story, just to show it can be done! Congrats! Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 >I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success > story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > someone who beat this damned disease, and I couldn't be happier about > it! Many congrats! SignatureBest regards, Michelle C., T2 diet & exercise BMI 21.5 >I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success >story, just to show it can be done! <brilliant stuff snipped> >I just had my latest round of testing this week. Total cholesterol: >138. A1c: 5.7. Every single number across the board aside from those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in the office and was 114/72 just a minute or so ago when I checked >it. Don't necessarily be too eager to go off the Metformin, it may have cardioprotective effects as well as the effect on insulin resistance and BG. Beta blockers are usually contraindicated in diabetes, first line treatment is usually an ACE inhibitor which also has cardio-and kidney-protective effects, second line (which some authorities prefer in diabetics though they're generally more expensive) would be an ARB That might be worth asking about Otherwise congratulations, snoopy happy dance available upon request Actually, after reading everyone's comments I realize I typed the wrong thing... it IS an ACE inhibitor I'm on... your post made me realize that becase my doctor said specifically I was on it for the kidney-protective effects. Sorry for the confusion, you guys had me worried there for a moment before I realize I was just a moron :) I'm not familiar with an ARB... could you fill me in? I know what you're saying about the Metformin having protective properties too... I had the same concern, but my doctor says my numbers look so good he thinks it's worth at least trying. I figure I'll give it a shot, there's nothing that says I can't go back on the meds if any problems arise. >>I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success >>story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Otherwise congratulations, snoopy happy dance available upon request >Actually, after reading everyone's comments I realize I typed the >wrong thing... it IS an ACE inhibitor I'm on... your post made me >realize that becase my doctor said specifically I was on it for the >kidney-protective effects. Sorry for the confusion, you guys had me >worried there for a moment before I realize I was just a moron :) Don't sweat it, some of the drug names are a bit similar >I'm not familiar with an ARB... could you fill me in? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiotensin_II_receptor_antagonist that'll probably do for starters, they affect the same pathway as ACE inhibitors but in a different way, names end in -sartan >I know what you're saying about the Metformin having protective >properties too... I had the same concern, but my doctor says my >numbers look so good he thinks it's worth at least trying. I figure >I'll give it a shot, there's nothing that says I can't go back on the >meds if any problems arise. That's the way to do it! >I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success >story, just to show it can be done! I applaud the story. I wish my own story was as spectacular and the solution as simple for me. Have you posted here or on mhd before? The most recent none@none.com was a guy named Tony, but that's not you is it? Where did you receive the good advice on diet and testing? Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. No, my name is Frank... I have posted here in the past, but I'm not what you'd call a regular or anything. As for the advice... it was a combination of a good dietitian when I was first diagnosed (she actually helped me turn my numbers around almost immediately) and a lot of research on my part. I used to be a pretty good athlete, was into bodybuilding for a while (never even close to competition level, but enough that I knew a reasonable amount about nutrition and such), so a lot of it was just re-learning what I had forgotten. As for weight loss, this is actually something that might be helpful to a lot of people... keep in mind I am not a doctor, dietition or expert in any way, shape or form... but, this did work for not only myself but my wife, so it might be valuable to some of you... My wife, who is also overweight (but not diabetic thankfully) and I have been struggling with losing weight for a couple of years. Now, we never put in the proper effort and discipline, which was problem #1, but we also fell into all the fad diets, all the "advice" from family and friends, none of which worked (or did briefly, then it all came back, and then some, which is all too common with diets).. Shortly after being diagnosed, I was at my wits' end with losing weight and all the failure to do so... My eating habits (aside from the previously mentioned soda, which was a HUGE problem) actually were not bad at all. There was something else missing. So, I spent a few days really reading a ton, trying to take all the different information and make sense of it all. There's *tons* of info out there, some good, some bad, much of it contradictory. One day, something just clicked: it's all simple math! For us, it all came down to understanding BMR. For those that may not be aware, BMR stands for Basal Metabolic Rate. This is essentially how many calories your body burns each day just to maintain itself... breathing, thinking, locomotion, tissue repair, all that sort of stuff. If you lay in bed all day and do nothing, you generally need that many calories to MAINTAIN your weight. Here's how it works in terms of losing weight... Say I'm 5"8, 235 pounds... I'm a 34 year old male... using any of the many BMR calculators on the web, you find I have a BMR of around 2162 calories (some calculators use different methods, so you can get slightly different results from each). You then add in some number of calories depending on how active you are. There are charts out on the Internet that give you this information, or you can find the formula that they derive the charts from and use that. In our case we were close to sedentary, which means not very much gets added on, so let's just say it's 2162 for simplicity. So, over the course of a week I need to consume 15,134 calories to maintain my weight. Now... one pound of fat contains 3500 calories. This was the other important piece of information. So, we make a simplifying assumption: that weight lose will come from fat alone. Naturally it won't, but we want the math to be simple. So, that means that over the course of a week, to lose one pound of fat, I need to create a shortage of 3500 calories. In my case, I decided on 1.5 pounds per week, or 5250 calories... my thinking was that even if I screwed up a little during the week, I should still lose a pound, so there should always be progress... and 1.5 pounds is a good, healthy number to lose each week from everything I've read... if you lose to much it tends to come back (your body going into starvation mode)... too little is just mentally depressing, we all want to see the numbers going down at a reasonable clip! Now, there's two ways to accomplish this shortage: eat less or exercise more. The best answer though is a combination of both. I think that's probably obvious to most. But, let's break down the numbers... You could simply not eat for 2.5 days! That'd get you there. That's not healthy though, nor will you be terribly happy in all probability due to the hunger pains. So instead it's easiest to break it down across a week. So, let's divide 5250 by 7, giving us 750. In other words, I need a shortage of 750 calories per day for a week. Now, I could just eat 750 less calories, which would mean no more than 1412 per day. However, most places you read will tell you that less than 1500 calories isn't generally considered good, plus it's not a whole lot of food frankly, and hey, I still like to eat! So instead, going back to the idea of it being best to eat less AND exercise, I decided to eat 500 fewer calories per day and "exercise away" the remaining 250 calories. That gives me a more reasonable 1662 calories that I have to consume each day, and 250 calories is pretty easy to burn from a good 30-minute workout. So, in the end, it's just simple math... once you have that BMR number, and you know the 3500 calories in a pound of fat fact, it's a simple calculation. Again, this is no miracle cure, nor is it new information to most people. And also once again, I'm not a doctor or anything resembling one! I'm just a guy that found something that worked for him... and it's worked for my wife too... she's down nearly 20 pounds over the past 6 months or so. Hopefully that's helpful information for someone out there. >>I thought all you folks out there might appreciate a good success >>story, just to show it can be done! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. >Now, there's two ways to accomplish this shortage: eat less or >exercise more. The best answer though is a combination of both. I >think that's probably obvious to most. But, let's break down the >numbers... Unfortunately, it's nowhere near that simple for most T2s. For a start, you put weight on - and keep it locked away - because of excess insulin due to insulin resistance. So finding a way of reducing free insulin is the first step - and that means eating less carbs. Eating few enough carbs to get you in ketosis (less than around 120g per day) has an appetite-lowering effect, as well as weaning you from the addictive effect that carbs have, because your body chemistry (leptin/ghrelin cycle) is screwed up. The other problem about pure calorie restriction is the liver dump. You get hungry; your liver dumps glucose into your system; you produce insulin to counter it; oops, back to square one. A few threads below is a complaint of mine about a liver dump following slightly earlier than usual exercise... I do a reasonable amount of exercise, but lost weight on low carb before I was fit enough to do any significant amounts. Occasionally, like yesterday, it feels counter-productive... I lost 25Kg, and have maintained it for 3 years and counting, by not worrying particularly about fat amounts, but being strict on carbs. And never going hungry! I eat 3 meals a day, and snack whenever I'm hungry to stop the liver dump issue. I only really track carbs, but total calories tend to average out around 1800, a little more than my BMR would suggest - I suspect I'm benefiting from the calorie bonus that ketosis gives. Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 What I'm talking about isn't caloric restriction though... it's just the simple math of what your body requires. You're right about carbs... that was the first thing the dietitian taught me last year and it's how she got my numbers under control initially. But, I've found that if you count calories and also be sure to make healthy decisions, you can kind of count carbs informally and it works out quite naturally. I don't agree with the ketosis part though... for a while I tried going low-carb explicitly and I found that cravings and hunger were far worse. I'm not claiming it works for everyone, but I find for me that if I stick to the 1600-1800 calorie range like I've been doing, AND I'm sure to eat every 3 hours or so, I'm virtually never hungry throughout the day. As for liver dump, I believe that's only the case if you go too low-calorie. I find my numbers are steady around 100 nearly all times of day, so clearly I'm not suffering from liver dumps. As with all things, extremes are no good. I'm in no way, shape or form advocating an unsafe low-calorie diet. But if your body needs X number of calories to maintain your weight, and you eat some relatively small number below that, make healthy food choices and exercise regularly, I really don't think the things you're talking about are an issue, certainly they don't appear to be for me, which is all I can say with any degree of certainty in the end. >>Now, there's two ways to accomplish this shortage: eat less or >>exercise more. The best answer though is a combination of both. I [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >D&E, 100ug thyroxine >Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 >As for liver dump, I believe that's only the case if you go too >low-calorie. That's not the case for me. Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 100ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.6% BMI 25 >What I'm talking about isn't caloric restriction though... it's just >the simple math of what your body requires. I know it seems simple, but, like life, it's far more complex than that. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html > One day, something just clicked: it's all simple math! > For us, it all came down to understanding BMR. For those that may not > be aware, BMR stands for Basal Metabolic Rate. This is essentially > how many calories your body burns each day just to maintain itself... > breathing, thinking, locomotion, tissue repair, all that sort of > stuff. If you lay in bed all day and do nothing, you generally need > that many calories to MAINTAIN your weight. > Here's how it works in terms of losing weight... > Say I'm 5"8, 235 pounds... I'm a 34 year old male... using any of the > many BMR calculators on the web, you find I have a BMR of around 2162 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > close to sedentary, which means not very much gets added on, so let's > just say it's 2162 for simplicity. > So, over the course of a week I need to consume 15,134 calories to > maintain my weight. > Now... one pound of fat contains 3500 calories. This was the other > important piece of information. So, we make a simplifying assumption: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > depressing, we all want to see the numbers going down at a reasonable > clip! > Now, there's two ways to accomplish this shortage: eat less or > exercise more. The best answer though is a combination of both. I > think that's probably obvious to most. But, let's break down the > numbers... > You could simply not eat for 2.5 days! That'd get you there. That's > not healthy though, nor will you be terribly happy in all probability [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1500 calories isn't generally considered good, plus it's not a whole > lot of food frankly, and hey, I still like to eat! > So instead, going back to the idea of it being best to eat less AND > exercise, I decided to eat 500 fewer calories per day and "exercise > away" the remaining 250 calories. That gives me a more reasonable > 1662 calories that I have to consume each day, and 250 calories is > pretty easy to burn from a good 30-minute workout. > So, in the end, it's just simple math... once you have that BMR > number, and you know the 3500 calories in a pound of fat fact, it's a > simple calculation. Why all the calculations? Why not simply eat less until you start losing weight at the desired rate? SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >Why all the calculations? Why not simply eat less until you start >losing weight at the desired rate? Because if you eat too little your body will go into defensive starvation mode and you will in the long-run actually gain weight. Your body is a lot smarter than you and I :) When it finds too great a caloric deficit, it thinks "crap, I'd better store whatever the hell comes through the front door". So, the best thing to do (from all I've read plus my own experience) is to do the math to figure out what the "correct" number should be. Now, if you play it safe as you suggest over time, you'd probably avoid that situation, but then you're left with a psychological problem: your progress will not be consistent in all probability and you'll get depressed and just forget it altogether. To me, it's better to start from a point of being able to say "I should be losing 1+ pound a week if I follow this math", and then if it doesn't work out (too much OR too little) then adjust from that starting point. Put it another way: if you have a bomb to disarm and there's 10 wires you might cut, you could just go ahead and cut one, and you might get lucky, even a few times out of ten, but I'd personally rather have a schematic in front of me, even if it's only a rough sketch from memory, and make a semi-informed decision based on that! >>Why all the calculations? Why not simply eat less until you start >>losing weight at the desired rate? > Because if you eat too little your body will go into defensive > starvation mode and you will in the long-run actually gain weight. That will only happen if you make too large an adjustment. People often do that who want to lose a lot of weight quickly. What I meant to suggest was simply to eat a little less, and keep lessening it little by little until you started losing a little weight. Then you stop there, losing weight slowly but surely. > Your body is a lot smarter than you and I :) When it finds too great > a caloric deficit, it thinks "crap, I'd better store whatever the hell > comes through the front door". So, the best thing to do (from all > I've read plus my own experience) is to do the math to figure out what > the "correct" number should be. Whereas I've controlled my weight successfully all my life without ever having to calculate calories, just by eating a little less whenever I started getting fatter. > Now, if you play it safe as you suggest over time, you'd probably > avoid that situation, but then you're left with a psychological > problem: your progress will not be consistent in all probability and > you'll get depressed and just forget it altogether. Of course it will be inconsistent. Life is inconsistent. But that's no problem. I simply eat a little less if I get fat, and forget about when I arrive at a good weight. I expect inconsistency and it doesn't depress me. What would depress me would be failure to lose weight while eating less and feeling uncomfortably hungry. That very depressingly did start to happen several years ago. It took me some time to discover what was happening: insulin resistance was casuing me to run high BGs in combination with high insulin levels. That in turn was causing my bosy to push BG into fat stores before my metabolic needs had been satisfied. So I was actaully hungry and gaining weight at the same time. Horrible! The solution to that problem was low carbing, or to be more accurate, low BG spiking by means of reducing carbs as and when necessary. I was then able to resume slowly losing weight by eating less without being hungry. > To me, it's > better to start from a point of being able to say "I should be losing > 1+ pound a week if I follow this math", and then if it doesn't work > out (too much OR too little) then adjust from that starting point. I don't see why that's any easier than just eating less until you meet your weight loss goal. After all if you're only gaining weight slowly you must be pretty close to a slow weight loss diet, and if you're gaining weight fast that suggests a pathological condition of some kind which should be addressed separately (like my insulin resistance). > Put it another way: if you have a bomb to disarm and there's 10 wires > you might cut, you could just go ahead and cut one, and you might get > lucky, even a few times out of ten, but I'd personally rather have a > schematic in front of me, even if it's only a rough sketch from > memory, and make a semi-informed decision based on that! Fortunately I find losing weight by eating less very much simpler than disarming a bomb :-) What's more, having an interest in the science of nutrition, I know how much really crap unscientific assumptions and guesswork underly applying generic dietary and metabolic averages to a specific person. Most of it is cod science designed to sell diets to fat people. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > >>Why all the calculations? Why not simply eat less until you start > >>losingweightat the desired rate? [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] All you need is to become a Fruitarian. That will take care of all your problems http://what-is-a-fruitarian.blogspot.com/ [snip] > All you need is to become a Fruitarian. That will take care of all > your problems > http://what-is-a-fruitarian.blogspot.con/ Eventually, yes. Dead people no longer have problems. Eating that much fruit makes it hard for type 2 diabetics to maintain the low-carb diet that helps them. > >>Why all the calculations? Why not simply eat less until you start > >>losing weight at the desired rate? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > little by little until you started losing a little weight. Then you > stop there, losing weight slowly but surely. Folks do have a need to know how much they are eating before they can even begin to eat less: http://HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Counsels Congratulations. It is always wonderful to hear a success story such as yours I wish you continued success. Remember you are not cured, eat a big piece of cake and you know what will happen,, If you stay the couse, you should be fine. great results Loretta : Congratulations. It is always wonderful to hear a success story such as : yours I wish you continued success. Remember you are not cured, eat a : big piece of cake and you know what will happen,, If you stay the : couse, you should be fine. : great results : Loretta Hi, Loretta, Great to see you posting agian. How is the baby? Wendy Wendy I am only visirting. About the boychuk, he is fabulous imho. lol Loretta >Congratulations. It is always wonderful to hear a success story such as >yours I wish you continued success. Remember you are not cured, eat a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Loretta Hey! She's back! Great to see you here, sorry we missed in NYC. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html Alan, I am sorry I missed youk but I wasnt informed until the day before and it was too late for me to make arrangements for transportation. Loretta >Alan, I am sorry I missed youk but I wasnt informed until the day before >and it was too late for me to make arrangements for transportation. > >Loretta No worries; at least we met that once and Lorraine and I won't forget that:-) As it was, I ended up meeting with lovely Wendy and her husband, and two diabetics from the Yahoo Diabetes World group and a spouse, and two of my friends separately from the CLL group. New York seemed to be a "meeting" place for me, although I also met people in the UK and Hawaii. Somehow I still got time to see the Phantom of the Opera and wander like any tourist and take in the cheap sights like the Staten Island Ferry and the Roosevelt island tramway. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Is Testing Worthwhile? and Cambodia http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.