Chicken, meatballs with pineapple and BBQ sauce
Diet Coke with lemon
4:15PM
1 Chocolate Carb One Muffin (eggs, almond flour, flax seeds, Splenda, chocolate)
Diet Coke with Splenda
7:00PM
135-minute recreational volleyball
10:00PM
2 half-pound grass-fed beef hamburgers with butter, Colby Jack cheese and mayo
Diet Coke with Splenda
NOTE: After four hours of volleyball playing on Monday night, I got in over two hours more playing time tonight. Although I was sore most of the day from the marathon play last night, it felt GREAT to get out there on the court and get my volleyball on--AGAIN! Whew! There's no greater rush than the exhilaration that comes from some fun physical activity that gives your body incredible exercise that you don't even notice until the next day. You gotta love it!
There's a lot of confusion over calories these days. A lot of people are still "stuck on stupid" when it comes to calories which is why Christine and I wanted to do a YouTube video about it. Although the so-called health "experts" want us to keep going lower and lower with our calories to create weight loss and improved health, the fact of the matter is calories are virtually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things related to nutrition. Watch our video about it here:
After my volleyball tonight, I had some of that grass-fed ground beef I purchased at the farmer's market on Saturday for the first time. WOW! The difference was measurably better and I didn't expect that. The color of the raw meat was a richer red color and the taste after grilling up a couple of burgers was spectacular. I remember one time watching somebody on The Food Network making burgers in a uniquely high-fat, low-carb way--they wrapped the meat around a block of butter! Yep, get yourself a chunk of butter and wrap the meat around it so the butter is in the middle. The result is a juicy and delicious way to enjoy your burger even more! And I did. I can't wait to have some more of that grass-fed goodness.
Special THANKS to everyone who commented about my weigh-in yesterday. Let me repeat that I never meant to give the impression that this slight weight gain over the past few months is insignificant because obviously it is VERY significant to me. I apologize if I miscommunicated that message. No, this is dead serious to me and I was simply stating in my previous commentary that I'm not gonna get all worked up about this to the point that I say the heck with low-carb. That's what most people do when the going gets rough.
That said, there are a multitude of reasons why weight gain can happen that may or may not be related to diet. I'm evaluating all of those things as we speak to rule out what could be causing the issues. I'm well aware of what the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins called for and I am blessed to have people he worked directly with and inspired at my disposal to assist with these issues I'm experiencing. As I've said before, I'm NOT giving up on this.
The question is how much weight do I need to lose to be at some semblance of a "goal?" What determines that "goal" number? I've seen ranges according to BMI as low as 170 pounds on my 6'3" frame and I don't think that's realistic. Obviously my current weight is higher than I'd prefer. If you split the difference between 248 and 170, then that's 204. Is that an ideal "goal" weight to strive for?
I can tell you after I lost my initial weight in 2004 of 180 pounds, I did strive to keep going lower and lower with my weight. At one point in 2006, I got down as low as 213...but I felt absolutely AWFUL! It was a sickening feeling getting my weight down to that level and with the added bone density in my legs especially along with the loose skin, I was probably the equivalent of a 190-pound person at that point. I didn't like the feeling and pushed my weight back up into the 220s again before I felt right again.
So, maybe my goal should be to get back into the 220s and just stay there. I'm content, active, and healthy with my low-carb lifestyle and that goal is not out of reach at all right now. Regardless of what happens, I'm certainly never giving up. You don't know me very well if you think that's gonna happen. But I can tell you that with each new day it's a learning experience that I participate in here and I'm happy to share it with you openly and honestly in all that I do.
Thanks so much for your care and concern. I really appreciate you reading and learning with me!
Posts
33 comments:
Jimmy, I think the reason I'm confused is that is seemed like you *had* figured out a way to lose weight at the end of the year during your Sweet-free challenge. Once you stopped that, the weight started coming back on. Why are you resistant to the idea that it might be as simple as that? Does it have to do with what Harry pointed out yesterday, that that version of the diet is just not as pleasurable for you? If so, then maybe you should just say that.
Glad to hear that you are concerned with the upward trend in your weight. No doubt it is a complicated issue and one that I am struggling with as well. Judging by photos that i've seen on your site, such notable low-carb leaders as Dana Carpenter, Dr. Mary Vernon and Laura Dolson all seem to be stuggling mightily with this issue as well. It makes one wonder what the problem is..too many products..too many calories..not enough exercise...too much stress.. out of whack hormones..artificial sweetners (yes, Didirina, we all know your take on that one)..not enough water..too much sodium..genetics.. I mean the list goes on and on. I don't know how those ladies got to be so big if "living la vida low carb" is all it takes. Jimmy, at the rate of plus 13 pounds every three months you may very well be back to square one in just about three years unless something turns around and soon. So yes this is a very serious issue and I am glad that you recognize that. jade
THANKS Jade! Your assumption is this trend upward will continue at the same or even greater pace in the coming years and I think that's pretty shortsighted on your part. Looking at it from that perspective, I weighed 300 pounds at this time in June 2004. I the five years since that time, I am down to 248 pounds--an average loss of ten pounds every year since! That's pretty good. :)
Of course, even if we look at the 230 goal I hit at the end of 2004, I'm still only up 18 pounds in the 4 1/2 years since--that's just four pounds a year average and it would take 40 more years for me to gain back all that I lost in 2004. So I'll be a 410-pound 87-year old. LOL! Just kidding.
Like I said, I'm not gonna sit here worrying about why my weight is doing what it's doing. I'm just gonna keep plugging away at it living my life one day at a time--and LOVING it!
THANKS Justine! While it's true that I showed marginal success cutting out anything with a sweet taste on my tongue, that experiment made me miserable. If life isn't worth enjoying while still remaining healthy, then what's the purpose in doing it? I'd rather eat sugar-free foods and beverages that are helping me keep my health in order than to suffer through going without those for the illusion that I'm somehow better off without them.
Jimmy,
I think you should consider eating more small meals spaced out better through the day. You ‘fasted’ from 6pm June 1 to noon on June 2. Where do you think the protein for gluconeogenesis in the morning of the 2nd came from? That’s right, it came from you muscles! Energy drinks are not the way to get a kick-start in the morning. A breakfast containing protein is the way to do it.
THANKS Coyote! I used to eat a bunch of frequent small meals throughout the day, but that was just plain silly since there was no biological need for me to consume food when I didn't need any. What about the people who do a deliberate intermittent fast (IF) as promoted by people like Dr. Mike Eades, Mark Sisson, and Art DeVany? That's what they are doing going without food for a period of 24 hours for health and weight loss. Are you gonna tell THEM they are leeching protein from their muscles? I think not.
A calorie is a calorie no matter how you slice it.Low carb diets are supposed to make you saited and eat less = calorie defict. I lost weight on low carb because I ate less, it worked. But eventually weight loss slowed like it does on all diets.
Slow Metabolism.
This is just not my opinion by the way. Read William Banting's letter on corpulance. His version of low carb created a calorie deficit.
I read your blogs, and listen to the podcasts, even watch you on youtube. I love low-carb! I also try my hand at Intermittent Fasting - mostly at work when it's not possible to eat...But yet sometimes I gain a random pound or two. I guess it's like anything else. It seems to come and go for reasons (or combinations of reasons) of it's own. We just don't know all there is to know about weight loss, or the body!
That's exactly right, Anne! I have three friends who are prominent in the low-carb world who dealt with a variety of health issues unrelated to their diet that made them gain weight: one had a tumor pushing against the pancreas excreting constant insulin, another had a growth inside the stomach that made the belly look fat, and the third experienced carbon monoxide poisoning that led to a myriad of health issues. We never can tell why our weight and health does what it does, so automatically assuming you know why weight gain happens is a bit pompous. I appreciate you making this point.
Scott, Banting may have started the low-carb revolution in earnest, but we've come a long way in our understanding of livin' la vida low-carb since. And creating a calorie deficit is NOT a part of the equation.
Scott, I wont be refuting your way of thinking that calorie is a calorie is a calorie. But you couldnt be more wrong when it comes to my body for one example. I will tell you why. If I ate 300 worth of calories from grilled chicken and sautted brocoli it would take my body at least 10 percent and even up to 20 for some to digest that chicken and brocoli. Many resons, I wont go into all physiological details here. Grilled chicken is composed almost fully of complete amino acid which are 12 of them and it takes a lot of digestive work to break that breat into individual amino acid to be utilized for metabolic thermoregulation. Brocoli has a lot of fiber and rouphage which will take some calories out of the whole eqasion to use to digest it. Then next day I decide to eat 300 calories of italian ice which is nothing but sugar and water. My body will use almost no energy to digest the sugar and will store as glycogen right away unless I use it within 24 hours for burning or other purposes. So you are telling me that eating grilled chicken with brocoli vs italian ices will yeild same result? Tell it to my body or tell it to any bodybuilder! It is the biggest misconception out there about how calories are used. Diffirent micronutrients are burnt at different rate and use different mechanism. Have you ever tried to keep the fire going? Try to throw dry wood vs wet wood and see how fast dry woos burns compared to wet wood. After all according to you they should be burning at same rate becuase its same caloric eqivalent.
Jimmy,
Yes, muscles provide the protein. As for IF, Dr. Mike and other health professionals have backed off their initial enthusiasm for IF especially for weight loss. Perhaps you haven’t kept up on the subject. Dr. Mike wrote this guest article for Tim Ferriss’ blog: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/03/03/real-life-extension-caloric-restriction-or-intermittent-fasting-part-2/
He concluded:
"It’s looking like the intermittent fast is another of those ideas in science that looks good in animal studies then not so good in human studies, proving once again that rats and mice aren’t simply furry little humans. And it appears - for humans, at least - that the intermittent fast is indeed beginning to look like the reality of a late-night gimmicky infomercial: long on promises, short on delivery. I suspect that it is also a cautionary tale about the applicability of caloric restriction studies to humans."
We will have to agree to diagree then.
Liftman from Iron magazine forum explains it pretty well.
"To get to your original question about cals in ketosis, in my experiance the answer is yes you still need to be in cal reduction to get really lean. Here is the deal, when your body is running on glucose (non ketosis) excess cals get stored as fat. While in ketosis fat gets converted to ketones, to be used as fuel. After fat is converted to a ketone it can only be used as fuel by the body or it gets exspelled by the body in your urine or breath. That why people in ketosis have bad breath. LOL. Now this is the key to your question, when you get into ketosis all the fat you put in your body gets converted to ketones for fuel and will not be stored as fat. So in theroy you could eat 4000 cals of fat and not get fatter. Now notice I said "fatter" because if you eat that much fat your body will just use the fat you are eating as fuel and not use your stored fat, or just a small amount anyway. If you really want to stoke the fat burning fire keep the cals low and you body will be forced to pull from your stored fat, convert it to ketones, then use it for fuel, or get rid of it. One more thing I will mention is after you are in ketosis your fat grams are no longer 9 cals each, they are about 7 cals each because of the ketone convertion process. So, in theroy, if your maintance cals are 2000 a day, and you go zero carbs co get into ketosis, as soon as you get into ketosis it is like you dropped your cals without changing your food intake.
For axample if you are eating the following; 133 grams of fat (133 x 9 = 1197 cals), 195 grams of protein (195 x 4 = 780 cals) and no more than 10 grams of carbs (10 x 4 = 40 cals) that comes out to about 2017 cals total while not in ketosis.
Now take the same diet but now in ketosis
133 grams of fat (133 x 7 = 931 cals), 195 grams of protein (195 x 4 = 780 cals) and no more than 10 grams of carbs (10 x 4 = 40 cals) that comes out to only 1751 cals total, that down 250 cals and you didn't change your food intake."
Thanks for the quote you provided from Liftman, although his response regarding ketosis and calories is not quite accurate. My understanding is that when you eschew the carbs as your fuel source and begin consuming fat instead, both the stored and dietary fat are simultaneously converted into ketones the body can use or be excreted as he noted. It doesn't have to burn through the fat you eat before the fat stored in your body can be used.
Otherwise, the best diet would be a low-carb, low-fat diet which in essence would be a high-fat, low-carb diet if the person is especially obese. But for most people, this would set them up for disaster since excessive protein turns to glucose in the body and the satiating powers of fat would be lost eating this way. I think I'll be sticking with my high-fat, low-carb lifestyle and let the calories work themselves out naturally as I stated in the video.
Coyote, I understand Eades has backed off slightly from his enthusiasm about IF, but Mark Sisson talks about it quite prominently in his new book THE PRIMAL BLUEPRINT and Art DeVany is working on his EVOLUTIONARY FITNESS book that will also contain information on intermittent fasting for weight and fat loss. So the concept is still alive and well out there.
I do somewhat agree with Dr. Mike that IF is somewhat "gimmicky," but it is working for some people. I couldn't do it by forcing the issue. If I get hungry, then I need to eat. If I'm not hungry, then I don't need to eat. It's that simple.
"Then next day I decide to eat 300 calories of italian ice which is nothing but sugar and water. My body will use almost no energy to digest the sugar and will store as glycogen right away unless I use it within 24 hours for burning or other purposes. So you are telling me that eating grilled chicken with brocoli vs italian ices will yeild same result?"
No Vadim, you are correct, quality does matter imo.
I would think eating the same amount of steak one day and HO Ho's the next would have different results.
"Otherwise, the best diet would be a low-carb, low-fat diet which in essence would be a high-fat, low-carb diet if the person is especially obese. But for most people, this would set them up for disaster since excessive protein turns to glucose in the body and the satiating powers of fat would be lost eating this way."
What about modified protein for the short term ?
I listened to your podcast with Lyle McDonald by the way,it was very good.Check out his Rapid Fat loss Plan.
THANKS again, Scott! I eat a high-fat, moderate protein, low-carb diet just about all the time, not just for the short term. Glad you liked the McDonald interview. He's an interesting learned man.
"It doesn't have to burn through the fat you eat before the fat stored in your body can be used."
Quite correct. In Good Calories Bad Calories they discovered that your body does not know the difference between endogenous sources of fat and exogenous sources of fat. The fat in your fat tissues is constantly breaking down and going into the blood stream and vice versa. Fat tissue is NOT a static storage system.
"I used to eat a bunch of frequent small meals throughout the day, but that was just plain silly since there was no biological need for me to consume food when I didn't need any. What about the people who do a deliberate intermittent fast (IF) as promoted by people like Dr. Mike Eades, Mark Sisson, and Art DeVany? That's what they are doing going without food for a period of 24 hours for health and weight loss. Are you gonna tell THEM they are leeching protein from their muscles? I think not."
: SHUDDER :
Jimmy, I know you don't support Kimkins but you sounded just like her there. Get her lying rhetoric out of your head! I know it takes effort to erase her persuasive lies, but it's important. You can see where HER diet advice gets people, especially her. No, I am not saying your diet is anything like Kimkins, but your thought processes reflect your exposure to it.
YES, I would say the experts you mentioned are leeching protein from their muscles when intermittent fasting. While they may do intermittent fasting, you are making it a pretty regular practice. While those guys may have a lot to teach all of us, you can't take their advice out of context and pick & choose what suits a particular practice of yours. The context matters very much.
Have you read the articles at leadwiththediet.com? Good stuff over there.
Good luck to you.
From Dr. Eades' blog, on calories and low carb:
Low carb and calories, part 2
"As you may recall from the earlier post, a lowered insulin levels opens the door to the fat cells, allowing fat to come out to be burned. If your dietary intake meets all your body’s energy needs, however, your body will simply use these dietary calories and leave the calories in your fat cells alone. And you won’t lose. But lowered insulin levels pretty much prevents fat from going into the fat cells, so even if your caloric intake goes up - as long as your insulin stays low - you won’t store more fat in the fat cells. And your weight will stay the same."
Just to be argumentative, JD,
:-)
In one way, your body does know the difference between dietary fat and endogenous fat. I discussed it on my blog. Here is the link, if you're interested. It explains why low-carbers have to eat fat to lose fat.
I appreciate your comments OhYeahBabe, but I can assure you that Heidi Diaz does not have any bearing on what I think about ANYTHING, much less diet and health. My philosophy on these things has been shaped by the people I have interviewed on my podcast show for the past three years as well as my own personal research of the subject matter. I haven't taken anything "out of context" and I encourage you to contact Mark Sisson at "Mark's Daily Apple" and Art DeVany at "Evolutionary Fitness" if you think they're wrong.
Jimmy,
Since you brought it up. ;) I'm curious what you think about Dr. Eades view that a calorie deficit is what causes weight loss on a low carb diet? He says (like Didirina pointed out) that a person won't GAIN weight not matter how many calories they eat (without eating carbs and raising insulin) but a person WON’T LOSE weight without creating a calorie deficit. He mentions this throughout both his books but one example is on page 319 in Protein Power Lifeplan.
He's pretty explicit and consistent about this. Do you disagree?
Justin, this is a FANTASTIC conversation to have and I'd love to hear a debate between Dr. Mike Eades and Dr. James Carlson on the 2010 Low-Carb Cruise to the Bahamas about this subject. Personally, I don't think calories matter when it comes to weight loss. Now, that's not to say you can just go haywire eating them even on low-carb. But I think, as I noted in the video, that quality of calories from fat and protein is much more indicative of the ability to shed excess body fat than total calories. There's room to debate the issue, but that's what I believe is true.
I would LOVE to hear that debate. I wish I was going with you guys but we are going on a cruise out of Galveston in December.
That's too bad, Justin! We'd LOVE to have you! :)
"As you may recall from the earlier post, a lowered insulin levels opens the door to the fat cells, allowing fat to come out to be burned. If your dietary intake meets all your body’s energy needs, however, your body will simply use these dietary calories and leave the calories in your fat cells alone. And you won’t lose. But lowered insulin levels pretty much prevents fat from going into the fat cells, so even if your caloric intake goes up - as long as your insulin stays low - you won’t store more fat in the fat cells. And your weight will stay the same."
I would suggest reading Anthony Calpo's responce to this for another perspective, it's called They_are_all_Mad a free download.
Anthony Colpo's has an interesting twist on low carb, but I wonder how he would explain why I was able to lose 70lbs. on a low carb plan (approx. 30gm/day) with NO exercise (and with muscular dystrophy), the weight I had gained eating a higher carb (and by no means 400gms/day) diet. There was no appreciable calorie cut either. He may be right along the lines of some people not having to cut carbs down to 20gms. to lose weight (also the position of the authors of Life Without Bread), and I believe that health benefits are manifested by reducing them to under 100, but I find greater satiety in eating more fat than carbs, so I'd rather eat less than 50gm./day.
Also:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolic-advantage/anthony-colpo-a-man-obsessed/
Colpo certainly has no credibility in the low-carb community after this tirade over Dr. Eades' comments. I like his previous writings, but that man is whacked!
As far as losing muscle on intermittent fasting goes, Jon Benson of "Eat, Stop, Eat" says that as long as you train with resistance, you won't lose muscle, even while fasting. What's everyone's take on that?
TigerEyes, I never have been able to try the raw milk yet. They've been out every time I've gone to pick some up. I will soon.
Post a Comment