Ya know, I
probably need to collect all the weight-loss entries
and make a section on the site. People always ask for
tips or secrets and they aren't big fans of:
there aren't any. This video pretty much says it all,
but that won't stop me from writing an incredibly
detailed and long winded of account of all my
discoveries. ;)
That being said,
over the past dozen years I have learned more and
more about the simplicity of weight loss (don't
confuse that with ease) as it pertains to me and
others. I now know (nearly down to the exact calorie)
what I can eat to maintain any weight for any amount
of time. I also have an insanely slow metabolism,
but strangely? That only seems to affect the rate at
which I burn calories through extra physical activity,
not how much I need to maintain or lose. Meaning,
whereas most people burn X amount of calories after a
30 minute run, I most definitely do not. If my
calculations are correct...
...when this
sucker hits 88 mph, you're gonna see some serious
shit.
Ahem, sorry, had
to do it...
...if my
calculations are correct, because of my slow
metabolism, my body burns about HALF what a normal
person's body does doing similar activity. If this
were 5000 years ago? That would make me Cave Man of
the year. It explains why I was able to run three
miles after I had fasted for 2 days last year: my
body simply doesn't need much fuel to "go". I
absolutely have the Cave Man body. I can eat 50
chicken nuggets at one sitting with no problem, and
also fast for 3 days with no problem. It's spooky. And
in my latest workout/diet routine I put that to
the test for sure.
For nearly 3 weeks
I frustratingly stayed within 1 pound of 157 even
though I was eating under 1500 calories a day
(averaging around 1430) and was running (get this) a
10K every other day. Over 6 miles and often over 7 and
even 8.5 one time. It didn't matter how active
I was, because the amount I was eating was
actually a little OVER what I should be eating to
maintain 157 pounds.
So I stopped running
and put my calories to 1100 a day and guess what? Back
to my normal 1 to 1.5% a week loss. It's ALLLLLLLLLL
diet. Weight loss is literally 80% diet and 20%
activity. And the other kicker? Your calorie intake to
maintain your weight? Drops rapidly as your weight
drops. For example.....
If I wanted
to maintain a 200 pound weight? I would simply eat
2500 calories every single day. I would gain
those 50 pounds in probably 2-3 months... yet
I would PLATEAU at that weight even though
I maintained a strict 2500 calories a day. I
would instantly start to lose weight the moment
I went under 2500 calories a day once I was
200 pounds. The amount I would lose would depend
on the weight I was at. If I ate around 2000
calories a day? I'd plateau right around 185. Strange,
isn't it? It has taken me 13 freaking years of logging
and studying and counting to finally understand this.
Physical activity has hardly ANY affect one way or
another. Yes, it may boost your metabolism for a short
period of time during and directly after the workout,
but in the long run? It's calories in and calories
out.
So when
I started focusing on my weight again after the
holidays (where I knowingly and almost instantly
gained 20 pounds - lol) I was at 171.6. At that
weight, I saw a nice steady loss eating about
1400 calories a day. But as I crossed 160? Not true.
At 158-160? I MAINTAINED my weight eating
1400 calories a day. I had to eat 1200 calories to see
any shift, and by 155? 1100 or less to see any weight
loss to reach my goal of 150. That's stunning to me.
My body wants so desperately to store fat at all times
that only the strictest possible accounting of my
calories will allow me to maintain.
Now that I'm in
the 150-155 zone? I cannot eat over 1300 calories
in one day or I will gain weight.
WHAT THE BALLS? I would love to know how I
can change this about my body. Guys, I run 10k (6
1/4 miles) every 2 or 3 days. And on the days off? I
stay pretty active thanks to the fuelband, yet still?
If I eat 1400 calories for a couple days in a
row? I GAIN WEIGHT. <shakes head> It's stunning
to me that this is true. These calorie amounts are SO
low. People with high metabolisms? They can EASILY eat
2500 calories a day, and maintain a healthy weight. I
know it, I've seen it, and those people cannot
understand how someone like me has to work so hard.
However, the numbers don't lie... only every other
piece of information on the internet seems
to.
(sigh)
This "starvation
mode" myth? Is absolute horseshit. It just is.
I mean, if I read one more article telling
me that I have to eat 6 meals throughout the day
and I have to have at least 1800 calories or my
body will store fat... for fuck's sake people. It
isn't actually TRUE and I have all the
documentation to prove it. And if it isn't true for
me, and I am human, than it isn't true for other
people either. These universal calorie counts out
there are absolutely ludicrous. Even the machines that
tell you how many calories you burn are innacurate.
Unless it asks you your weight, age, sex, body fat %
it's not even close. Every pound you lose or gain
changes what you burn, how you burn, what you need to
eat, etc. I've kept chart after chart, year after
year... and the numbers are clear. My metabolism is
incredible at storing fat. What we consider
innefficient in the 21st Century has been
efficient every other century of human
existence. Someone with my "slow" metabolism 5000
years ago was a LEADER. Someone with a "fast"
metabolism 5000 years ago? Someone who burned calories
at lightening speed and had to eat 3000 calories a day
to survive? He died. Could it be that our species has
evolved to make more people like me and thin out the
"fast" metabolism crowd? We blame all the junk
food (which clearly has jumped exponentially in
the past 100 years), but could a good chunk of those,
uhm, "metabolizers" just be selectively dying off? I'm
starting to wonder.
Quick aside:
Which has more to do why voluptuous women were
found more attractive back in the day: it was a
sign of wealth and it was unique. Now? Skinny is a
sign of wealth and unique because the poor and
middle-class are all fat. It's not misogyny, it's a
sign of the times.
Weird entry. But
an exciting one for me because I continually
prove the majority of "weight loss" experts
wrong. And hell I've gotten it down to such a science
that I've actually even proved my initial entries in
2001 regarding weight loss wrong. Back when
I thought you had to have 30 minutes of
aerobic exercise a day. No you don't. You just have to
find your calorie intake to maintain your weight and
then go a bit lower. And, of course, you have to
adjust it as you lose. And I think the best way
to wrap your head around all of this? Is to stop
looking at weight as good or bad and start looking at
them the way we did 2000 years ago when a fat guy was
a badass. Imagine trying to maintain a heavy weight!
How did that badass do that? He had to eat X amount of
calories EVERY DAY! If he ate even 200 calories
less than that, he'd lose some of his giant size! Et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. When you think of it
that way, it makes perfect sense that to stay at 150 I
have to eat 1200 calories a day. 150 is skinny for me
and damn near impossible for my metabolism. But beyond
my own slow metabolism, when you weigh less, you
simply don't need as many calories to function or even
be active. <shrugs> It is what it is. It's
SCIENCE. (sigh)
One final thing I
have to add into this round of "how your body works",
is that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. That's
why the metric of "calorie" is so goddamned
perfect. Thank Wilbur O. Atwater for inadvertently
figuring out the measurement (google it for all sorts
of nerdy facts) because it's genius. And every person
that tells you what you can and can't eat is
completely full of shit, your body honestly doesn't
know. Yes certain things you put in your body may
affect how certain organs run, etc. But as far as
burning excess fat? Doesn't matter. Different types of
foods may make you personally feel one way or another,
but that's up to YOU to figure out, it's not true for
everyone even if there's some anecdotal "study"
finding similarities. I eat one potato chip and
I want 1000, but that doesn't make the calorie in
a potato chip worse than a calorie in a carrot.
A calore is a calorie is a calorie. For example?
Nearly every night this go-round I ate a serving of
the worst cereal I could find. All of which are
about 100 calories. Yup. The sugariest,
most-processed, seemingly worst shit on the planet? Is
actually an awesome low-calorie snack if you're
craving some sugar late at night (or anytime, the
"when you eat" thing is a total myth as well). There's
no density to cereal to speak of and the result is a
perfect, airy snack. A calorie is a calorie is a
calorie. Just account for what you eat. Doesn't matter
if it's high fructose, doesn't matter if it's low
nutrition, your body will adapt in the short-term and
burn fat. You can burn fat eating twinkies every day
if you want to. In fact, wow:
There goes my
claim to fame. I was thinking: "hmmm,
I bet I could do a super size-me backwards
eating big macs and lose weight..." A nutritionist
pretty much did just that. It's CALORIES PEOPLE. If
I was 200 pounds I could eat 3 big macs a
day and lose weight... up to a point. I'd probably
plateau around 175 pounds eating 1650 calories a day.
It's all science and it has already been figured out!
And these days? Do you know how easy it is to count
calories? Google ANYTHING YOU'RE EATING,
anywhere you are, at any moment... and get it
instantly (or write it down and look it up when you
get home if you don't have a smartphone you "have to
find an excuse" mofos). All the nuances of "weight
loss" that you read online or in magazines are
bullshit to sell you shit. Tips, secrets, etc:
worthless. Every single person reading this knows how
to lose weight, and ironically the bigger you are? The
easier it is. It gets progressively more restrictive
the more you lose.
And one final,
final, final thing (will it ever be final? Of course
not) - the nutritionist even touches on this in the
article - being and eating "healthy" has nothing
to do with your weight. You can eat nothing but fruits
and vegetables and lean meats and gain weight or be 50
pounds overweight. Weight loss and "eating
healthy" are two COMPLETELY different subjects
that can sometimes intersect, but once again your
portions will always be the final determiner. Just
cause the fruit is natural doesn't mean it isn't a ton
of sugar and a ton of calories if you eat an entire
box of strawberries. If you eat too many
"healthy" foods you will gain weight. If you eat
too little "unhealthy" foods you will lose
weight. It also varies from person to person how you
react to foods. As I said above, some people
have one donut and are fine, some people eat one...
right before they NEED 7. Some people take
ALL sugar out of their diet, then have a diet
coke and even the HINT of sweetness makes them
fly off the wagon and have a pint of ice cream. That's
not the diet coke's problem, it's their problem. Some
people reward themselves every weekend by pigging out
and eat so well and controlled during the week that it
evens out. Hell, even I can do that. If
I have a 3000 calorie meal? I eat 1100-1200 for
awhile and I'll even out eventually. It's honestly
that simple, and if you care enough? You'll become
accountable to what you're eating and actually COUNT
CALORIES.
...and once you
do? You will be floored how many calories are in
certain things. Talya has been logging hers the past
month and we are both routinely shocked at what is
hidden in food. A pack of two twinkies?
THREE HUNDRED. That's about 75 calories a BITE.
I mean that's the same as TWENTY spoonfuls of
brown sugar. TWENTY! So what the fuck is IN a twinkie?
LMAO. One breadstick at the Olive Garden? ONE? 150.
Mutha. Fucka. Once you have this knowledge? You know
the foods to avoid because they don't seem worth
spending your daily calories on. Takes about two
seconds to avoid a package of twinkies if it would
leave you with 900 calories left for the entire day.
Duh.
But again, what
I'm saying and what actual nutritionists say? Won't
sell any books. Because it's not fun. It's not what
people want to hear. They heard aspartame is bad, and
that "sugar in the raw" is healthy and as long as you
avoid all processed foods you'll be fine and really -
if you just workout you can eat anything and
YADDA YADDA YADDA YADDA. None of it is
actually true. None of it. Calories in, calories out.
The rest is a distraction to sell you a gym
membership, a book, a weight loss system, a packet of
REAL sugar. If society is going one way? There's a
company that will jump on it. Remember the low-fat
craze of the early 90s? When snackwells came in with
low fat cookies that had a RIDICULOUS amount of
calories, but they made a FORTUNE? All that did was
set-up the next wave where someone
BLEW EVERYONE'S MIND by saying "fat
doesn't make you fat!" but then going into a long list
of TYPES of fat... blah blah blah. The thing is?
Sure cholesterol plays a part, but the reason it plays
a part? Is because you have 2 days worth of food in
one day. If you just ate the right amount of food
every day, cholesterol wouldn't matter until you were
DEAD. It comes up earlier because we eat
SO GODDAMN MUCH FOOD. We eat
SO MUCH that now we have NEW shit to worry
about because we've eaten 80 years of food in 35
years. If you eat 100 years worth of french fries,
your heart is probably gonna have some issues. It
doesn't make french fries bad -
STOP EATING SO FUCKING MANY OF THEM.
Ok, now I'm
actually talking to my computer screen. (sigh). In 24
hours I'm gonna go from sunny and 75 to 29 and
snowing. There's no place like home.
<smile>
Adam
PS - and if we all
die in some horrible disaster (saying that just
assured it won't happen), I'm gonna leave The Journey
thinking I would've looked like this for more
than about 15 minutes before I gained 10 pounds.
:-)
Man my duck feet
are extreme. Too many years doin' the "backwards legs"
trick as a kid. Don't do that Adam! They'll
STICK like that. Yup. They did.
