12:01 AM, Friday, March 21st, 2013:
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.
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.
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.