I’m saying NOTHING about the numbers 2000 or 2001

I assure you, this is NOT another self-congratulatory post featuring the number 2000 or the number 2001.

This is a self-congratulatory post featuring the number 6, the number 0.8, and the number 10.

6: this is the number of pounds I’ve lost in five days of low-carb dieting.
0.8: this is the number of ounces I’m losing per hour, on the average, during that time.
10: this is the number of hours it takes me to lose half a pound, on the average, during that time.

I feel great. I’m still a little tired, but part of that is the fact that I’m fighting a cold, and part of it is the fact that four and a half months of bad sleep, diet, and exercise habits takes some time to undo. But I’m on track for shedding almost all of my unwanted pounds in time for some Christmas feasting. I’ll probably be down a total of 10 pounds by the end of next week, and down another 8 by Christmas Eve.

A few more numbers: I started at 190.5 pounds before beginning the diet. My short-term goal is to get back down below 175. Eventually I want to get down below 165, but I’ve put on enough muscle since the days when I weighed 150 that I think 165 may actually be an extremely lean weight for me. Especially if I keep up with the running, swimming, and weight training. And the weight training is critical, because I need to repair my right rotating shoulder cuff (the tendons, ligaments, and muscle-y bits that keep the humerus socketed, and which get torn or mangled in a separated shoulder injury).

I’ve had a few chupaquesos. I’ve fried several kinds of cheese in different ways. I’ve had eggs, butter, bacon, sausage, cream, chicken, pork, spinach, celery, sugar-free jello, diet sodas, lots and LOTS of water, and a tasty Subway low-carb wrap over the last week. I’m still good to go. I treated myself to a high-fiber, artificially-sweetened muesli last night, and I’m pleased to see that it did NOT knock me out of ketosis. Eventually I’ll reach the point where I can put grains back on the menu regularly. Starches and sugars, well… they may be a once-a-week thing even after I hit my target weight. That stuff just isn’t GOOD for me.

Sandra came back from a breakfast party this morning, and commented that my face looks thinner. It makes sense. The pounds I put on in the last four months weren’t going to my belly. They were camoflaging themselves in all kinds of places, giving me that soft, pudgy look that supermodels worldwide would sooner kill themselves than have to endure for a single minute. The belly fat (AKA: Howard’s Winter Survival Kit) needs to go, too, but I suspect that as long as it’s been around, it’ll be the last to go, and that’ll be a hard fight.


11 thoughts on “I’m saying NOTHING about the numbers 2000 or 2001”

    1. *L* Considering that this was a post almost entirely about weight loss, that 2000 sort of threw me off! Generally you don’t tell someone who’s dieting, “Congrats on hitting 2000!” *chuckle*

      1. Yeah, I guess to me the non-announcement seemed pretty significant. The comment following immediately the post that was actually more to do with weight-loss? Kinda funny.

  1. Congrats. I hope you manage to stick with it, that’s usually the hardest part of a diet. Kudos on the exercise as well, and don’t forget that if you’re not losing weight all that fast, some of it is from putting on muscle mass. 🙂

    1. Re: Good luck

      *sigh* Oh how I wish people would educate themselves better about the word Ketsis.

      Good job Howard. I’m pulling for you. Need any recipe ideas or sites? I’ve got TONS.

    2. Re: Good luck

      I’m going to tell you three things, :

      1) I deleted your second post for being flamey about a typo. I ALMOST deleted your first one. This is a no-bashing-low-carb zone. Don’t forget that, or I won’t just delete your posts — I’ll ban you.

      2) Burning body fat requires your liver to turn fats into fuel, and your kidneys having to process the “smoke” after that fuel is burned. ANY diet that results in weight loss from fat burning will do this. This is why any such diet will require you to increase your water intake (except a water-loss diet, which is how you can lose 10 pounds in 24 hours for a photo shoot if you’re a stupid supermodel). More water means more diluted byproducts, which in turn means less possibility for kidney stones, which are really the only risk. And they’re a remote one. Regardless, I’m drinking lots of water.

      3) Your first post was unsupported anecdotal hype, likely in the service of “conventional wisdom” which says fat is bad, and as such was wrong on all pertinent points. I’m letting it slide this time. But don’t post again in this thread (ESPECIALLY not in support of your first post. You’ve lost that privelege). You’re on probation, because you’ve made me grumpy.


  2. This post is brought to you by the numbers 6, 0.8, and 10, and NOT by the numbers 2000 or 2001. We’re not learning those today, kids.

    Sunny day, sweepin’ the clouds away
    On my way to stop my enemies
    Can you tell me how to get
    How to get some mercenaries

  3. Glad to see this on all points (and also the non-points – *grin*). Not to worry; I’m not going to bash low-carb. (No-carb would be another matter – I personally don’t feel it’s entirely healthy to go to extremes, and some of the things I’ve seen advocated in support of those extremes are decidedly unhealthy. It strikes me that you’re approaching this in a sensible, long-term-conscious fashion.)

    Agreed that dropping back below 165 may not be a realistic goal – I’m in that same boat myself, as I know I’ve got more muscle on my frame (and more frame, for that matter) than I did in those far-gone days. As a result, I’m not fixating quite so much on those numbers – I’ll be satisfied if I can manage to drop my waist size back into that range, even if it means I’m still ten to fifteen pounds heavier than I was *mumble*-teen years ago.

    As far as the Winter Survival Kit goes… I think this might be considered a bit of bad news, or maybe not. It depends on how you choose to take it, really. But when I first started actually trying to shed excess fuel (hey, it sounds better that way, and it is the truth, in a fashion), I was told this: when you put fat on, the first place it goes is the middle, and it spreads out from there. When you lose fat, it goes from the extremities first (hands and feet, if you’ve let it get to the point of morbidity, then face, arms, and legs) before you can finally start getting rid of the central deposits. The only real exception to that process is if you use surgery to do the job – liposuction and such. And the problem with those methods is that, if you don’t take drastic steps to maintain it, the bodily deposits will rearrange to put the bulk of it right back where you just had it removed – the body wants to store its primary supply of extra fuel in that location. So yes, you can expect that to be the last to go. The good side is that, once you’ve got the momentum built up, if you maintain it the fight might not be as hard as you’re expecting.

    I’ve finally reached that point myself, and I’ve lost four inches in the last six months. It is possible. But there’s a down side to that, too. I’m finally burning off the gut, but I’ve reached the point where I really don’t think I’m likely to lose too much more weight. If I’m reading things correctly, I may be able to drop another ten to fifteen… but I think I’m more likely to either stay at my current weight, or maybe even put some of it back on. But this will be healthier weight – muscle, rather than fat.

    It can be done! Don’t give up – keep going. I’ll be here ready to cheer you on, if you think it’ll help. And in any case, the results are definitely worth it. (My knees don’t hurt any more! Woo hoo!) So do it, m’friend. You’ll enjoy the results, I’m certain.

Comments are closed.