2 years later, 380 pounds lost

Houston Chronicle ^ | Jan. 1, 2006 | MICHAEL PRECKER

[lainie]

What a transformation. Though, you can see his spirit even in the before pictures. But, good for him!!

[Ninian Dryhope]

"But you don't want to eat so little that your body decides to consume your muscle tissue for fuel."

Which is why the protein sparing modified fast spares muscle tissue and is protein sparing at less than 800 KC per day, as long as the necessary amount of protein is consumed, about 1.3 grams per kilogram of ideal bodyweight, or about 90 grams.

They have done a lot of research on this and they have found when people take in this much protein, they do not lose protein from muscle.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"My mom lost 90 pounds in 3 months. She did it by eating only one hot-fudge sundae a day (Dairy Queen), doing farm work and taking vitamins."

Well, I have always maintained that it is possible to lose weight by eating nothing but snicker bars, as long as one only ate one a day, when people try to tell me about diets based on avoiding this or the other types of food, but your mother put it to the test and showed that it can be done. I guess that the farm work burned the calories and the the vitamins kept her from being too malnourished.

I think we are one whole heck of a lot more adaptable in what we are able to live on than one would think by reading the medical literature. We had to be able to get along for a pretty long time on some pretty unbalanced diets, or we would not have been able to survive in so many different environments for so long. All the people who did not have the genes to be able to get along for a pretty long time without much to eat, died out a long time ago.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"look like a walk in the park."

Or a bunch of walks in the park.

[Feiny]

I decided to do it as an email to many people so she wouldn't think I singled her out....I included all immediate family members.

Good luck with your goals. I am blessed with only needing to lose about 10 or 15 pounds....but it is soooo hard after 35 to take off even 5 pounds. I have always excersized alot & ate healthy....but then I had a foot injury and couldn't train for over a year.

[ByDesign]

"You should probably eat 1200 calories a day minimum to avoid going into starvation mode, which would slow down your metabolism."

"I do not believe that is true for a minute. Look at the POWs. They got very few calories and they lost lots of weight.""

That's a very poor example, lol. Sorry, but that's just goofy.

The advice I've read on caloric intake is mutliplying 10-12 (12 if you're obese, shift the number as you lose) by your body weight, and that's a ballpark for the daily caloric intake you need to maintain the weight you have - to lose, drop below this by 10-25% - more, and you are in danger more of having muscle mass scavenged for energy, which from what I've read is easier to have happen than the "starvation mode" (the definition of which, and the ways to enter are up to much debate). Heart muscle is something you do NOT want your body eating for energy.

That's been the explaination I've been told why yo-yo dieting by massive caloric restriction is so dangerous for anyone to do over extended periods of time.

The one thing that Atkins folks need to remember (I'm a lo-carber myself) is that Atkins IS a calory reducing diet, it's just easier to do, because the protein-rich food you eat the most of has by ounce fewer calories than carbs - it also takes longer to digest protein-rich food - overall your diet is less calories. The key is that the amount of fat in the diet (which is not a danger, if you're doing it right) gives you the "full" feeling longer, which is crucial mentally to help you overcome bad eating habits, and to not "graze" on snacks and such. When I started lo-carbing, I had to take a good long look at my bad eating habits (eating late at night, eating one huge meal a day (my believe is this is bad, because it takes so long to burn off all that food at once, a higher proportion of it is simply shunted off by the body as stored fat), and most importantly, triggers that led to binge eating. THAT process is fascinating, and if not done, will result in gaining back the weight later on.

Exercise is also in almost every case mandatory, for weight loss - some folks try lo-carb, lose weight for a while with no extra working out, and are thrilled...but then they hit the stall wall, which exercising will move you past, and they give up. It's good for you, you gotta do it, and over time you WILL come to enjoy it. The "burn" is fabulous. You don't have to be a gym rat, but you gotta do it. There's no way around it.

Lo-carb is my lifestyle of choice, for a lot of reasons (mostly my body chemistry reacts to sugar in very, very negative ways), it's just one way of getting the same results, but almost all "diets" are a sham - you need to change your lifestyle to lose significant amounts of weight, and continue that lifestye change to keep it off. You have to subscribe to the school of cold reality with a lot of people, there's no magic bullet, no magic pill, even the risky stomach stapling surgeries* are ways to do one simple thing: cut the calories. Basic laws of thermodynamics - you have to burn more than you take in. Lo-carb was my path, and I've done great things that way - other routes will be better for other people, but the basics are all the same - eat less calories, exercise to help boost the metabolism, get the muscles moving to reduce the risk of scavenged muscle tissue, and modify your mental and emotional relationship with food. Every hear someone say, "I could NEVER give up my bread!"? That person will never lose weight, meaningful loss, and keep it off, they have an emotional attachment to food.

Everyone has great excuses why they can't lose weight...would'nt it be better to come up with reasons why you CAN do something about it? We are all responsible for our bodies, what we put in it, how we move it and for how long. We're the only ones who can change that. (Yes, some people have medical issues, I know.) It's like anything else - quitting smoking, losing weight, saving money, quitting alcohol or drugs - at some point, it becomes something YOU control, or the addiction/laziness/denial takes over and wins. It's always easier to give up.

Yes, it's VERY hard.

And it's worth it. You realize that, in that moment, when a family member bursts into tears of joy at what you've done. That makes every second of discomfort and frustration and sore muscles worth it.

*(I'm personally against the surgeries, unless they are part of a larger therapy that addresses the emotional reasons why the obese person is eating so much, and even then, I'm against it. Losing weight is NOT easy, but it's possible, people overcome severe eating disorders every day without having their stomachs mangled. I'm sorry if this offends those that have had it, or are contemplating it, but that's my opinion. I believe more in finding the strength and will within to heal yourself, not relying on a surgery to control your eating. That's weakness, and is doomed to fail. We're given amazing, powerful tools within ourselves to change ourselves in positive, almsot miraculous ways, and surgery is simply a way of avoiding the harder path to healing yourself. Like I said, that's my opinion. It's NOT easy...but of you find that will within yourself, and learn to apply it to your life, it's a journey that is so worth taking, it changes you in every way, not just weight loss. )

[Ninian Dryhope]

"I think it is hard to burn 4700 calories a day by any means."

And yet you are looking at the proof in the flesh and a freeper knows the guy and vouches for his story.

No one said it was easy, if it were easy, we would not have so many obese people in this country, but it is possible.

One thing you are overlooking is that each pound of weight that he lost does not consist of pure fat. Much of it also consists of water associated with the fat, so that when the fat goes, the water goes along with it. Obviously his fastest weight lose came when he was the heaviest, when he would have had to eat more than 4,700 KC a day, just to maintain that 600 pounds of body weight and where it would take a large amount of energy just to lumber around his house.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"Unfortunately it is just as likely to be muscle as fat."

And you think we have evolved so that when the body needs energy, it is just as likely to use muscle for energy as fat? That would not be a very good evolutionary adaptation to the stress of varying quantity of food available during different seasons, would it? The very reason for fat is to be able to put up an energy store when food is abundant and to have an available energy store for when food runs low. When food gets low, I don't care if it is a dog, or a cow, or a horse, or any other animal, what happens is the animal loses fat, but it still can motor around and have a shot at finding more food. The body will use up some protein as well, but it does not use it up as readily as it uses fat.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"Look at the POWs. They got very few calories and they lost lots of weight.""

"That's a very poor example, lol. Sorry, but that's just goofy."

I beg to differ. There is nothing goofy about it. It is a real world example of what happened to people who underwent very low calorie diet with very poor nutrition for a long time. Why go off on the theory that one must eat at least 1200 KC a day in order to best lose weight when the folks who built the The Bridge on the River Kwai ate much fewer calories, worked hard, and lived for years?

[Ninian Dryhope]

"Heart muscle is something you do NOT want your body eating for energy."

Right and people evolved over thousands and thousands of years and those who had the genes which caused them to use up heart muscle for energy instead of fat, died off a long time ago. No animal, including people, starts using up heart muscle for energy when there is fat available.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"to lose, drop below this by 10-25% - more, and you are in danger more of having muscle mass scavenged for energy,"

Hogwash! People are a heck of a lot tougher and more adaptable than to go into a life threatening muscle mass scavenging mode if they go 26% below the amount of calories they need to maintain an obese bodyweight.

I think the historical evidence, including that of POWs, shows that people do not start dropping like flies, even when they are on very low calorie diets, and they are still capable of doing a considerable amount of work. In fact, the latest thinking seems to be that very low calorie diets might well extend lifetimes, although this, along with everything else involved in weight loss, is a matter of dispute amongst the "experts".

[spectre]

Maybe THIS explains it in basic terms for most of us. Get out the calculator.

"A fast and easy method to determine calorie needs is to use total current body weight times a multiplier.
Fat loss = 12 - 13 calories per lb. of bodyweight Maintenance (TDEE) = 15 - 16 calories per lb. of bodyweight Weight gain: = 18 - 19 calories per lb. of bodyweight

This is a very easy way to estimate caloric needs, but there are obvious drawbacks to this method because it doesn't take into account activity levels or body composition. Extremely active individuals may require far more calories than this formula indicates. In addition, the more lean body mass one has, the higher the TDEE will be. Because body fatness is not accounted for, this formula may greatly overestimate the caloric needs if someone is extremely overfat.

For example, a lightly active 50 year old woman who weighs 235 lbs. and has 34% body fat will not lose weight on 3000 calories per day (255 X 13 as per the "quick" formula for fat loss).

In simple terms, if I multiply my present weight by 15 or 16, this is how many calories I will need daily to SUSTAIN my weight. Reduce the calories, and I lose..Add calories and I gain. The more calories I burn, the faster I lose..it's simple :)

[Zack Nguyen]

He trolled the Internet for different workout regimens that turned fat into muscle.

Good for this fellow! What a story! As a quick note to the reader, fat cannot turn into muscle, nor the other way around. Muscle can be replaced with fat, but not turned into it.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"that Atkins IS a calory reducing diet, it's just easier to do, because the protein-rich food you eat the most of has by ounce fewer calories than carbs - it also takes longer to digest protein-rich food - overall your diet is less calories."

True, but then he also recommends using cream and eating bacon and butter and other high fat foods, so that is stupid because fat is very calorie dense, two tablespoons of olive oil, for instance, is 240 KC, while a can of tuna fish is around 175 Kc. Not only is fat calorie dense, but it also is not good for your heart, when it is from things like cream, beef, bacon, and eggs, which as I understand it, are all recommended in unlimited amounts in the Atkins diet.

[wideminded]

So he got down on the floor, put his feet on the couch and did 20 crunches. The next day he did 25 and the day after that, 30.

People I have known who weigh much less than 600 pounds would not even be able to do one "crunch".

[EKrusling]

At 600 pounds a person could have a basal metabolic rate of about 4700 calories. So at that weight with moderate activity he could easily burn more than enough to drop a pound/day and still take in three largish meals each day. When a person is that big it's the 4000-9000 calorie diets that are getting them.

[festus]

I see he lost 150 lbs in six months!

I noticed that too. He gained it almost as fast from 450 to 600. Perhaps its a function of weight loss as a % of total body weight. Loosing 150 lbs from a 600 base is a 25% loss. A 200 lb person loosing 25% would only loose 50 lbs. I don't know its all pretty mindblowing.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"We were talking about starvation mode which is almost no caloric intake."

No, you defined starvation mode as anything less than 1200 Kc per day.