3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?

Drs

"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
news:c5qpa0tlttsnppah5dq7id2muaqnj97qun@4ax.com
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS"
> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:

[...]

>> There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to
>> calorific burn at about
>> 4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as
>> metabolically expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A
>> is 75kg @10% body fat and person B is 75kg @20% body
>> fat person A's maintenance calorific expenditure will
>> be higher than person B's.
>
> Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!

Oh, dear.

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Roger Zoul

Michael Libby wrote:
:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:49:11 -0400, Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: It's going to be hard to do a lot of extra stuff after
::: riding for 70 miles. Most people don't do that much work
::: in an entire week. Remember, this guy is around 275lbs.
::
:: I don't disagree-- in fact, that's what I was talking
:: about with compensation.
::
:: I know I'd be beat after a 70 mile ride, and I'd probably
:: end up sitting around a lot for the next day or so. I
:: might also end up eating more than I probably should
:: because my body would be working on rebuilding. That
:: would actually be counter-productive, though.
::
:: But 70 miles a week at 15 MPH, works out to an average of
:: 40 minutes riding each day. That's not too shabby, but
:: it's really not that much in terms of calories burned by
:: cycling (maybe 400 if he's really grinding).
::
:: For schedule reasons, most people would take one day a
:: week off at least-- that means you have to ride 47
:: minutes, six days a week to keep up the same activity
:: level. So then why not just up the ride time to an hour?
:: It's only a few more minutes per day-- and if you're
:: already making time to ride, probably the extra 13
:: minutes isn't going to make or break your schedule.
::
:: If you average 15 MPH on six hour-long rides a week,
:: you're getting in 90 miles a week. But after those 15
:: mile rides, you're not going to be that worn out.
:: Certainly nothing like the pounding you'd get by trying
:: to do 70 miles in one day.
::
:: So you can get a lot more mileage each week, but you're
:: also making it easier to recover from the rides. This
:: means not only will you burn more cycling, but you'll be
:: more active the rest of the time and burn more calories
:: overall.

Good points! But obviously some of us like to get the long
rides in....I'm training for my first century which will
happen in August.

::
::: I wouldn't. 3000 kcals is a lot of food. Depending on
::: his age and LBM, that might be a lot. And keep in mind
::: that is what he got on the days it bothered to count. He
::: might be eating well over 3000 kcals per day. hence, he
::: really needs to track what he eats and start limiting
::: calories.
::
:: Again I don't disagree that. 3000 kcals intake probably
:: is on the high side. For me it would be a maintenance
:: level. But I'm not him. But before he worries too much
:: about adjusting the diet, he needs to know how much he's
:: really burning off on an average day.
::
:: If he thinks he's taking in 3000 kcals a day, but finds
:: out he's really only burning 2500, then he's either got
:: burn more or eat less (or maybe some of both). It's
:: obvious from his results that his caloric intake is as
:: high as his energy expenditure.
::
::: How does one define a "healthy balance?"
::
:: I mean a diet where calories from carbs, fats, and
:: protein are in balance-- not necessarily equal, but not
:: where there is an attempt to reduce one or the other of
:: those sources to where it contributes less than 5 or 10
:: percent of the total.

Why? See, that's where the problem lies. there is no
essential carb, so knowing how to define a "balance diet" is
very tricky, imo. The only thing I know for sure if that you
can safely eat a lot more carbs if you get plenty of
exercise on a regular basis. If not, then those same carbs
will end up with you becoming fat, since they stimulate
insulin, blood sugar swings, and energy storage.

If someone can do a low-carb
:: diet or a low-fat diet and it works for them, fine. My
:: only concern is getting enough vitamins, minerals, and
:: protein. But those things are pretty easy to come by with
:: a balanced diet.

Pretty easy to come by on LC and LF, too. One simply has to
pay attention. Also, one can eat a so-called "balanced diet"
and still not get enough of the essentials.

::
::: Obviously, for the OP, who already said he eats
::: sensibly, what worked for you isn't going to work
::: for him.
::
:: But how does one define "eats sensibly"?

Well, it was his term

::
:: I don't think I said what worked for me would work for
:: him. I was just throwing out my idea of what "eats
:: sensibly" would mean as food for thought, not as the last
:: word on the topic.

Right. You had some excellent points -- I enjoyed
reading them.

Roger Zoul

Rick Onanian wrote:
:: On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:19:30 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
:::::: True, to an extent. If he has a belly then perhaps
:::::: losing some of it might help him ride even better.
:::::: Let's face it, lugging around fat is going to slow
:::::: you down.
:::::
::::: Only uphill. It's got practically no effect on flat,
::::: and provides a great gravity assist downhill, as well
::::: as a more aerodynamic shape.
:::
::: Really? I would have thought that on a flat weight still
::: makes some difference, just not as much as going uphill.
::: And down hill (and on flat), you still have wind
::: resistance due to surface area due to being big. Is that
::: not so? I know you'll get the gravity assist downhil,
::: though, since I get that myself and catch up with
::: smaller guys...
::
:: The beauty of an aerobelly is that it has no more frontal
:: area at all, but stores additional inertia.

Good point!

::
:: On the flat, it requires a slight increase in effort to
:: accelerate, but once going, you keep on going.

No, you have to supply power to keep going.

This means that a gust of wind
:: won't slow you down, or for that matter steady wind, as
:: much as it would if you lopped off the aerobelly. The
:: aerobelly is made for cruising.

Interesting. However, speaking of the aerobelly and wind --
it is rare that you encounter only head winds. I read in
some cycling book that only winds coming from an angular
range of about plus/minus 160 degree aft really work for you
in cycling. So, any side wind is going to see more area,
while a true frontal wind won't. So it would seem (and hey,
I may be completely off base here -- I'm a cycling noob)
that while frontal area isn't increase, cross-sectional area
is, so the aerobelly (is that some kind of common term in
cycling?) would work against you. If I'm off, please don't
hesitate to let me know how/where.

::
:: Downhill, it provides the gravity assist with no cost
:: whatsoever.

Can't see a problem with that.

::
:: Aerodynamically, while it has no more frontal area,
:: it does provide a better aerodynamic shape than a
:: flat torso.

Is that really true? First off, if I want speed, I don't
want to be sitting high on the saddle, so I get low. The the
only thing I can see the "aerobelly' doing in this instance
is making it harder for me to do so and also making it
harder to breathe..... Am I wrong?

If the rounded
:: front-end wasn't more aerodynamic, autos would all look
:: like this: http://www.sweptline.com/hist/big1_coe.jpg

Were you pulling my leg here, Rick? The notion of an
:aerobelly is
pretty funny, actually, but none of the pro cyclist have
one, do they?

:: --
:: Rick Onanian

Badger_south

On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:01:47 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>:: Aerodynamically, while it has no more frontal area, it
>:: does provide a better aerodynamic shape than a flat
>:: torso.
>
>Is that really true? First off, if I want speed, I don't
>want to be sitting high on the saddle, so I get low. The
>the only thing I can see the "aerobelly' doing in this
>instance is making it harder for me to do so and also
>making it harder to breathe..... Am I wrong?

I always felt Rick was saying this tongue-in-cheek.

The presence of too much belly causes (at least) two things:

1. your knee(s) may bump into it at the top of the stoke,
meaning your leg on the other side has to put more
pressure into the stroke to force the knee into the
belly; or you have to sit up more. (yecch)
2. it forces your knees apart, in the 'low' position,
causing a rather large decrease in aerodynamics...er
increase in what, drag/resistance, you get the picture.

-B

Badger_south

On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:51:16 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>While I agree with almost all of what you're saying, it is
>not exactly true that one you're fat, you can't lose weight
>by reducing calories. I've been a type 2 diabetic since age
>23 (I'm 46 now) and I lost 100 lbs on a low fat diet with
>lots and lots of exercise (did I say lots & lots?). As a
>type 2, I was fully insulin resistant. Of course, all of
>that exercise and restricted eating worked to make me less
>and less insulin resistant over time, but I still lost
>easily when I was very large (we're talking 360 lbs here).
>So the point here is: it depends. A lot of people are as
>you describe, btw.

May I ask a rather personal question, and feel free not
to answer...

At what age did you lose the weight, and were you young
enough so that your skin was elastic enough to contract to a
reasonable degree?

I forget what you said you weigh now, but I figure right
about 190-200?

I was about 270 in 1997, and at 47, mine did and at 200lbs,
I only could pinch an inch.

I'm not sure why I care, I guess I'm thinking that men are
pretty lucky in this regard.

As I mentioned, my visceral fat decreased substantially so
that my waist size was below that when I was 180-190, ten
years earlier.

A corollary might be, man the LC diet can be some
powerful mojo. <g>

-B

Badger_south

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:59:13 +1000, "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
>news:c5qpa0tlttsnppah5dq7id2muaqnj97qun@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS"
>> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to
>>> calorific burn at about
>>> 4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as
>>> metabolically expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A
>>> is 75kg @10% body fat and person B is 75kg @20% body
>>> fat person A's maintenance calorific expenditure will
>>> be higher than person B's.
>>
>> Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!
>
>Oh, dear.

Er...minus the lesbian contingent and stuff. And I'm not
implying you'd do anything gay, like roller blade. <g>

-B

Drs

"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
news:lgtpa09798ts08urtr1ek52hkr33p4o8f6@4ax.com
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:59:13 +1000, "DRS"
> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
>> news:c5qpa0tlttsnppah5dq7id2muaqnj97qun@4ax.com
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS"
>>> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to
>>>> calorific burn at about
>>>> 4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as
>>>> metabolically expensive as fat. Therefore, if person
>>>> A is 75kg @10% body fat and person B is 75kg @20%
>>>> body fat person A's maintenance calorific expenditure
>>>> will be higher than person B's.
>>>
>>> Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!
>>
>> Oh, dear.
>
> Er...minus the lesbian contingent and stuff. And I'm not
> implying you'd do anything gay, like roller blade. <g>

Oh, it's not that stuff which bothers me. It's the warm and
fuzzy bit. I'd

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Drs

"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
news:lgtpa09798ts08urtr1ek52hkr33p4o8f6@4ax.com
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:59:13 +1000, "DRS"
> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
>> news:c5qpa0tlttsnppah5dq7id2muaqnj97qun@4ax.com
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS"
>>> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to
>>>> calorific burn at about
>>>> 4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as
>>>> metabolically expensive as fat. Therefore, if person
>>>> A is 75kg @10% body fat and person B is 75kg @20%
>>>> body fat person A's maintenance calorific expenditure
>>>> will be higher than person B's.
>>>
>>> Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!
>>
>> Oh, dear.
>
> Er...minus the lesbian contingent and stuff. And I'm not
> implying you'd do anything gay, like roller blade. <g>

Oh, it's not that stuff which bothers me. It's the warm and
fuzzy bit. I'd

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Rick Onanian

On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:01:47 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Rick Onanian wrote:
>:: On the flat, it requires a slight increase in effort to
>:: accelerate, but once going, you keep on going.
>
>No, you have to supply power to keep going.

You do have to supply power to keep going, but it takes more
to slow you down too. I was speaking relative to somebody
sans aerobelly; all else being equal, with completely flat
grade, the heavier person with the aerobelly doesn't need to
supply any more power to continue than the lighter person
sans aerobelly.

There are many variables to consider. For example, again
with _everything else equal_, the heavier person will have
more rolling resistance from his tires; OTOH, he will lose
less inertia to wind.

I can't tell you what all the variables are, nor exactly how
the equation comes out; for flat land, it is an exercise in
conjecture.

> This means that a gust of wind
>:: won't slow you down, or for that matter steady wind, as
>:: much as it would if you lopped off the aerobelly. The
>:: aerobelly is made for cruising.
>
>Interesting. However, speaking of the aerobelly and wind --
>it is rare that you encounter only head winds.

Oh yeah? Try riding with me.

> I read in some cycling book that only winds coming from
> an angular range of about plus/minus 160 degree aft
> really work for you in cycling. So, any side wind is
> going to see more area, while a true frontal wind won't.
> So it would seem (and hey, I may be completely off base
> here -- I'm a cycling noob) that while frontal area isn't
> increase, cross-sectional area is, so the aerobelly (is
> that some kind of common term in cycling?) would work
> against you. If I'm off, please don't hesitate to let me
> know how/where.

Do side winds slow you down, or require any additional
pedalling power supply? I imagine they would, but just a
little bit. I really haven't studied it that much.

>:: Aerodynamically, while it has no more frontal area, it
>:: does provide a better aerodynamic shape than a flat
>:: torso.
>
>Is that really true? First off, if I want speed, I don't
>want to be sitting high on the saddle, so I get low. The
>the only thing I can see the "aerobelly' doing in this
>instance is making it harder for me to do so and also
>making it harder to breathe..... Am I wrong?

You may be correct that the aerobelly causes a more upright
position, due to flexibility and breathing issues -- and
additionally, the extra weight on the hands and arms. I've
never ridden without the aerobelly, so I can't say for sure.

>If the rounded
>:: front-end wasn't more aerodynamic, autos would all look
>:: like this: http://www.sweptline.com/hist/big1_coe.jpg
>
> Were you pulling my leg here, Rick? The notion of an
>:aerobelly is
>pretty funny, actually, but none of the pro cyclist have
>one, do they?

I'm not pulling your leg about frontal aerodynamics,
although I'm an armchair quarterback (at best) in
aerodynamic science.

I don't know anything about pro cycling. I imagine they're
all very lean.

"aerobelly" is a term that, as far as I can tell, was
invented here in rec.bicycles.misc; I saw it used once and
adopted it as my own. I believe "brifter" is also a
rec.bicycles.* creation. Can anybody name any other terms
invented/coined here on rec.bicycles.*?
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian

On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:01:47 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Rick Onanian wrote:
>:: On the flat, it requires a slight increase in effort to
>:: accelerate, but once going, you keep on going.
>
>No, you have to supply power to keep going.

You do have to supply power to keep going, but it takes more
to slow you down too. I was speaking relative to somebody
sans aerobelly; all else being equal, with completely flat
grade, the heavier person with the aerobelly doesn't need to
supply any more power to continue than the lighter person
sans aerobelly.

There are many variables to consider. For example, again
with _everything else equal_, the heavier person will have
more rolling resistance from his tires; OTOH, he will lose
less inertia to wind.

I can't tell you what all the variables are, nor exactly how
the equation comes out; for flat land, it is an exercise in
conjecture.

> This means that a gust of wind
>:: won't slow you down, or for that matter steady wind, as
>:: much as it would if you lopped off the aerobelly. The
>:: aerobelly is made for cruising.
>
>Interesting. However, speaking of the aerobelly and wind --
>it is rare that you encounter only head winds.

Oh yeah? Try riding with me.

> I read in some cycling book that only winds coming from
> an angular range of about plus/minus 160 degree aft
> really work for you in cycling. So, any side wind is
> going to see more area, while a true frontal wind won't.
> So it would seem (and hey, I may be completely off base
> here -- I'm a cycling noob) that while frontal area isn't
> increase, cross-sectional area is, so the aerobelly (is
> that some kind of common term in cycling?) would work
> against you. If I'm off, please don't hesitate to let me
> know how/where.

Do side winds slow you down, or require any additional
pedalling power supply? I imagine they would, but just a
little bit. I really haven't studied it that much.

>:: Aerodynamically, while it has no more frontal area, it
>:: does provide a better aerodynamic shape than a flat
>:: torso.
>
>Is that really true? First off, if I want speed, I don't
>want to be sitting high on the saddle, so I get low. The
>the only thing I can see the "aerobelly' doing in this
>instance is making it harder for me to do so and also
>making it harder to breathe..... Am I wrong?

You may be correct that the aerobelly causes a more upright
position, due to flexibility and breathing issues -- and
additionally, the extra weight on the hands and arms. I've
never ridden without the aerobelly, so I can't say for sure.

>If the rounded
>:: front-end wasn't more aerodynamic, autos would all look
>:: like this: http://www.sweptline.com/hist/big1_coe.jpg
>
> Were you pulling my leg here, Rick? The notion of an
>:aerobelly is
>pretty funny, actually, but none of the pro cyclist have
>one, do they?

I'm not pulling your leg about frontal aerodynamics,
although I'm an armchair quarterback (at best) in
aerodynamic science.

I don't know anything about pro cycling. I imagine they're
all very lean.

"aerobelly" is a term that, as far as I can tell, was
invented here in rec.bicycles.misc; I saw it used once and
adopted it as my own. I believe "brifter" is also a
rec.bicycles.* creation. Can anybody name any other terms
invented/coined here on rec.bicycles.*?
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian

On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:16:25 -0400, Badger_South <Badger@South.net>
wrote:
>The presence of too much belly causes (at least) two
>things:
>
>1. your knee(s) may bump into it at the top of the stoke,
> meaning your leg on the other side has to put more
> pressure into the stroke to force the knee into the
> belly; or you have to sit up more. (yecch)

In _very_ low positions, this is true. It may be true of
somebody with a grossly oversized aerobelly for more
reasonable positions, too.

>2. it forces your knees apart, in the 'low' position,
> causing a rather large decrease in aerodynamics...er
> increase in what, drag/resistance, you get the picture.

This has never happened to me; option 1 was what happened
until I got my handlebar to a reasonable height -- currently
about an inch lower than the saddle, IIRC.
--
Rick Onanian

Roger Zoul

James Calivar wrote:
:: "curt" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote in message
:: news:tqGqc.783$TY1.745@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
::: You should buy that Atkins book. You don't have to
::: follow it, but you should understand the principles of
::: it. It will be a very big help in losing weight. I would
::: suspect if you cut your carb intake to below 100 a day,
::: you would lose 30 pounds in two or so months with your
::: exercise. That is a guess, but you being a male and
::: riding a bicycle, you will drop fast most likely.
::
:: When you say "cut carbs to 100 a day" - are you saying
:: 100 grams of carbohydrate (400 kcal), or 100 kcalories
:: from carbohydrate (25 grams)?
::

The former. LCers limit carb grams, not carb calories (same
difference, but easier math).

:: Thanks

Roger Zoul

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:51:16 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
::: While I agree with almost all of what you're saying, it
::: is not exactly true that one you're fat, you can't lose
::: weight by reducing calories. I've been a type 2 diabetic
::: since age 23 (I'm 46 now) and I lost 100 lbs on a low
::: fat diet with lots and lots of exercise (did I say lots
::: & lots?). As a type 2, I was fully insulin resistant. Of
::: course, all of that exercise and restricted eating
::: worked to make me less and less insulin resistant over
::: time, but I still lost easily when I was very large
::: (we're talking 360 lbs here). So the point here is: it
::: depends. A lot of people are as you describe, btw.
::
:: May I ask a rather personal question, and feel free not
:: to answer...
::
:: At what age did you lose the weight, and were you young
:: enough so that your skin was elastic enough to contract
:: to a reasonable degree?

I got up to 360 about 10 years ago...I did low fat and
got down to
260...Frankly, I can't remember what my skin did.

I got hurt exercising, quit, then started eating too much
again. Eventually, I regained all of that weight, plus some.
I got up to 367. Now, via LC and much less exercise (Started
in Oct 2001), I'm down to 235+ (the + are those extra water-
weight pounds I pick up when I carb up).

Now that I'm 46, I do have some skin issues. I don't think
it will be a medical issue, but it ain't the best situation
in the world.

::
:: I forget what you said you weigh now, but I figure right
:: about 190-200?

I don't think I want to weight that little. Maybe 215 or so.
I would play with body recomposition at that point --
cycling between bulking and cutting -- trying to lower
bodyfat while adding muscle.

::
:: I was about 270 in 1997, and at 47, mine did and at
:: 200lbs, I only could pinch an inch.
::
:: I'm not sure why I care, I guess I'm thinking that men
:: are pretty lucky in this regard.
::
:: As I mentioned, my visceral fat decreased substantially
:: so that my waist size was below that when I was 180-190,
:: ten years earlier.
::
:: A corollary might be, man the LC diet can be some
:: powerful mojo. <g>
::
:: -B

Badger_south

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:27:43 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Badger_South wrote:
>:: On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:51:16 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
>:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>::
>::: While I agree with almost all of what you're saying, it
>::: is not exactly true that one you're fat, you can't lose
>::: weight by reducing calories. I've been a type 2
>::: diabetic since age 23 (I'm 46 now) and I lost 100 lbs
>::: on a low fat diet with lots and lots of exercise (did I
>::: say lots & lots?). As a type 2, I was fully insulin
>::: resistant. Of course, all of that exercise and
>::: restricted eating worked to make me less and less
>::: insulin resistant over time, but I still lost easily
>::: when I was very large (we're talking 360 lbs here). So
>::: the point here is: it depends. A lot of people are as
>::: you describe, btw.
>::
>:: May I ask a rather personal question, and feel free not
>:: to answer...
>::
>:: At what age did you lose the weight, and were you young
>:: enough so that your skin was elastic enough to contract
>:: to a reasonable degree?
>
>I got up to 360 about 10 years ago...I did low fat and
>got down to
>260...Frankly, I can't remember what my skin did.
>
>I got hurt exercising, quit, then started eating too much
>again. Eventually, I regained all of that weight, plus
>some. I got up to 367. Now, via LC and much less exercise
>(Started in Oct 2001), I'm down to 235+ (the + are those
>extra water-weight pounds I pick up when I carb up).
>
>Now that I'm 46, I do have some skin issues. I don't think
>it will be a medical issue, but it ain't the best situation
>in the world.

Well I had dramatic improvement as I got to 200ish. Hang in
there. ALthough I'm young for my age (both by brother and I
are like 5-7 years younger than most ppl our age, uh if you
get my drift, young bodies, etc.) It takes about 8 months
for the body to get recomposed even while you're not seeing
any changes on the outside.

You probably re-revised your goal when you got below 240,
and I was in the 215s for a few months...

What I do is kinda do fasts for a few days, and just drink
dilute fruit juice, boullion, and even a little tomato
juice, and once I get down to the next 10lbs (say from 230s
to 220s) then I'll re do induction and in about a week, I'm
stable at that 10lb range.

I predict you'll have significant tightening when you go
below 220s. Then it's a matter of fighting the 'I forgot
what valiant discipline I had blues'.

Sometimes, and I know this may sound hokey, I put up
positive reinforcement printouts on the wall...and print out
my excel worksheet, and make my wife give me a prey-sant
when I make a new goal <g>

-B