This Week's Push

Fasted all day (20 hours yesterday (Friday): 216 at 6pm.
Broke down and ate a little (not a lot but salty) and weighed 219 at 9pm.
This morning 217.

Salt should leech out today; I'm estimating my best-case for tomorrow night weigh-in is the 210-212 range, assuming eating nothing more. Unclear if that's possible. :o)

Superbowl get-together tomorrow, too. So just when I'm at my weakest I'll have my greatest temptation. But it'll also be on the brink of weigh-in.

Most conservative goal is to beat last weight of 215.75.
Should at least get to 213.25 -- i.e. 2.5 lb loss, same loss as last week.
Stretchiest goal would be 210, but even 212 would be really good.

We'll see...

215.75

Down 2.5 lbs for the week.

I broke down and had a little turkey chili w/ rice. But all in all I feel like I'm in the right zone. I lost my way a bit last week, but I'm there now I think. I'll see how the next day or two go.

Next weigh-in Feb 1st. I guess I'd like to be 210, but even 213 (or anything lower than 215) would be a victory.

Dropping Like a Stone?

So I fasted completely yesterday, except coffeee (w/ a little milk), water of course, and a glass of wine. I awoke weighing 221 and went to bed weighing 217. Awoke today at 215.5.

I'm a bit surprised at the rate of loss (being so fast). I'm assuming this is still salt/water driven, as the math (as I understand it) indicates I should only lose fat at something like 5 lbs per week without exercise.

Of course empirically I'm seen a hundred times how the first day or week of any kind of disciplined regime results in disproportionate initial weight-loss. I'm just surprised, and gratified, that I've been able to achieve that kind of downward bump starting from what was already a recent low.

If I can do the same today I'll obviously be no worse than 215, hopefully as low as 213 tonight for official weigh-in.

from Dad

[edited slightly]

Chances seem good that you have made a significant break-through in your battle of the bulge.
My concern is that by skipping meals and dumping pounds you have got to be restricting calories - indoing so one must be careful to focus on the ON part of CR-ON.
Optimal nutrition - the data that is convincing suggest that when restricting calories you can't afford to eat much fat not even the good stuff - like virgin olive oil and/or canola and one must be very choosy with animal protein as it is so often laced with obvious or occult fat.
Once you get well below 200 lbs all the perks will be a powerful reinforcement to continue.

Eleven, then what?

I lost 11 lbs last week. This week if I'm not careful that figure will be much much closer to, well, zero. Could be time for a 3-day fast to wrap up the week. That might get me to around 210 I bet, from 218. At most I'd be 212 probably.

being bad

Posting sporadically. Must. write. more.

Getting Ahead of Myself

Let's say for the sake of argument that I don't eat today and weigh 219 tonight, which seems plausible at least. That'd mean I lost about 10 lbs in a week -- while also having lost momentum over the weekend (and recovering some of it at the last moment).

Getting ahead of myself, my Q is what prediction would I make for week two, assuming another near-fast week at least as disciplined as week #1?

• Empirically week one of any kind of push shows dramatically better results than any subsequent week.
• And my assumption is that much if not most of the initial loss is water/sodium-related.
• Math would indicate that without exercise I should only lose about two-thirds of a pound per day on a TOTAL fast, so 4+ lbs. On a near-fast I'd expect more like 2-3 probably. (I'm not crazy about math, but he can be a good friend in certain pinches.)

So summing all of that up I guess it would be remarkable if I could even lose 5 lbs in week 2. However P!x seems to be losing a steady 6-8, essentially a pound a day. He's likely to be in the 218-220 range Wed night.

So I really want to be 218 tonight. And I need to be setting my sights on 210. Maybe a fast would be easier than a near-fast.

D-Day

So, to recap:

• I weighed 228.75 last Sunday night.
• Since then I've been "near-fasting". By Friday night I was 217.75 -- i.e. down 11 lbs.
• However, Friday night and Saturday night became mini-binges, and I'm now around 221.

The idea at this point, naturally, is not to eat at all today. Official weigh-in is tonight. As long as I'm around 220 or less I'll be happy with the week. Should be a piece of cake. I'm not remotely hungry after Sel de la Terre binge last night. But 6pm tonight could be a different story...

from Dad

http://www.starvation-diet.com/

This 6' 207lb Ozzie started on a 40 day water only diet.
A fairly level-headed blog - he claims the first 3 days were tough then very easy to tolerate.
However at day 25 his hunger became unbearable and he broke his fast with water melon.
His before and after pics seem authentic
He lost 33lb in 25 days -his pot belly virtually disappeared but his "love handles" remain
For many good reasons I believe a rare water only fast of a few days is likely to be of great benefit to most
If and when I can get my intellect to totally defeat my reptile brain (limbic system -gluttony HQ) I will start one.
LTA
Oupa

Hating P!x

Broke down yesterday and ate 2 slices of pizza that was hanging around the office free. Then, planning to eat no more for the day, I arrived home to discover 2 sloppy joes with my name all over them.

Still, even this "binge" was a very very light day by my old standards. I've eaten nothing today so far.

P!x weighs 226 and there's now an annoying graph above my desk showing him under me! As long as I don't totally blow it over the weekend I will get back under him again Sunday night. But he's losing 6-8 lbs a week so I don't know if I can hang with him for long.

from Dad

SOME CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL BUT IN GENERAL CURRENT BEST THINKING -IMHO -
THERE SEEMS TO BE A VALID PLACE FOR OCCASIONAL FASTING IN HUMAN NUTRITION - WISH I KNEW THE OPTIMAL IMPLENTATION

Sunday, September 16, 2007
Mother Nature's Brain Fuel
9/16/2007 7:23 AM MST

( Brain Science )


The primary fuel sources the body uses to generate energy are fat and glucose. We are only able to store enough glucose to last for 24 hours. Well before that, we start breaking down protein and turning it into glucose. This is done to keep the brain humming along because it is not able to burn fat. If we don't eat for longer time intervals then what happens? We have an almost unlimited capacity for storing fat, so why not tap into that? That makes sense and is exactly what happens. The only problem, at least for the brain, is where does the glucose come from that it requires since fat can't be turned into glucose in any meaningful amount. Protein is the ultimate raw material used by the body to produce glucose for the brain. In essence, the body is cannibalizing muscle to turn it into glucose for brain food. Obviously, if this continues we would lose skeletal muscle, heart muscle and the protein in organs like liver and kidney. Several ingenious metabolic changes emerged during our evolutionary past to address this quandary.

As fat is utilized during a fast, it goes through a process in the liver where in the partially metabolized state it may be turned into ketone bodies which include acetoacetate and hydroxybutyrate. These are released into the circulation where many organs may use them as an alternative fuel source. The brain is one such organ. This change in fuel use by the brain may take place immediately, but to fully make the transition takes a week or two. When fully engaged, ketones may produce almost half of the energy the brain requires (the remainder still coming from glucose). The key concept in being able to conserve lean tissue such as protein during a fast is to decrease the dependence of the brain on glucose. Provision of ketone bodies achieves this goal.

This metabolic conversion has other benefits as well. In addition to providing an alternative fuel for energy generation for neurons, the metabolism of ketone bodies has a subtle impact upon neurotransmitter levels in the brain. As you may recall, neurotransmitters are the chemicals secreted by one neuron that bind to a neighboring neuron thus allowing them to communicate with each other. There are neurotransmitters that excite, or stimulate neurons, and others that relax or calm down neurons. They act in a yin-yang fashion to keep brain activity in the 'just right' zone. Glutamate is the excitatory transmitter and GABA (gamma amino butyric acid) is the inhibitory, or relaxing transmitter. The switch to ketones shifts this balance to a more relaxing mode. It is believed that this neurotransmitter modulation is one of the reasons a ketogenic diet is so effective in controlling pediatric epilepsy. It also is able to neutralize the stimulation generated by excessive calcium influx into neurons that occurs as we age. As intracellular calcium builds up in nerve cells it damages them. By shifting the GABA/Glutamate balance, this is minimized. Another unexpected benefit provided by the use of ketone bodies is an increase in the energy charge of neurons. What this means is that nerve cells have more energy to take advantage of.

In a prior article, I mentioned that one of the earliest findings detected in the brain of a person at risk for the development of Alzheimer's disease is a decrease in their brain's ability to efficiently use glucose. Ketone bodies are able to compensate for this. By administering a formulation containing MCT oil (medium chain triglycerides are turned into ketones) to subjects with Alzheimer's disease, researchers were able to improve mental functioning. These findings were reported in the medical journal Neurobiology of Aging (2004;25:311-314). This observation illustrates the power of ketones to beneficially impact brain function. What we all must remember is that dietary changes can generate ketones as effectively as MCT oil.

220ish

I weighed (unofficially) 219 last night before eating. I had a medium bowl of lentil soup. Later I had a decent amount of celery with a little peanut butter -- after getting up from a chair and getting very light-headed.

This morning I weighed about 220 (factoring out all the clothes).

My latest motivation is to stay under P!x, who was 226 last night. (His official weigh-ins are Wed nights.) He's down 6 pounds in the last week and 30 in the last 4 weeks!!! I guess you could say he's slowing down a little, but my current apparent 6-7 pound buffer could disappear fast!

Still gunning for 220 Sunday, but I suppose I could even hope for 218 if I don't break down.

Last night I got hungrier than I'd been in at least 48 hours. But it was remarkable how quickly the hunger faded (5-10 minutes).

Life in the Fast Lane (Again)

So I think I may've just set my LIFETIME record for fewest calories consumed in a 48 -- or now 60 -- hour period. Monday morning I ate a banana, and Tuesday (yesterday) evening I had a small (Small!) bowl of pasta with meat sauce and about 6 green beans. Other than that all I've consumed is 2 glasses of wine, coffee with a little skim milk, water, and diet caffeine-free soda.

I hadn't tried to calculate it, but I guess I consumed about 200 calories on Monday and maybe 600 yesterday.

Can't really call this a fast, but it feels close. Probably about what I need to do. Especially b/c I've now accepted the fact that I'm not going to exercise every day -- at least not running or elliptical, etc. If I get my weight down I'll probably be able to play ball again.

Speaking of weight, I was about 223 yesterday. Hoping for 220 Sunday night. And 170 by summer. But 1 day at a time.

It. Is. On.

228.75 last night, despite a (so-far-adhered-to) New Years Resolution cutting out candy, sweets, junk, etc.

Mark "P!x" Saperstein has lost about 30 lbs in the past month and is about to weigh less than me. And I'm flirting with being 2x Yvonne.

Things will be changing. Fast and faster.

More on the shape of that coming soon.