Conference rocks::weight_control

.0>    Is this something to do with my metabolism?
    
    	No one knows for sure what mechanism is responsible for control
    of metabolism.
    
    	It is known that how much fat you store is partially determined
    by your metabolic rate.  And they know that an individual's metabolic
    rate can be changed with regular aerobic exercise.  Some diets also
    claim to be able to affect this; I doubt they really do.
    
    	The setpoint theory is what is currently accepted as the best
    explanation of what controls your metabolism.  So, if your setpoint
    is at, say your current fat level, it could be responsible for your
    plateau.
    
    	But don't worry, if you're exercising regularly and eating right,
    it will come off.  And when you move off the plateau, it's usually
    a good size step down in weight.
    
    -mike z

    I'm sure that you are trying to eat right. But maybe you are at
    a point where you should eat less of certain foods such as fat.
    Did you try to consume less fat than you normally do? I wouldn't
    try to suggest that you don't eat any fat whatsoever, but really
    cut it down to the minimum. 
    
    Based on experience, even when I wasn't overweight, I lost a lot
    weight, because I was on a no-fat diet due to health reasons. 
    
    Eat more fruits in the morning hours to cleanse your system too.
    And don't give up, you'll get there.

    Thanks for the suggestions!
    
    I will try eating less fat.
    
    I recently read an article which said your metabolism can actually
    become diet-depressed, and that it's a good idea to eat 10xyour weight
    in calories (ie: 140lbs x 10 = 1400 calories) plus 3-400 in order to
    "convince" the body that it is not starving, so that your metabolism
    will slide back up, which can take 1-3 months. 
    
    Then it said to eat no less that 1200-1400 calories
    a day so the metabolism does not once again become diet-depressed.  On
    this basis, you should lose 1 lb per week.

    
    
    so it is actually worse for your diet to eat a very small number of
    calories than to eat an average number???

    Yup.

    
    
    what about all of the fasting success stories ?  (Oprah) ?   I would
    think that their matabolism would drop and cause weight loss problems.
    
    Is very low caloric intake better in the long run?  The body can't help
    but lose weight with only 500 or so calories a day.  Where does my
    theory fall apart?
    
    

.5>    so it is actually worse for your diet to eat a very small number of
.5>    calories than to eat an average number???

    	Sometimes.  If you're exercising, you can pretty much avoid
    that problem.  But if you're eating very few calories, you may not
    have the energy to exercise.
    
    	Doctor supervised fasts are fairly high in protein, and that
    also seems to get around the problem of your body thinking it's
    starving.  But that can create other health problems, like ketosis.
    
    	Fasting should only be done under medical supervision.  The
    same goes for radical eating plans.  You CAN harm yourself if you
    are reckless or misinformed.
    
    -mike z

 >   Fasting should only be done under medical supervision.  The same
 >   goes for radical eating plans.  You CAN harm yourself if you are
 >   reckless or misinformed.

    Or if your medical supervision is incompetent (see the recent topic
    on a very bad experience of someone who should've been turned away by
    OptiFast).  If you have much less than 100 lbs to lose, I'd get at least
    2 opinions before starting a fast or very-low-calorie program.  Remember,
    Doctors are human, and some of them are less that ideally skilled and/or
    conscientious. If it doesn't sound right, ask.  If you don't like the
    answer, ask for more of an explanation, and/or ask another Doctor.

    Beverly