It’s my understanding that it’s something particular to a low-carb diet. Your body gets rid of a lot of water, and the water stays off until the point if/when you start eating more carbs again, at which point you quickly gain that water weight back. So there would be no water weight loss with a simple reduction in calories, but there would be a water weight loss with a reduction in calories that was the result of the virtual elimination of carbs, a loss that would not bounce back until **Stoid **started eating carbs again.
I’m not surprised. It jibes with the rest of your understanding of how science and logic work.
There’s an invisible, intangible, floating dragon living in my building’s garage that doesn’t require air, food, or water, and doesn’t excrete anything. But I’m not going to prove that it exists. You have to prove that it doesn’t.
Then why can’t you show me even a *single example *of a time on this forum where you changed your mind about something?
The parade raining was simply a side effect of pointing out the facts. If you “lost” fifteen pounds by weighing yourself holding a baby and then not holding a baby, I wouldn’t congratulate you for that, either.
Also, you could easily counter any example I could find of you not being convinced by claiming that they just didn’t make a good enough argument (as you would with this thread). That’s why it’s so important for you to provide any example at all of a time when you changed your mind. If you are *truly *open to doing so, it must have happened at least once. That you’re afraid to even look for a single example is very telling.
While any change in eating can result in an intial loss of water weight, the big factor for low-carb is two-fold.
The bigger factor is glycogen. Glycogen is stored in the liver and the muscles (it is essentially stored energy) and it is bound to water. When you drop carbohydrates from your diet, the body burns through this store of glycogen, releasing the water it held. This happens really fast for most people and can be five or ten pounds of “weight” lost in a few days to a week.
When you lose the glycogen stores, you do weigh less, but that weight will come back extremely quickly if the body gets a chance to put in some more glycogen (plus water!) stores. If you never eat a cookie again, that particular form of weight will not come back. But it’s pretty illusory since it has no bearing on how much fat someone is walking around with.
The second way the majority of diets can cause very quick water loss is that most of them encourage increased water consumption. A lot of people eat a great deal of salt and don’t drink all that much water. The kidneys then treat this as essentially dehydration and work to retain what water they have. Increasing water intake signals the kidneys that they don’t need to hold on to that excess water. Drink more water = retain less water (if the water retention is caused by this sort of sodium imbalance)
Only if I was invested in the answer somehow. Since I’m not, I don’t have to prove anything.
“Can’t” is not accuarate; it implies that I made an attempt and failed. I made no such attempt. As for why I didn’t try, it is for reasons other than the two you apparently believe are the only reasons possible, obviously. But getting into it beyond that is turning this into the thread I’ve already told you I won’t turn it into.
There’s a great deal of difference between your personal decision on whether to congratulate anyone for anything, a matter about which no one inquired, and making it a point to question someone else’s decision to extend congratulations.
Always nice to know I have understood someone’s intentions correctly.
On the contrary, I don’t find it the slightest bit important to respond to baiting.
I will point out, however, that you have asserted that the “rule” is that the primary assertion is the one that must be proved, not the contrary response. Well, mine was not the primary assertion:
So you have aligned yourself with the primary assertion…leander’s invisible dragon. I said the dragon doesn’t exist. By your own rules, it seems it’s on you to show me the dragon. If you choose not to, that’s fine with me - it’s your dragon, I don’t really care.
And no matter what the biological process that leads to this, all of it is evidence that a person has actually made a change in their diet in order to lose weight. Whether it’s fat or water at first doesn’t change the point of the congratulations, which is: *Hey, you’re making the effort, and the objectively observable result of weight loss indicates you aren’t just talking, you’re actually doing something different that’s having an impact! Good for you! Keep it up!
*
But when it’s pointed out that is exactly what your new science hero Taubes is doing you scramble like mad to forgive him. Most telling.
And by “most telling” I mean that I think you are kind of deluded as far as how arguments manage to persuade you.
In any case, I have been persuaded to put questions to the man himself, and I await his response. I wrote him a lengthy email yesterday - we’ll see what he says.
Anybody getting super-huffy about how much more knowledgeable they are than everyone else because of a *four-year degree *deserves to have that bubble popped.
We have examples of times when you refuse to listen to logic, reasoning, and experts. People are pointing to your entire posting history here as proof of the fact that you don’t change your mind once you’ve made it up. That’s their cite. You then made a counter-claim: that you do, in fact, listen to and consider what you’ve been told. And yet, you can’t give us a single example of a time where that happened.
If you’re interested in congratulating people on meaningless milestones that require minimal effort to achieve, I guess. I dressed myself this morning; where’s my kudos for that?
I’m the one who is referring to my bachelor’s in Psychology. Nor did I posit that I was more knowledgable than “everyone else” about human behavior. My statement was part of this conversation:
If you insist on mis-construing my position, I can’t stop that, but in my eyes it strikes me as being either stupid or dishonest.
I choose not to participate in your attempt to turn this thread into a discussion about me personally, which responding to your baiting would do, and is intended to do.
Funny, Stoid, because I remember you admitting you were wrong once on this board…but I’m not going to tell you where, since you don’t want to make it personal!
Plus it was on such a fine point that it didn’t really matter whether you were wrong or not. It didn’t make you rethink your world view.
You know, you really should weigh yourself only once a week, because daily fluctuations will make it look like you haven’t lost anything. Weight Watchers advocates that, and I think it’s correct.
It would be really interesting to see whether you continue to lose weight with your cornbread indulgences. As far as I understand, consuming that many carbs puts you back at square one, so to speak, in the low carb diet.
It can cause a significant bump in weight since it allows the body to restore the glycogen + water that was lost at the outset. Different people will see a different amount of gain from something like a large quantity of cornbread.
It can also make cravings really strong. When people go off-plan with low-carb, they really need to see if they get better value from the feeling of not being permanently deprived or the feeling of making steady progress.
I think the cravings is the main reason why I don’t “cheat” at all. I made Paleo brownies 10 days ago and I’ve had exactly 4 of them (out of 24). They’re damned good–I gave them to people without telling them they were Paleo, and they couldn’t tell–I just don’t crave them, so I forget they’re there! If I had more frequent cheats, I might have eaten more of them.
I disagree. So does all the datawe have on the subject. So you and Weight Watchers need to catch up.
I believe I’ll stick with what actually works best.
Well, your understanding is extremely limited, as evidenced by this remark. You can’t even seem to follow along with the fact that there was a single cornbread indulgence, for instance, not to mention that I’ve lost the majority of what I’ve lost in the wake of that indulgence. And the ice cream 9 days afterwards. So, since ,y loss is now at 12 pounds, whatever carbs I’ve indulged in haven’t stopped anything.
Neither have the calories, since this week’s indulgence was totally low carb and exceedingly high calorie: creme brulee without the brulee, also known as insanely rich custard made from egg yolks, cream, and Truvia. That I find much harder to resist than cornbread, and I ate quite a bit over two days. But so far so good…
I hear you. I’m not sure how much the sweetness of the custard was responsible, even though it was stevia and even though I didn’t make it very sweet because I don’t like it sweet, or whether it’s just the fact that I happen to love custard in all ways, but it was very hard to restrain myself. So I think I need to keep that to a mimimum. Making a smaller batch at a time will help, it takes time to bake and then to chill, so if I only make a small amount…
Paleo brownies? Got a link? Most of those attempts to fake baked things really fail for me, I’m curious what the “Paleo” take is.
(Is cocoa very “Paleo” at all? Isn’t Paleo partly just about avoiding processing?)