Share your Numbers
Replies
-
Woohoo Nic! 🎉🎊. Bet it feels good being you!
0 -
Congrats Nic!
1 -
153.8
I have finally got a bit of a whoosh the last few days after being consistent but not seeing any real scale movement. Proof I guess that sticking with it works.
3 -
Good whoosh Nic! Personally I am hoping for a tsunami…….
1 -
What! 🤯 Wow! Awesome 😎 seriously wow! I was happy about your previous low. But this is express elevator to the lobby fast!😎😜
1 -
Pav, I was basically spinning my wheels just under 160 for like 4 weeks despite a calorie deficit that should have still been giving me 1-1.5lbs/week. So it's nice to have my faith in the process reinforced
2 -
Well Ms. Nic....
YOU are NOW OFFICIALLY and CERTIFIABLY CERTIFIED to be (and most CERTAINLY encouraged to CELEBRATE the transformational reality and experience) LESS ATTRACTIVE to the mass of our planet than your friendly neighborhood PAV as you have now ACHIEVED the ability to avoid involuntary levitation with the application of less force than the aforementioned!😜
1 -
Oct chk 9mos -35 for this yr.
Next chk - April '26 (maybe New Years 25.)
2 -
Wait what? -35? That's frigging awesome!!!!!!😎
1 -
Ty, I'm pretty tickled :)
2 -
Good on you Yakky! I’m so impressed with your thoughtful, slow, consistent approach to losing weight. Willingness to try everything and see what works for you. Congratulations 🎊🎈🍾🎉
2 -
Ty Yooly - tell ya, it has been a real mental shift to detach from the scale and the numbers and to focus on the eating and movement...
actually surprised I shifted - thought the RD & docs office were off base - but they were spot on that we need to learn & understand how much, then do it. That's the tough part though - the actual doing...
And, despite the abundance of extra eating opportunities, right?
Thinking upcoming holidays - Halloween candy has been my eatfest kick off, so we'll see.
I am going to give it a sincere go to wrap up this year.
1 -
I admit it is the danger season. And I usually keep it together till almost Christmas. But then there's a couple of birthdays and Christmas that seem to consistently put me into a full month of overshoot usually till late January before I tone down.
Unscientific as it may be, I'm pretty sure that thinking we can just consciously control "full on" hormonal reactions is not a high percentage play.
And I believe based on my own experiences that there may exist an interplay between length and degree of deficit and length and degree of either rebound, or need to control the rebound, before things finally settle down and become easier (i.e. a reduction to the situations where everything looks so good and just a little bit more would be so wonderful to have right now, and just a few more bites so that I can feel nicely comfy full, and surely that's too little to put away for later and no point in throwing it out....)
Where that balance is and how to make it easiest and give it the highest chances of success are not necessarily known to me 🤷♂️
I know that even today I can see graphs of how easy it is to regain after even 5 or 10 lb losses. And that it literally took more than a year (closer to 18 months) of spinning my wheels at what should have been an appreciable deficit to lose weight (-450ish on paper), but which was only resulting in tiny movements (-100ish), and gradual increases of intake before things got easier when I was transitioning from losing the 120 to 130 lbs to maintaining. Basically almost the same length of time as the cut.
The thing is I had already decided that managing weight was a non negotiable part of the rest of my life... which helped because I wasn't attempting to make any major changes to what I was doing regardless of immediate results
And as it turns out, my quote unquote premonition at ~48 that I was not going to make it to a meaningful retirement at my former weight may have been correct 🤷♂️ based on the fact that it is unknown when the pumping action (EF) got below the healthy minimum of 55 and into the 43ish range where it appears to have remained between the first time it was measured a couple of years back and now...
In retrospect there were signs of occasional edema at top weight, and I've always thought I had deficient peripheral circulation even in my teens so who knows.
Drs are not interested in the why's and how's just jurisdictionally mandated "best practice" management protocols of current condition
And AIs are.... still a bit iffy as we are all, no doubt, finding out in real life.
It is particularly "fun" when one of them admits "I apologize but no supporting reference exists because I made that up even though you specifically instructed that all answers should include a reference to the findings that support them"
Even more fun is watching the reasoning after hours of going around in circles trying to resolve a (technical) issue with something along the lines: "user seems to be frustrated and angry and trust had been broken. I can adopt a confrontational tone or indicate contrition" 🤯 🤜🏼
1 -
Omg, AI backtalk! Snort!
Yes, there seems to be a defined pre-determined protocol for so many things… i do often feel like much of the things we are on a conveyor belt and each tiny component will only engage for the tiny component and impossibly can not get a broader overview... .
We are particularly going thru similar this with dh's issues...
Pav - that is a tremendous amount to lose & maintain - inspired, ty for the shares...
And everyone, … i can so relate!
I am not looking too far ahead... trying to do the actual do part… for now...
Will have to adjust as needed... when I get there...
1 -
I had a cranky nurse Thus. She was a tad mean. Made me cranky... Contagious.
2 -
So, when I firmly decided to have my VSG, my bariatric surgeon blithely pronounced that his goal for me was 150lbs. I must have looked poleaxed, because he kinda shrugged and just repeated it. I honestly thought that it was completely ridiculous, I don't think I'd been under 150lbs since 9th grade. I played high school basketball, badminton, rugby and travel softball at 175 or so.
Well, I'm 149.2lbs this morning. I know BMI can be problematic, but it turns out that is dead in the middle of the "healthy" range, not even as scrawny as I though, lol
4 -
Wow wow, Congrats!
So very happy for you :))
1 -
Same here. I was shocked when I discovered I fit into an L. Turns out that even at the top of normal BMI (24.9s/161lbs) I fit into M!
Have not really gone below 150 for more than a few days back in 2020🤣 but I would be a tiny bit happier closer to 150 than 160!😡🤷♂️
2 -
How tall are you, Pav?
0 -
172.25cm — after careful, very careful, repeatable and accounting for posture, hair, socks, carpets, floor squishiness, gravitational anomalies and the time of the month even, measurements!🤯🤯🤯 Down from the official 175 or 174 or 173s I've been marked as, at various times.
That's 67.815"🤣🤣🤣 so COULD call it 5ft 8".... if I was wearing very thick socks!!!!!😜
0 -
I used to be 5’4” - now I’m 5’2” on a good day.
1 -
I'm 5'9" still, as far as I'm aware. I know the shrinking is coming.
2 -
Height shrinkage = less calories!
1 -
Well some of the shrinkage comes from previously optimistic measurements.
Plus depending on how and when you were measured shoes might have, or might not have, been worn.
I don't quite think I've started shrinking yet.
Well…. not much more than 0.25"cm ;-)
As to you, Yooly, with advancing age comes a bit more of an "allowance" at the top end of the healthy BMI range… at least in terms of enduring success in the "still kicking around" department! So that might compensate a bit for the shrinkage!.
1 -
Yeah, the shrinking.... a decent " here...
0 -
Well - with the shrinkage comes an increasing lack of mobility. I can no longer go at it hard at the gym without damage and pain. But my appetite is just fine, thank you very much!
1 -
as I was writing out a post where I was using 1.5 Cal per gram as an example I figured I would ask the soon to be overlords for their opinion re my example based on their internet-y-ness.
on the face of it, I wouldn't disagree, though I would personally consider everything above 1.8 Cal per lb to be fairly high energy density and would NOT go as high as 2.5 in the "medium" range.https://www.perplexity.ai/search/looking-at-recipes-and-per-gra-0U4AsC5BROGMuxGjZiWOQQ#0
The response does link to sources.0 -
Found that interesting Pav, never before perspective for guaging food. Practically speaking, when/why/how would we use this info?
My ponder begins.
1st thought in hand with volume eating - i tend towards salads, broth soups, low glycemic index...
So are the 3 levels fairly consistent with that scale? Or the pyramid? Hmmm.
To use, would need to have a scale on hand? Would I, outside of own home?
Off to ponder...
0 -
Scale and all that is interesting and 100% based on your perspective.
If it is weighing and onerous and is causing mental anguish… then it ain't the way to go.
A while back my approach to things went through an iterative evolution where in random order (non exhaustive as I am coming up with them as I type and to date not placed on a list) a few things were established:
— nothing is off limits all of the time
— something has to be used to help me place some limits because no limits ever also doesn't work
— what I use as a tool to decide on limits is NOT the limit or limiting factor: _I_ am the one making the decision based on information, tools, and desires, and my choice on balancing them. It is not a random outside act. At every stage I choose to apply something, or not.
— so tools such as the scale or logging are neither an enemy or a friend. And they don't make choices or impose conditions. They are tools that provide information. What I choose to do with the information is up to me.
To me there is a very big distinction between the scale and logging says that I can only have 20g of cheese before I reach my limit, so I can't have 30g of cheese. AND if I eat 20g of cheese I will be within my logging limit but if I eat 30g I will be over. I now choose to eat 30g. Or I now choose to eat 20g.
It doesn't follow that this is true of someone else.
So, in effect, I feel that weighting and logging frees me to have MORE (in an abstract sense of "more than otherwise" or the "MOST that I can"), so it is a good thing because it frees me from un-necessary restriction. If I viewed it as "it is imposing restrictions" then I would view it differently.As to whether caloric density is worthwhile to look at. Given my proclivity to indulge in certain very calorically dense items, I do look quite often for things that are very calorically "un-dense" in order to counterbalance them.
Can't say that I look at these values often but sometimes when looking at packages I do check to have an idea. And then choose to buy a variety of "densities" with more coming from the low density high volume end of the scale and fewer from the other end.
2
