Low-carb diet still very effective for weight loss

First week: -5 pounds, from a diet of strictly fish, meat, and non-starchy vegetables.

Although low-carb diets aren't trendy anymore, for me, cutting carbohydrates has always been a recipe for rapid weight loss.  The last time I needed to lose weight I had great success with Atkins.  This time, I'm moving in a more South Beachy direction because I like that diet's emphasis on healthier fats and use of the glycemic index.  (For more information about the differences, see About.com's "Comparison of Atkins and South Beach Diets".)

The familiar side effects of the induction phase are back, unfortunately -- headache, nausea, and obsessive thoughts about cupcakes, plus Hubby complains that my breath is vile. :(  I don't mind the headache and nausea as much now as I did the last time, though.  I guess this time I feel that I sort of deserve it for letting myself get fat again by procrastinating and not exercising for over a year. :(

Speaking of exercise, although I've found that it's great for helping me maintain my target weight, it's not very effective for losing weight.  I apparently can't lose weight through exercise alone, and I usually feel too crummy to exercise while I'm dieting.  Also, exercise hurts a lot less if I wait until *after* I've shed all the excess pounds I'm lugging around.  So, other than some strength-training and swimming, I don't plan to add exercise back into my routine right away.

(For those of you new to the Dieting with Jacqueline Show: Six years ago I used to weigh 165, then I lost 45 pounds and cycled in the 120-140 range for a couple of years.  Hubby and I got married a year ago and we've both been steadily packing on weight ever since.  Last week, when the bathroom scale hit 149, I freaked out and went on an emergency diet.  For context, I'm 5'7" with a small frame and I think I should weigh ~125, but weighing more than that would be OK if I developed the muscles to justify it.  Yes, I know that body fat percentage is a much better metric, but I don't have access to a reliable way to measure that.)

Comments

[Capella]

You're totally right about exercise not helping with weight loss. Studies have been done showing that when people do not restrict their calories, burning more calories just leads to compensatory consumption (which kind of makes sense). The exceptions are (a) if one's eating and weight is so totally out of control that hunger cues are irrelevant, and (b) strength training, which has greater metabolic benefits than cardio.

I find that, for me, exercise and weight loss are not related at all; when I push myself to exercise more, I just get hungrier and it gets even harder to cut calories. However, when you are requiring and eating more calories, you have more room in your diet for lower-quality calories (a girl can't live on fish and veggies forever, or at least this girl can't, but a 300-calorie dessert is a lot less significant if you're burning 2400 calories a day than if you're burning 1600).

Also to keep in mind - if you started lifting (or lifting more) since hitting your lowest weight, you may never get back there again. Muscle is surprisingly sleek and heavy. I trained for a marathon last summer and now I have ~5 perma-pounds (other than bad-habits-related weight) that I can't get rid of that don't affect the fit of my pre-training clothes.

(yes, I am in withdrawal.)

[JD]

What about getting a device that uses electrical impedance to measure body fat %? We get good results in research with them and they have become surprisingly affordable.

[Jacqueline]

"What about getting a device that uses electrical impedance to measure body fat %?"

I had one of those and it was wildly inaccurate, varying tremendously from day to day even though I bought the best one I could find and followed all the instructions on how to use it.

From what I've read about body fat measurement techniques, electrical impedance is usually one of the least accurate.

[Jacqueline]

"if you started lifting (or lifting more) since hitting your lowest weight, you may never get back there again."

That's fine. My concern is about how I feel and look, and the number on the scale is just a metric for letting me know how close I'm getting to the size I know I feel and look best at. Historically that's been ~125, but if I reach 130 and feel/look great, that's good enough for me.

"(yes, I am in withdrawal.)"

Hey, if you want to quit your blog so you can spend more time commenting on mine, that's fine by me! :)

[MG]

Try more salads, no salt, purer meats, olive oil, and try easing up to drinking 1 oz of pure water per 2 lbs of body weight and the side effects will vanish. In the alternative, I've found drinking as much Acqua de Nepi Mineral Water as I want works well and regulates everything else.

[Black Cloud/Dave]

Hey, Jackie. Just wanted to say welcome back to blogland! Good to see ya. Hope all is well.

[Jacqueline]

"but if I reach 130 and feel/look great, that's good enough for me."

Better explanation of my weight loss goal: once I can comfortably fit (without a "muffin top") into my size 4 "skinny jeans" again I will consider myself to be thin enough, regardless of what the number on the scale says at that point. After I accomplish that I will shift my focus from weight/size to body composition and general fitness.

[Michael Blowhard]

You might get a kick out of reading Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" if you haven't already. It's a paradigm-shifter.

[Scorpius]

Jacq,

You really need to take up Kickboxing or some other form of cardio-intense martial art. You'll easily maintain your weight,learn how to defend yourself and Hubby will be pleased with the "results".

[Jacqueline]

Hubby doesn't want me to lose weight! He likes my big butt and boobs.