Quote:
I would be interested to find out if anyone else has done this and how it has affected your weight loss.
|
Well, the first 2 times I lost all this weight, in 92-93, and again in 96-97, it was with a LF diet and lots of cardio. Walking and Richard Simmons videos, to be specific.
As soon as I quit the diet and exercise, I put it all back on. No surprise there.
So this time, from the very outset, I vowed that I would not do anything to lose weight that I was not willing to make into a permanent lifestyle change. And since I hate and abhor exercise, I gave myself permission to get started without exercise...anything to talk myself into getting started before my health problems killed me.
Well I personally found it made no difference in my rate of weight loss, I lost just as good as I did on those prior 2 times. I was LC this time, of course, for whatever difference that made. And unlike those prior attempts, I have successfully maintained for a year now. Those other 2 times, I managed to maintain for 3 hours on a Tuesday.
Cardio may have many health benefits, but as Gary Taubes makes a case for in GCBC, weight loss has never been proven to be one of them. And my anecdotal experience has born that out.
Like PJ said though, I would love to see you do another seperate 11 week test using just high-intensity resistance and no cardio. Resistance burns more fat than cardio, and the fat burning boost to your metabolism lasts for quite a few hours after you stop exercising, compared to the fat burning of cardio, which stops the minute you step off the treadmill.
Here's an interesting article from this forum exploring the myths and misperceptions of cardio vs/ resistance for women.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=43486
The seeming slow down of weight loss as you near goal can be adjusted for by converting pounds lost to a percentage of weight lost.
If your starting weight is 220 and you lose 20 pounds in your first 10 weeks, that's 9 %.
If you lose 18 pounds in your next 10 weeks from the starting weight of 200, it appears your weight loss has slowed down, but that's still 9%
If you lose 16 pounds the next 10 weeks.... it's still 9%...
So you look at this, 20 pounds, then 18 pounds, then 16 pounds... oh no, it's slowing down. But it's not... in this example, the rate of 9% of body weight lost in each perioed is consistent.
When I applied this way of looking at my fat loss over the whole 19 months it took me to lose 130 pounds, breaking it into periods of equal length, it turned out my rate of weight loss did not actually slow down.
I would suggest you also compare these 2 periods by converting to percentage of weight loss.
Good luck, look forward to your updates.
Linear Mode
