No, never, I was always strong for free so I never saw the point of weights. And these days all my sports have been taken from me by various health issues.
I still walk and cycle everywhere though, so I think I still get the minimal half-hour of gentle exercise every day.
> On the other hand, if giving up PUFAs made no difference, why did my weight fall so much 'by magic' last year, and why isn't my set-point now where it looked like it was heading a year ago?
I think that PUFAs cause underlying metabolic issues, but simply cutting them out doesn't cause overnight fat loss. ex150 does cause overnight fat loss, probably by mashing all the other buttons with a massive sledgehammer: hyper low BCAA, hyper ketogenic, hyper restrictive, basically OMAD (for insulin purposes), hyper saturated, decent amount of MCTs (11% of the cream), anabolic as heck..
You could probably just continue doing this and after 4-7 years the weight would be off. Or you could do ex150 and use the turbo button (386 joke) and it would probably only take you 6-12 months since you weren't that overweight to begin with.
I also think ex150 causes rapid fat loss, in fact last year six weeks of it seems to have stripped off enough fat that I stopped caring about my weight. It is a great discovery and I think you will be remembered for it.
The intriguing thing about last year was that two kilos of that seven-kilo drop happened when I wasn't doing ex150. The recent rebounding doesn't surprise me at all. But last year's non-rebounding seems very strange.
Anyway, double cream in the fridge, ground beef frying on the stove. Time to have another go and see what happens.
This. And to remind you: you've only been PUFA-free (intake wise) for about a year now.
My OmegaQuant LA is still going up 1.5 years after extremely controlled PUFA minimization. Likely from adipose tissue.
So "PUFA == obesity" would take 4-7 more years to disprove.
> homeostatic control but with a slowly rising set-point.
If the set point is constantly changing it's not really very homeostatic, is it. I could get behind "homeostat high but rising at slow rate" or "something makes the equilibrium slowly shift up" but this sentence seems inherently contradictory (similar to Marxism).
Btw, I think I'm almost caught up to you :) I was 217.x lbs for most of the last 7 days, which I think is 98.x kg.
If we ever meet and I weigh less than you, you owe me a full english breakfast and a scone buttered with clotted cream.
> My OmegaQuant LA is still going up 1.5 years after extremely controlled PUFA minimization. Likely from adipose tissue.
Yes, it's fascinating, that. I wonder why? I mean presumably the absolute quantity of PUFA in your body has to be going down. And I'd *guess* that the proportion is going down too, could it be that the PUFAs are getting released preferentially from your fat stores and so the blood levels are higher now precisely because you're losing weight?
The absolute and relative amount of LA in my body are presumably going down, but OQ is only measuring the average flux in the serum. I have lost about 10-13lbs in the roughly 3 months my current RBCs were presumably constructed.
So while the total and relative LA in my body presumably went down (hard to test w/o an adipose tissue biopsy, I've asked my doc but she just laughed at me) the relative % in flux can actually have gone up during that period.
If this hypothesis is correct, then the OQ is like a very terrible turn-by-turn navigation system: it basically tells you if you've arrived or not :) Not necessarily if you've gotten closer.
"homeostatic control but with a slowly rising set-point"
"homeostat high but rising at slow rate"
These three things look the same to me, except that equilibrium is a more general concept than homeostasis. Do you see a difference between the second and third ways of putting it?
They sound like completely different things to me?
2: Every day, somebody breaks into your house and increases the thermostat on your heater by 1 degree. Within an hour, your house is heated to the new temperature.
3: You set the thermostat to a very high number, but you have a very shitty heater and it takes 1 day to heat the house by 1 degree.
Caan you explain these numbers for me ? 09/04/24 96.1 36.68 0.5 0.5 (Date Weight ? ? ? )
Is it maybe a body recomposition that is happening in the last months?
Like you lost some weight (~6kg if i am right) and you workout somewhat regularly i guess.
If your pants etc. are a bit looser but you still gain weight that might indicate lean mass growth.
Have you tried fasting before? Or just a simple eating window like 12-18.00 or whatever you like.
Should be easy to implement. No added costs just less time to eat the same stuff in.
> you workout somewhat regularly i guess
No, never, I was always strong for free so I never saw the point of weights. And these days all my sports have been taken from me by various health issues.
I still walk and cycle everywhere though, so I think I still get the minimal half-hour of gentle exercise every day.
date, weight, waking temperature, grains NDT, 100ug T4 pills
> On the other hand, if giving up PUFAs made no difference, why did my weight fall so much 'by magic' last year, and why isn't my set-point now where it looked like it was heading a year ago?
I think that PUFAs cause underlying metabolic issues, but simply cutting them out doesn't cause overnight fat loss. ex150 does cause overnight fat loss, probably by mashing all the other buttons with a massive sledgehammer: hyper low BCAA, hyper ketogenic, hyper restrictive, basically OMAD (for insulin purposes), hyper saturated, decent amount of MCTs (11% of the cream), anabolic as heck..
You could probably just continue doing this and after 4-7 years the weight would be off. Or you could do ex150 and use the turbo button (386 joke) and it would probably only take you 6-12 months since you weren't that overweight to begin with.
I also think ex150 causes rapid fat loss, in fact last year six weeks of it seems to have stripped off enough fat that I stopped caring about my weight. It is a great discovery and I think you will be remembered for it.
The intriguing thing about last year was that two kilos of that seven-kilo drop happened when I wasn't doing ex150. The recent rebounding doesn't surprise me at all. But last year's non-rebounding seems very strange.
Anyway, double cream in the fridge, ground beef frying on the stove. Time to have another go and see what happens.
Yea those 2 kilos are quite mysterious.
If I were you but way more vain, I'd do a couple months of straight ex150 until you stop losing or are down to say 85kg.
I think we have enough data to say pretty conclusively. PUFAS aren’t the problem vis a vis weight gain.
I'm tempted, but I'd rather say: 'giving up PUFAs doesn't fix the problem in the obvious straightforward fast way that I thought it did last year'.
I'm still pretty convinced that they're bad news in lots of ways, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were involved somehow.
This. And to remind you: you've only been PUFA-free (intake wise) for about a year now.
My OmegaQuant LA is still going up 1.5 years after extremely controlled PUFA minimization. Likely from adipose tissue.
So "PUFA == obesity" would take 4-7 more years to disprove.
> homeostatic control but with a slowly rising set-point.
If the set point is constantly changing it's not really very homeostatic, is it. I could get behind "homeostat high but rising at slow rate" or "something makes the equilibrium slowly shift up" but this sentence seems inherently contradictory (similar to Marxism).
Btw, I think I'm almost caught up to you :) I was 217.x lbs for most of the last 7 days, which I think is 98.x kg.
If we ever meet and I weigh less than you, you owe me a full english breakfast and a scone buttered with clotted cream.
> My OmegaQuant LA is still going up 1.5 years after extremely controlled PUFA minimization. Likely from adipose tissue.
Yes, it's fascinating, that. I wonder why? I mean presumably the absolute quantity of PUFA in your body has to be going down. And I'd *guess* that the proportion is going down too, could it be that the PUFAs are getting released preferentially from your fat stores and so the blood levels are higher now precisely because you're losing weight?
The absolute and relative amount of LA in my body are presumably going down, but OQ is only measuring the average flux in the serum. I have lost about 10-13lbs in the roughly 3 months my current RBCs were presumably constructed.
So while the total and relative LA in my body presumably went down (hard to test w/o an adipose tissue biopsy, I've asked my doc but she just laughed at me) the relative % in flux can actually have gone up during that period.
If this hypothesis is correct, then the OQ is like a very terrible turn-by-turn navigation system: it basically tells you if you've arrived or not :) Not necessarily if you've gotten closer.
> If we ever meet and I weigh less than you, you owe me a full english breakfast and a scone buttered with clotted cream.
I owe you quite a lot more than that, irrespective of who weighs what.
But I accept the challenge. Does the following form suit?:
If we ever meet in person, the fellow with the higher BMI at the time provides a lavish breakfast to argue about homeostasis over.
I look forward to the occasion. Let me know if you're ever in the vicinity.
You have yourself a deal!
> Btw, I think I'm almost caught up to you :) I was 217.x lbs for most of the last 7 days, which I think is 98.x kg.
Huge congratulations for that! BMI-wise you're certainly doing better than me.
So "PUFA == obesity" would take 4-7 more years to disprove.
You wouldn't even disprove it then! Just because PUFAs broke something doesn't mean that "no PUFAs" will fix it.
Good point
"something makes the equilibrium slowly shift up"
"homeostatic control but with a slowly rising set-point"
"homeostat high but rising at slow rate"
These three things look the same to me, except that equilibrium is a more general concept than homeostasis. Do you see a difference between the second and third ways of putting it?
The implementation would certainly look a lot different, and potentially the "fix" if it's broken
Ah sorry, I mean I literally don't see the difference between the second and third. They look synonymous to me. Words are hard!
Can you give examples of systems which are (2) but not (3) and vice versa?
They sound like completely different things to me?
2: Every day, somebody breaks into your house and increases the thermostat on your heater by 1 degree. Within an hour, your house is heated to the new temperature.
3: You set the thermostat to a very high number, but you have a very shitty heater and it takes 1 day to heat the house by 1 degree.