Last week, I talked about making several adjustments to my regimen. I’m thrilled to say that it appears I’m having a good bit of success. This is why it’s important to evaluate and change what you’re doing,  especially if you have a lot of weight to lose. What worked at 334 pounds wasn’t working so well at 271, and I expect that the changes I’m making today may not be as effective — or effective, at all — at 210. I had to get out of what has become safe and comfortable for me in order to see results.

My intention was to give the Atkins Fat Fast a shot, because it would be an indicator to me that I’m on the right track regarding insulin resistance. In my mind, I was fidgeting about when to start, because really, it’s not a picnic. But as luck would have it, I woke up with an upset stomach on Tuesday, and figured what the heck, I might as well try it since I’m limiting foods, anyway. WIN.

I weighed in on Monday morning at 282, 11 pounds above my low weight of 271. I knew part of that was water weight from the weekend. Tuesday morning started the fat fast. As of this morning, I am down 9.5 pounds since Monday; 7 of that during the fat fast of a whole three days. Realistically, I know probably more than half of that weight is water weight; but if even a pound or two of it is real weight lost, it’s a success.

The skeptical among you might be thinking that anyone should lose weight on a 1000 calorie a day regimen; and that it’s calories in, calories out that matters. I would agree with you — partially. The reason why I don’t wholly buy into the calories are all that count methodology is because my normal daily caloric intake is between 1200 and 1300. A deficit of 200-300 calories a day, over a three day period, should not have resulted in even one pound of loss. I’ll even add that I did not exercise on those days when I normally do, so if you calculate an offset for exercise (which I don’t) on my normal eating days, I was probably eating roughly 1000 calories before the fat fast.

The difference is the high proportion of fat with a great reduction in both carbs and protein. (This is why the fat fast is only recommended for a 3-5 day course; it lacks good nutrition.) The absence of carbs and protein forces an insulin-resistant body to go to stored fat for energy more so than it does in the presence of carbs and protein. I forget the exact proportions, but I believe that water weight is linked to body fat, as it is to glycogen, which is the body’s glucose stores. As you burn glycogen/release fat, you also release water, so the two go together.

I also have changed up my supplement regimen.  Years ago, I took supplements recommended by Atkins for those who are metabolically resistant; chromium, CO-Q10, l-carnitine, to name a few. I stopped taking them for financial reasons, and that may have been part of why I ended up putting weight back on. I am now taking them again, and while I believe it’ll take a few weeks to a month to have a full effect, I think they are part of the reason why the fat fast was so effective.

I think the combo of the change in supplements, in addition to the Fat Fast, have helped me get down to 1.5 pounds away from my low. Having done this experiment, I’m now looking to adjustments in my overall program, including increasing the amount of fat I include in my regular eating. I’d gotten away from high fats because of calories, and that was perhaps a mistake for me. I’m going to make a point to include more (healthy) fats in my diet, and I’m also going to do at least a modified fat fast 1-2 times a month.

I’ll also add that I have further reduced the prescriptions I take. I phased out an HRT and an anti-depressant several months ago (late March), and have now reduced arthritis meds in half. So far, my body has only had minor objections. As I continue to lose weight, I hope to alleviate daily use of arthritis medications.

I did not put on goal pants, since I’m not back down to the goal which moved me to those pants. I’m hoping to have dipped down to a new low in the weeks to come.