This is going to be a "Show Me" example for ConserveLiberty readers.

A few assertions have been made within this Division ("The Personality Division"):

• Our behaviors and perceptions are significantly influenced (i.e. enabled and not even going to happen without them) by The Filters we are born with. These filters are organic, meaning physical, biological, genetically heritable in origin.
  
  
• We are all "built" differently, a Variability that has its origin as a Fundamental Prerequisite of All That Is, and thus will always be found in All That Is. As a result, our Filter compositions and ensembles will all be a little different.
  
  
• Because the ensembles are different, no two people will ever behave, perceive, or respond to any aspect of their environment or themselves exactly the same.
  
  
• David Apollo has a composition that enables him to be more adaptable under a broader number of circumstances than many others. There are surely others who are more adaptable than he is.
  
  
• One area of adaptability is in the domain of Habit Formation and the ability to change many of the habits (or addictions?) that may form.
  
  
• One type of habit that David Apollo believes he has cognitive control over is with "Food Addiction".
  
  
• Let's find out!

At issue is that as David has aged, his metabolism has slowed down. That is not unlike what everyone observes in themselves and everyone else as folks get older. Unlike many, David regards a slower metabolism that does not impact activity or awareness as a positive, as more efficient.

David has observed that his metabolism has slowed further after having had a motorcycle accident that resulted in injury serious enough to have resulted in a "cognitive reset" and the need for some rehab and healing to "get back to normal". What is important to keep in mind is that healing has been so positive that no friend or family member detects a difference, and all medical tests performed have been unable to find any defects remaining.

The hypothesis made by David is ... that his newly reduced metabolic rate is not the direct result of the head injury.

Rather, the hypothesis is that:

the reduction is due to David's physiological adaptability. During his 3.5 weeks in the hospital, David lost ~15 lbs. This resulted in a relatively underweight condition at a time that his body required nutrition for healing of both neural and non-neurological structures. Since this "caloric undernutrition" lasted for a while (weeks, not days) his body responded by lowering his metabolism.

Once home, David decided to regain weight in order to provide excess nutrition for the healing of his body and mind. Hypothetically, it is assumed his body maintained the lowered metabolism so that more calories were available for the rehabilitation.

While this need for lowered "general non-healing calorie burning rate" was advantageous at the lowered weight, by the time normal weight was regained this lowered metabolism was no longer necessary (or maybe it still was, which is not determinable but should be kept in mind.)

Once normal weight was recovered, David reduced intake in order to maintain it, but continued gaining. Once continued increase was confirmed, David further reduced intake, and still continued gaining. It was at this time that a "lowered metabolism condition" was considered "empirically observed". Intake and exersize levels that would have reduced weight in the past (according to what he was "habitually" used to, or, what he had at some point in the far past become addicted to being used to) were no longer effective.

No observation of lowered energy level, interest in doing things, reduced attention or wakefulness, or any other "low energy" behaviors have occured. David simply now has an even more efficient "engine", which he continues to regard positively. However, a more efficient engine requires even less fuel (calories), lower than the lower levels David is habitually set to consume.

The weight gain leads to at least one interesting observation (or, declaration) and one interesting challenge. Does David actually have a stronger ability than others to alter strong habits that function as addictions?

---

To make this test more clear, consider the following:

• Before the accident, for years, weight ranged between 192-204, with average typically 196-199.
• On release from hospital, weight was 184.0
• A "usual" weight of 196 was prioritized and regained within 2-3 months. Typically, David would have considered this 10-15 lbs overweight. By the way, chocolate was important, both for the healing and the weight gain.
• Weight gain continued to mid-December, 13 months after hospital release, to 219.0. Prior to this weight, the largest David had ever been in his entire life was 205.0
• All weight gain is 100% due (only!) to caloric intake. Any explanation of weight gain to anything other than calories ingested may be interesting, but is in the end FALSE. (Makes for great marketing, and failure either to lose or to keep weight off.)

David will (not attempt, but rather, will!) lose weight in a manner intended to be sustainable until he reaches 196.0. "Sustainability" means that overt analytical calorie counting will not be done. Nor will any "fad-like" changes in nutritional balance be undertaken.

It would also be nice if, at the end of the weight loss, David's default metabolic rate has increased back to something closer to what it had been a couple years ago.

I will post my daily weights (always taken at the same time of day after the same morning shower and maintenance rituals.)

Over time, I may improve this chapter to make it more useful or informative. I will not terminate it prematurely in order to limit embarassment.

Since there are 3500 calories per pound, a sustainable rate of loss would be 1.0 per week. "Noise" in the weight direction will occur for various natural reasons. But really, an apparent weight loss of greater than 0.25 per day is not likely all due to fat loss, but loss of other weights held by the body (e.g. water) as well.

---

Ordered by date, most recent date first, and first date last.

Date		AM Weight	Day Chg	Weekly Rate	7d hi-lo Ave	Food Note	Experience	Exersize
20-Mar		212.4	2.0	0.00	212.5	B: 2 egg w/chs, toast, g bar, OJ L: turkey, swiss chz. D:  S:
19-Mar		210.4	-2.6	-2.20	212.5	B: 2 egg w/chs, toast, bcn, g bar L: guac, chips D: chicken, cauliflower, salad, wine, ice cream S: cereal, milk
18-Mar		213.0	1.6	0.10	213.0	B: 2 egg w/chs, toast, g bar L: 1 slc. pizza D: chile, popcorn, beer S:
17-Mar		211.4	-1.4	-1.80	213.0	B: omelate, bear claw L: Hi Prot Bar D: salmon, b. sprouts S: cereal, milk	Apparently thru 213.4 WFSB !!
10-Mar		213.2 (est.)	-0.3	-2.10	214.1	B: L:  D:  S:	Away on ski trip. Wght not taken. Below this row only weekly data exposed.
03-Mar		215.3 (est.)	-0.3	-0.10	215.5	B:  L:  D:  S:
24-Feb		215.4 (est.)	0.0	0.00	215.2	B: 2 egg w/chs, 1/2 bgl, g bar L:  D: S:
17-Feb		215.4	-0.2	0.40	214.6	B: 2 egg w/chs, 1/2 bgl, g bar L:  D:  S:	Earlier, at 213.2 - 213.6 weight floor step boundary (WFSB). Can I get thru?
10-Feb		215.0 (est.)	-0.2	-1.40	215.6	B: L:  D:  S:	Away on ski trip. Wght not taken. Below this row only weekly data exposed.
03-Feb		216.4 (est.)	-0.2	-1.00	217.0	B:  L:  D:  S:	Weight not taken.
27-Jan		217.4	-1.0	0.00	217.6	B:  L:  D:  S:	Did not record meals	8x20 reps upper, 3x20 reps lower
20-Jan		217.4	0.6	0.00	217.3	B:  L:  D:  S:	Did not record meals.
13-Jan		217.4	-1.0	1.20	217.2	B: 3 egg omelete, fruit, biscuit L:  D: salmon, spagetti, wine, chips S: cereal, milk, 1 choc		1.5 mile walk
06-Jan		216.2	-1.0	2.80	216.4	B: chkn egg scramble, tst, potatoes L:  D: Asian wrap, veggies, wine S: cereal, milk, 3 choc, chz ppcrn		1.0m 9:14 (8.57m/mi mx) 0.25m 3:50 (15m/mi) 4x20 reps upper, 2x20 reps lower
02-Jan Note:	Have seen this before. Workout induces muscle gain and tone. Fat cells (independantly) are committed to maintain themselves. There are now 3 competitors collaborating to maintain or increase weight - a.) Muscles (workout induced), b.) Fat cells (signaling to stop reduction), c.) Psych (food addiction.) Math unchanged. 1.) Calories only come through mouth. 2.) Urges, regardless of how felt, must be ignored. 20 lbs. of fat will maintain me for a month without any eating at all. Thus, perceived hunger is not important or relevant to my goals. Increased discipline can triumph.
30-Dec		213.4	-0.8	-1.80		B: 2 egg w/chs, toast, gmcr L: banana, 1/2 gm cr D: steak, veggies, rolls, wine S: 1/2 lb. caramel corn	Nominal hunger	1 hr. trainer
30-Dec Note:	While nice, we've been here before. 213.2 - 213.6 represents a weight floor step boundary. There will be others, each 5-6 lbs below the next. Estimates are 209, 204, 197. When the body reaches its wght floors, it puts up resistance to going through them. Likely via reduced (more efficient) metabolism & increased justification (craving.) New discipline is required to cross them. Why? Homeostasis. The body identifies "usual range values" that it endeavors to maintain. Its "learned" range values are not "continuous" (meaning, "any value experienced"). The discrete weight range value I am currently in is 213.2 - 219.0. Next is est. 208.5 - 212.5.
29-Dec		214.2	1.0	-1.20		B: 2 egg w/chs, tst, gmcr, choc, OJ L: banana, 1/2 gmcr D: 2 slc. pizza, beer S: cereal, milk	Fact replaces hope. Adding exersize section. Essential for raising metabolism.	None today.
27-Dec Note:	Yes, I am definitely food addicted, although I still retain my trait of not really craving when food is not nearby or easily available, even when hungry. However, when food IS nearby, there is always a rationalizing narrative which is easily embraced that goes something like, "This is the holidays, we celebrate with each other by enjoying the food, and our hosts have offered their foods and deserts as gifts of love to enjoy with each other. "Just a little bit" won't make much of a difference, and I can always abstain later, so having some of this will be OK ..." So typical of the holidays, so "normal," and considered "healthy, AOK for this time of year," and so consistent with the expected narrative from one who is food addicted. Note how all the rationalized perspectives are designed to "enable an easy decision to eat." One will claim there was difficulty in the decision, that it was not taken lightly, whatever. All of them result in the decision to eat, and, are paired with what is essentially a dismissal of any understood negatives. Dismissed as "not really relevant to this moment." Enabling the re-embrace of that which one is addicted to. In the end, you are either in control or you aren't. And if your addiction is in control, leading you to believe that you are actually in control, then you are not in control. If the "you" we are referring to is the "You" that believes one is making a disciplined decision in your best interests or the best interests of others. Because "You" actually does know what those are. And "the addicted" are not making those decisions. The Habit Formation Ensemble is in play. Tomorrow, we restart. Facts over feelings. Only.
23-Dec		215.2				B: L: D: S:	Vacation travel thru 27th.
22-Dec Note:	While a 1 day bounce is normal, >1 means too many calories are being consumed. Driving this? The two sources of habituation resulting in craving. #1 - cognitive: the psych food addiction. #2 - physical: The fat cells being reduced. In weight loss, fat cells are shrunk, not eliminated. As with any "individual" facing deficit that results in loss, these cells send messages to the brain intended to stop and reverse that. I know how to deal with it. Ignore it. Why? Habituated fat cells in synergy with a food addiction leads one to feel its AOK to eat. Which is how addiction works. Especially when both physical & psych elements are in play to defend the floors.
22-Dec		215.4;	0.0	+0.40		B: 2 egg w/chs, toast; 1 cookie L:  D:  S:	This is last entry before travel. Destination is food oriented. Will partake. No need to be obvious.
15-Dec		219.0				B: 2 egg w/chs, toast; L: Turkey only; D: Salmon, veggies, wine; S: brie and crackers, cereal	Never hungry

Stay tuned.

---

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."

"Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
- John F. Kennedy

ConserveLiberty

---