Tim Miller has a gentle way of suggesting a person could use a pound or two.
He always brings out the Guruji voice, which is disarming to begin with. And it always has to do with the ability to get into a pose (usually a twist):
“Ah… some reducing is necessary.”
Now, fast forward to today, and what do we find. We’ve both lost somewhere in the neighborhood of five to seven percent of our weight. (I.e. a low of 5 pounds if you weighed 100 to a high of 14 pounds if you weighed 200. Neither of us was at those extremes.) It’s a fair amount of weight, especially given — as I just mentioned — that I don’t think we were carrying a lot extra.
Or so I thought. Why else would the weight drop?
Those of you who have read earlier posts are, I hope, jumping immediately to one answer: “No wheat!”
Yes, as we’ve been chronicling, we’ve cut wheat from our diet. And the weight loss has continued during that.
But here’s the curious thing: It had started before we cut wheat out. When I weighed myself within the first 24 hours of cutting wheat, I was down already at least half of the weight loss. So… it seems like it was something else.
Over the weekend, Bobbie and I think we figured out what had changed: We’d cut way back on soy, particularly in the form of soy milk. And, just as an offshoot of the no wheat diet, that lack of soy milk has continued. (Mainly, less cereal, plus the ongoing switch to water- and vegetable-based smoothies, rather than fruit- and soy milk-based ones.)
Well, a little checking — and we haven’t done anything even close to exhaustive — suggests that humans don’t break down soy very well. Like seemingly everything, maybe soy isn’t so great for you after all. (Sound familiar, wheat?)
Now, do we represent some kind of scientifically valid study? Not even. But it definitely seems like soy is the X factor in our weight loss.
So, if you were thinking about whether you should cut soy out, I’m just saying… it might be worth a try. And if you have do this, did you experience the same result?
Posted by Steve