Friday, June 17, 2011
Work all done: and it was a fairly tough slog.
Isn't Friday evening one of the best times of the week?
Saturday and Sunday stretch ahead. Twenty-four hours in each one! Chores, sure, they need to get done: and I wanna go to the gym, too.
But there will be time to unwind. Relax. Have fun.
Jammies, a book. No need to set the alarm.
Friday evening. Ahhhhhhh.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The Toronto Globe and Mail is running an interesting series on all-day kindergarten, and the impact full-day kindergarten may have on early childhood development.
In Ontario this past year, there has been a controversial experiment with tax-payer funded all day kindergarten for junior and senior kindergartens at selected schools. Lots of parents like it, because it reduces the costs of daycare for working mothers and (when integrated with in-school daycares before and after kindergarten) creates a seamless day for little people without those worrying transitions to the daycare provider. On the other hand, lots of tax payers don't like it, because obviously all-day kindergarten dramatically increases early education costs.
My own kids are long past kindergarten age: they were lucky enough to have every day half day kindergarten still available to them, which seemed to me the happiest compromise at the time. And I was able to be home with them for the other half day, no daycare required. We did all kinds of fun things during those half days together. But I've got to acknowledge, very few kids now will be at home with mum if they're not in school. So it's a debate I've followed with some interest.
So far, the early results do seem to indicate that most children make big big gains with the all day kindergarten programme. But it's not so much about rapid intellectual prowess with reading or numbers: the all-day kindergarten program has focused on a "play-based" curriculum. It's when kids first learn to love school and learning that they will later learn to love reading and writing and everything else that is part of the academic world: you can get kids reading early, but if they hate it they won't continue to build upon those early academic gains. So the full-day play based kindergarten program gains have been mostly with social and emotional development: EQ (emotional quotient) gains. Here's the link if you'd like to read the whole story.
What's this got to do with Spark topics of weight loss/weight maintenance? It's the old IQ/EQ debate: and yes, EQ matters so much more.
The article references a 40-year-old Stanford study in which kindergarten-age students were subjected to the "marshmallow test": the child was left with a tempting marshmallow for 15 minutes, and told that if he or she could resist eating the marshmallow, then at the end of the test he could have two marshmallows.
About 30% of the children tested at age four were able to "self-regulate". Regardless of whether they were early readers, or had early numeracy skills (indicating high IQ, intellectual quotient) those self-regulators were the kids with high EQ (emotional quotient).
Follow up testing over the subsequent 40 years has apparently established that those children who at age four had high EQ and were the best "self-regulators" tended in turn to become the most successful in later years academically (intellectually) AND socially.
The early self-regulators got better grades and more education and higher-earning careers. But they were also most likely to avoid sexual promiscuity, drug and obesity problems.
Well, I guess it's too late for me to go back and take the four year old marshmallow test!
But I've been joking for some time that I can resist anything but temptation. So I try hard to avoid temptation by re-arranging my environment. If I had known at four what I know now, I would have hidden that marshmallow behind the plasticine or the building blocks and then possibly been able to wait out the 15 minutes!!
Judith S. Beck's "Diet Solution" is really about catch-up training in self-regulation: learning to think like a thin person. Beck tells us that NO CHOICE matters, that it's important not to eat standing up and to stick with the pre-planned meals -- not so much because of the calories involved (which might be relatively trivial) but because every time we submit to temptation we strengthen the "giving -in" muscle, and every time we self-regulate, we strengthen the "resistance muscle".
Makes sense. Many of us don't need more "intelligence" about weight loss: we know what we need to do. I've known so many pretty smart, pretty accomplished people who've achieved a great deal in other areas of their lives but just cannot lick obesity. That's in part what's so frustrating. Because it's so frustrating to have all the other accomplishments undercut by the (visible, constant, health-harming) evidence of failure in the obesity self-regulation area.
The difficulty is making ourselves do what we know we need to do: resisting that marshmallow, the trick we needed to have learned at age four or so.
What we need is more EQ, remedial self-regulation. And so it makes sense that so much of what we're offered on SP (teams, points, motivators, blogs) is really about building community and boosting EQ.
Thanks, SP and thanks Judith S. Beck. Looks like I've been making up for lost time. Better late than never I suppose!!
Monday, June 13, 2011
I've known for a long time that weight loss and maintenance for me are primarily about "diet": controlling calories IN is more effective for me than boosting calories OUT.
Exercise is very very important, of course: both physically (strength and toning, cardio, flexibility) and psychologically (sustaining my typically upbeat and happy mood).
But I could exercise plenty and stay pretty hefty. I can never exercise enough to eat whatever I want -- not even when I was routinely running 10 km a day (and grinding out my knees and hips in the process). Even burning all those calories (which I thought justified eating pretty much whatever I wanted the rest of the day), I was a size 12 and weighed about 20-25 pounds more than I do today.
So you can imagine that today's article about the "feet versus fork" debate in the Toronto Globe and Mail was of great interest to me: here's the link if you want to read the whole thing (and it includes a further link to the actual debate at University of Ottawa).
What's it say? In a nutshell, what you'd expect: exercise IS important; diet matters too; but for many people, diet may matter more.
You're more likely to be heavy if you eat more meat; more likely to be slimmer if you eat more fruit. True, the more you run, the less likely meat eating will be a factor . . . but that may be because running more affects the body's tendency to burn fat. In addition, the runner who eats a high fat meal is more likely to adjust subsequent calorie intake for the rest of the day because exercise affects appetite: and so the runner is also more likely to burn off the excess fat intake. An obese person who eats a high fat meal is more likely to keep right on chowing down for the rest of the day and to store the excess fat as . . . yeah, right. So the factors are intertwined, for sure.
The term researchers are using for the tendency of the obese to store rather than burn excess fat, all factors (calories IN and calories OUT) being equal? "Metabolic inflexibility".
Dunno whether the fancy term helps or not. My metabolism, I'm pretty sure, is by its nature both super-efficient AND inflexible. So if my stretching exercises at the gym assist with physical flexibility, I'm thinking that the gym more generally is helping with the innate and inherited tendency to metabolic inflexibility as well.
The fun factor is key for me in staying the exercise course. Loved my 10 km running mostly because it was outside and with friends: ditto cross country skiing last winter. Yesterday's golf game -- four hours twenty minutes -- in cool temperatures, trotting around at a very brisk pace, and taking more swings at the ball than would have been optimal: all that added up to a nice change from the gym, and resulted in me clocking up a more satisfying calorie burn.
Plus, I saw a bluebird!!
Saturday, June 11, 2011
I'm struck by how much harder I have to work at the gym to burn 400 calories on the cross trainer now that my weight is 140 (or, today, 138).
It took me just over 43 minutes at level 8, really sweating it, to burn 400 calories on the elliptical cross trainer.
And burning even 10 calories requires significant expenditure of energy.
When I was over 160 pounds, the 400 calories took more like 30 minutes.
That's why, I suppose, I have to eat much less and work much harder to stay in the same place . . . the place I'm wanting to stay which is right about here. I like seeing a middle number "3" on the scale! And I'm liking the way my clothes fit, and the general feeling of lightness and ease and strength I'm experiencing.
I did a little researching on the internet to determine the maintenance math: how many calories can I actually eat to maintain at 140 or so? Using the Harris-Benedict Formula, I first calculate my basic metabolic rate. That's determined by my height, weight and age, and the figure which came up is 1306.3.
Then I consider my activity level: from sedentary (which would indicate a multiplier of 1.2) through light, moderate and very active to super active (multiplier of 1.9). That's the calories for maintenance, according to this formula.
No way am I sedentary. Most days I'm at least a moderate exerciser. Which would mean that I ought to be able to eat 1900 calories a day and maintain at 140. But in my experience, I cannot eat much more than 1300 calories a day and maintain the same weight. Nope.
And almost twice that? No way, even if I were so super active that I remained on that elliptical cross trainer pumping my arms at top speed all day long: I'm pretty sure I still couldn't maintain my weight if I ate close to 2600 calories a day.
What I do know: eating even 100 excess calories a day results in a 10 pound weight gain a year. Compounding. And it's so easy to eat 100 excess calories: that's a largish apple, or 3 pre-wrapped Lindt dark chocolate squares or 1 oz cheddar or . . . not much!!
So: here's the thing. The less I weigh, the less I can eat, and the harder I have to exercise to stay in the same place. I'm thinking that this is the reason that so many people find it easy enough to lose weight, hard to maintain the loss.
Good to know. Right. Here's the link if you want to try the math for yourself.
And here's another link from the Mayo Clinic which is a bit easier to work with, but doesn't actually explain the process very well:
Love SP: but it's telling me (if I change to indicate the new weight and new weight goal) 2000-2500 calories a day.
And I do know that won't work for me.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Yup, feeling good again: muscles have stopped shrieking.
And: is there anything better than that?
Plus my Oriental poppies will be in bloom any moment!! They do actually pop, with those sepals springing away from the silky folded blossoms inside . . . it's amazing to see, and I'm hoping to be present for at least one of those pops!!
Summertime . . . ahhh!!
Get An Email Alert Each Time WATERMELLEN Posts