60,000-79,999 SparkPoints
WATERMELLEN's Recent Blog Entries

Friday Evening

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.

  Member Comments About This Blog Post:

PHEBESS 6/18/2011 12:28PM

    YAY for Fridays! There's a whole 48 hours of possibilities ahead!

Report Inappropriate Comment
IMAGINE_IT 6/18/2011 11:19AM

    Have a wonderful weekend Ellen :)

Report Inappropriate Comment
NANCY- 6/18/2011 9:36AM

    Each day is a treasure.
Enjoy your weekend.

Report Inappropriate Comment
MIRAGE727 6/18/2011 7:16AM

    I do look at Friday evening as special too. After dinner, I spent time in my pool and it was wonderful. I slept better because of it. Enjoy the weekend!

Report Inappropriate Comment
TRYINGHARD1948 6/18/2011 2:28AM


Report Inappropriate Comment
BRIGHTSPARK7 6/18/2011 12:56AM

    A well deserved rest. Enjoy your weekend!

Report Inappropriate Comment
CARRAND 6/17/2011 9:21PM

    I love Friday evenings!

Report Inappropriate Comment
ONEKIDSMOM 6/17/2011 8:05PM

    Ah, sounds like a great Friday evening! Wanna swap? I've got the overnight shift tonight and SHOULD be headed for a nap right now. emoticon

Report Inappropriate Comment

Kindergarten Marshmallow Test, Self-Regulation and Obesity

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!!

  Member Comments About This Blog Post:

PHEBESS 6/18/2011 12:36PM

    Fascinating! I too can resist anything but temptation - and yes, as a consequence, have built in some avoidance of situations or places that I know offer too much temptation. Not easy when I'm married to the 4 yr old who'd eat that marshmallow in the first minute, and then cry when he didn't get the two at the end of the test!

Report Inappropriate Comment
NINJA_SMOO 6/16/2011 12:53PM

  Very interesting article! Thanks for posting :)

Report Inappropriate Comment
DANASEILHAN 6/16/2011 12:09PM

    That'd be great if obesity were really about moral failing. But there are slender people walking around with chronic disease, including heart disease and type 2 diabetes. If they're diagnosed less often with those things than obese people, we haven't yet established that that isn't because they think they're healthy because they're slender, therefore they go to the doctor less often.

I think most people who try to lose weight fail because they have no idea what they are doing, and they're going about it all wrong. There is so much scientific evidence now that the simplistic notion of weight loss being about calories eaten versus calories exercised off is incorrect. If you're not doing something right, of course you won't succeed at it. Yet every time someone comes up with an alternative explanation that is *better* supported by the science, they are roundly shouted down and then ignored.

If you are starving (1800 calories a day is semi-starvation, by the way), of course you are going to want to eat. It's not a failure of self-regulation but actually a *success* of it. If all you ever eat are foods that do not induce satiety because you heard those were lower in calories, you are going to be starving most of the time. In the end, you can hypothesize all you want about human beings being walking calorimeters, but you cannot argue with Mother Nature.

Gary Taubes is a worthwhile person to read on this topic. If you like dense science reading, Good Calories, Bad Calories is an excellent book. If you have no patience for dense science reading or you know it's over your head, Why We Get Fat is an acceptable alternative.

I used to have horrific problems being tempted to eat potato chips and drink full-sugar soda. I have completely kicked both (very rarely, I'll still have sweet potato chips--like maybe twice a year), and it wasn't from telling myself I was a non-self-regulating failure, it was from getting all the stuff out of my diet that was making my insulin and blood sugar spike and crash all over the place. Hunger is a biochemical response, not a failure of character. Work with your biochemistry, not against it, and see what happens.

P.S. I daresay children would develop an even better EQ if the adults most important to them in their lives would bother raising them instead of giving birth to/fathering them and then offering them up to the state for rearing. A kid's job is to learn how to be an adult, and they want more than anything else to learn that from their own extended families. That's what they're wired for, that's what they expect, and that's what is routinely thwarted at every turn when they are institutionalized at age six or earlier. John Holt and John Taylor Gatto are good writers to read on the subject.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TEENY_BIKINI 6/15/2011 10:20PM

    Totally fascinating.


Report Inappropriate Comment
BLUESKY_321 6/15/2011 9:40PM

    Excellent thoughts here! Thanks so much for sharing!

Report Inappropriate Comment
DBCLARINET 6/15/2011 6:25PM

    Fascinating post! I agree with what TryingHard said about obese people rewarding themselves with food. My husband came from a family where bonding involved bags of BBQ potato chips and his dad's homemade dip of two bricks of cream cheese, a tub of sour cream, and ketchup to taste. When I had concerts in college, I would often celebrate by going out for dessert afterward.

I think your article is spot-on with the EQ. I just think so many of us have experiences where food is part of building EQ (if I understand it correctly), instead of rewarding ourselves with other things or finding things we enjoy other than eating food.

SparkPeople definitely increased my EQ where food and exercise are concerned and gave me a community to turn to until my husband came around and joined me on the get-healthy quest.

Report Inappropriate Comment
KALIGIRL 6/15/2011 1:14PM

    When you think about it self-regulation is all there is. We're responsible for our own behavior - choice or 'no' choice.

I agree - better late than never (good thing you can teach and old dog new tricks...)

Report Inappropriate Comment
MSSNOWY 6/15/2011 9:56AM

    Very good points, Ellen. Thanks for sharing the article and your thoughts.

Report Inappropriate Comment
NANCY- 6/15/2011 9:22AM

    "The difficulty is making ourselves do what we know we need to do"
Ah yes... I have seen that study... for some children it was extremely painful to wait. I experienced this with staying out of the junkfood aisle, the pull is incredible.
Changing behavior is difficult, not impossible. Resistance is needed to change a habit. Then there is a tipping point. Once resistance is a habit it becomes the norm for us and not difficult at all.
Thanks for sharing this.

Report Inappropriate Comment
DONNACFIT 6/15/2011 12:56AM

    Love your blog..so true..we all know what to do to lose weght.. eat less/move more...it's the actual doing it that's tough.. I need that EQ..thanks :)

Report Inappropriate Comment
BRIGHTSPARK7 6/15/2011 12:51AM

    I saw that Stanford study with the marshmallow several years ago, when I was raising my own young 'uns. Interesting what it says about resisting temptation and postponing gratification over the course of a whole life. Fifteen minutes can be a long time for a young child. Self talk makes a big difference.
My version is to allow myself small pleasures and enjoy them. Delaying gratification is built into the way I eat. For example, I generally don't eat dessert in the evenings. Instead of an extra helping reward, hopefully my reward will be losing these last ten pounds.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TBANMAN 6/14/2011 11:21PM

    An interesting idea to say the least. I know I need to exercise my "resistance" muscle as much as I exercise my bicep or my quad.

It's just not as much fun.


Report Inappropriate Comment
LEGALLYBLONDE81 6/14/2011 9:17PM

    I have no problem self regulating when it comes to marshmallows... they are not tempting...

This was a great blog! Really interesting. But, I would posit that there it may not be as simple as across the board self regulation. I am great at self regulating academically (I always have been). Not so good when it comes to eating... Anyone else good in one area but not in others?

Report Inappropriate Comment
SLENDERELLA61 6/14/2011 8:56PM

    Great blog!! Very interesting concept. Now I'm debating whether to give my 4 year old gd the marshmellow test or not, but my gut instinct says she would not last 30 seconds. Guess I better read the article to see if there are some ways I can help her. Bet I wouldn't have lasted even 30 seconds at that age, but I am making progress in developing some of those skills now. And you certainly have!

Report Inappropriate Comment
CARRAND 6/14/2011 8:31PM

    Great blog. It sounds right to me.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TRYINGHARD1948 6/14/2011 7:25PM

    Great blog Ellen. I was interested in your comment about people who have achieved so much and still cannot lick obesity. I sometimes think that people who have achieved highly still reward themselves with something in the mouth, going back to babyhood sucking which gave so much fulfillment, and because they are so 'good' in every other area. Smoking fulfills this need for some but does have life threatening consequences which some people are prepared to risk, amazingly.

Thanks, indeed, to Sparkpeople.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Feet or Fork? Metabolic Inflexibility

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!!

  Member Comments About This Blog Post:

PHEBESS 6/18/2011 12:31PM

    Exercise definitely has to be fun for us to keep up with it. But I think "feet or fork" may become my new mantra!

Report Inappropriate Comment
TEENY_BIKINI 6/15/2011 10:24PM

    Thought-provoking. So much to ponder. Thanks!!


Report Inappropriate Comment
SWEATONCEADAY 6/14/2011 5:44PM

    love this. thanks.

Report Inappropriate Comment
SLENDERELLA61 6/14/2011 3:09PM

    Great blog. Great info. Your status statement made me want to read to find out what you were talking about. Glad I did! I'd vote for fork, but know the feet matters, too.

Report Inappropriate Comment
BELLEFAITH42 6/14/2011 11:16AM

    Awesome blog post and interesting article. Its good to see that science is finally catching up to the real human experience. Interesting that the runners' study is about meat vs. fruits (and not protein vs. carbs or some such thing)

Report Inappropriate Comment
BLUESKY_321 6/14/2011 8:48AM

    Great Blog! and I'm going to check out the full article when I have an extra minute.

I noticed that when I was in my 20s and early 30s I could use my feet to lose or maintain weight. Running an average of just 15 miles per week with some yoga & cardio-combo class a couple times a week and I could eat just about whatever I wanted and lose! Fast forward not so many years and all the running in the world plus eating whatever I want - oh that scale moved all right WAY UP! Bummer!

I still run and enjoy other forms of exercise, but it isn't impacting my weight at all... it all comes down to the fork side of the equation.

Report Inappropriate Comment
NANCY- 6/14/2011 8:35AM

    For me what is important is both... feet and fork.

Report Inappropriate Comment
FREELADY 6/13/2011 11:38PM

    Fascinating blog. Thank you!

Another factor I observe is that many of us tend to greatly overestimate how many calories are burned during various forms of exercise. So mentally I may misguidedly give myself permission to eat more after vigorous exercise, when actually I'm way over-doing the intake!

Report Inappropriate Comment
KRISTI2661 6/13/2011 10:46PM

    Another good one, Ellen.

I used to think that I could just exercise more and maybe lose weight (I actually never tried it - too lazy) but when I really looked at everything that was going into my mouth and how much I was really burning through exercise - there is no way I could ever rely on exercise alone as my only way to lose weight.

Report Inappropriate Comment
CARRAND 6/13/2011 2:00PM

    I think exercise and calories are both important for me. Building muscle seemed to help me eat a little more without gaining, but I know I can't eat as much as I used to when I was heavy. I found 2 forms of exercise I honestly love to do - strength training and yoga - and I do them because I love to do them rather than because they burn calories. If I focus on eating at least 2 fruits and vegetables at every meal, and getting plenty of fiber, my diet stays pretty much in balance and I'm satisfied.

Report Inappropriate Comment
KALIGIRL 6/13/2011 12:45PM

    The fun factor is key for me in staying the exercise course."
Makes such sense - I'm still searching for the fun. Hoping I may become 'addicted' to the running or golf may be enjoyable later this season - we shall see.

I do have to admit strength training early morning revs up my metabolism (maybe the biking in does the same) and since I do like my wine and chocolate, I may vote feet over fork. (Wouldn't that be a change!)

Report Inappropriate Comment
JOHAL52 6/13/2011 12:02PM

    Thanks for sharing that! I have been disappointed that all the extra walking I am doing hasn't seen a resultant downward movement on the scale. And I don't think I am eating more than I was before I added in the extra miles. Sigh, I still think age has to be considered in the mix!

Report Inappropriate Comment
_LINDA 6/13/2011 10:56AM

    Thanks for sharing this!! I am depending on my exercise to keep my weight from coming back, so it will be interesting to see, when I get my foot surgery, and will be unable to do ANYTHING, whether I will still be able to maintain on diet alone. It will be an interesting experiment for this exercise lover. Good thing I am a vegetarian and really like eating only fruits and veggies!! Last time my layoff for this type of surgery was a half year, a very good test..
Have a Marvelous Monday!!

Report Inappropriate Comment
OOLALA53 6/13/2011 10:54AM

    Over the years, I read accounts of people who started exercising before they changed their eating, and dropped weight, even though they weren't trying. I'm sure now they are the exception. I eat for loss and maintenance; I exercise, when I do, for vitality and help keeping up with dance class. Thanks for posting this for reinforcement! emoticon

Report Inappropriate Comment
TRYINGHARD1948 6/13/2011 10:32AM

    Definitely with you on the super efficient metabolism. Exercise is for health benefits and enjoyment, but to use it as a way of losing weight just does not work for me. Great blog.

Report Inappropriate Comment
PENNYAN45 6/13/2011 9:59AM

    Feet vs Fork - I love the term. It is a great visual. I think I'll borrow it.
Thanks for the link to the article - it was very informative. There's lots to know.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Maintenance Math

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.

  Member Comments About This Blog Post:

JOYFUL711 6/14/2011 8:00PM

    I just did the math on that link, it says I should eat 2013 calories to *maintain* my current weight of 133 lbs, I strongly disagree. My dietician already told me my upper limit for maintneance will be 1200-1300 calories if I want to stay this size. (she did say it was ok for my age to be heavier, I do not want to be). I aleady KNOW, I will be at least 150 lbs if I eat 2000 calories on a regular basis. Good grief!

Report Inappropriate Comment
WATERMELLEN 6/13/2011 11:00AM

    Here's a link to a "facts and fallacies" post by nutritionist Leslie Beck who tells us that for women, 1400-1600 calories a day is probably the optimal range: high end, I'm thinking, but more doable.


Comment edited on: 6/13/2011 11:00:40 AM

Report Inappropriate Comment
PENNYAN45 6/13/2011 9:54AM

    I did do this calculation a while ago - and realized how much discipline would be required to maintain my goal weight once I reached it. It's good to know, so that we can have realistic expectations.

I agree that this is probably why many people gain back the weight they lose. They thought they'd be able to stop 'dieting' once they reached goal.

Report Inappropriate Comment
BRIGHTSPARK7 6/12/2011 9:50PM

    I like the way you make the body's calculus conscious, Ellen, so it falls into the realm we can do something about.
I appear to be 'maintaining' about ten pounds higher than where I'd like to be. I know, I know, eat less and move more. I'm also working with a feeling of contentment, eating enough to feel satisfied -- usually about 1300 cals -- don't really want to eat much less than that. So my math requires me to increase calories out. I increased my walking goal this month, so we'll see what happens. Just working on taking action and then being patient about reaching the results.
Thanks as always for a thought provoking blog.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TRYINGHARD1948 6/12/2011 9:07PM

    .. and when you get older it seems to get less too. This path never promised to be easy, just healthier. We can do it.

Report Inappropriate Comment
NANCY- 6/12/2011 7:52AM

    Ah... you have found the secret.
Since you need to consume less... you can invest your food dollars on higher quality foods. (if you already do that... save the $ for greens fees.)
Part of the reason for the need to consume less and work out longer is that you are now moving a smaller body size.
WTG on making maintenance work for you and thank you for the math lesson.
It is good to keep these things in mind when at goal weight, maintaining is sort of like housework, you need to be attentive or it all goes to.....
You are being very attentive.

Report Inappropriate Comment
STLRZGRRL 6/11/2011 9:42PM

    That's the second corollary, E...

that "the less you weight, the less you can eat, the harder you have to exercise" bit?


I think that's where we lose a lot of 'em...

NO one wants to hear that.
it's true peeps... get good with it!

Report Inappropriate Comment

    Maintenance is complicated, but worth it! :)

I find I have to aim a little lower than my self-determined maintenance calories, just in case I go over my limit by eating out that week or traveling that month.

I use health(!) as a motivator for exercise, as I have never been a high burner in that department.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TBANMAN 6/11/2011 9:19PM

    I do a class every Saturday morning called Ultimate Conditioning. Step, intervals, weights, more step, abs, stretch. It's a great class and I love it.

At 170 pounds (6 months ago), I would burn between 550 and 610 calories in the hour.

At 163 pounds (today) I burned 476. Granted, I haven't eaten well the last two days and didn't have as much energy, so really didn't push myself today. Normally I'll burn over 500 calories, but just over.

It goes to show how much harder I have to work, and how much less I have to eat, to maintain the same progression.

As for maintenance calories, there's no way I'd follow SP's advice to eat 2000-2500 a day. Talk about a recipe for disaster! I would imagine that to maintain my ultimate goal weight of 150 pounds I won't be able to consume much more than I'm eating now. And that's fine with me.

Report Inappropriate Comment
PHEBESS 6/11/2011 8:11PM

    Yeah, according to SparkPeople I'm active enough, and eating little enough, to be losing. But that isn't happening for me. I'm not sure if it's my basal metabolism rate, or if I'm inaccurate in calculating my intake or output, or what. I do know that at this point, I should eat about 1450 cals a day - but that will change, I'm sure.

It's a fine balancing act, and it changes as we change. That is for sure.

Report Inappropriate Comment
CARRAND 6/11/2011 8:03PM

    Thanks for the link. The Mayo Clinic says I can maintain on 1900 calories. Spark People gives me 1840, and that seems to be working for me. I called myself "active" because I try to do 40 minutes or more of exercise 5 days a week, but my exercise of choice is weight lifting or yoga, neither of them what I think of as high calorie burners.

Report Inappropriate Comment
ERIKO1908 6/11/2011 6:39PM

    LOL!!! You make maintenance stage seem like something I'm not sure I want to achieve!! (just kidding!!) Very informative - thank you!!

Report Inappropriate Comment

And Let There Be No (More) Moaning . . .

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!!

  Member Comments About This Blog Post:

WATERMELLEN 6/12/2011 10:58AM

    OK, many requests for poppy pictures and I'm so technologically challenged:

Will you let me off the hook with this link??


(Yes, I do have both the bright scarlet and the "watermellen" pink!!)

Report Inappropriate Comment
LEGALLYBLONDE81 6/12/2011 10:26AM

    Can we see pictures of the poppies? They are some of my favorites.

Report Inappropriate Comment
CRYSTALJEM 6/10/2011 11:09AM

    Love Linda's video idea. Glad your muscles recovered. Have beautiful day gorgeous. Smiles and sunshine.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TRYINGHARD1948 6/9/2011 8:06PM

    I can almost smell your garden. Gorgeous!

Report Inappropriate Comment
KALIGIRL 6/9/2011 9:23AM

    Poppies! I emoticon them!
And non-screaming muscles - that's good too!

Report Inappropriate Comment
NANCY- 6/9/2011 7:38AM

    Ah no more soreness, that is good.
I agree, pictures of the poppies would be lovely.
Enjoy both.

Report Inappropriate Comment
BRIGHTSPARK7 6/8/2011 11:04PM

    Glad your muscles have stopped moaning. Your description of the oriental poppy opening is so delicious ... and of course they are exquisite. Yesterday, I cut a rose and placed it in the bathroom, in a tiny votive of water. This morning when I went in the whole room was fragrant with it's perfume. It was wonderful just to inhale.

Report Inappropriate Comment
CARRAND 6/8/2011 8:30PM

    I would like summer better if it wasn't 100 degrees outside.

Report Inappropriate Comment
PHEBESS 6/8/2011 7:44PM


Report Inappropriate Comment

    I am with you...I just love summertime!!!!!!!!!!

Report Inappropriate Comment
_LINDA 6/8/2011 4:12PM

    Oh you lucky dog you!!! I am so waiting for the garden to be safely fully planted and for things to start growing, let alone flowering! Wish you could get a video of these poppies opening up, wouldn't that be cool?? I would settle for photos, though, as I love flowers!! We have reached our high today, 66F, was as low as 44 this morning. I just did a blog of all the flowers I saw at a special greenhouse, restaurant and gift shop, a trip out we don't make very often because its out of town and the gas prices are just too high :(
Have a wonderful Wednesday!

Report Inappropriate Comment
RITZIBROWN 6/8/2011 8:40AM

    Great blog! I'm waiting for the Dahlias & lilies to open. Right now my grasses and lambs ear are adding great color to the yard. I'm with you summer & spring are. Hope you're there when your Oriental poppies are popping.

Report Inappropriate Comment
TOOKES519 6/8/2011 8:38AM

    Pictures Please!!!



Report Inappropriate Comment

First Page  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 Last Page