Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Somehow -- 45 calories worth of Welch's light white grape juice has been added to my nutrition tracker every day for 7 days. This is some kind of promotion. I have no knowledge of having invited this addition . . . I'm not actually drinking it . . . and I am deleting it every day.
So. I get that Spark People funds its free website (which I appreciate very very much) with advertising and promotions.
And I get that Welch's light white grape juice might be relatively healthy. Although when I consume grapes, in moderation , it's generally going to be the fresh fruit: and red grapes because I believe there are more flavenoids (or whatever) in the red grapes. And if not fresh fruit, maybe the occasional glass of red (or white, or rose) wine!!
But here's the thing. I'm respectful of the economic realities that advertising is the "means to an end" of a free site. But I'd like reciprocal respect for the integrity of my nutrition tracker too please.
And insertion of a "snack" I'm not consuming into my nutrition tracker . . . a small thing in quantity of calories (45) . . . still strikes me as a transgression. Makes me feel a bit "squeezed" I suppose!! The nutrition tracker is the single most useful tool on the site for me, and I have achieved weight loss/maintenance by tracking very carefully. Every day. So please don't mess with my nutrition tracker!!
In general, I'm finding that the advertising is becoming more intrusive: slowing me down as I navigate the site. The delay means from time to time stuff is coming up because I've "clicked" and that "click" links to something I didn't mean to hit. That may be, in fact, how the Welch's snack was inserted into my nutrition tracker. I don't know.
So is this kind of promotion OK with you? Am I overreacting? Not a whole lot of trouble to delete: I just don't like it. And of course (having seen people "disappeared" from the site from time to time) I am a bit nervous about even voicing my objection. I'm not a rebellious type, and my day job provides me with sufficient adversarial stuff . . . don't need it here at all at all.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Cloudless blue sky. Fresh snow -- the big crystal kind that sparkles and sparkles.
Whoosh whoosh whoosh whoosh: outing two of cross country skiing was gorgeous!
Now: for a bowl of that soup . . .
Saturday, January 07, 2012
My house has its "winter" smell -- hyacinths! A white one on the kitchen table, a pink one on the third floor . . . and my bargain pots of narcissus are budding up nicely as well.
What a busy week -- big workplace changes that have been in planning for months and months. Stressful, sure: but I'm mainly feeling full of optimism and zest!!
And what a busy day today: laundry (3 loads); soup-making (a delicious minestrone, very spicy, with a parmesan rind simmered in with the vegetables); gym with a good friend; library; cross-country skiing; groceries: special dinner with DH (Dijon-crusted salmon, kale chips with sea salt, rosemary potatoes, cherry tomatoes, a lime-citrusy dry Chilean white wine -- just one glass, and a moderate portion of low fat vanilla ice cream).
The cross-country skiing was terrific: quite warm temps, perfect wax for kick/glide, glorious light with sunshine and clouds, sparkly sparkly snow. I can feel it in my thighs and upper arms: despite my regular fitness including weights, it's been awhile for this particular type of exercise!
I do love skiing. And hope to get out again tomorrow!
Winter: there's lots to like.
Monday, January 02, 2012
DDOORN sent me a link to an amazing article in a recent New York Times Sunday Magazine setting out current research into weight loss "recividism" . . . a topic dear to the hearts of many of us.
Well, I'm choosing to characterize it as "amazing" rather than overwhelming. And "dear" to our hearts rather than devastating!!
But you'll have to make up your own mind!! Here's the link:
The article also has a slide show illustrating the weight loss history of a couple who track everything they eat and exercise vigorously pretty much every day. And despite all of that, have not been able to keep their weight loss at the level they would prefer. Although they are maintaining at very substantially less than their prior obese weight levels.
So: what's the take away?
Yes, it's true. It may be hard to lose weight. But it really IS harder to maintain weight loss. So hard that most people don't do it.
And yeah: those of us who have lost substantial amounts of weight really do struggle with how very difficult it is to keep it off. We're not just imagining it. We're not just making excuses for ourselves. That's because there really is a measurable biological tendency -- both metabolic and hormonal -- to put it all back on again. The measurable biological tendency is the reason the article is called "The Fat Trap".
Even a year after weight loss, we produce measurably more ghrelin -- the hormone that makes you feel hungry -- and measurably less leptin-- the hormone that suppresses appetite -- than an "average" person who has never been obese.
It really is as if our bodies are trying desperately to return to their previous weight. Our post-dieting bodies morph into a biologically-altered state. And that tendency to regain weight is sustained for quite a long period of time . . . years, maybe six years or even longer.
Moreover, this new research indicates that those of us who have been obese will regain weight eating fewer calories than those who have never been obese. The change isn't just hormonal, it's metabolic too. That's why never-obese people may be able to eat 300 ++ more calories a day than formerly-obese people can eat, without gaining weight. In addition, a formerly-obese person probably burns fewer calories per minute of any given exercise than a person who has never been obese. DOUBLE WHAMMY!!
So my somewhat cranky perception that I'm hungrier than other people, that I have less will-power than other people, that I simply can't eat as much as other people eat AND that I have to exercise more than other people have to exercise so maintain the same "average weight: there's now some scientific support for all of those perceptions.
Which means it really does take eternal vigilance to maintain weight loss. I've gotta be prepared to treat hunger as something less than an emergency. I've gotta be prepared to re-arrange my environment to avoid temptation. I've gotta eat less than the 1800 calories a day an "average" woman of my height and weight could eat, and I've gotta move more.
It's not going to stop any time soon.
And perhaps means that the best strategy would be never to have permitted myself to have become obese in the first place.
Well, that train has left the station. I was obese. Haven't been obese for almost a decade, but I still want to eat too much. And not move enough. Every day.
Is all of this too discouraging? Should I give up right now?
No. That's my hormonal and metabolic reality. I'm stuck with it. I can't change it, perhaps. But I can manage it.
I used to smoke, too. No cigarettes for more than 30 years -- not one -- but I still feel like smoking most days. However, I know that smoking is a craving I can manage. Because I have managed it.
I can also manage the desire to eat more than I am able to eat without gaining weight. Even if that means eating less than "normal" weight people can eat. I can tolerate some hunger. Because: I would rather be hungry than fat.
There it is.
Don't like it particularly.
But: oh well.
And thank you DDORN -- Don -- for sharing this article with me!! It's comforting, anyhow, to know that I'm not crazy. This weight maintenance thing really does demand the kind of OCD energy and attention I have been devoting to it.
But given the alternative . . . uncomfortably excess weight, all the health consequences that go with excess weight: no question. For me it is worth it.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
OK, had to change my weight tracker this morning to 142. Up from 140. And not the middle 3 which is what I aim for.
Hmmmm. I've been trying to get back to middle 3 for a couple of months. Without success. Have weighed myself every day. Have seen a swing between 140 and 143.5. Have seen exasperating flutters below to that middle number 3, but the scales have never been "resting" at middle 3 since about late October.
Despite the fact that I have been tracking. Diligently. And have been only very rarely over my calorie range. Even through the holiday season.
On the other hand, I have not been getting to the gym as often as I should -- particularly since the golf course closed for the season. But I have been at the gym at least a couple times a week.
However, I know that exercise (although important for mood, toning, cardio fitness) has little to do with weight loss maintenance for me. Counting calories, balancing fat/protein/carbs: that's what does it. I can never exercise enough to eat remotely close to whatever I want. I have to tolerate hunger, which is not an emergency: and I have. I must eat sitting down every time: and I need to renew my commitment to that basic principle! (Although yes, I've tracked what I've eaten standing up!)
Now the long term and more recent history.
Waaaay back in June 2001 I had weighed a whopping 230. Heaviest ever. Size 18-20. And I had taken off 80 pounds, down to 150, by February 2002. Mostly kept it off. But I had also permitted a gradual increase of those 20 (pity party) pounds or so by 2009: about 10 pounds very quickly, feeling sad and scared after breast cancer diagnosis early in 2009.
My goal weight, set by SP in 2009 when I signed up, was 155. In May 2009 I weighed about 173. And I achieved SP goal weight within a couple months of joining SP. So grateful to SP. Got back into my size 10s. And some 8s. Then I fluctuated up and down 10 pounds or so.
June 2001: 230.
February 2002: 150
May 2009: 173.
August 2009: 155
January 2011: 163
August 2011: 138
January 2012: 142
So: a year ago, I weighed 20 pounds more than right now. That was the point at which SLENDERERLLA introduced me to the Judith S. Beck cognitive psychology approach in her great book, "The Diet Solution", and I learned to "think like a thin person". Saw middle 3. Stayed there for quite a number of months over the summer. And moved comfortably into quite a number of size 6s!
So here's the question, adopting Judith S. Beck's distinction between lowest achievable weight and lowest sustainable weight.
Was 138 my lowest achievable weight? And is 140-142 my lowest sustainable weight?
My waist measurement is still under 28", hips under 38", neck under 13": size 6s all still fitting.
But: I do not want to put on any more weight. I do not want to adopt an attitude of complacency which will see me fluctuate up 10 or 20 pounds again.
And: I would like to see a middle number 3 again.
There is it. I do not want to fluctuate more than 2-3 pounds. It's not healthy for me with my history of estrogen-positive breast cancer.
I'll continue to aim for the middle 3. And continue to explore whether it's just achievable (temporarily), or perhaps sustainable.
When I'm working out, I'm not eating! So for that reason alone, it could not hurt to step up the exercise. My gym is open today. Apparently the cross country ski trails are open too (although it's pretty icy and crusty out there).
Eternal vigilance. I'm doing OK with weight loss maintenance. I can live with 140-143. But I want to do just a little better.
Above all, I want to stabilize my weight without fluctuation other than normal water retention/salt/biological swings. Two or three pounds.
That's the goal. And I'm making turkey soup broth from the bones I'd stored in the freezer!
Get An Email Alert Each Time WATERMELLEN Posts