Grex Agora47 Conference

Item 20: mynxcat wants to be svelte

Entered by mynxcat on Wed Sep 24 21:39:44 2003:

This is my blog on my quest to lose weight. You are welcome to comment,
criticize, ridicule, suggest, advise, flame and call people names if you so
wish. However, I am determined to lose all those extra pounds I've put on in
the last year or so.
332 responses total.

#1 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Sep 24 21:46:55 2003:

So why the sudden urge to lose weight? I have had this feeling that I've been
packing on the pounds for some time now. The biggest indication is when no
pants look good on you anymore, and when you live your life in pants and
jeans, this is Not a Good Thing. However, I've been ignoring the notion for
a while till a couple of days ago. Someone made the following comment on the
"blog" on my website  : "Holy cow Sapna. You've put on weight. Start working
out instead of spending so much time blogging" No, I don't spend that much
time blogging (averages less than half an hour a day over the period of a
week), but I also do not exercise. And I love to eat. I'm not big on snacking,
food has to be in plain view for me to think of eating it. But when I do eat,
I tend to really eat. And I hate exercise. I will walk a lot when presented
the oppurtunity, but in Columbus you're best bet on getting from point A to
point B is the car. There's nowhere that I'd like to go that's walkable
distance from where I live.

Anyhow, that comment made me run to the bathroom scale and weigh myself - a
whopping 157 lbs. That's 22 lbs over what I was when I moved to Clevleand in
March of last year. And even then I was trying to get rid of the last 5 lbs
so to speak. That did not make me very happy. I'm determined to lose these
22 lbs and the extra 5 if it's the last thing I do. 

Started the "Lose weight projec" yesterday. I will be recording progress or
non-progress, interesting facts about nutrition and exercise, and anything
that catches my fancy while I go ahead with my plan


#2 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Sep 24 22:03:31 2003:

I started off by looking for "Fitness Planners". I wanted one that I could
download to my desktop, but didn't come across any that are free. There is
the Vivonic Fitness Planner available, but since it's not free, I didn't
really look into it. GNC has a fitness planner on their site, but it's based
on .NET and tends to have too many server errors to make it convenient enough
to use. Chatelaine's Free Fitness Planner
(http://healthplanner.chatelaine.com/) seems interesting enough, though it
didn't really fit my needs. The easing in period into the exercises was 3
months. A little too slow for my liking. It based it's nutrition on the food
groups instead of calories, which is a good, sound plan, but without the
caloric indication, I wasn't really interested. I finally settled on
www.fitday.com. It lets me record what I've eaten, and will calculate the
caloric content, along with fat, carb, proteins and minerals. It will let me
add activities, and calculate the calories burnt. I realise that these numbers
may not be accurate, but it gives me a good visual indoication of what I've
been eating and doing.

Learnt some interesting stuff about the way my bodie burns calories. My basal
calories burnt are about 1590. Based on my lifestyle I burn 443 calories
additionally a day. And yesterday, I burnt an extra 200 calories in exercise.
Playing the piano apparently burns about 2 calories a minute (that doesn't
really seem right, it seems a little on the high side). And just by being at
work I burn about 254 calories. Driving my car to and from work expends about
42 calories. 

As for caloric intake, yesterday I ingested about 1700+ calories. About 700
of those were two tuna fish sandwiches that I had as snacks. Each slice of
bread was 80 calories. The butter was about 90 calories for each sandwich (I
used butter on the bread slices. I didn't add mayo), and the tuna itself
(packed in veg oil) was about 300+ calories. That's 700 calories I had in
addition that could have been avoided. However, since 1000 calories is a
little on the low side, I guess that's ok, but I wish I'd used the 700
calories for something more satisfying. 192 calories on a chocolate chip
cookie was way too many calories for so little satisfaction. Counting calories
this way has made me understand food better, and make better substitution
choices. It's helped me evaluate foods that are worth eating, and which can
be skipped (If I hadn't eaten that cookie, I wldn't have had to have
yesterday's workout, theoretically) I found that if I substitue a tablespoon
of coriander chutney for the same amount of oil-based pickle, IK've just
reduced my fat intake by about 5 grams and caloric intake by 90%. Definitely
worth it, especially since I don't have a preferance for one or the other.


#3 of 332 by jp2 on Wed Sep 24 23:08:30 2003:

This response has been erased.



#4 of 332 by keesan on Wed Sep 24 23:31:06 2003:

We went through something similar trying to figure out how I could gain
weight, counting the calories.  Fruit and vegetables are mostly water - eat
all you want of those.  Bread is a good way to gain weight. 

One way to lose weight is not to eat anything you have not cooked for
yourself.  No restaurants, no take-out, no frozen pizzas, etc.  No prepared
foods - start with single ingredients.  Don't keep things around that don't
need preparing except for low-calorie things like fruit.  

Avoid refined foods, which includes butter and sugar.  These two don't give
you much that you need besides calories.

Eat vegan - even the less fatty types of meat and cheese are high calorie.
Get a pressure cooker for beans.

Eat whole-grain - it takes longer to chew and digest and you feel full longer.

I am currently trying to eat a lot of bread and cheese, adding olive oil to
everything, drinking milk, eating every couple of hours even if not hungry.
You should be doing the opposite.  Drink water if thirsty.  Stay busy with
things outside instead of eating.


#5 of 332 by jaklumen on Thu Sep 25 00:46:03 2003:

resp:3 well, to comment on that, if you do need to lose weight, you'll 
reach it sooner than I.  I've posted recent pictures, so...

Everyone's got a different idea on how to lose weight, frankly.  I 
think you'll have to find what works for you, Sapna.  I think the most 
important things to remember is that it involves a lifestyle change 
and therefore, you need to find some kind of plan you can stick to for 
the rest of your life.

Julie has lost 30 pounds with the Carbohydrate Addict's Diet... my 
progress is more gradual.  But this is not for everyone... we eat 
quite a bit of meat.  I think Sindi's advice probably fits a broader 
range of people.  BUT more importantly, if you're serious, and want 
some help, I'd ask your doctor, and consider seeing a nutritionist.  A 
nutritionist is the one best qualified to evaluate what you are eating 
and determine what you should eat... and your physician can help you 
overall, as well as recommend a good exercise program.

I bought a scale that measures weight and body fat percentages with my 
past birthday money and weigh in every morning.  Every so often, Julie 
takes some body measurements with a tape, too-- hips, waist, arm, 
thigh.  Julie charts the percentages, weights, and numbers on a 
graph.  Keep in mind that we look at the graph over time.  You should 
bear this in mind, too.  Most of the time, you should be paying 
attention to how your clothes are fitting you than what the scale 
says.  My numbers weren't going down fast, but Julie said my clothes 
were fitting more loosely when she helped me rush off to work.


#6 of 332 by jaklumen on Thu Sep 25 00:50:22 2003:

btw, if you want to be 'svelte', consider a exercise program that 
combines aerobics with weight training.  Aerobics will help trim your 
body, while a solid weight training program can shape and tone your 
body.  Take a look at any of Joyce Vedral's books, such as "Bottoms 
Up" or "The Fat-Burning Workout."


#7 of 332 by dah on Thu Sep 25 00:52:46 2003:

I only like writers whose last names are Joyce.


#8 of 332 by i on Thu Sep 25 01:01:33 2003:

Before eating a meal or snack, drink a large quantity (.5l or more) of a
calorie-free-and-tastes-like-it liquid (water, unsweetened tea, etc.).
Put another one or two further into any large meal, and don't keep eating
for an extended period.

(The idea's to avoid consuming wet calories because you're thirsty, and
to convince your stomach that it's full.)

Arrange your life so you have to walk more.


#9 of 332 by rcurl on Thu Sep 25 01:04:03 2003:

Also so that you are usually near a lavatory.


#10 of 332 by dah on Thu Sep 25 01:13:59 2003:

That can cause bladder problems, i.


#11 of 332 by glenda on Thu Sep 25 01:59:48 2003:

I am currently doing a free online class at Barnes and Noble University.  The
text that is being used is "Diet Simple" by Katherine Tallmadge (she is also
the instructor for the class.)  She is a nuitritionist and weight loss expert.
Unlike most, she has been through it herself.  I really like the book.  It
is full of tips, suggestions, and substitutions.  i.e. replace one sugared
soft drink with water a day and loose 17-22 pounds a year, replace the
afternoon candy bar or ice cream sundae with a fresh fruit with 1 tablespoon
of regular chocolate syrup sundae and loose 9-35 pounds a year, etc.  It is
one of the best diet books I have seen in a long, long time.

She suggests keeping a food diary for a week without really trying to diet.
(She has found that having to write it down makes you more aware of exacting
what, when, and why you are eating and you make changes without thinking about
it.)  After a week, look at it and evaluate what and when.  You have started
this process by using fitday.com.  I use it, too.  It makes it easy to track
everything.  You periodically evaluate the food diary.  Also think about what
you are eating.  Sometimes you really do need that brownie, but think about
the caloric consequences before eating it, do an inner test to see if you
really feel that the bit of enjoyment you will get from it is worth the
calorie hit you will take.  If it is, enjoy it to its fullest.  Savor every
crumb.  I am a choco-holic.  I rarely pass chocolate up.  Using this approach,
there are days that I say, "no, it really isn't worth it."  Other days it is.
As long it is under conscious control, rather than auto-pilot, it is ok to
have a high/empty calorie treat on occasion.  I have found that this has
reduced my chocolate from 1-2 candy bars per day during the week, to less than
one a week.  A major win for me.  Little tiny things can add up in the long
run.

Good luck.  I will cheer you on, and be support if you slip.


#12 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 02:56:30 2003:

Thanks for all your tips and kind words. 

Jamie, thank you for your vote of confidence :) But it _has_ been close to
a year since you last saw me.. and though I'm still nowhere close to being
a candidate for rotunda.com, I have reached a point where I am definitely not
happy with my weight and body shape. I don't think my goal is unrealistic.

Sindi, your suggestions made a lot of sense. I have made it a goal to prepare
all my meals and cut down on restaurant or pre-cooked foods. I know bread is
a great way to put on weight, which is a pity since I LOVE bread. But a lot
of your suggestions were simple enough to follow, and made good sense.

Jon, thanks for your comments and advice. What is the Carbohydrate-Addict's
diet. I just might need that :P And I am working out an exercise program that
embodies both aerobics and weight trainng. I may join the YMCA, seeing that
the universal gym in th apartment complex is broken.

Walter, it is my goal to drink more water. I realise my daily water intake
is nowhere close to the suggested requirements. For some reason, I do not like
the taste of water in this country :P Don't know what it is. I can drink it
if it's iced, but with the weather changing that's becoming more difficult.
Can I count the water in tea as part of my water intake? 

Glenda, another fitday person, Yay! I like it well enough, mainly becuase it
lets me keep track of what I'm eating and gives me an idea of how many
calories I'm ingesting. Not too bad for a fre online tool.

Today's weigh-in this morning put me at 158 lbs. I'm blaming pre-menstrual
bloating for that. 

Did some tummy trimming exercises and stretches this morning. Though it didn't
feel like it was doing anything while I was doing them, the stretch in my
muscles after the exercises left me feeling quite satisfied. And I was more
awake after I did them, which is an addd benefit. the evening's exercise was
about 12 minutes on the treadmill which recorded a calorie loss of 126, 10
minutes on the stepper at level 1, which recorded 45 calories, 10 calories
on the rowing machine. Di some weight training for my arms with the free
weights bar and the dumb-bells, mainly for the triceps and the biceps. Then
I discovered the universal gym was broken. I may have to look into how to use
the free-weights to work out my lower body.

Dinner was a little heavier than I would have liked it to be because we had
company over. Which leads me to ask, how do I calculate the caloric content
of the food I eat. Most of the food I eat is India cooking and I haven't found
caloric content of Indian dishes anywhere. Do I just add up all the calories
of the raw ingredients for a rough estimate. Do the foods' caloric content
change with preparation? (apart from calories added from cooking fat etc)

I have been making decisions before I eat foods based on satisfaction vs
calories. The 192 calorie cookie was definitely not worth it. I would have
been just as happy with 2 saltine crackers at 24 calories. I prefer salted
snacks to sweet ones - bagels over donuts, crackers over cookies - and wish
that nutri-grain bars did not come with sweetened flavorings. 


#13 of 332 by glenda on Thu Sep 25 03:49:09 2003:

That's one of the problems I have.  We do a lot of Asian cooking: Indian,
Chinese, Thai, Indonesian, etc.  We also do a lot of Mexican.  I have a
reasonable food count book, but the only Mexican and Chinese listing are for
either chain restaurants or frozen foods.  No Indian or other Asian.  I just
figure out how much for each ingredient in the entire dish and figure what
percentage of the dish I ate.  Not exact, but I really don't need exact, just
a good ballpark.  Caloric content does change with preparation.  Boiling
versus baking versus frying.  Boiling also removes vitamins.  The main thing
is to try to burn more than you take in.

Walking all over campus is helping, as well as I stay on my feet and move
around a lot while working as TA in computer classes.  I started Tai Chi
yesterday. Not particularly for the exercise, though that is a plus, but for
the stress  relief, improve flexibility (bad joints), and to just MOVE.  I miss
not walking  to school.  I was nice when we lived 1.25 miles from school, that
meant at least 2.5 miles each school/work day.  Now we live too far away, and I
miss the walk. With all the trash the UofM students leave on the sidewalks and
roadside around here it really isn't too wise to do much walking.  I have
stepped on things just walking to the house from where I have to park the car,
which have caused me to take nasty falls and twisted ankles.  Walking for
pleasure or exercise and  risking another injury just doesn't seem to be suited
for this area.


#14 of 332 by keesan on Thu Sep 25 03:52:38 2003:

Calorie content does not change from that of the ingredients unless you are
boiling things and some of the calories go into the water.  (This probably
explains why canned vegetables have slightly fewer calories per ounce than
fresh ones in our list.)  Get a kitchen scale and weigh things as you add them
to what you are cooking.

The amount of oil used in cooking makes a large difference.  

Rice and potatoes, not just bread, are high in calories.  Try having a higher
proportion of vegetables to other things in your meal, as that will fill you
up without many calories.  Brown rice takes longer to digest and will keep
you feeling full faster, also takes longer to chew.

You can buy a small water filter that attaches to a kitchen sink faucet
(screws on) at a hardware store to make the water taste better.  You can also
cook with less salt so as not to need to drink as much.  Whenever I eat
restaurant or prepared food I get very thirsty and drink several glasses of
water - with our cooking I don't need to drink water.

It is said that sugar makes you hungry for more sugar.  Eat fruit.


#15 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 04:28:28 2003:

I've noticed that a large part of my daily intake is carbs. What's the
recommended amount of carbs I should be having. Seems like everything I'm
eating is high in carbs.

As of now I'm keeping an eye on how much of the dish I'm eating and the
ingredients that go into it. This includes the oil that is used to cook (298
calories just for 2 tbspn of cooking oil seems a lot) This seems to give me
some sort of ball-park figure which works good enough. 

My diet at home is mostly vegetarisn as my fiance is vegetarian. I will
occasionally have salmon or shrimp and sometimes tilapia. My meat intake is
limited to lunch at work, which I have been watching religiously the last
couple of days. Must remember to get brown rice when the current batch os
over, though the fiance is not a big fan. 


#16 of 332 by scg on Thu Sep 25 05:24:58 2003:

What worked for me, in combination.  I have no idea how much any of these
alone would have done:

Give up driving.  I didn't really give it up, but limited it to situations
where there was no other good way to get where I wanted to go, so no driving
to the grocery store or other local shopping, no shopping in suburban strip
malls (other than the Target that has a train station at the other end of its
parking lot), no driving to work, etc.  When I was working upstairs from a
train station, this translated to using my car maybe two or three times a
month.  Working in a somewhat wider variety of locations, I find I'm using
my car maybe twice a week, on average.  This approach used to sound limiting
to me, but mostly the places I can get to by walking are more interesting than
the places I can get to by driving.

Give up soft drinks.  I used to always keep a glass or can of rootbeer on my
desk, and be drinking it constantly.  After a while I decided this was making
me feel rather sick, and switched to water.  Really rapid weight loss
followed, which was a pleasant side effect but mostly not the goal behind that
particular move.  I followed that by mostly giving up other products
containing refined sugar, but I still like cookies or ice cream occasionally.
Sugary drinks just seem gross to me at this point.

Find a fun physical activity, and build a social life around it.  For me,
that's biking.  I like biking down hills, and I like spending time with the
people I bike with, so biking up hills (hard physical activity) becomes part
of life.  When I've attempted exercise for the sake of exercise, I've never
been at all good at keeping it up.

Don't limit yourself.  If I want to do something, building a lifestyle around
not doing that thing isn't something I'm going to stick with.  Everybody
always starts off this discussion with the importance of healthy, home cooked,
food, for example.  But I'm not that great a cook, and I live in a
neighborhood famous for its restaurants.  I'm always going to be consuming
calories.  The key is just to burn off what I consume.  See fun physical
activity paragraph.


#17 of 332 by sj2 on Thu Sep 25 12:03:51 2003:

Ho!! Wait. I once got in a big arguement with mooncat (Anne Perry) 
because I looked at her picture and commmented that she had a little 
fat around her waist (I didn't call her fat and even said she looks 
beautiful). What I got was a big lecture over not calling american 
women fat!!!

But its ok for an american woman to call herself fat?? 

Hmmmm ... so what I do learn out of all this?? ;-) :D


#18 of 332 by jp2 on Thu Sep 25 12:11:50 2003:

This response has been erased.



#19 of 332 by sj2 on Thu Sep 25 12:24:07 2003:

Did you see http://goatse.cx ?


#20 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 12:47:13 2003:

I am not American, I'm Indian. Being called fat is a personal thing. Sure that
comment did zing at first, but it was the truth, and I realise it. Each woman
has their own body shape, and some are a little thicker than others. I, for
one, know I can be 22 lbs thinner at least, I've been there. (Even then
Ithought I could lose a few lbs, but I'd be happy just ggetting there right
now :P)

And why is it that you're not supposed to call "American" women fat? It's ok
to call European, Australian, Arican, Chinese, Indian women fat? Though
compared to Indian women, American women are bombardd much more with size 0
models, and the pressure on them to be thinner has been greater. Indian women
have always had pudgy, hip-heavy role models, though that's changing with the
latest slew of actresses that we have. But even in school, we were never
really under any pressure to be a certain body-shape. i think it's different
over here. I remember my cousin saying she'd die if she put on another pound.
This frm a 14 year old girl who had teh flattest tummy and was the skinnest
person I knew at the time. Maybe it's die to this pressure women have had to
grow up that you're not supposed to call American women fat? I don't know.
Personally, I don't think you should call *any* woman fat, unless you know
she really could be thiner and it's sheer laziness that's keeping her from
being fit. My fiance's been trying to nudge me on the right direction for
months. "hitcher", the poster on my site, prolly didn't have any right to say
it (I don't know who he is. If he turns out ot be someone I knew in my thinner
days, maybe he had some ground. If he's just someone who visits my site, it
would be highly rude, but it was teh truth, and it did provide the last straw
that broke the camel's back.


#21 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 12:55:24 2003:

Haha Jamie, made you look


#22 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 13:02:59 2003:

Steve, I wish I could give pu the car. But Columbus has virtually no public
transport, and definitely none from where I live to my place of wor. I do need
to drive everywhere. (My theory on why people in NYC are so much fitter than
people in the mid-west - they walk everywhere, food portiona are smaller, and
beer being $7.00 for 2 at the "convenience" store, who can fford to drink?)

And I do not drink soft-drinks. Never liked the aerated stuff, so that's one
less thing to cut from my diet. Which is a pity. Just by dropping soft-drinks,
I could drop a few lbs. But I do not have that  option :(

Weigh-in this morning was 156lbs. I think. I shall invest in a digital scale
so I don't have to squint trying to figure out where the needle is pointing,
and wonderingi f the damn thing is calibrated right. Also, I'm aware that body
weight fluctuates daily. I'll prolly go by weekly number, buit a daily
weigh-in just makes the process "easier"?

The fiance got me a slice of coffee-cake yesterday. According to fitday.com,
1 cubic inch is 15 Ok, again - according to fitday.com, 1 cubic inch is about
16 alories, and 1 gram of fat. Can this really be true? Can coffee cake be
sooo satisfyingly low cal. (1 cubic inch is enough at a time) and what does
(NFS) next to teh food name mean, Glenda? Anyone?


#23 of 332 by lynne on Thu Sep 25 15:03:28 2003:

Boston is similar to New York that way--it takes about as long to walk as it
does to drive over, swear at all the idiots that are clogging the roads,
and find a parking space which you then have to pay through the nose for.
And yet, I've managed to gain about 15 pounds over the past year without
consciously changing what I eat.  Maybe it's the dreaded mid-twenties
metabolic slowdown?  Or medication, which I stopped taking about 3 weeks
ago.
(NFS=national food service?)  I'd guess that coffee cake varies widely in
caloric content according to preparation--would be leery of trusting the
16 calories number.  I'd go with the numbers on the nutritional info label,
if available.


#24 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 15:15:56 2003:

Unfortunately the coffee-cake came from a bakery. No nutritonal label.

I thought maybe NFS meant No Fat Substitutes. Dunno


#25 of 332 by glenda on Thu Sep 25 15:38:30 2003:

I haven't figured that out yet.  I intend to poke around the site a bit more.
Someday.  When I have time.  (Yeah, right.  I have already forgotten what
sleep is, where do I find more time. :-)


#26 of 332 by dah on Thu Sep 25 15:56:45 2003:

Holy shit 156?!  You must be short or anorexic.
,


#27 of 332 by lynne on Thu Sep 25 16:32:18 2003:

(sapna:  for what it's worth, 150 is just about my ideal weight. :))


#28 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 16:46:24 2003:

I'm 5'7". Definitely t anorexic. I can definitely see the fat on my tummy and
posterior, and am borderlining the healthy weight for my height and body type.
I've never had illusions of being too fat, if anything it's the opposite. I
tend to think I'm thinner than I am (which explains how I got here) 157 lbs
would have been ok, if I was also fit to go along with it. But I have more
flab than I care to know about and am definitely not eating healthy and my
stamina is shot.

I've been looking at fitday and 10 minutes of walking at about 3.5 mph burns
about 33 calories. Chatelaine says "running" at 3.8 mph is about 173 calories
for 10 minutes. My treadmill says its 120 calories or thereabouts, but of
course it doesn't know whether I'm runniong or walking at a very brisk pace.
Does the number of calories burnt actuall ychange with the fact that you're
walking or running? I think that's pretty interesting. And also leads me to
think that I'm burning a lot less calories than I think I am.

(I don't like running much, and definitely not on the treadmill. I can never
seem to keep in line with the damn thing. And I don't have the stamina for
it)


#29 of 332 by gelinas on Thu Sep 25 17:06:39 2003:

(Running uses the muscles differently, so I can see it taking more energy to
run than walk, even when walking is faster.)

Beauty is a cultural thing.  I don't know why the standards differ, but they
do.


#30 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 17:09:42 2003:

I meant "definitely NOT anorexic". The internet ate u pa cpl of letters.


#31 of 332 by scg on Thu Sep 25 17:44:48 2003:

I think I continued gaining weight for a while after giving up driving. 
Getting rid of refined sugar in my diet, after giving up driving, seemed to
be what made a big difference.  But hurting my knee earlier this year and
having to cut way back on non-driving modes of transportation caused me to
gain about 10 pounds.  I think it's a cumulative thing for me.

There are two aspects of exercise and calorie burning.  The first is the
activity itself, for which 20 minutes of walking should presumably be double
10 minutes of walking.  The second is that regular exercise raises your
metabolism in general, to the point where I find that if I'm exercising really
regularly, I start bouncing around all over the place when I'm trying to sit
still.  


#32 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Sep 25 22:50:23 2003:

I had lunch away from my desk today, which means I had it in 20 minutes. I
was hungry again by 3:30pm. I shall stick to eating lunch at my desk. When
I do that, lunch is prolonged over an hour and a half and that keeps the
hunger pangs away till well into the evening. (I ate the same thing for lunch
today as I've been doing for the last couple of days, so it's not like I ate
less today).

Just joined California Fitness. A nice month-to-month program with the
initiation fee waived for about $30.00 a month. The equipment is good. I get
a free personal training session tomorrow where the trainer will assess my
fitness, work out some sort of plan for me, show me how to use the eqiuipment
etc. I'm looking forward to that.

I've also found that I prefer a bowl of lentil-spinach soup to a sandwich now.
The mere thought of those empty calories is enough to make the sandwich taste
of cardboard


#33 of 332 by vipla on Thu Sep 25 23:30:59 2003:

Question for everybody:HOW I CHANGE WEB PAGES?


#34 of 332 by jaklumen on Fri Sep 26 01:53:42 2003:

resp:12 "The Carbohydrate Addict's Diet," Dr. Rachael F. Heller and 
Dr. Richard F. Heller, ISBN 0-451-17339-2.  It's an alternative to 
Atkins, particularly if you find you have cravings on the Atkins 
diet.  You basically do low carb two meals and the third you have some 
flexibility by limiting eating time to an hour-- the idea is that your 
body believes it doesn't need to use insulin yet if you do.  Read the 
book over first.


#35 of 332 by keesan on Fri Sep 26 02:31:38 2003:

Are you allowed to eat apples or other fruit while at work?
Foods with fiber take longer to digest and will keep you from getting hungry
longer.  Whole grains, beans.  Can you take rice and lentil stew with
vegetables to work and heat it up there?  

Vegetarian (non-cheese) sandwiches are probably not going to keep you from
getting hungry other than if they are peanut butter.  Not enough bulk.


#36 of 332 by scg on Fri Sep 26 02:37:51 2003:

Simple carbohydrates (like refined sugar, or Gu) are sometimes bad because
your body stores them as fat if it can't use them right away.  The other
approach to eating stuff with lots of sugar is to do so during exercise.  At
that point they can provide badly needed energy, rather than "empty calories."

Sustained exercise will probably require you to eat a lot more than being
sedentary, since you end up burning a lot more calories.  I decided at one
point that if fuel costs were measured in miles per dollar, driving became
considerably cheaper than bicycling.  Somebody else I mentioned this to
pointed out that it was more true when biking from bakery to bakery in West
Marin than when biking from convenience store to convenience store in some
other areas.


#37 of 332 by scg on Fri Sep 26 02:40:20 2003:

Sindi slipped in with #35, and I'll disagree, at least in my case.  For me,
apples have a milder version of the surge of energy followed by a crash effect
that sugar has.


#38 of 332 by sj2 on Fri Sep 26 02:45:30 2003:

Re #20, read my post. It says that I did not call her fat. Having a 
little fat on your waist and being fat are two VERY different things, 
IMHO.


#39 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Sep 26 02:50:13 2003:

Whether you called her fat or not, my response was more toward the sentiment
that one should not call American women fat. You're rght  in your distinction,
btw.


#40 of 332 by scott on Fri Sep 26 14:35:49 2003:

As always, wacky theories about weight loss abound.  

Mine is that building muscle is the best way, since the muscles are what use
energy, even when you are sitting around.


#41 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Sep 26 15:29:54 2003:

Weight Training is part of my program.

Today will be my first day at the gym. I'm excited. Have to get new sweats,
my current ones are pretty ratty. 

I realise that there are certain things that I will not be able to gibe up.
The morning cup of tea brewed the "Indian" way with 3 tspns of sugar is
definitely one of them (For a discussion on the indian way of brewing tea,
please refer to Item Ate) That's what gets me up in the morning!!

Skipped this morning's stretch exercises as I was late for work. Don't feel
too good about it, especially considering that last night's exercise was a
dud (Thank you NBC Premiere Thursday. The least you cld have done was deliver
an episode of Friends that was *funny*) However, I hope to make it up tonight.

I skipped donuts at work this morning. Go me. Though, I think if it was bagels
and cream cheese, I may not have been able to resist.


#42 of 332 by tod on Fri Sep 26 20:51:05 2003:

This response has been erased.



#43 of 332 by munkey on Fri Sep 26 22:54:38 2003:

That's it! I'm gonna exercise too!


#44 of 332 by tod on Fri Sep 26 23:12:13 2003:

This response has been erased.



#45 of 332 by jaklumen on Sat Sep 27 01:16:47 2003:

resp:43 rock on, rock on


#46 of 332 by mynxcat on Sat Sep 27 05:29:54 2003:

Had my fitness evaluation at the gym. Turns out, that I actually weigh 161
lbs, according to the manual scale at teh gym. That's 5 lbs off my bathroom
dcale. Could it be because of my clothes and shoes (I usually weigh after the
shower, without any clothes on). 5 lbs off seems too high. Anyways, the
fitness instructor says that weight should not be the focus a it can vary
largely due to water retention and such. I know that. Though I do liike to
monitor daily just so I don't forget to weigh in at the end of the week. 

The equipment is pretty good at teh gym. Lots of cool stuff. However, teh Butt
Blaster seems not to work. The peg to adjust the weights seems stuck at 15
lbs. Maybe I'll ask someone tomorrow to see if they can do something about
it. The cardio equipment mostly come wtih heart-rate monitors so you can
monitor and see whether you're in teh fat burning range. The instructor says
that given my weight and age, my ideal fat-burning heart-rate is 151-175. The
machines say 125. I seem to be able to go at 160 without any adverse effects.

Today was a breakthrough of sorts, I actually managed to run on the teadmill,
something that I loathe doing. It's usually a brisk walk for me. Of the 10
minutes I was on the treadmill, I ran for 5 which is quite a lot for me. So
that makes me happy. The cross-trainer seems to burn the most calories. I must
remember that and incorporate that more into my routine.

We also did the fat-percentage test. According to that little machine, my body
is 31% fat. 50 lbs of my body is fat. Howeer, for women, the normal range is
24%, which is understandable, though men can have a much lower fat rate and
be ok. So that's a little encouraging, I jsut have to lose about 7% fat :P

My suggested exercise routine is at leasr 30 minutes of aerobics a day to work
up to 45 minutes (and hopefully 60 minutes) I used to do this last year,
ebefore I fell off the wagon. Weights every other day. Seems liek a good plan
to me.

As far as meals are concerned, I seem to have had only about 1100 calories
today. This included 2 glasses of orange juice, Salmon with a little sour
cream, and a lunch of urkey sanwich. Also a Dannon's yogurt with fruit at the
bottom, some crackers, and a tiny slice of pizza. I skipped my morning tea
today, as I was running late. 1100 seems too little. But I'm not hungry. I've
had two square meals and a cpl of snacks. Maybe I'm not eating the right
things?


#47 of 332 by remmers on Sat Sep 27 12:48:02 2003:

My experience has been that exercise is a key factor in weight control.
A year ago, I was working out regularly, had lost 15 pounds, and was
well on the way toward my goal of losing 25-30 pounds.  Then, last
October, I had a back injury - herniated disc - that severly limited
my exercise level.  Guess what - the 15 pounds are back on.  I'm trying
to get back into an exercise regime, with the help of a personal
trainer, but it ain't easy.

Sounds like mynxcat is on the right track.  1100 calories does sound a
little light, actually, but if you're not hungry and have a good energy
level, I wouldn't worry about it.


#48 of 332 by katie on Sat Sep 27 18:42:46 2003:

Twice this year I went on a 30-day self-invented program (once in Feb
and once in June). Each time I lost 15 lbs. I never gained it back
in the 'off the wagon' times. These were my rules, and I cheated very
occasionally: no carbs, no food after 8 pm, work out three times a week,
walk an hour every day.


#49 of 332 by remmers on Sun Sep 28 03:24:32 2003:

No carbs at all?  Doesn't sound healthy.  (Fruits and vegetables are
carbs.)


#50 of 332 by mynxcat on Sun Sep 28 04:01:37 2003:

I bought myself new workout clothes. Unlike the apartment complex gym, where
you rarely run into anyone, and even if you do, it doesn't matter how ratty
your sweats are (you're practically at home :P), at Cali Fitness, everyone
seems to be dressed really well. i was a little self-conscious at first,
though I've come to realise that no one really pays attention to you. The gym
is a place of self-worship. Everybody seems too involvedf in their workouts
or reflections in the mirror.

It's been hard keeping a calorie count today. We had company over, and I had
a "samosa" (deep fried, potato filled fritter). I wasn't sure of the nutrition
content, but I did a little research later this evening, and 100 gms (about
1 samosa) is 400 calories!! Not surprising really, when you think of it, they
are deep fried and all. Also had a few potato chips at the Buckeye game.
Dinner is a more sensible paratha peas. The calorie count for today seems a
little higher, but it's still under 2000, and I figure since yesterday's was
so low, I can make up for it today. One step in the right direction though-
when I microwaved the samosa, the plate got really greasy. This really grossed
me out, the amount of oil that they contained, something I wouldn't have given
a second thought to, last week.

Went grocery shopping at Trader Joes' Lots of low-fat, goodies. I noticed that
there are a lot of low-cal, high energy nutrient bars, but they all come in
sweet flavors - chocolate or fruit flavors. I don't like bars of that texture
to be sweet. I'd prefer a bar that had a cheesy taste, or something non-sweet.
I'm amazed that nutrient bars don't come in some of the more savory flavors.
I did pick up a box of TLC crackers which were chedda cheese and 7 grains.
Tasted like cardboard. Low fat cottage cheese (or rather no-fat) shall save
the day. found low fat multi-grain bread by Aunt Millie's. Hopefully this
should satisfy my craving for bread


#51 of 332 by gelinas on Sun Sep 28 04:08:29 2003:

They are made for American tastes, Sapna.


#52 of 332 by mynxcat on Sun Sep 28 07:00:32 2003:

I assume you mean the nutrient bars. I know they're made for the majority,
and the majority loves chocolate flavored stuff. true. But I'd like something
that tated of heese crackers. It's not an American vs Indian thing. I'm sure
a lot of Indians would prefer the taste of chocolate. But if a bar is supposed
to replace my lunch, I expect it to not tast like dessert.

Bought a digital scale to replace my Analog one. I found that my old scale
was off by about 4 lbs. While that shows my weight to be 155 lbs, the new one
oscillates between 158 and 159.5, This may be closer to the truth considering
that I weighed in at 161lbs at the gym. However, this scale is going back.
I don't think my weight should be varying between 158 and 159.5 within 5
minutes. I've recorded my weight as starting at 157, which I now find out is
wrong. I don't feel like recording m actuial weight now, as it would skew the
graph. I'm just dropping my goal weigt by about 4 lbs, so I have the same goal
lbs to lose a week.

today's workout was extremely good. the cross trainer is my avorite machien.
120 calories in 15 minutes, ain't too shabby. I did 50 calories on the
treadmill in about 10 minutes, another 12 minutes on the bicycle for a loss
of 25 calories, 20 abdominal cruches and another 5 minutes on the treadmill
for another loss of 25 calories. My biggest accomplishment was running every
other minute on the treadmill.

Tonight I had about 3 white russians. I expect to see the effects tomorrow
 :(


#53 of 332 by cmcgee on Sun Sep 28 13:31:58 2003:

I think you'll discover that the no-fat items are loaded with the
insulin-raising simple carbs you may also be trying to cut down on.  


#54 of 332 by keesan on Sun Sep 28 17:19:36 2003:

You can make your own bread.  Bread does not require fat.  Flour, water,
yeast, and optionally salt.  A bread machine can make it for you.  There is
no such thing as low-calorie high-energy anything.  Energy is measured in
calories (kilocalories actually).

You could have microwaved a potato instead of a samosa and eaten it with
yogurt instead of sour cream.  Probably just as filling.

It might help to read a short book or article on nutrition - to find out what
carbohydrate, protein, and fat are, how the body uses them, etc.  


#55 of 332 by happyboy on Sun Sep 28 17:25:26 2003:

filling versus EDIBLE.


#56 of 332 by murph on Sun Sep 28 17:46:20 2003:

As far as samosas vs. baked potatoes go, it depends on your particular
body's fat vs. carb preferences.

Some people ought to stay far away from bread/potatoes/pasta/grains in
general; their bodies churn out the insulin, pack the carbs away as fat,
and make you hungry for more in no time flat (not to mention low-blood-
sugar cranky).  Others process carbs much more slowly and can get away
with high-carb low-fat diets.  If you're trying to adjust your diet to
lose weight, it's important to figure out what part of the spectrum your
body is in.


#57 of 332 by slynne on Sun Sep 28 18:05:38 2003:

I was making my own whole wheat bread in the bread maker for a while. I 
need to get back in the habit of doing that. It was cheap and yummy 
and, since it was 100% whole wheat, it was very filling. 


#58 of 332 by keesan on Sun Sep 28 19:21:26 2003:

If you are not eating more than you need, it is unlikely that your body will
convert the carbohydrates via glucose to fat since it will be burning the
glucose for energy.  


#59 of 332 by murph on Sun Sep 28 20:25:04 2003:

The problem, when you're hypoglycemic (as my girlfriend is, as well as one
of my best friends and my mother are), is that the body shoots you full of
insulin too quickly when you eat a high-carb diet; the carbs to glucose to
fat process occurs more quickly than your body can use up the glucose as
current energy.  When you body tries to use the glucose, and finds that it
has already been stored, it says, "I need more glucose!  Feed me!" and
makes you hungry, causing you to eat more than you need.

It isn't this way with everybody; I can survive just fine on a high-grains
input.  But if you're one of the people whose bodies go nuts over simple
carbs, it's important to figure this out before you get frustrated that
your low-fat high-carb diet seems to be making you fatter.  Mynxcat may or
may not have this to worry about, but I know enough people who do that it
is a reasonable possibility.


#60 of 332 by slynne on Sun Sep 28 20:45:53 2003:

There has been a lot of research on appetite. No one really knows all 
the factors behind it. What they *do* know is that people like to eat 
fat and sugar and they like to eat more of it than they should. Think 
of the USA as a giant eating experiment designed show what happens when 
an entire population has all the food available that they can eat. 



#61 of 332 by jiffer on Mon Sep 29 01:17:47 2003:

All this talk of overweight and eating is making me hungry.

Breakfast: a banana, 1/2 cup of blueberries, and a 16 oz sugar free mocha
Lunch: 2 thin slices of turkey on berrywheat breat with some spicy mustard,
and 1/2 raspberries
Dinner: too much olive garden salad, 2 breadsticks, and the alfredo portion
fo the tour of italy, the rest went home to lunches. 


#62 of 332 by keesan on Mon Sep 29 02:00:47 2003:

Experimental animals (I forget if it was rats or mice) fed a diet high in fat
and sugar gain weight.  Those fed a normal rat or mouse diet do not.  Both
were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.  What you are eating, not just
how much, affects weight.  I gained weight on dorm food, which was greasy and
included desserts twice a day.  


#63 of 332 by munkey on Mon Sep 29 03:16:28 2003:

I lost weight on dorm food. It was all fatty foods. It was a huge campus and
i was walking alot, that probably helped.


#64 of 332 by tod on Mon Sep 29 05:28:28 2003:

This response has been erased.



#65 of 332 by remmers on Mon Sep 29 12:52:54 2003:

Some things to keep in mind in this discussion: (1) not all people
are alike (as murph has pointed out), (2) not all carbs are alike,
and (3) not all fats are alike.  Carbs high in fiber (e.g. whole
grains) are a better choice than high-density, low-fiber carbs
(e.g. balloon bread), because the fiber slows digestion and delays
absorbtion of sugars and fats.  This helps control the insulin
response described in #59.  Monounsaturated and poly- unsaturated
fats (e.g. nuts, avacados, olive oil) are better choices than
saturated fats (e.g. red meat) and trans-fats (e.g.  french fries,
crackers).

Current nutrition research indicates that the low-fat, high-carb
approach to weight control popular a few years ago, and enshrined
in the USDA Food Pyramid, is simply wrong.  Five years ago I lost
25 pounds following a diet that was 30% fat (the absolute maximum
recommended by the USDA and anybody else this side of Atkins), 30%
protein, and 40% carbohydrate.  Not quite "low carb", but certainly
less carbohydrate that the usual mainstream recommendations that you
see, and certainly not the Food Pyramid.  It was a low-calorie diet
but I didn't feel hungry and had plenty of energy.  I was working
out regularly, which I'm sure was an important factor.

Anyone who embarks on a weight-loss campaign can benefit from
educating themselves about nutrition and exercise.  An excellent
one-stop resource is _Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy_ by Walter Willett,
chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public
Health and an outstainding researcher in the field of nutrition.
He's very down on the USDA Food Pyramid and substitutes one of his
own that, among other things, has exercise and calorie control at
the base of the pyramid and emphasises the distinction between "good
fats" and "bad fats", something the USDA pyramid totally ignores.


#66 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Sep 29 13:49:57 2003:

I'll keep the book in mind

I remember reading that poly-unsaturated fats weren't as good for you as once
thought, and now it's becoming mandatory to report poly-unsaturated fat
content along with saturated fat content? I'm very vague on this. I read this
before I became really interested in nutrition.

What I am finding hard is finding low-carb (as in not the insanely high) fiids
that I really like. Most foods I like have more carbs than fat. 

One new food that is healthy, and that I really like is the Yogurt Dip I got
from Trader Joe's. That is definitely going on my regular shopping list.
Healthy and tasty - yum. Excellent substitute to sour cream, ad I love my sour
cream.

yesterday's workout was good, again. Didn't get as much running as I would
have liked, but still lost about 250 cals on the aerobics (at least as
reported by the machines. I'm not sure how accurate they are). Yesterday I
incorporated weights. Worked the legs, outer thigh, hamstring, calves, back,
oblique abdominals and abdominals, buceps, triceps, glutes. I think it was
a pretty good workout, and I think I stood up pretty well, considering I had
my period, and tend to get tired a lot faster at this time.

exchanged the digital scale for a digital scale with a fat analyser. It seems
my weight is in the higher 150s - fluctuating between 158 and 159.5. This I
expected after my first weighin at the gym whuich put me at 161. Bdy fat
content is about 36%.  The literature that came with the scale states hat for
women in my age-group, the appropriate body fat i 20%. That's lower than what
I heard at 25%. need to do more research before I lose all the essential fat
in my body. However, it'll take me a while, so I'm not to worried right now.

(The fiance is pissed off at the old scale, which pegged him at 165lbs. Turns
out he's closer to 175 lbs. He says that if he knew he had crossed 170 he
would have done something a whole lot sooner. He plans to buy 20lb weights
and use them on teh new scale regularly to be sure that ut's still calibratd
right :P)


#67 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Sep 29 18:55:44 2003:

As I was leaving for work, I heard a commercial on TV for SlimFast. SlimFast
now has PASTA!!. One reason that i've resisted the SlimFast diet is that I
can't fathom a milk-shake or nutrient bar for lunch. Lunch needs to be
something more tangible than that. With the introduction of the pastas, it
may be a viable solution, at least for one meal a day. 

I was speaking to a colleague today who's sister lost 20 lbs in two weeks by
going on the all meat diet (Atkins) 2 eggs and bacon for breakfast, meat for
lunch and meat for dinner. I love meat, but that just seems like way too uch
meat for me. And 2 eggs and bacon for breakfast everyday? Sounds like too much
cholestrol. He said that she didn't eat ANYTHING else. I'm not sure I can do
that, though the results sure are tempting. 

Today's lunch was not a very healthy one. It was half a pound of roast turkey,
on a hamburger roll. City Barbecue has some great meat, but wayt too much.
Maybe I should have had half the meat on my sandwich. 


#68 of 332 by keesan on Mon Sep 29 20:23:54 2003:

It is not possible to lose 20 pounds in 2 weeks unless you do an awful lot
of exercise.  1 pound is okay for your health.  You normally only eat enough
food to equal 3-4 pounds/week.


#69 of 332 by glenda on Mon Sep 29 21:19:54 2003:

You can lose 20 pounds in 2 weeks if you are very overweight.  Most of the
big loses you hear about in the first 2-3 weeks of a new diet are usually
water weight.  A big person holds a lot more water than a small person.  The
last time I went on weight watchers I lost 9 pounds the first week and 6
pounds the second week.  After that I only lost 1/2 to 2 pounds a week.  I
notice that when I consciously increase my water consumption, I lose more
weight.  Drinking extra water somehow helps flush the already existing water
out.  It also helps to keep you feeling full so you don't eat as much.


#70 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Sep 29 21:28:00 2003:

That makes sense, losing more weight at first when you are more heavy. I am
trying to make a conscious effort to have more water these days.


#71 of 332 by keesan on Mon Sep 29 23:20:28 2003:

If you stop eating salt after having eaten a lot of salt (anything from a
restaurant or any prepared food and most canned foods) you will lose water.


#72 of 332 by katie on Tue Sep 30 20:39:09 2003:

Re 49, John:  Yes, no carbs.  Thus the 30-day limit.


#73 of 332 by remmers on Tue Sep 30 23:01:25 2003:

Wow.  The brain needs carbs.  Hope you didn't lose IQ points.


#74 of 332 by edina on Wed Oct 1 18:38:19 2003:

Sapna, get off the scale on a daily basis.  You'll make yourself crazy.

I would honestly recommend Weight Watchers to you.  When I did it (and stayed
with it), I would drop 2-3 lbs. a week - but I'm bigger than you.  What I
liked about it is that it took into consideration different kinds of foods
when counting points.  That way, you have some guidance.


#75 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 1 19:12:43 2003:

This response has been erased.



#76 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 2 01:12:24 2003:

Does walking on the damn treadmill in the gym count? That's about 2 miles a
day.

Brooke, you're right. The damn scale went up another pound. Thanks to the
skewed reading I got from my older scale when I first started, I'm not really
sure if I lost any weight, a lot or a little. Even if I did lose some, I'm
not sure if I weigh lighter because I had my period (I bloat quite a bit
before my period) or whether I actually lost fat.

My workout today was less than satisfactory, As it was the day before
yesterday. I attribute the lack of stellar workout to heavier than normal
lunch. I guess it's not digested enough to really have a good work out without
feeling too heavy. Yesterday's was pretty good, including the weights. I can't
wait to start the 11:00am to 7:00 pm shift at work so I can work out in the
morning before breakfast, and won't be at the gym till 8:30 at night.


#77 of 332 by happyboy on Thu Oct 2 01:24:12 2003:

re76: it counts!


#78 of 332 by jaklumen on Thu Oct 2 06:03:34 2003:

resp:74 resp:76 if you're going to be on the scale daily like I do... 
then do what I do.  Get a digital scale (Tanita) that measures lbs. 
and body fat percentage.  *Then* chart out both sets of measurements 
on a graph. *Ignore* the daily readings and look at your progress over 
a few weeks or so.  Oh yeah, don't forget to do some tape measurements 
every so often-- have someone help you.  Hips, waist, thigh, bicep.  
Take a look at the averages of those measurements over time.  Then 
compare them to your charts, and see how your clothes are fitting 
after a while... and you'll have a better indicator than watching the 
scale everyday.


#79 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 2 10:18:17 2003:

I am graphing m daily weight, and rying not to let the slight increases and
very slight decreases worry me too much :) The body-fat percentage has been
pegged to around 36.7% I had taken initial tape measurements, (I need to find
them) and though I *think* my tummy may have gone in a little, I can't be too
sure till I find the original readings and take another measurement.


#80 of 332 by murph on Thu Oct 2 14:17:37 2003:

Maybe you should be looking at a running average, rather than day-to-day
measurements?  Take the average of the last five days of actual readings;
it'll smooth out the single-day fluctuations.

Hooray for spreadsheets!


#81 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 2 14:21:21 2003:

]I'm trying to keep that in mind. It's still not very encouraging to see the
damn scale go up half a pound!


#82 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 2 15:12:17 2003:

This response has been erased.



#83 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 2 15:29:48 2003:

I don't!! Not any more at least.


#84 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 2 15:33:09 2003:

This response has been erased.



#85 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 2 15:46:12 2003:

I can barely manage 5 :(


#86 of 332 by remmers on Thu Oct 2 15:57:21 2003:

Yep, running averages (or "moving averages", as I call them) smooth
fluctuations out nicely.


#87 of 332 by edina on Thu Oct 2 17:25:41 2003:

I know it's hard to get a lot of water in.  I shoot for two liters a day -
I just can't drink a lot at once.  But the rewards are infinite - better skin,
healthier body . . .and it flushes the fat away.

I still think getting on the scale once a day is not helping you - weight loss
is such a psychological thing, that if the numbers aren't going down, it can
be discouraging.  A once a week thing, or once every two weeks might be
better.


#88 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 2 17:41:12 2003:

I'm trying to increase the water intake. When I remember I gulp down a whole
glass of water (usually with my nose closed and really fast)

(Try multiple times a day ;) ) I'm trying to keep in mind that this is a
"lifestyle change" like the fiance keeps telling me, yadda yadda yadda. But
I want results now dammit!!

Irrespective of what teh scale says,  Iseem to have lost 2 inches around the
waist, the hips are still the same, and the fiance says my ass looks better.
Whether he's lying so as not to discourage me or he really means it I can't
tell. He says he means it.


#89 of 332 by goose on Thu Oct 2 18:15:47 2003:

Read this about the water myth:
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/water.htm


#90 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 2 18:26:33 2003:

This response has been erased.



#91 of 332 by murph on Thu Oct 2 18:38:19 2003:

     Batmanghelidj, Fereydoon.   Your Body's Many Cries for Water.
    Global Health Solutions, 1995.   ISBN 0-962-99423-5.

Tee hee.  My girlfriend's mother was reading this last time we visited, and
seemed *quite* taken by it.


#92 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 2 18:51:15 2003:

This response has been erased.



#93 of 332 by keesan on Thu Oct 2 20:52:30 2003:

Fruit and vegetables and boiled grains are mostly water.  So is juice.
Meat and bread are not.


#94 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 2 20:59:26 2003:

This response has been erased.



#95 of 332 by happyboy on Thu Oct 2 21:07:18 2003:

diuretic.


#96 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 2 21:25:45 2003:

This response has been erased.



#97 of 332 by gelinas on Thu Oct 2 22:20:17 2003:

(Out of curiousity, tod, did you read the snopes article?)


#98 of 332 by jaklumen on Thu Oct 2 22:56:19 2003:

resp:80 resp:86 that's what I'd been saying all along.

resp:82 resp:83 Better advice: portion control. Eat a little less than 
you would have.  Don't believe in "the clean plate club."  At the same 
time, don't deprive yourself of stuff, like say, a dessert.  Don't 
snack between meals-- especially, try to document what you eat... and 
don't just say, carry a bag of something around, like chips.  Stick to 
the three meals a day-- with one mid-meal fixed snack if you need it.  
But fixed portions all, total amount.

resp:88 again, the inches count more than the pounds in the long run.  
Muscle weighs more than fat.

re: the water thing-- it can't hurt to drink a glass of water at every 
meal.


#99 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 2 23:53:52 2003:

I haven't really changed much in terms of dinner, we still eat the same thing,
though my portions are smaller. Lunch has changed from burger and fries to
a turkey sandwich from Subway. I love black olives and lots of vinegar, so
I really enjoy my lunch. I've never been one that has to have something sweet,
though I do enjoy the occasional dessert. Dessert these days is this wonderful
honey cake that's delicious, and low in cals made of rye. Courtesy Trader
Joe's. If I'm realy hungry, a snack woyld be Wisecrackers from Trader Joe's
again
Today's workout was shorter than normal because of a ticket that caused me
to get to the gym late, and piano class which caused me to leave early. My
aerobic workout was cut in half. Weight was te normal, except I didn't get
the time to do the calves and triceps, as the machines were busy and I had
to get to class. I guess I can give myself a break, considering I've been
really religious about the gym. I was thinking of skipping it rather than have
a less than complete workout, but in the end I rationalised that getting any
workout at all was better than breakin the rhythm that would most prolly send
me into a spiral of more missed workouts.


#100 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 2 23:58:44 2003:

This response has been erased.



#101 of 332 by munkey on Fri Oct 3 03:39:33 2003:

freak!


#102 of 332 by tsty on Fri Oct 3 05:24:49 2003:

hardly! that is minimized considrably from when tod lived in a2 - guess
having a fmily takes up the rest of his energy.


#103 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 3 13:31:25 2003:

Uhm, Tod, I'm not in the marines. 


#104 of 332 by tod on Fri Oct 3 15:40:49 2003:

This response has been erased.



#105 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 3 20:21:38 2003:

No thanks.

157 this morning. Pretty encouraging, even though it may be a 
fluctuation. Will weigh myself at the same scale I used a week ago at 
the gym.


#106 of 332 by jaklumen on Sat Oct 4 00:24:05 2003:

gripes... weigh yourself weekly if that's what it takes to forget the 
day-to-day variations that don't matter so much.  (Just a thought)


#107 of 332 by mynxcat on Sat Oct 4 01:11:58 2003:

Heh :)

Work out was good. On the cross trainer it seems that the more the resistance
is and the slower the speed, the more calories that are burned. It made more
sun to go at it slowly with a high resistance and then speed up when the
desired heart rate was reached.

Also found an aerobic achine that works on the hands instead of the legs. And
excellent way to give my legs a break while still keeping the heart rate up.

Finally sampled my 5 grain low-fat bread. I really liked it. Had it with a
tuna burger. Very satisfying with ome lemon juice on it. Also had some miso
soup, and a slice of the honey cake.


#108 of 332 by scg on Sat Oct 4 02:24:06 2003:

Although, if you weigh yourself weekly, you get a random sample of day to day
variations.


#109 of 332 by jaklumen on Sat Oct 4 03:27:59 2003:

It's a trade-off.  I can weigh daily and not get too bothered by the 
numbers all that often.  The point is to do what works, i.e. what will 
keep you motivated.


#110 of 332 by oval on Sat Oct 4 23:28:04 2003:

i didn;t read all of this .. 109 damn posts and i'm way behind. but 22 lbs
ain;'t much to lode if you cut out shitty food and get some excercise evryday.

sheesh.



#111 of 332 by remmers on Sun Oct 5 14:51:31 2003:

Ease of losing weight is age-dependent.  The older you are, the
harder it gets.


#112 of 332 by keesan on Sun Oct 5 16:57:36 2003:

Only to a certain age, then people lose weight again.


#113 of 332 by mary on Sun Oct 5 21:30:03 2003:

Right, at some point your taste buds stop working and your
teeth get loose and painful and you're so tired of living
you don't even want to get dressed in the morning, nevertheless
go out to eat.  So you lose weight.

Wow, good news! ;-)


#114 of 332 by mynxcat on Sun Oct 5 21:43:24 2003:

No fat cottage cheese has an icky metallic taste. Not a good idea. Slim Fast's
Hot Meal is passable. Found somehing to substitue for butter with half the
calories and half the fat.

In all it's randomness, the scale has not registered anything higher than
158.5 in the last 3 days. Today it registered 156. I'm finally breaking
through.

Bought myself an mp3 player (long overdue) to help with the pace-motivation
for my workouts.


#115 of 332 by gelinas on Sun Oct 5 22:19:49 2003:

(Last I looked, all the calories in butter and its substitutes came from fat.
The fat may be corn oil, or even canola oil, but it's still fat.)


#116 of 332 by keesan on Sun Oct 5 23:41:11 2003:

Butter substitutes tend to substitute water or air for the fat and charge you
for them.


#117 of 332 by gelinas on Mon Oct 6 00:18:53 2003:

But nonetheless, all of their calories still come from fat.  Water, air and
fat are just about all that is in margerine.


#118 of 332 by i on Mon Oct 6 01:14:35 2003:

If you use 50% more (by volume) of a spread that's 50% air & water (by
volume), then you've applied 25% fewer calories to you waistline (vs.
your old 100%-pure-fat spread).


#119 of 332 by gelinas on Mon Oct 6 01:34:39 2003:

(The point is not calories; the point is fat intake.  Sure, you are getting
fewer calories, and less fat, using margerine instead of butter, but the
calories are _still_ 100% fat.  Don't believe me?  Read the label.)


#120 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 6 16:31:16 2003:

It's true, most of the calories are still fat. But there's still only 
4.5 gms fat / tablespoon of this new stuff (I don't remember the name) 
as compared to 10gms in the "Can't Believe It's Not Butter" stuff. I 
haven't had a chance to try it yet, so I don't know what it tastes 
like. I'm a huge butter/butter-like-substance fan. I need something on 
my bread. We'll see how this works.

Had a huge dinner last night. We were invited over to dinner at former 
boss's place. Dinner was delicious though there was "ghee" (Indian 
clarified butter, sometimes substituted for oil in dishes, and more 
fatty and cholestrol-laden than oil) in most of the dishes. The scale 
registered 158 this morning. I'm glad it still hasn't registered 159 
and it's been about 4 or 5 days. I can safely say that I'm definitely 
under 159 lbs now?


#121 of 332 by gelinas on Mon Oct 6 18:33:55 2003:

(I substituted honey and fruit preserves for butter on my bread.  Salt and
pepper, no butter or substitute, on potatoes and corn.  Salt and pepper on
salads.  Salsa in tuna, instead of mayo.  I really needed to eliminate fat
from diet.   Still do.)


#122 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 6 19:07:50 2003:

I don't like sweet stuff on my bread. So no honey or fruit preserves. 
We cook potatoes the Indian way. I like to have corn without any 
condimenmts. 

I usually don't have anything with my tuna. Sometimes some Miracle-
Whip, though I haven't had that in a year now. 

I've looked at what I usually eat, and think that most of my problems 
were huge quantities and an intake of fat that I would definitely not 
miss. And a serious lack of exercise


#123 of 332 by slynne on Mon Oct 6 19:36:09 2003:

Oh man. I hate mayo. I will have to try that salsa with tuna thing. 


#124 of 332 by jaklumen on Tue Oct 7 03:22:56 2003:

Miracle-Whip isn't exactly mayo.


#125 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 7 05:17:34 2003:

But it's a good enough substitute.

My exercise routine was interrupted by a page and spending an hour in the
locker room on the phone trying to conduct a conference to solve problem.
Luckily the call ended before my phone died, or I would have had t o return
home. I was able to resume workout after the hour, but it did mean that I got
home at 10:00 pm. today also showed me about how fanatical I've become about
my work-ou, once I've got to the gym,. Getting to the gym is a whole different
story. Also, working out to Bad Boy Bill is highly motivating, pace wise. 

Dinner was salmon steak and Orange Juice. Today my carbohydrate intake was
only 43%. Which i'm not complaining about.I guess the fish contributed to the
low carbs and the high protein.


#126 of 332 by tod on Tue Oct 7 15:33:17 2003:

This response has been erased.



#127 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 7 17:46:00 2003:

Salmon isn't too expensive. At least I can afford it from the local 
Meijer


#128 of 332 by happyboy on Tue Oct 7 18:41:28 2003:

re126: except for the MERCURY.


#129 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 8 01:14:15 2003:

This response has been erased.



#130 of 332 by i on Wed Oct 8 02:46:13 2003:

Isn't tuna the one with the heavy metal problem, not salmon?

I eat a fair amount of econo-canned pink salmon because it's a
quick/cheap/convenient protein.


#131 of 332 by cmcgee on Wed Oct 8 05:25:58 2003:

Anything bigger than sardines is supposed to be eaten in small amounts.


#132 of 332 by gelinas on Wed Oct 8 05:30:44 2003:

How big are "small amounts"?  And how frequently?


#133 of 332 by jiffer on Wed Oct 8 06:16:42 2003:

I thought it had to do with location as well.  Though, from what I vaguely
remember from news broadcasts, there is a problem with ocean fish, as well
as, lake and river fish.  And also a bit of an issue with oysters and
shrimpies.



#134 of 332 by cmcgee on Wed Oct 8 13:45:30 2003:

gelinas, I don't remember where I found the information.  But my current rule
of thumb is one can of tuna no more than every four days.  About 1-2 times
a week.  

I was eating a lot of (cheap, easy to store, easy to fix,
good-for-you-cause-its-fish) tuna.  I'm sure my frequency decision
maximized my use of tuna. 

IIRC, fish larger than sardines all fell in the caution area.  This news
penetrated my consciousness about 4-5 months ago, so it is fairly recent.  



#135 of 332 by gelinas on Wed Oct 8 15:26:07 2003:

Thanks, cmcgee.  From March 24, 2003:

        http://www.fox2detroit.com/dynamic/images/stories/health/tuna.html


#136 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 8 16:46:27 2003:

This response has been erased.



#137 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 8 17:30:27 2003:

I love tuna and salmon. and when I eat them, I get to share with my 
cat. I know - bad habit, but she's adorable.

One thing I learned yesterday - Do not exercise if you're hungry. I 
was struggling yesterday, and the only differenct was I was hungry. I 
usually have a snack before the gym, but yesterday I went straight 
from work. From next week, I get to go in the mornings, thanks to 
change in work schedule.



#138 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 8 18:04:55 2003:

This response has been erased.



#139 of 332 by happyboy on Wed Oct 8 18:20:30 2003:

i've been working out after dinner usually.


#140 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 8 19:17:03 2003:

I work out in the mornings on the weekends, (well actually it's around 
noon, depending on the time I wake up, but it's after a cup of tea, no 
breakfast) Definitely better than working out in the evenings

My weight is definitely dropping, taking into account all the 
randomness that occurs. I seem to have left the 158 lbs behind, and 
weighed in at 155 lbs this morning. That's about 6 lbs less than when 
I first started. I'd think a more realistic weight is 157 lbs, though 
the randomness doesn't seem so much anymore.

However, measurements still seem to be the same, except for an inch 
loss around the waist. Though my waist seems curvier than when I first 
started. Wishful thinking maybe


#141 of 332 by jiffer on Wed Oct 8 20:20:45 2003:

I have been swimming for 2 main reasons, 1. I am taking swimming for a 
class, thus a grade, 2. I have a membership to the YMCA and I am able 
to go to "free swim" at the school during the evenings.  I am up to 
about 15 laps of front crawls, 3 laps of breast strokes, and 2 laps of 
the back stroke.  Do that at least 4 days of the week, and let us see 
what happens


#142 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 8 20:36:07 2003:

I can't swim :( And the gym doesn't have an indoor swimming pool. 


#143 of 332 by jiffer on Wed Oct 8 21:56:02 2003:

Bummer, it is a great way to exercise.  You, the sound of the water, and just
concentrating on your breathing.


#144 of 332 by tsty on Thu Oct 9 08:31:23 2003:

mynxie, pardon me for asking, please, but how the *hell* did you 
manage to blimp out to teh 150+ arena? the pics i have from a couple
yrs ago wouldn't have yo tip the scale past 110 even if you were
wearing ankle weights! well, maybe 95 lbs.
  
yeh, ok, i used to be as scrawny as you but my excuse is years-of-life.
youu won't have that one for another 25+ yrs.


#145 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 9 14:44:40 2003:

First, what pics do you have of me frm a cpl of years ago. The oldest ones
on the web are from 2001, I think. And believe me, I was never at 110 lbs let
alone 95 lbs. WIth my bone structure, I would have to be really sick to get
to that stage. I think the lowest I've been is 130 lbs.

How did I get here - try - lots of fried food, and next to no exercise. I may
need to lose weight, but I've definitely not "blimped" out. I may get there
if I continue with my old ways another 6 months. I'm not obese, I just got
on the overweigt list - on the borderline.



#146 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 9 16:15:01 2003:

This response has been erased.



#147 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 9 17:36:40 2003:

Close, Mynxie was 12 lbs at her last check up. Mynxie and mynxcat are pretty
similar in many ways, except that Mynxie definitely does not have to lose
weight. mynxcat has taken great care to see that Mynxie does not get
over-weight.


#148 of 332 by edina on Fri Oct 10 14:30:20 2003:

And once again, I am amazed at the total idiotic behavior of some people. 
Sapna, aren't you like 5'7" or something?


#149 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 10 18:08:51 2003:

About that high, yes. 

(I assume when you mean "total idiotic behavior" you mean tsty's 
comment about me bein 110 lbs?)


#150 of 332 by edina on Fri Oct 10 18:41:37 2003:

Oh yeah.  First off, "blimped out" might not be the most inappropriate thing
ever said, but it might be close.  Secondly, you're designed to carry at lest
130 lbs.  Jesus.


#151 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 10 19:38:35 2003:

That's what I thought. I'd be positively anorexic at 110 lbs. I don't 
think that's a very healthy weight for me. I'm not petite, not by a 
long shot anyways.

Apart from trying to lose weight, I've also been trying to make 
healthier choices when presented with food. Like today's going away 
lunch for a colleague. Lone Star Steakhouse was the venue of choice. 
Not the healthiest of places. I had grilled chicken with steamed 
veggies. While probably not being very low-calorie or low-fat, it was 
definitely the healthiest thing on the menu. This is a far cry from 
the day I would have chosen the cheeseburger with mushrooms and steak 
fries.

Keesan's comment about my diet being low-fibre with low-cal fillers 
set me thinking. I don't think I've really made that many substitutes 
that would be termed "Low-cal fillers" I've been watching the kind of 
foods I've been having, and trying to keep the foods healthy over all. 
I don't post everything I eat on a daily basis. Not here, anyhow, but 
I have gone over the list of foods I've eaten over the past two weeks, 
and fitday shows that it's pretty well balanced. Sure I've substituted 
low-fat margarine (which by the way tastes "lighter" than butter, 
seems to melt faster)which may be a not so very appropriate substition 
when I can have fruit preserves (too sweet), but I like the taste of 
butter, and low-fat margarine comes close.


#152 of 332 by edina on Fri Oct 10 20:12:40 2003:

Grilled chicken and steamed veggies is a great chooice.  Loaded in protein
and fiber.  As for going with low-fat margerine over butter, I've noticed a
trend in Cooking Light magazine - they are back to using butter.  It's better
for you (in small amounts, just like margerine should be), as it's more
natural.


#153 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 10 20:49:23 2003:

Small amounts is the key. I LOVE butter. Tend to put more on my toast 
than I should. Margarine it will be till I get down to my desired 
weight.


#154 of 332 by jaklumen on Fri Oct 10 22:18:23 2003:

Someday I will figure out how to beat the cheat that is lunch.


#155 of 332 by keesan on Sat Oct 11 00:16:12 2003:

Pack lunch.


#156 of 332 by tsty on Sat Oct 11 03:20:47 2003:

????????????? 5'7" ?????????????? from teh perspective of teh pics
i would not have thoguth above 5'2", tops. --oops-- sorry? i apologize.


#157 of 332 by mynxcat on Sat Oct 11 18:05:35 2003:

Again, which pictures are you talking about? I'm defiitely 5'6.5" at least.
So 156 lbs is hardly "blimping out"


#158 of 332 by keesan on Sat Oct 11 19:25:50 2003:

The weight tables for me (5 feet 5.5") if I had 'big frame' say up to 150 is
normal, or down to about 120.  


#159 of 332 by tsty on Sun Oct 12 08:40:32 2003:

whatever the first pics were .. maybe not 'published' but avaiablle
upon request. 
  
ok, 5'7'' and 150-ish is JustFine (tm).


#160 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 13 12:47:09 2003:

First pictures were published. They are available upon request to very few
people. And first pics were head-shots. You cldn't guess my height from them.

Saturday, we decided to treat ourselves. After 2 weeks of choosing healthy,
Saturday was splurge day. After half a packet of guacamole chips, we had
dinner at the Martini Bar. Brusschetta, Penne Pasta with Shrimp, and the
crowning glory of the evening - Tiramisu. I think the splurge was well worth
it.

Finally bought egg-beaters, and soy milk. Soy milk has a slightly funny taste,
but I can easily get used to it. 


#161 of 332 by lynne on Mon Oct 13 13:11:18 2003:

Why soy milk?  Is it lower cal or lower carb?


#162 of 332 by edina on Mon Oct 13 14:09:09 2003:

It's loaded in protein.  I can't get used to the taste, and God knows, I've
tried.


#163 of 332 by keesan on Mon Oct 13 15:26:05 2003:

Soy milk has no cholesterol.  It does have fat and the commercial soy milks
also add sugar and flavoring.  They gave me some in the hospital but I
switched to no-sugar milk instead.  It did taste odd due to the sugar and
vanilla.  The unflavored unsweetened stuff tastes like beans.


#164 of 332 by happyboy on Mon Oct 13 15:49:49 2003:

egg beaters are ok, soy milk tastes like dirty sugar water.

soy cheese, soy yogurt, and *not-dogs* i can't stomach...
just the SMELL of not-dogs makes be wanna barf.


morningstar burgers, sassidge, and worthington fri-pats,
on the other hand are yummy...i like just good ol plain
tofu as well.


#165 of 332 by remmers on Mon Oct 13 16:13:39 2003:

I think that there's wide variation in flavor between different
brands of soy milk.  My favorite is Silk brand, red carton.
Full-flavored, not at all like "dirty sugar water".  I prefer
it to real milk on cereal and added to coffee.


#166 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 13 16:40:35 2003:

I think I got the Silk brand. I got it as an experiment, I've heard so much
about soy-milk, I had to try it. As I said, I could get used to it's taste,
but I doubt it will replace real milk in this household. It might, if it gels
well in "Indian" tea, but I highly doubt it. Maybe if I get sereal, I will
makel ike remmers and put it on that. However, I'm not a cereal person, so
we'll see how that goes.

Keesan will be proud to know that my refrigerator is stock fuill of fiber.
Apples, grapes, carrots, and a mango. Also som canteloupe. And mushrooms, yum.
I think today's going to be a good day for food.

Workout this morning was great. How much can you trust the machines on
calories burnt? I know it will vary somewhat depending if you're actually
working the machine, or waiting for minutes to tick byu. I discovered the
elliptical, and spent an hour on it. Total calories it says lost were about
660. I did have it on teh high incline about 50% of the time. 



#167 of 332 by edina on Mon Oct 13 17:18:58 2003:

I love the elliptical.  it makes your ass go away.


#168 of 332 by lynne on Mon Oct 13 17:50:53 2003:

Not mine.  I think I have hockey butt.
Y'know, I never quite trust the calories-burned number on the elliptical
trainer.  It always seems like much less effort than the bikes or stair-
masters, and claims 2-3x as many calories burned.  However, I still use it
 a lot when I go to the gym because I like it better.  (I have no scientific
basis for not trusting the numbers...if they're more or less accurate, that
would rock.)


#169 of 332 by keesan on Mon Oct 13 22:04:23 2003:

Keesan is definitely proud of mynxcat's refrigerator.


#170 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 14 16:37:10 2003:

 :) keesan.

I second edina's comment on the elliptical and asses. I can actually 
feel those muscles get a workout.

I think the elliptical does get your heart-rate up, but with little 
impact on your legs, or much less impact. Maybe that's why it seems 
like the effort isn't as much? I definitely sweat a lot, and I feel 
the muscles in my ass, and thighs getting worked, but unlike the cross-
trainer and the treadmill, there's little impact to the calves, which 
is good, because a lot of times I know I can do a lot more, but my 
calf-muscles feel like they're going to drop. Without having to worry 
about that, I can go for an hour on the elliptical, work up a good 
sweat, and not lose feeling in my lower-legs.


#171 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 14 16:42:27 2003:

Hmmm, I was looking at the internet, and I read that "Just a word of 
warning regarding cardio equipment and calories burnt. Many cardio 
machines if not all don't ask for your weight and tell you that you're 
burning X number of calories. The number displayed is for a person of 
average weight [Usually average is 150 pounds]. For many people the 
number of calories is overstated. " The elliptical machine I use asks 
for my weight. And even if it didn't, 150 lbs is pretty close to what 
I weigh



#172 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 14 16:50:26 2003:

And from 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/25/earlyshow/contributors/minnal
essig/main530806.shtml

Here are some activities and the number of calories they burn (for a 
150-pound person, on average): 
Stationary bike (at moderate level): 504 calories/hour 
Elliptical trainer (general): 648 calories/hour 
Stairmaster: 432 calories/hour 
Running (11.5 min/mile): 648 calories/hour 
Walking (17 min/mile): 288 calories/hour

which shows that the elliptical trainer numbers are pretty close to 
accurate. Yay!

The article also explains why interval training burns a lot of 
calories. The fat burning program on the elliptical is pretty close to 
the interval-training program, so that would explain the large number 
of calories lost.



#173 of 332 by keesan on Tue Oct 14 18:38:17 2003:

I had better be careful not to overexercise and lose weight ;)
Do you know of any exercises for making the buttocks larger so that it will
be possible to sit on a less padded chair?  Walking has not helped much.


#174 of 332 by slynne on Tue Oct 14 19:54:09 2003:

Keesan probably would also like the pumpkin pie I baked yesterday. I 
accidently used a can of regular pumpkin instead of the pumpkin pie 
filling. In other words, no sugar. It wasnt too bad except for that 
first bite when I was expecting something a little more sweet. 


#175 of 332 by tod on Tue Oct 14 20:13:10 2003:

This response has been erased.



#176 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 14 20:39:35 2003:

Heh


#177 of 332 by lynne on Tue Oct 14 23:59:55 2003:

Hmm.  Often, the elliptical I used at the MIT gym would tell me I was
burning about 600 calories in about 40 min.  It was definitely a good
workout, but the bike always was much more effort and told me I'd burned
fewer calories.  The calf-muscle explanation sounds good to me.  The
elliptical definitely works more of your body.
I think hockey and swimming are known for building up butt size.  I don't
swim very often; I can say for sure that hockey works the butt muscles
pretty thoroughly.  They're essential for standing your ground against
an opponent who is trying to knock you over, or who you are trying to 
knock over.  Anyway, while my ass is not small, I think I'd describe it
as solid rather than large.  More exercise is not the way to get rid of
that.
I was screwing around with BMI calculators online today, and was annoyed
just a bit to find that I'd crossed the line into the "overweight"
classification.  Meanwhile, the body fat calculators told me I'm about
23% fat, which is well within the healthy range.  It's really gross to
think about carrying 30+ pounds of fat around, though.  Maybe I'll go
exacerbate my butt at hockey practice tomorrow morning.


#178 of 332 by keesan on Wed Oct 15 01:39:45 2003:

You can be 'overweight' by having lots of muscle.  


#179 of 332 by scott on Wed Oct 15 02:20:03 2003:

I think I'd like elliptical trainers a lot more if they weren't designed for
people under 6 feet tall.  I feel sort of cramped on them, anyway.  Now that
winter is coming it'll be time to start hitting the stairclimbers again...


#180 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 15 03:13:08 2003:

The ideal fat percentage for women is in the 22-25% range, for men its much
less. Makes sense, seeing that women have more fat in their breasts and
overall need more fat on their bodies than men do.

600 calories in 40 minutes on the elliptical is believable if you were going
at a steep incline or really fast. I did 580 calories in 55 minutes this
morning. Some 660 calories in an hour yesterday. 

Keesan is right, when you start buiilding muscle, you tend to put on more
weight. Muscle weighs more than fat. 


#181 of 332 by jaklumen on Wed Oct 15 03:43:35 2003:

BMI is terrible, I'd suppose, for fit people.


#182 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 15 12:21:12 2003:

There's fit, and there's the body-building types with lots of big muscles.
If you're aiming for fit, I'd imagine the BMI is a good indication. If you're
aiming to go the Arnie Scwarzie way, look more at fat percentage.

I've lost enough weight to put me on the borderline of healthy BMI


#183 of 332 by keesan on Wed Oct 15 15:03:54 2003:

Anyone want to calculate my body fat percentage?  I am at least 101 pounds
now.  Used to be 19%, I think (at 115 or so pounds).  I have gained nearly
10 pounds but it must all have gone to muscle as I can't find any fat, but
I also don't see any increase in muscle size (not that they don't work better
now).  


#184 of 332 by lynne on Wed Oct 15 18:29:36 2003:

Yup, BMI is pretty damn bad as a measure for healthy weights.  One of my
teammates is *extremely* fit--in an athletic but not body-builderly way.
One of the very few women I know with a sixpack.  Anyway, her BMI puts
her into the obese category.  That's always really entertained me.
I'm quite aware that muscle weighs more than fat, which is why I went for
the body fat calculation.  I'm sure the measurements-based numbers aren't
completely accurate either, but as a measure of weight-related health
they're much more believable than BMI.


#185 of 332 by keesan on Wed Oct 15 18:46:27 2003:

Jim is also borderline overweight due to muscle and I don't see any fat on
him.  He has big bones (and duck feet).  32 waist, 6' - is this overweight?


#186 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 15 23:21:31 2003:

This response has been erased.



#187 of 332 by lynne on Wed Oct 15 23:39:32 2003:

Did it matter whether you were male or female?


#188 of 332 by gelinas on Thu Oct 16 02:21:10 2003:

What is "BMI"?  

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/ceremonies/sentinelsotu.html doesn't
mention sex, but the height requirement is now 5'10" to 6'4".


#189 of 332 by munkey on Thu Oct 16 04:22:05 2003:

BMI - the ratio between weight and height; a mathematical formula that
correlates with body fat.

Obese is considered having a BMI of 30 and above. Overweight is having a BMI
of 25 to 29.9.

That was on my test last week! I knew it!


#190 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 16 14:29:51 2003:

6' and 32" waist sounds reasonable. How much does Jim weigh?

I was bad - had cajun from the fast food place at teh mall last night. And
I didn't workout either :(


#191 of 332 by janc on Thu Oct 16 14:39:01 2003:

Every time I see the item title "mynxcat wants to be svelte" I wonder of the
Grex login "svelte" is available.


#192 of 332 by lynne on Thu Oct 16 16:13:40 2003:

re 191:  grin :)
BMI stands for "body mass index".  I believe it's the official government
method of classifying people as overweight, obese, etc, and therefore sucks
ass.
re 189:  I believe you that you had to learn that.  But I don't believe you
that there's a good mathematical correlation with body fat.  :)


#193 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 16 17:03:27 2003:

Re 191. all you have to do is use "finger", but I'm sure you knew that ;).
'svelte' is available.


#194 of 332 by keesan on Thu Oct 16 21:30:26 2003:

Jim weighs somewhere around 175.  He wears a L shirt and S pants.  The L shirt
assumes his waist is 38.


#195 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 17 12:22:05 2003:

He seems alright to me. Doesn't seem over-weight at all. (Though it's a wonder
that he fits into "S" pants, which I assume is "Small"?)

Breakthrough, the scale registered 153 at one point yesterday. It always
excites me when I see a new number on teh scale.


#196 of 332 by keesan on Fri Oct 17 14:53:09 2003:

Small waist is 30-32, medium 34-36, large 38, I think.  It is a problem to
find men's pants under 30 waist (I used to wear 28 waist but may have shrunk).
Shirts assume a 4" or 6" difference between chest and waist size and Jim's
is 10".  Some people are bigger in waist than chest.  I think that difference
would be more predictive of overweight than the weight/height ratio.  One test
of amount of fat involves measuring the thickness of a pinch of flesh from
under your arm - should I look this up and post it?   Mine is about 1/2" or
less right now.  


#197 of 332 by tod on Fri Oct 17 16:54:03 2003:

This response has been erased.



#198 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 20 20:31:49 2003:

There's this gadget at the gym that tests the amount of body fat you 
have. You enter in information like height, weight and then hold the 
handles firmly at arms length. After about a minute, it gives you a 
reading. I asked the personal trainer what it did exactly. He said 
that it sent impulses through my arms and based on how long it took 
for the impulse to return, it could tell how much fat I had. Fat has a 
different conductivity than muscle. That gadget showed me 31% body 
fat. The trainer mentioned that those things were not very accuate 
with a +/-5% accuracy.

The scale at home gives me a reading after my weight reading. I would 
like to think that it does the same thing as the gadget, though I 
suspect it just uses a mathematical calculation based on my weight, 
and hips, height and waist measurements that you have to feed it. I 
changed the hip and waist measurements over the weekend and the 
reading dropped by about 3%. I'm not laying much stock by the scale


#199 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 20 20:37:27 2003:

My boobs have gotten smaller!! First I thought it was a figment of my 
imagination, but the fiance has confirmed my suspicion. While they're 
currently at a size I like, I really don't want them shrinking 
anymore!! I guess the rack was thanks to a lot of extra weight I was 
carrying around.

Also, the one pair of spare jeans I had that I wore with great 
reluctance when all my other pairs were in the wash, now fit 
comfortably. No longer do I have my stomach pinched in uncomfortably 
when I wear them, and no longer do I dread wearing these jeans. They 
have come out of semi-retirement to be a permanent part of my 
wardrobe. To go with the jean story, my favorite pair of grey pants 
that I bought a month and a half ago are now pretty loose. Any more 
weight lost, and these pants will have to be replaced. While it's sad 
to lose a good pair of pants (lord knows how hard it is to find a pair 
of pants that really look good), there is the sweet part of this 
sorrow to know that it's due to weight *lost* and not *gained*


#200 of 332 by keesan on Tue Oct 21 02:18:13 2003:

Can you take them in along the outer seam?  (The grey pans - jeans are too
thick).


#201 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 21 05:05:22 2003:

I'm not a goo seamstress. And they're not regular material - more like
stretch. I'm not sure I could take them in.


#202 of 332 by scott on Tue Oct 21 13:14:24 2003:

You might be able to have a professional tailor take thime in, though.  A
couple years ago when I lost weight I ended up having some stuff taken in.


#203 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 21 13:58:35 2003:

I will look into it, when the time comes. 

Today looks like a packed day. Looks like my workout is going to be 
pushed to some time after 9:00 pm. I hate when that happens. I prefer 
my workout to be done by 8:00 am, or preferrably in the morning. 
However, today I needed to be in early, so the morning workout wasn't 
working out. I'll be at work till about 5:30, and have a hair 
appointment at 7:00pm. Maybe I'll move the hair appointment up, if 
possible. The good thing is it's just an hour workout today, instead 
of the hour and a half


#204 of 332 by edina on Tue Oct 21 16:33:46 2003:

I know about the whole bust thing.  I've nicknamed mine as the "incredible
shrinking breasts" - and I'm not thrilled.  


#205 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 21 16:57:26 2003:

Exactly. It seems like I'm losing all my weight from my breasts, 
rather than my waist and my hips. Ok, I'm probably losing some around 
there as my jeans are now fitting me, but I really don't want to lose 
my boobs!


#206 of 332 by tod on Tue Oct 21 17:10:43 2003:

This response has been erased.



#207 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 21 17:39:50 2003:

 :P


#208 of 332 by edina on Tue Oct 21 18:51:27 2003:

Yeah, becuase me eating a jelly donut would only make me sick as a dog.


#209 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 21 19:10:52 2003:

Brooke, is the minimal food-intake a result of the surgery (what 
surgery was it?) or a conscious decision? 



#210 of 332 by edina on Tue Oct 21 20:35:44 2003:

I had gastric bypass just over two months ago.  I'm down about 50 lbs.  I
can't eat that much food, and high sugar quantities make me sick.  So it's
a result of the surgery AND a conscious decision as I don't want to be sick.


#211 of 332 by tod on Tue Oct 21 20:38:49 2003:

This response has been erased.



#212 of 332 by edina on Tue Oct 21 20:40:20 2003:

That's disgusting.  Did she have surgery or what?


#213 of 332 by tod on Tue Oct 21 20:47:49 2003:

This response has been erased.



#214 of 332 by edina on Tue Oct 21 20:49:28 2003:

Hahahahahah!


#215 of 332 by tod on Tue Oct 21 20:56:24 2003:

This response has been erased.



#216 of 332 by munkey on Tue Oct 21 22:45:45 2003:

freak.
She is skinny though.


#217 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 22 15:39:08 2003:

This response has been erased.



#218 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 22 16:58:15 2003:

All 3?


#219 of 332 by asddsa on Wed Oct 22 23:32:52 2003:

david blaine is good on tv


#220 of 332 by murph on Thu Oct 23 17:41:16 2003:

A little late: I'm a big fan of Silk soymilk--anybody who thinks soymilk
tastes like beans (or grass (or ass)) should switch from EdenSoy to Silk. 
(sad: EdenSoy is made in Saline and marketed out of Troy, but my taste buds
war with my desire to go local.)  For the Silk drinkers--have you tried the
Lavender variety?  That's carton color, not flavor; it's the unsweetened
"plain".  It's spectacular, but new, so it only comes in the quart.  Hopefully
it'll get popular enough that they'll make half-gallons so that I can
reasonably afford it.  (checks web page--oops, unsweetened is green.  lavender
is creamer)  SilkNog is also good.

Somewhat less late: Sindi, I'm told by people who have recently started
swimming regularly that they experienced surprisingly fast build-up of muscle
in butt and thighs.  Vigorous swimming might be tiring for you, though; I
don't know of any physical therapy type exercises that would help.  (all I
know there is knees)

I definitely don't know any exercises that would help mynxcat.  I have noticed
some e-mails that might be relevant, though, and could forward them along if
you like. ;)


#221 of 332 by scott on Thu Oct 23 17:45:10 2003:

(I've found the "Soy Dream" soymilk to be my favorite.  The Silk and Edensoy
stuff tastes weird.  And regular milk tastes slightly sour to me now)


#222 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 23 18:14:55 2003:

This response has been erased.



#223 of 332 by keesan on Thu Oct 23 19:08:30 2003:

Thanks (re 220) for the idea of swimming but the chlorine bothers me.  My
apartment (which I cannot yet walk to) is a few blocks from Mack Pool.  
I am impressed with mynxcat's progress in converting fat to muscle.  


#224 of 332 by bhelliom on Thu Oct 23 20:39:54 2003:

Milk in all of it's forms makes me ill.

I've fallen off the workout wagon over the past couple of week, I"m
still going, but not as frequently as I like.  Hopefully I can put some
time in again this weekend, and swing onto monday into the gym on my way
home from work.


#225 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 23 20:42:53 2003:

This response has been erased.



#226 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 24 03:09:29 2003:

I've tried going to the gym directly after work, but usually I'm too hungry
to really have a good workout. I've foun that stoping at home to have a snack
before I go to the gym is a better plan. Alternatively, I could take a snack
to work, but I prefer coming home first.

I tried the body-fat machine that I originally used at teh gym some time in
the past few days. My body-fat percentage is now at 28%, a drop of 3% from
my initial body fat reading. That was 6 lbs of fat lost. Pretty impressive.

Also, since my hair is now really short, it makes it more imperative to lose
the fat, especially around my face. Easier to see teh chub and teh double
chin, now that the hair is gone.

I planned to have cereal with soy milk this morning. too late, I had to rush
out the oor. I did try Dr Soy, a so called health bar, with high protein.
Chocolate caramel or something. If health bars are supposed to substitute for
lunch, I wish they'd tast more like cheeseburger and rnch fries, than
chocolate. (I am getting really addicted to the taste of Silk, I could
definitely have a whole cup if requierd,. Right now I take big swigs right
from the carton.


#227 of 332 by scott on Fri Oct 24 19:10:06 2003:

Interesting discovery... the Japanese grocery next to Godaiko has locally made
soy milk, in gallon and half-gallon jugs.  I bought a half-gallon of the
"sweet" variety, figuring it would be pretty crlose to the usual stuff listed
above.  $1.99!  Gallons under $4, pretty cheap.


#228 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 24 19:15:38 2003:

Was it any good?

I ate too manty sweets this afternoon in honor of Diwali. Ok, I see 
that I'm going to have to workout more, or starve myself more, or see 
my weight plateau till I get back to the diet. Tomorrow is the Diwali 
party, I expect to be eating some more :(


#229 of 332 by remmers on Fri Oct 24 20:01:14 2003:

I'm not sure exactly what Diwali is, but if good eatin' is involved,
it sounds like my kind of holiday.


#230 of 332 by murph on Fri Oct 24 20:02:40 2003:

re#227: where's Godaiko?


#231 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Oct 24 20:21:58 2003:

Diwali is the biggest hindu festival, commemorating different events, 
depending on who you ask. Lots of lit lamps and the like. As big in 
India as Christmas is over here. Lots of sweets.


#232 of 332 by scott on Fri Oct 24 21:58:24 2003:

Godaiko is in the Oak Valley shopping center, right across from Meijer on
Ann Arbor - Saline road.  It's the biggest oriental grocery in Ann Arbor,
although the Plymouth Road one probably fits almost as much stuff into 3/4
the space.  :)

The soymilk I bought is extremely fresh tasting, for lack of a better term.
Seems to taste like tofu, not really like the big-name commercial stuff.  Not
sure how I feel about it yet - soy/rice milks tend to be an acquired taste.


#233 of 332 by tpryan on Sat Oct 25 13:00:11 2003:

        Is Diwali a lunar based holiday, or the same day on the solar
calendar?


#234 of 332 by mynxcat on Sat Oct 25 14:51:49 2003:

Lunar based. The Hindu calendar is Lunar based. Last year Diwali was sometime
in early November.

Today is the actual day for Diwali. We're having a party this evening, so I'm
prolly going to starve myself in anticipation. Or not. Aunt from NJ has sent
me lots of fattenning Indian goodies. Looks like the fiance is going to ome
in handy eating them.

I have to fit in a workout sometime between now and 6:30 pm. Hopefully, I
don't get a call from work :P



#235 of 332 by tod on Sun Oct 26 12:49:20 2003:

This response has been erased.



#236 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Oct 27 18:05:33 2003:

Lots of Indian sweets and friend stuff.

Did not end up going to the party on Saturday, so saved some calories 
there. However, did end up going for lunch yesterday, so though it may 
have added some extra calories, it wasn't much compared to party-type 
food.

Soy milk with cereal is definitely yummy. Thanks for sharing 
that "recipe", remmers.


#237 of 332 by keesan on Tue Oct 28 16:17:42 2003:

Try Chinese foodstores for soymilk.  Foodland on Carpenter has both
unsweetened and sweetened (unflavored) half gallons.  Also 'soy pudding' to
which you can add flavors (soft tofu).


#238 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Oct 28 18:35:20 2003:

Ok, I have lost, and I mean really lost....<drumroll> 10 p o u n d s 
and dropped a pant size. I feel pretty good about this. 


#239 of 332 by happyboy on Tue Oct 28 19:39:19 2003:

that was pretty fast...like a month right?  congrats!!!


#240 of 332 by tod on Tue Oct 28 19:53:23 2003:

This response has been erased.



#241 of 332 by keesan on Tue Oct 28 21:22:21 2003:

Hooray Sapna!  I am sure you also feel a lot stronger and healthier too.
I have gained at least 10 pounds in only 2 months.  Let's keep trading.
Another 10 pounds?


#242 of 332 by munkey on Tue Oct 28 21:38:27 2003:

Yeah Congrats SApna!


#243 of 332 by slynne on Tue Oct 28 22:14:23 2003:

congrats Sapna. That is quite an accomplishment. 


#244 of 332 by jaklumen on Wed Oct 29 05:08:50 2003:

Congrats, Sapna!

Well, I'm not sure what's up... my scale numbers are dropping.


#245 of 332 by slynne on Wed Oct 29 14:02:31 2003:

That's good, jaklumen. 


#246 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 29 14:57:17 2003:

Thanks guys. Yes, I feel healthier, and stronger, and I like the way 
some of my old clothes look on me now.

That was 10 lbs in 1 month yes. I like the pace I set, and hopefully 
it will continue.

However, yesterday, I slacked. Didn't go to the gym, but then, didn't 
eat much either. This morning's gym aerobic workout was 50 minutes 
instead of the usual 60, but at a slightly higher resistance. And 
postponed my workout till tomorrow. Also tonight there shall be 
decadent drinking in honor of our exiting team-lead


#247 of 332 by edina on Wed Oct 29 16:08:36 2003:

That is wicked awesome.  The weight loss, not the decadent drinking.


#248 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 29 16:36:37 2003:

This response has been erased.



#249 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Oct 29 17:47:02 2003:

Adopting it as a life-style is a goal. I might have Chipotle for lunch 
today, again in honor of the exiting team-lead. Decadent drinking has 
been postponed till tomorrow, which is just as well. I can "work from 
home" Friday.

Another thing I've noticed that my menstrual cramps, which are usually 
terrible on the first day of my period, were non-existant this month. 
Did not experience the fatigue, aching joints and bloating either. 
Could it be the exercise?


#250 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 29 17:55:53 2003:

This response has been erased.



#251 of 332 by jaklumen on Wed Oct 29 18:58:03 2003:

resp:245 I should probably do some tape measurements to be sure.  It's 
lbs. numbers-- now the fat % is creeping down a little.

Tomorrow, I go see my sleep doctor... I hope to get a C-PAP soon... 
here's hoping some better sleep will make it easier to step up the 
exercise.


#252 of 332 by happyboy on Wed Oct 29 19:39:57 2003:

/"Sometimes, I get the menstrual cramps real hard."


#253 of 332 by goose on Wed Oct 29 21:02:11 2003:

"All he wanted was a hot roll and butter...so why do you use the word
trapped?"


#254 of 332 by keesan on Wed Oct 29 21:23:18 2003:

215 reminds me I have to go for today's walk, despite little sleep.  Getting
more exercise usually helps one to sleep better.


#255 of 332 by bhelliom on Wed Oct 29 23:23:50 2003:

I won't be going to be gym today, but I'm doing house cleaning, so 
that's going to be my work out for today, yesterday was a wash since I 
worked until I went to an event, so it's been since Monday.  I'm a 
little heavier than I was a few weeks ago, but it's currently do to a 
little extra water weight that is my monthly right as a member of the 
female gender, as well as an increase in muscle.


#256 of 332 by tod on Wed Oct 29 23:50:29 2003:

This response has been erased.



#257 of 332 by happyboy on Thu Oct 30 03:00:50 2003:

EAT SANDWICHES


#258 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 30 15:13:20 2003:

Elliptical for about 45 to 60 minutes. Weights every other day both 
upper body and lower body. Right now I'm doing one set each of 12 
reps. From next week, I'm going to work on upper and lower on 
different days with 3 sets for each exercise


#259 of 332 by remmers on Thu Oct 30 15:27:22 2003:

Stick with that regimen, watch what you eat, and you'll soon be svelte
with a capital S.


#260 of 332 by keesan on Thu Oct 30 15:32:13 2003:

Maybe I will get inspired to do supper body exercises.  Yay Sapna!


#261 of 332 by keesan on Thu Oct 30 15:33:09 2003:

the stray s- was not intended.  I am still thinking in eating mode.


#262 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Oct 30 16:42:15 2003:

supper body exercises would be great :)

Thanks keesan, remmers, et al.


#263 of 332 by tod on Thu Oct 30 21:52:21 2003:

This response has been erased.



#264 of 332 by happyboy on Thu Oct 30 21:57:39 2003:

/runs for the car keys yelling like a viking:

 "CHICKEN WITH CHEEEEEESE!"


#265 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Nov 12 16:28:34 2003:

It's been a while since I've posted. Mostly because I haven't been 
keeping up. I looked at FitDay yesterday, I haven't updated for over a 
fortnight. I haven't been keeping to the diet strictly, and the 
exercise routine is sporadic at best. I blame my personal life, and 
the fact that I wasn't in town for a couple of weekends.

The bad news is I haven't lost any extra weight since the last report. 
The good news is, despite the eating out and such, I haven't gained 
any of the weight back. And that's a huge plus point.

In desperation, I turned to the Atkins Diet. At least I looked at it. 
It's pretty tempting, lots of meat, and I like meat, lots of cheese, 
and I love cheese. It seemed like the easiest thing to do. Till I 
looked at what I could not eat. I looked at the recipebook on 
http://www.atkins.com, they have a few indian recipes like the chicken 
curry, and the cauliflower. All very well, but you're not supposed to 
eat bread or rice. Now how is one supposed to have chicken curry 
without rice or bread? Totally against what I've been brought up on. 
The vegetarian recipes looked like too much trouble. And the deciding 
factor to not go on the diet was that not everyone loses that much 
weight the first couple of weeks, everyone has a different resistance 
level. Ok, I'm not trying something that doesn't guarantee results.

This morning on the radio they were talking to Dr Do-Nothing, or 
something like that. He advocates high protein and high natural fat 
and low carbs, which is pretty close to the Atkins diet. Though I'm 
not going to follow that, one thing he did mention was for maximum 
weight-loss during exercise, not to have any carbs at least an hor 
before and an hour after your exercise. Sort of ties in to the whole  
Atkins thing which advocates no carbs so fat would be burnt instead. 
Must try.


#266 of 332 by keesan on Wed Nov 12 17:30:16 2003:

Eating too much protein can damage your liver and kidneys when you break down
the protein for energy.  Atkins diet may produce quick weight loss but it is
not healthy.  You are not supposed to exercise a lot for an hour after eating
so that your stomach will have time to operate without the blood being drawn
away to the muscles.  They taught us at summer camp, in swimming class, never
to go in the water within an hour of eating, but the lifesaving class had no
other time to meet so we always met right after lunch.

Don't worry about a temporary standstill as long as you do not backslide. 
You are probably still converting fat to muscle.  I wish I had fat to convert
to muscle.  I seem to be stuck at 106 with no taste buds except for sour.


#267 of 332 by tod on Wed Nov 12 17:47:39 2003:

This response has been erased.



#268 of 332 by jiffer on Wed Nov 12 17:57:58 2003:

Sapna, sounds like you may have hit a platue (I misspelled that).  If 
you read the whole Atkins Diet book, you start out going with a large 
amount of fat and protein, but supposedly this is supposed to help get 
the "carb addiction" within control.  After a couple of months or so, 
you should introduce more veggies and the like in, but like all diets, 
it is about portion and consumption control. 



#269 of 332 by keesan on Wed Nov 12 18:01:13 2003:

plateau?  from French, I presume


#270 of 332 by tod on Wed Nov 12 18:16:24 2003:

This response has been erased.



#271 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Nov 12 18:24:49 2003:

jiffer, I did read most of what they had to say on the site. I know 
you can introduce carbs into your diet in small amounts after the 
first two weeks. Just that it's not for me. 

I'm hoping it's not a plateau. I do know that I haven't been keeping 
up. The exercise is sporadic at best right now, and I haven't been 
that careful about my diet. I am trying to get back on track, and I 
think I overdid the elliptical at the gym yesterday - my legs are 
sore :( I think I'll concentrate on upper-body today and give the legs 
a rest. 

I need to get in the habit of going in the mornings. It's easier to 
skip the gym in the evenings, especially with the shorter days :(


#272 of 332 by tod on Wed Nov 12 18:53:00 2003:

This response has been erased.



#273 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Nov 12 19:53:29 2003:

72 hours is 3 days. I thought it was ok to work out muscle areas every 
other day. Besides, my muscles are sore from the damn elliptical. I 
think the resistance was a little higher than I'm used to.



#274 of 332 by remmers on Wed Nov 12 22:45:10 2003:

Every other day is what I was told (by my personal trainer) as well.


#275 of 332 by tod on Wed Nov 12 23:39:21 2003:

This response has been erased.



#276 of 332 by scott on Wed Nov 12 23:43:05 2003:

Yeah, but pro weight trainers tend to use the 'roids, too.


#277 of 332 by tod on Wed Nov 12 23:48:56 2003:

This response has been erased.



#278 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Nov 13 17:47:54 2003:

What's the westside barbell method? 

I'm guessing since my weight-training is MUCh lighter than a 
professional trainer's, every other day should be ok for me?

I went to the gym this morning. 45 minutes on the elliptical (reduced 
the resistance a little, since my muscles were a little too sore from 
the last time)and upper body training. I figured out the reason I 
couldnt' get up in time to get in a workout in the mornings was 
because I was going to bed so late. Duh! 


#279 of 332 by tod on Thu Nov 13 18:55:46 2003:

This response has been erased.



#280 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Nov 13 22:05:33 2003:

But I don't want to increase my weight... /whine

That's pretty interesting. And you say the club is in Columbus? Even 
more interesting.


#281 of 332 by tod on Thu Nov 13 22:53:52 2003:

This response has been erased.



#282 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Nov 14 01:50:32 2003:

I'll ask around


#283 of 332 by gregb on Wed Nov 26 17:55:06 2003:

What I'd like to know is when is when is it better to exercise, before 
or after eating, and how long before or after, especially in the 
morning.


#284 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Nov 26 19:59:58 2003:

I've heard the best time to exercise is in the morning, before 
breakfast. This increases metabolism and gets your body into fat-
burning mode at the beginning of the day, and is therefore the most 
beneficial. If you can't exercise in the morning, the next best time 
is about two hours before the evening meal. 

Personally, I like the morning. For one, it wakes me up for the rest 
of the day. I'm really raring to go. However, it doesn't seem to work 
for my fiance, he says he's usually too tired for the rest of the day. 
Also, I prefer to get it done with in the morning so that I don't have 
to worry about it till next morning.


#285 of 332 by willcome on Thu Nov 27 07:33:04 2003:

You know, we always hear about (and FUCK) ladies of the night, but what I
wouldn't do whore a good morning whore.


#286 of 332 by bhelliom on Mon Dec 1 16:48:11 2003:

Morning Whores are so neglected.

Elliptical crosstrainers are my preferred aerobic workout, but I try to
occasionally  switch with the treatmill or bike for variety.  I also
like to work a part of the body on weights every session,  so I make
sure to trade off between upper and lower body, except on really busy
days at the gym when all of the aerboic equipment is taken, in which
case I do the weight machines.  I start up yoga again in the spring, so
the two days I'll have class (I'll be paying for two sessions a week
instead of one) will be days off from the gym, since the Iyengar
instructor is really intense.

Thankfully I've sharply reduced my fast food intake again.  I prefer to
eat none at all, but currently I'm once or a week at lunch time.


#287 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Dec 2 17:01:24 2003:

I need to go back to the gym. I have sorely neglected it what with my 
obsession with PS2 and CivIII. I haven't been able to wake up early 
enough to go. CivIII keeps me awake late into the night. 

Also, I've started eating a little more take-out. However, I still 
haven't put any weight back on. Which is a good thing.


#288 of 332 by gregb on Tue Dec 2 17:07:29 2003:

This response has been erased.



#289 of 332 by gregb on Tue Dec 2 17:10:29 2003:

CivIII?  How good are their games?  ;-)


#290 of 332 by remmers on Tue Dec 2 17:16:39 2003:

The only way I was able to break my CivIII addiction was to take
up an even more addicting game.  :)

I'm subject to similar temptations/excuses with regard to my own
exercise program.  But I find that regular exercise makes a huge
positive difference in my sense of well-being, both physical and
mental.  So I hope Sapna sticks with it.


#291 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Dec 2 20:30:41 2003:

I hope to return to the gym tomorrow morning. Keeping fingers crossed.

CivIII - What praises should  Ising. I've moved my empire up to rank 
number 2, though I haven't won any wars. And I can't wait to go home 
and play. But iwbg.

What game did you take up to break your CivIII addiction, remmers?


#292 of 332 by remmers on Wed Dec 3 16:59:24 2003:

Wizardry 8.


#293 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Dec 3 19:16:15 2003:

What's that about?


#294 of 332 by remmers on Wed Dec 3 19:53:34 2003:

It's about killing monsters.  KILL KILL KILL!

Well, there's also a plot that goes along with it, concerning
a quest to save the universe from this evil dude called the Dark
Savant who looks and acts uncannily like Darth Vader.

The Wizardry series goes back over 20 years to Wizardry I, an
Apple II "hi-res graphics" game that was very popular in the early
1980s.  I was addicted to that one too.  Wiz 8 has all the latest
whiz-bang technological features:  3D graphics, stereo sound,
ultra-smooth animation, but without losing the basic feel of
Wiz I and its numerous successors.


#295 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Dec 3 21:20:09 2003:

Hmmm.. I've never been into anything that is faintly "fantasy". But 
wow - it survuved 20 years. That's got to say something for the game.

I'm also hooked to Need For Speed on PS2 and DDR (Don't laugh. Very 
geeky arcade game, now on PC)


#296 of 332 by scott on Wed Dec 3 23:22:47 2003:

Thank goodness I'm not easily hooked on games.  ;)

Although at one point I did spend a couple hours every day on the NES Super
Mario Bros. and got all the way through...


#297 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Dec 4 17:08:42 2003:

I used to love Donkey Kong on those little hand held games. In this 
one Donkey Kong's sone was supposed to run along a wire with electrc 
impulses passing through it, jumping all of them and unlocking each of 
the four chains that had his father tied up. and then he was supposed 
to run and catch DK when he fell. I loved it. Now I think I'd find it 
boring. 

Video games should be banned


#298 of 332 by jep on Thu Dec 4 18:23:11 2003:

I remember Wizardry for the PC from the late 1980's.  A friend had 
pirated a copy from somewhere.  There were spells with weird names; 
they must have been described in the program manual, but we didn't have 
that.  A lot of the fun of playing that game was figuring out what the 
spells did.

If there's an updated version, I'd like to get it.  I'm amazed it's 
survived for so long.



#299 of 332 by remmers on Thu Dec 4 18:46:46 2003:

Wizardry 8 came out a couple of years ago.  As the number implies,
there have been eight different Wizardry games altogether.  If you
were playing it in the late 1980s, you could have been playing
anything from Wiz 1 through Wiz 6.  I'd have to look up the dates
to be sure, but as best I can remember, the only Wizardry game
released in the 1990s was Wiz 7: Crusaders of the Dark Savant
(another wonderfully addicting pastime).

I don't see Wiz 8 much in stores, probably because it's been out
for a while.  I'm sure it can be ordered online.


#300 of 332 by jep on Thu Dec 4 20:27:41 2003:

Yes, I found it on both eBay and amazon.com.


#301 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Dec 4 20:43:01 2003:

Dare I get this one?


#302 of 332 by remmers on Fri Dec 5 18:46:28 2003:

Hard to say.  If you're not into fantasy role-playing games, it
probably won't appeal to you.


#303 of 332 by remmers on Fri Dec 5 18:54:53 2003:

(Won't help make you svelte, either...  ;-)


#304 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Dec 5 19:25:14 2003:

Tell me about it. I've been playing video games all week. Can't say it 
makes for a very cheerful Sapna in the mornings.

I've borrowed LOTR - Twin Towers for PS2 from a friend. I hated the 
book/movie, but I want to try the game. He also recommended Max Payne 
for the PC. Anyone played that one?

Role-playing is interesting. I thought I wouldn't like action games, 
but I don't mind them as long as there's some strategy involved. 

GTA Vice City is another favorite. Beating up little old ladies can be 
quite satisfying.


#305 of 332 by goose on Fri Dec 5 20:00:07 2003:

GTA III AND GTA VC could be a huge time drain for me....I resist.


#306 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Dec 5 20:12:24 2003:

Your resistance is futile ...



#307 of 332 by gregb on Mon Dec 8 17:49:24 2003:

Re. 304: If you like 3rd-person shoot-em-ups, you'll like MP.  Normally, 
I'm not into 3rd-person games, but I was intrequed by the Matrix-like 
effects and "bullit view" options.


#308 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 8 18:04:52 2003:

Hmmm, another one to try.

I borrowed LOTR - Twin Towers for PS2 from a friend. I think it's a 
pretty weak strategy - modelling a game on a movie. The movie excerpts 
were annoying, the visuals were dark, and the actual fight sequences 
where you got to play were uninspired.


#309 of 332 by jep on Mon Dec 8 21:10:49 2003:

I've seen very good games based on movies.  The Lion King game for the 
Sega Genesis is still one of my favorites ever.  (But I admittedly 
don't play a lot of video games.)


#310 of 332 by mynxcat on Mon Dec 8 21:34:33 2003:

Is it very childish? And is it out on PS2?


#311 of 332 by jep on Tue Dec 9 19:07:08 2003:

Yes, it's available for other platforms besides Sega Genesis according 
to a search I did on amazon.com.  It's The Lion King game from Majesco 
Sales.  You'll have to check on whether it's out for the PS2.

The game was appropriate for kids, if you ask me, and I'm rather strict 
about such things.  It wasn't violent or obscene or anything... but it 
was definitely challenging for adults.  I played it for months without 
completing it.  It felt like a real accomplishment to get to a new 
level.


#312 of 332 by mynxcat on Tue Dec 9 19:15:30 2003:

That's what I meant. Was it challenging enough for an adult to play. 
Sounds like it was. I'll keep a look out for it. Thanks John.


#313 of 332 by jep on Tue Dec 9 23:15:05 2003:

I'm slower than many but eventually I get there.  (-:


#314 of 332 by bhelliom on Wed Dec 17 13:48:37 2003:

Wow...this is just like real exercise! This, too, got derailed by 
computer games!


#315 of 332 by mynxcat on Wed Dec 17 22:31:25 2003:

Hehe.

And the holiday season :P I'll go to the gym tomorrow, I promise :P


#316 of 332 by keesan on Thu Dec 18 02:59:27 2003:

I think I have gained back 1.5 pounds in 1.5 weeks.  Yay me.  Food tastes
funny.  There must be some pill people could take to make their food taste
funny too.  


#317 of 332 by edina on Thu Dec 18 12:15:09 2003:

Heh - it's called "fat".  (No joke - I've worked with chefs who say fat is
flavor.)


#318 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Dec 18 15:31:09 2003:

Fat *is* flavor. That would explain why most foods that taste so good 
are really fatty. And why low-fat or no-fat versions never taste quite 
as yummy.

Didn't go to the gym today. Was up till 2:30 am playing CivIII. On the 
good side, I wiped out the French, and have two more cities to conquer 
to wipe out the Chinese. Bad side, all the fudge I ate yesterday is 
prolly being converted to pounds right now :(


#319 of 332 by keesan on Thu Dec 18 17:56:26 2003:

Some of the flavorful compounds may be fat soluble, but fat itself does not
have any flavor that I know of. It has a distinctive texture.  Flavor consists
of sour (acid), sweet (sugars), bitter (various things that are bad for you)
and salt.  


#320 of 332 by edina on Thu Dec 18 18:31:34 2003:

True - if you want to get literal about it.  


#321 of 332 by happyboy on Thu Dec 18 18:40:33 2003:

or if you want to be OCD about it.


*snort*


#322 of 332 by mynxcat on Thu Dec 18 18:49:44 2003:

I know I prefer fried to boiled or baked. And that's fat. 


#323 of 332 by tpryan on Thu Dec 18 20:42:38 2003:

        Wasn't another flavor the tongue detects been labeled as 'umi'?
as in yummy?  The tastes good sensation?


#324 of 332 by jmsaul on Thu Dec 18 23:37:59 2003:

I think it's "umami," from the Japanese term for the flavor.

Re #319:  Grapefruit is bitter, and it isn't bad for you.


#325 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Dec 19 00:28:53 2003:

Re 323> Tastes good as in what? sweet, salty, sour?


#326 of 332 by jmsaul on Fri Dec 19 03:22:01 2003:

Re #325:  Distinct from all of those.  It's a taste that can be triggered
          by some amino acid compounds (like monosodium glutamate).  I
          know what it is, but I can't describe it well.  It's sort of a
          richness.  Some people describe it as "meaty," but it shows up
          in some vegetables (mushrooms and asparagus) as well.

          Probably the best way to experience it is to eat some MSG, and
          ignore whatever salt flavor you get -- it isn't that.

          (And it is "umami," and it's a Japanese word with no English
           derivation.)


#327 of 332 by keesan on Fri Dec 19 06:22:12 2003:

Crisco is fat and it does not have a whole lot of taste.
Mushrooms and asparagus are on the list of foods to avoid if you have gout
because they are fast growing and have a lot of DNA in them.  Can people taste
nucleic acids?  


#328 of 332 by willcome on Fri Dec 19 06:43:55 2003:

That sounds distinctly like quackery.


#329 of 332 by mynxcat on Fri Dec 19 17:47:30 2003:

Re 326> I've tasted MSG and liked it. It must be some kind of flavor I 
really like because I really like mushrooms and asparagus.


#330 of 332 by willcome on Sat Dec 20 22:33:20 2003:

MSG causes brain damage.


#331 of 332 by jmsaul on Sun Dec 21 16:02:19 2003:

Personal experience?


#332 of 332 by willcome on Mon Dec 22 00:36:45 2003:

Your face.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: