response 30 of 332:

Sep 25 17:09 UTC 2003

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

response 32 of 332:

Sep 25 22:50 UTC 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

response 34 of 332:

Sep 26 01:53 UTC 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.

response 36 of 332:

Sep 26 02:37 UTC 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.

response 38 of 332:

Sep 26 02:45 UTC 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.

response 40 of 332:

Sep 26 14:35 UTC 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.

response 46 of 332:

Sep 27 05:29 UTC 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?

response 48 of 332:

Sep 27 18:42 UTC 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.

response 50 of 332:

Sep 28 04:01 UTC 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

response 52 of 332:

Sep 28 07:00 UTC 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
 :(