That settles it...
Oct. 17th, 2004 08:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayI've already restarted workouts and skating over the past two weeks... I need to start skipping meals again. Must lose the 6-7 lbs I've regained since mid-July... When those close to me begin agreeing with me that I'm out of shape and not particularly physically attractive, that's time to fully mobilize. No breakfast for me ;).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 04:27 pm (UTC)The technique of skipping meals is quite likely one of the things that keeps you on this cycle. Your body will assume that you are starving, and lower your metabolism accordingly. Even for a guy, this is not a good thing. The result is that it's far easier to re-gain lost weight, far more difficult to keep it off, every time around the wheel. Far better is to reduce consumption slightly across the board instead. Example: Take one less piece of toast at breakfast, one less scoop of potatoes at lunch, a smaller serving of each thing at dinner, and skip dessert most nights. That in combination with your already re-started exercise campaign should do it without having to whack your metabolism again.
Is it easy? No. But it might save you having to do this ever again. (Well, that and eating fewer courses in Spain next summer!).
Alternatively, specifically for a guy as geeky and prone to charts as you are...
Maybe you should try the "red pen" method one of those "Live Simply" Books recommended. Chart your weight DAILY (each day the same time and place if possible) with a red pen on a paper next to your scale. When the mark is up one or two pounds, take appropriate action for the next several days until the mark is back down again. Because each correction is small, the actions needed are also small, and theoretically not difficult to do. (This method SUCKS for women, BTW, because of our natural weight fluctuations during the month.) The difficulty for you is to maintain the record when you are on the road. But you're clever; I'm sure you could figure it out.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 05:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:41 pm (UTC)Fair enough. I'd say then that the challenge is either to GET a scale for travelling, or to react quicker when you're home again. You WERE home between Devon Island and Spain, after all. :^D
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 11:06 pm (UTC)Not much. We had family vacation, and he had a business trip to D.C. in there as well. From July 20, when he left for Devon, and September 30, when he returned from Spain, he was home about two and a half weeks, cumulative.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 02:31 am (UTC)And I'm not actually advocating any particular action, nor am I endorsing any particular view of Brian's attractiveness, either positive or negative. (Wow, that sounds awfully weaselly--maybe I need to consider a career in politics! ;^)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 08:15 pm (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/users/firecat/282976.html
She excerpted this bit, and I think it's spot-on:
"What is Normal?"
Johan Koeslag, Department of Medical Physiology, Tygerberg South Africa
excerpt from http://academic.sun.ac.za/medphys/normal.htm:
Conforming to a cultural norm.
Medical practitioners would probably be unanimous in condemning this definition [of "normal"] as the basis of their professional decision-making. But it is, in fact the only implied definition of normality in Dorland's Medical Dictionary. The norm, in this case, seems to be the immediate post-pubertal physical state. This applies particularly to the systemic arterial blood pressure, body fat content, glucose tolerance, and plasma lipid profiles, all of which change with age. Though these changes are the rule, they are seldom considered to be normal. Indeed there are, in Medicine, almost no unreservedly age-specific normal values for middle- and old-aged persons. All age-related deviations from the immediate post-pubertal state are considered degenerate, and abnormal.
Other cultures consider anyone under middle age as still in the immature, developmental stage. Their normal physiological values, if they were to compile them, would reflect the physiology of 50 year-olds, and relegate our culture's normal values to the Paediatric category.
Actuarial weight tables are "normalized" for 20-year olds. I think it's pretty obvious that neither you nor I are 20 anymore, and trying to achieve that "ideal" may be more damaging than healthful overall.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:00 pm (UTC)Exercise helps keep the metabolism from lowering, but it becomes a tug-of-war.
And Spain... that was one reason why I began refusing the first plates, or skipping postres in favor of just coffee over ice. Not to mention abiding with toast instead of eggs and bacon for breakfast. It was just too much...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 04:00 pm (UTC)6 or 7 lbs should not make any difference in much of anything, except maybe your pants fitting too tight.
:)
You are a beautiful man.
Please treat yourself with care, every bit of you, including those extra 7 lbs of you.
It's good to take care of yourself, workouts are good, but eating regularly is good too. Our metabolism changes as we age, so does our body shape and distribution. It's ok to love your body at each of its lovable stages.
:)
Hugs.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 06:49 pm (UTC)Thanks for the feedback, too :).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:01 pm (UTC)so, sometimes I skip breakfast and/or lunch when they don't appeal. or, sometimes I don't feel like eating much at traditional mealtimes but would like snacks in between. that's OK, I just kept healthy food around to snack on.
the questions to answer (for me) were, why are you eating? from boredom? stress? because you think you ought to eat now?
learning to recognize actual hunger took me a while. you may already do so, of course.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:15 pm (UTC)No, my lack of commentary was because I didn't think such a silly assertion as an additional six pounds making you unattractive even deserved a response. I still don't think it deserves comment, but if the alternative is going to be this...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:49 pm (UTC)Brian, sometimes you drive me insane.
Lack of comment DOES NOT EQUATE with agreement. Sheesh. Write it down mathematically if you have to. For pity's sake--you were complaining about having picked up weight while we were in Spain. Who am I to disagree with your statement that you had, then?
And while I don't disagree with anything that
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 03:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:21 pm (UTC)Meal-skipping... calories are calories, on a daily basis. And it is easier to, say, skip breakfast and then go out to lunch with friends, than to try to eat two tiny meals.
Most of my meals in the Arctic... I was cold, and it warmed me. Gave me extra calories to generate heat, since we were in unheated tents. In Spain, it was more social/situational, hard to lead a group while disappearing from them at mealtimes. After awhile, I started just skipping much of the food offered.
real hunger... I feel pangs, discomfort, a bit of nausea. Trivial compared to the stuff you have to put with, but more than just reflexive stress-relief.
Health, not dieting
Date: 2004-10-17 07:42 pm (UTC)OK, so I'm ill and you're not. But the point is, appetite isn't the only reliable guide to what to eat when.
("As you know, Bob") There are two basic equations that you need to satisfy: energy in <= energy out (with the < only applying short-term, as 6lb should drift off sustainably in a month); and nutrient intake = nutrient requirement. I got my weight under control the analytical science way: (1) Paying much closer attention to my daily detailed nutrient needs and intake; (2) Upping my exercise levels and adjusting my calorie intake until my weight naturally stabilized below a BMI of 25.
Do you know how your current nutrient intake and exercise levels compare to scientific recommendations? My reading suggests that exercise equivalent to 20 miles brisk walking per week is optimal, for example. How are your micronutrient intake levels e.g. vitamin D, calcium, omega3/omega6 essential fatty acids? Keeping a daily food diary can be extremely surprising and informative...
Stress which causes weight loss probably isn't particularly good for your long-term health.
And to join another chorus, your weight has nothing to do with your attractiveness :-)
Duh!
Date: 2004-10-18 12:52 am (UTC)(shakes head at the silliness)
Re: Health, not dieting
Date: 2004-10-18 04:00 pm (UTC)My exercise levels average to three workouts a week, each lasting about 40 minutes. Some weeks more or less, and some weeks I'll substitute an hour of skating or walking.
Micronutrients... I have ignored. I don't use supplements, not even ordinary multivitamins.
The diary idea is useful, thanks :-). And I hope that your own appetite returns.
Re: Health, not dieting
Date: 2004-10-18 04:28 pm (UTC)I reckon that twenty miles of brisk walking per week comes out at 45 mins moderate exercise each day, or considerably longer of gentle exercise.
Even keeping the diary for three days, as long as you keep it properly, can be instructive. I analyzed everything which I ate in terms of macro and micronutrients, against a range of dietary recommendations. Fascinating, as well as revealing.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 08:01 pm (UTC)Simply not true, Brian. Living systems are very different from non-living ones. There are plenty of studies out there that show that the type of food you eat matters, as does how much you eat at any given time, and the time of day you eat it.
People react very differently to all these different variables, of course, and for SOME people the total number of calories doesn't appear to matter nearly as much as the percentage that comes from carbohydrates (there is good science behind the current craze, even if most people on the bandwagon shouldn't be there or are doing for all the wrong reasons). The trick will be to figure out which one(s) of these factors are most important FOR YOU, AT THIS TIME IN YOUR LIFE. Clearly, your youthful metabolism has now deserted you, and you need to pay attention where you didn't used to. I know that I never used to need to do "extra" excercise--the amount of moving around I got in my "normal" activities was sufficient. But that's not true anymore, so I now have to add exercise into my schedule (which is a real nuisance).
And it is easier to, say, skip breakfast and then go out to lunch with friends, than to try to eat two tiny meals.
Easier, but likely to screw with your metabolism so that by the time you're 80 you're surviving on tea and toast and still gaining weight. Why not go out to lunch with friends and share an entree? Or have a salad? Really, Brian, studies HAVE shown that it's easier to maintain a steady, healthy weight if you actually have a small amount of food for breakfast.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 04:03 pm (UTC)Folate is a vitamin
Date: 2004-10-18 04:34 pm (UTC)So, the trick is to find ways to eat greens that you actually enjoy. One friend adores huge ricotta and 'spinach' stuffed cannelloni with tomato sauce, which can be made with just about any cooked green, and be low in saturated fat. Another adores greens stir-fried with chilli and nuts, Thai-style. Spending time enjoying cooking seems to be a reasonably reliable way to fall in love with vegetables, if you're imaginative, resourceful and persistent enough...
Vegetables aren't optional ... poor diet choices may well be as significant a contribution to cancer deaths as is smoking.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 05:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 07:58 pm (UTC)Skipping meals does not equal a healthy way to eat and lose. Especially if you are skipping the meal because you are emotionally not well and not feeling like eating.
And what Dawn outlined about the body thinking it is starving is a scientific fact. Don't mess with that process.
Alternatively, eat several smaller meals a day rather than three regular meals with small portions. That is a viable option.
And, if you'd like to consider it, ediets.com is an excellent way to menu plan around that. When I did it, I lost well and healthy. I'd still be doing it if I could afford it.
But I strongly disagree with the idea of skipping meals.
Exercise well, eat regular sensible meals and love yourself.
If I can, in all my rotund glory, love myself and still be seen as attractive by others, then you can as well.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 04:07 pm (UTC)And I'll check out ediets, thanks.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 09:32 pm (UTC)Hang in there. I know how that feels to see the scale frighteningly declare larger numbers...even when I look great to others, those few pounds are yelling at me and chiseling away at my self image.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 05:31 am (UTC)Skipping meals on purpose is a stupid idea. Having small healthy snacks (such as an apple, oatmeal cookies, or yogurt) sitting in the car and at your desk for when you are tempted to skip a meal is a much better idea.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-18 09:43 pm (UTC)