jay | That settles it...

Skipping meals = bad idea. Don't do that.

Agreed.

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.

Since I suspect the data-gathering aspect will appeal to you, Brian, you should definitely try to weigh yourself in the same time frame on the same scale each time if you can; remember that your weight fluctuates over the course of the day. I've seen as much as 4 pounds difference between 8:30 AM and 8 PM, and then am back at the original number the next morning.

Yep. What she said. Ideally after any morning... erm... eliminations, and before breakfast, to give yourself the most consistent readings.

(nods) good idea -- actually, I do this already, every morning just before I get into the shower.

In which case, lack of data is not your issue. What is stopping you from following through when the scale is up a pound or two, rather than up over 5? (Not fishing for particular answers... just wondering what stands in the way for you).

Because I didn't have a scale in Spain, or on Devon Island? That's were I picked up -- three pounds at each. Day-to-day at home, I react when things change...

Because I didn't have a scale in Spain, or on Devon Island? That's were I picked up -- three pounds at each. Day-to-day at home, I react when things change...

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

You WERE home between Devon Island and Spain, after all. :^D

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.

Oh, right. Forgot about the family vacation in there. OTOH, that underlines that *IF* he decides to try this route, he needs to figure out some way of continuing to get the data and act on it, despite the MANY perturbations in his daily schedule. It's a challenge, no doubt.

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! ;^)

It's just boundary defense, not weaselly-ness here. :)

I've been steady at the same time of day (morning) since I got back from Spain, but need to pare down... I'm 20 lbs over my actuarial ideal weight (187 vs. 167). Before my birthday party, I was down to 181. Too much heavy cold-weather fare in the Arctic, then vacation, then all those two-plate meals in Spain... sigh.

The actuarial weight tables are flawed, BTW. They look at weight in isolation, and don't take into account a lot of other factors, including such obvious ones as muscle mass and bone density. Much better to assess your health on the basis of how you feel and function, than on your weight alone. As one women's mag I read put it, "don't weigh your self-esteem."

Given that, I'd be happy in the 170s, which I was close to last summer. Otherwise, my clothing size hasn't changed in 15 years... in part because men's clothing has fewer gradations, I think.

Oh, and go look at this entry in

firecat's journal:
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.

Not being obsessive, true... I'm less concerned with the net weight now than with the rate of change going upward over the summer, since that poses longer-term risks.

I hadn't heard of this method, but actually sometimes practice something similar, complete with wall graph and daily recording of calories consumed ;).

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...

Brian!!!

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.

Used to be that a few smaller meals and a couple of extra workouts could correct small drift... now it takes longer, and requires outright missed meals. Or lunches that consist of a cheese stick, eaten at my desk...

Thanks for the feedback, too :).

My point exactly, Brian. Your metabolism no longer functions as it used to, quite possibly due to the starvation cycles you have subjected it to regularly in the past.

to disagree somewhat with the others, I think meal-skipping can be done intelligently. I figured out years ago, when somewhat overweight, that I was sometimes eating when I wasn't really hungry, but when others expected me to.

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.

and also, you look attractive enough to me, so perhaps you're worried too much. but I do know what it's like to want things to be absolutely perfect.

Thanks! You'll note though that neither Cathy or Dawn (who both see me in-person with some frequency) are disagreeing, so my worries probably have some justification.

neither Cathy or Dawn (who both see me in-person with some frequency) are disagreeing, so my worries probably have some justification.

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...

Thank you, Cathy.

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

who_is_she said about your appearance, I do feel that she sort of bought into a bad pattern of yours. You know, the one where you complain about how awful and unattractive you are (usually socially, but this still fits), and then everyone has to jump in and tell you that no, you're wonderful just so you don't feel like committing suicide. I didn't comment because I didn't want to engage in that pattern, that's all.

There are some topics where direct communication doesn't work well, IMO, appearance being one. People are often unwilling to say what they're thinking. If I posit something as its negation, people are much more likely to say what they're thinking, either by agreeing with me (lower stress) or disagreeing (but being complimentary, hence lower-stress on them).

(nods) duly noted. I suppose that I tend to interpret silence as a negation...

Sometimes I'm just not hungry... and skipping then is easy. Emotional stress is useful that way, too, as it both adds lots of metabolism-boosting adrenaline while killing my appetite.

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.

I'm going to chime in on the "don't skip breakfast" chorus. Right now, I'm having to eat by the clock because the (suspected) mono is cutting into my appetite. Sometimes, in the evening, I don't feel one little bit like dinner. But it's important that I eat enough ... calories, macronutrients and micronutrients ... each day.

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 :-)

not to mention that apparently part of the genesis for this post came from a conversation with a not-conventionally-attractive sweetie of his about not valuing physical appearance.

(shakes head at the silliness)

ow. Hope that it isn't mono...

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.

Actually, I hope it is the mono, in preference to an unknown and worse third thing (I think I must be counting zero for my dodgy knees, one for my thyroid thing, two for the mono, there :-)

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.

Meal-skipping... calories are calories, on a daily basis.

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.

I've tried to shift to a lower-carbohydrate diet over the past year, with some success... not as formalized as the pop-culture diet fads, but ketosis agrees with me. Too bad I don't fancy salads, though, or most vegetables... I'd rather skip a meal than eat a salad, most days. I'd *run* from brussels sprouts! ;)

By definition, vitamins are substances vital to health which have to be ingested. Greens are particular important for folate. However, there are many other important nutrients which can be obtained at least partially from greens.

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.

Brussels sprouts are nasty. But they're far from the only vegetables out there. Perhaps it's time to branch out a bit. Incorporate vegetables into your meal, rather than just sitting down with a bowl of iceburg lettuce and a tomato. Try a stir fry with chicken and vegetables. Or a bowl of soba with vegetables. Or a vegetarian lasagne. That cannelloni

purpletigron mentioned sounds delicious, in fact. =)

Skipping meals isnt the way to lose weight and be healthy. I can say this from having the personal expierence of loosing 50 lbs because i didnt keep down alot of meals or was to nauseous or queasy to eat them. Your energy wont be there when you need it or want it and your tummy will feel lousy. Just change what you eat. Eat healthier foods like fish and chicken and lots of vegies. also The added exercise you are now doing will help as it will rasie your metabolisim to burn extra calories. I havent seen you recently so I dont know how you look. Lots hugs T

Well... the only vegetables I like are the starchier ones, like peas, corn, or root vegetables.

Okay, Mikey. Maybe it's time to try expanding your culinary horizons then. =) Are you sure you don't like vegetables, or is it just that you don't like the way you've had them prepared. I swore I hated broccoli until I finally had it steamed to the point where it's still crisp rather than a mushy lump. Preparation can make all the difference in the world. Except for brussels sprouts, which are still gross no matter what. ;)

I'm going to drone at you along with the others.

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.

(smile) that's undoubtedly part of my problem, under the surface... I don't usually love myself, or see myself as attractive or interesting, so that's what I tend to expect. Others simply fulfill those expectations, (wry grin) I internalize the results, wash-rinse-dry.

And I'll check out ediets, thanks.

I used ediets for a while; I liked their meal planning and a lot of the recipes. I've just gone back on the Weight Watchers flex plan again, since it's good about encouraging portion control (which is my biggest problem) while not restricting you to a specific set of foods. You'd hate it though, they strongly encourage you to eat vegetables. ;)

While skipping meals regularly is obviously not a healthy idea, I certainly think that it can be a great way to jump start a small weight loss. I've done it many times when I needed to take off just a few pounds. I often will skip dinner and then have a healthy snack a bit later in the evening. For me it's about getting the body used to being a bit hungry, so it seemed more normal. Of course it's all a psychological game for me and not so much a metabolism challenge.

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.

Thanks. Skipping helps in the short term, over 2-3 weeks... but others are probably right about it not being a good longer-term solution. And I don't have much self-image to start ;).

A useful geeky support for tracking exercise and eating is Fitday.com or the version you can buy for your own computer.

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.

Will it run on Macs? And small snacks are useful ways to dull the hunger, even fool the body into thinking it has had a meal... :)

Hey, I don't know about the Mac question --

therealjae recommended it to me, but I don't know if she used the 'bought' version or the free web version.

And the scale isn't everything, or even much of anything. I won't reiterate what everyone else ahs been saying (though I agree with most of it), but I will mentiuon that over the past year or so I"ve lost about 3 clothing sizes, but my weight has been steady for at least 8 months. (I lost maybe 10 pound early on, and nothing since.) Muscle is dense. BMI is BS. Body fat % is a somewhat more useful number, and the only one I'd be tracking, if I were tracking anything.

That settles it...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Health, not dieting

Duh!

Re: Health, not dieting

Re: Health, not dieting

no subject

no subject

Folate is a vitamin

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject