I've seen a couple of articles today (I'm writing this on the 29th for publication on the 30th) about diet soda causing weight gain instead of weight loss.
How can this be true?
Well, first of all take a good look at the articles talking about this. The study from which the conclusions are drawn consisted of "474 older adults".
And from a study of 474 people, diet soda is to be demonized? A study of older adults, who very likely do not exercise at all?
You want to know why people who drink diet soda gain weight? It's because they've just drunk something that had no calories, but they know that a real can of soda would have had 150 calories. So, they now have a license to consume 150 calories worth of food, which they do. Only sometimes that 150 is actually 300...
Diet soda is bad for you, yes - because of the artificial ingredient aspertame. You want to drink something sweet, have a real Pepsi or a real Coke. Just don't have more than one or two in a day.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/29/studies-why-diet-sodas-are-no-boon-to-dieters/#ixzz1QjoXwv62
More bad news, diet soda drinkers: data presented recently at the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) Scientific Sessions suggest that diet drinks may actually contribute to weight gain and that the artificial sweeteners in them could potentially contribute Type 2 diabetes.
In one study, researchers from the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, looked at aggregate data from 474 older adults in the San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging, or SALSA. At the time of enrollment and at three follow-up exams thereafter, all participants reported their diet soda intake and were measured for height, weight and waist circumference. The researchers wanted to track any association between diet soda drinking and body fat over time.
What they found was that all participants saw their waistlines expand, but those who reported drinking diet soda had 70% greater increases in waistline growth than non-drinkers 9.5 years later. Among frequent drinkers — those who consumed two or more diet sodas a day — waistline growth was 500% greater than among non-drinkers. Researchers said their results were adjusted for other contributing factors like diabetes status, leisure-time physical activity level and age.
MORE: Study: How 'Fake' Fats Can Make You Really Fat
The data didn't say why diet sodas might play a role in weight gain, but previous research suggests it has to do with the disconnect between the taste of artificial sugars and their lack of calories. The brain is wired to expect a big load of calories when foods taste sweet or fatty. But because diet foods fail to deliver, it throws the brain out of whack. Studies in animals suggest that artificial sweetener consumption may lead to even more eating and weight gain, perhaps in part because it triggers the body to start storing more calories as fat.
Excess weight, especially around the belly, as measured in the SALSA participants, is a risk factor for a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
In another study presented at the ADA meeting, researchers found an association between consumption of aspartame, an artificial sweetener found in many diet drinks, and elevated fasting glucose levels in mice.
The researchers, also from the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, fed 40 mice their typical chow with added corn oil (to make the diet high-fat). For the half the mice, researchers also added aspartame to their food. After three months, researchers found that the mice in the aspartame group had elevated fasting glucose levels, an indication of a diabetic or pre-diabetic condition.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Food Type, Not Calorie Content, Matters More in Weight Gain
Always bear in mind that while science should be politics-free, scientists get their funding from special interest groups. Nevertheless, this study (which probably only dealt with 100 people) is interesting.
LiveScience: Food Type, Not Calorie Content, Matters More in Weight Gain
In the game of life and long-term weight maintenance, calories count, but the types of foods might matter more, according to a study by Harvard researchers published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Diets that include potatoes, white bread, sugar-sweetened beverages and meats — well, all that defines modern America — were associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period.
Surprisingly, eating French fries led to more weight gain than eating sugary desserts. And eating whole grains was associated with weight loss, diametrically opposite to the significant weight gain associated with refined grains despite equal caloric content.
These results prompted the Harvard researchers to claim that the mantra to "eat less, exercise more" might be overly simplistic. [7 Biggest Diet Myths]
Long-term gains
The Harvard study was one of the first to examine factors linked to long-term weight gain. Most other research has focused on dieting after the subjects have gained extra weight. American adults gain at least a pound per year, on average, so the impact on health after a few decades can be significant.
The researchers tapped into three large, ongoing studies — the Nurses' Health Study, the Nurses' Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study — following over 120,000 adults who were free of obesity and chronic diseases at the beginning of the study.
"Of course, in the end, 'calories in' versus 'calories out' is what causes weight gain," said lead author Dariush Mozaffarian of the Harvard School of Public Health. "The key question is how to achieve that balance, since everyone is trying to do it and nearly everyone is failing."
America's love of fast food and junk food apparently isn't the way to achieve balance. For example, a daily serving of French fries was associated with 3.35 pounds of weight gain every four years; potato chips were associated with 1.69 extra pounds.
Potatoes in general were among the biggest dietary offenders, followed by sweetened soda pop (one-pound gain every four years), and processed meat and unprocessed red meat (about a 0.95-pound gain).
All calories are not created equally
Conversely, eating more of several specific foods — vegetables, fruits, nuts and whole grains — was associated with less weight gain, chafing the conventional wisdom that all calories are equal, Mozaffarian said.
Nuts are calorie-dense, but their consumption was associated with weight loss. Whole and low-fat milk were equally associated with weight loss, despite the calorie difference. Yet a bag of potato chips, with only about 150 calories per serving, has fewer calories than many items on the Harvard researchers' list and was associated disproportionally with so much weight gain.
No laws of thermodynamics are being broken here. "Differences in weight gain seen for specific foods and beverages could relate to varying portion sizes, patterns of eating, effects on satiety, or displacement of other foods or beverages," the researchers wrote in their paper.
That is, eating potatoes and white bread might be less satiating compared with less-processed, higher-fiber foods with the same number of calories, increasing subsequent hunger signals in the brain and thus the total caloric intake, the researchers said.
Higher-fiber foods and their slower digestion, on the other hand, could augment satiety, the researchers said. Their increased consumption would displace more highly processed foods in the diet, "providing plausible biologic mechanisms whereby persons who eat more fruits, nuts, vegetables and whole grains would gain less weight over time," as stated in the paper.
Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books "Bad Medicine" and "Food At Work." His column, Bad Medicine, appears each Tuesday on LiveScience.
LiveScience: Food Type, Not Calorie Content, Matters More in Weight Gain
In the game of life and long-term weight maintenance, calories count, but the types of foods might matter more, according to a study by Harvard researchers published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Diets that include potatoes, white bread, sugar-sweetened beverages and meats — well, all that defines modern America — were associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period.
Surprisingly, eating French fries led to more weight gain than eating sugary desserts. And eating whole grains was associated with weight loss, diametrically opposite to the significant weight gain associated with refined grains despite equal caloric content.
These results prompted the Harvard researchers to claim that the mantra to "eat less, exercise more" might be overly simplistic. [7 Biggest Diet Myths]
Long-term gains
The Harvard study was one of the first to examine factors linked to long-term weight gain. Most other research has focused on dieting after the subjects have gained extra weight. American adults gain at least a pound per year, on average, so the impact on health after a few decades can be significant.
The researchers tapped into three large, ongoing studies — the Nurses' Health Study, the Nurses' Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study — following over 120,000 adults who were free of obesity and chronic diseases at the beginning of the study.
"Of course, in the end, 'calories in' versus 'calories out' is what causes weight gain," said lead author Dariush Mozaffarian of the Harvard School of Public Health. "The key question is how to achieve that balance, since everyone is trying to do it and nearly everyone is failing."
America's love of fast food and junk food apparently isn't the way to achieve balance. For example, a daily serving of French fries was associated with 3.35 pounds of weight gain every four years; potato chips were associated with 1.69 extra pounds.
Potatoes in general were among the biggest dietary offenders, followed by sweetened soda pop (one-pound gain every four years), and processed meat and unprocessed red meat (about a 0.95-pound gain).
All calories are not created equally
Conversely, eating more of several specific foods — vegetables, fruits, nuts and whole grains — was associated with less weight gain, chafing the conventional wisdom that all calories are equal, Mozaffarian said.
Nuts are calorie-dense, but their consumption was associated with weight loss. Whole and low-fat milk were equally associated with weight loss, despite the calorie difference. Yet a bag of potato chips, with only about 150 calories per serving, has fewer calories than many items on the Harvard researchers' list and was associated disproportionally with so much weight gain.
No laws of thermodynamics are being broken here. "Differences in weight gain seen for specific foods and beverages could relate to varying portion sizes, patterns of eating, effects on satiety, or displacement of other foods or beverages," the researchers wrote in their paper.
That is, eating potatoes and white bread might be less satiating compared with less-processed, higher-fiber foods with the same number of calories, increasing subsequent hunger signals in the brain and thus the total caloric intake, the researchers said.
Higher-fiber foods and their slower digestion, on the other hand, could augment satiety, the researchers said. Their increased consumption would displace more highly processed foods in the diet, "providing plausible biologic mechanisms whereby persons who eat more fruits, nuts, vegetables and whole grains would gain less weight over time," as stated in the paper.
Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books "Bad Medicine" and "Food At Work." His column, Bad Medicine, appears each Tuesday on LiveScience.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Soups's on, and even salad
With the Weight Loss Without Tears program, I advocate eating the same foods you already eat, just in smaller portions.
However, if you feel like you do need to modify your eating habits in more than just eating smaller portions, I suggest substituting one meal... not with a teeny tiny snack bar, but with soup. Soup for lunch always works well.
You can either make your own soup, if you are so incined, in large quantities which you can freeze in separate containers, so you can thaw one each day, or every other day, or whenever the fancy for soup takes you.
I myself stick with Campbells, which if course never gives you enough. For example, I like Chicken Noodle soup, except there's usually so little chicken in it that it should really be called Noodle Soup with chicken flavoring. So I cook up a chicken breast, and chop that into bits, and add it to the soup.
I also like to have a filling salad for lunch - in addition to lettuce I add white meat chicken, pecans, hard-boiled egg slivers, and so on. I also add French dressing - the real thing, not diet or fat free.
However, if you feel like you do need to modify your eating habits in more than just eating smaller portions, I suggest substituting one meal... not with a teeny tiny snack bar, but with soup. Soup for lunch always works well.
You can either make your own soup, if you are so incined, in large quantities which you can freeze in separate containers, so you can thaw one each day, or every other day, or whenever the fancy for soup takes you.
I myself stick with Campbells, which if course never gives you enough. For example, I like Chicken Noodle soup, except there's usually so little chicken in it that it should really be called Noodle Soup with chicken flavoring. So I cook up a chicken breast, and chop that into bits, and add it to the soup.
I also like to have a filling salad for lunch - in addition to lettuce I add white meat chicken, pecans, hard-boiled egg slivers, and so on. I also add French dressing - the real thing, not diet or fat free.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Pediatricians Recommend A Media Diet For Kids To Fight Obesity
Although I don't really care for "social engineering", this makes sense. Kids also need a media diet to fight gender stereotyping!
NPR's Health Blog: Pediatricians Recommend A Media Diet For Kids To Fight Obesity
A quick stroll around the mall is all the reminder you need that an epidemic of childhood obesity is all around us.
And the media, defined very broadly, is a big part of the big problem, according to a leading group of pediatricians. Kids don't burn many calories sitting and watching TV or messing around on the computer or game console.
So the American Academy of Pediatrics is prescribing some changes to help kids stave off excess weight in a policy statement just published in the journal Pediatrics.
First, at each well-child visit, pediatricians should ask these two questions:
How much time are you spending in front of a screen each day?
Is there a TV or device with an Internet connection in your bedroom?
The answers can help guide a recommendation for health, including more active pursuits. Kids, the pediatricians say, shouldn't spend more than 2 hours a day plopped down in front of the computer, TV or other glowing device. The littlest kids — those 2 and under — shouldn't watch any TV at all.
A little extra time staring at a screen can add up to big weight gains before you know it. It's also the case, the pediatricians say, that consuming media can mean consuming advertising messages for junky foods, another factor in the weight-gain formula.
So another part of the prescription is neutralizing those ads. Parents should talk to kids about bad food ads and good nutritional habits.
And pediatricians should get active themselves when it comes to media policy, the policy statement says:
Ask Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to implement a ban on junk-food advertising during programing that is viewed predominantly by young children.
Among the other things families can do to curb childhood obesity: eat meals together more regularly and make sure everyone gets enough sleep.
NPR's Health Blog: Pediatricians Recommend A Media Diet For Kids To Fight Obesity
A quick stroll around the mall is all the reminder you need that an epidemic of childhood obesity is all around us.
And the media, defined very broadly, is a big part of the big problem, according to a leading group of pediatricians. Kids don't burn many calories sitting and watching TV or messing around on the computer or game console.
So the American Academy of Pediatrics is prescribing some changes to help kids stave off excess weight in a policy statement just published in the journal Pediatrics.
First, at each well-child visit, pediatricians should ask these two questions:
How much time are you spending in front of a screen each day?
Is there a TV or device with an Internet connection in your bedroom?
The answers can help guide a recommendation for health, including more active pursuits. Kids, the pediatricians say, shouldn't spend more than 2 hours a day plopped down in front of the computer, TV or other glowing device. The littlest kids — those 2 and under — shouldn't watch any TV at all.
A little extra time staring at a screen can add up to big weight gains before you know it. It's also the case, the pediatricians say, that consuming media can mean consuming advertising messages for junky foods, another factor in the weight-gain formula.
So another part of the prescription is neutralizing those ads. Parents should talk to kids about bad food ads and good nutritional habits.
And pediatricians should get active themselves when it comes to media policy, the policy statement says:
Ask Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to implement a ban on junk-food advertising during programing that is viewed predominantly by young children.
Among the other things families can do to curb childhood obesity: eat meals together more regularly and make sure everyone gets enough sleep.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Friday Night Fights
It's Friday, a day when the work-week for most people ends. (Of course, some people work staggered schedules, and their weekend comes at some other two days within the seven. Same difference, though. At some point your weekend comes!)
And the day the weekend comes, is the night a lot of people go out to celebrate, perhaps visiting a bar and drinking to excess.
"Drinking to excess" has a different definition for those folks trying to lose weight. Beer has a lot of calories - and lite beer doesn't taste good (no, really, does it?) So remember that just because something's liquid doesn't mean it doesn't have a heckuva lot of calories - just like soda pop.
So when you're working on losing weight, restrict yourself to just one, or better yet, water.
And today is also the day you do your weight training, don't forget.
And the day the weekend comes, is the night a lot of people go out to celebrate, perhaps visiting a bar and drinking to excess.
"Drinking to excess" has a different definition for those folks trying to lose weight. Beer has a lot of calories - and lite beer doesn't taste good (no, really, does it?) So remember that just because something's liquid doesn't mean it doesn't have a heckuva lot of calories - just like soda pop.
So when you're working on losing weight, restrict yourself to just one, or better yet, water.
And today is also the day you do your weight training, don't forget.
OT: Beware of this scam
About a month ago, and again today, I got a phone call from a 1-800 number. The person on the other line was an Indian (India Indian, not Native American), said the name of a company too fast for me to understand what it was, addressed me by name, and then asked for the last 4 digits of my social security number before they would tell me about a business opportunity.
Of course I refused. Sure the last 4 digits of my social aren't the entire social, but its enough for them. If they have a list of social security numbers hacked from some bank (but no names to go with it), and someone whose name they know gives them the last 4 numbers of their social, it's very easy to do a search, find the complete social security number, and then all of a sudden they've got your name and social security number and bang goes your identity.
I asked, "What's this all about," but instead of answering the woman (last time it had been a man) said, if you don't want to give your social just give your address. We just want to confirm your identity.
I replied, "Tell me what your company does, because I've never heard of you."
Again she didn't answer that question,just said "Give us the last two digits of your social."
I said, "No, I'm not comfortable with that, tell me who you are first."
And then, like the last time, she hung up.
So I'm not quite sure what the scam is, I'm assuming its trying to get your social security number - but if someone calls you up, and won't tell you anything about their company before you verify your identity - it's a scam! Just hang up!
Of course I refused. Sure the last 4 digits of my social aren't the entire social, but its enough for them. If they have a list of social security numbers hacked from some bank (but no names to go with it), and someone whose name they know gives them the last 4 numbers of their social, it's very easy to do a search, find the complete social security number, and then all of a sudden they've got your name and social security number and bang goes your identity.
I asked, "What's this all about," but instead of answering the woman (last time it had been a man) said, if you don't want to give your social just give your address. We just want to confirm your identity.
I replied, "Tell me what your company does, because I've never heard of you."
Again she didn't answer that question,just said "Give us the last two digits of your social."
I said, "No, I'm not comfortable with that, tell me who you are first."
And then, like the last time, she hung up.
So I'm not quite sure what the scam is, I'm assuming its trying to get your social security number - but if someone calls you up, and won't tell you anything about their company before you verify your identity - it's a scam! Just hang up!
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Patience is the Key
How old are you...my readers out there in the dark?
If you're anywhere between fifteen and forty, your metabolism is probably at one level - either fast or slow, and if its fast you're probably not worried about losing weight, you probably never gain.
If its slow, well, you have to make sure you don't overeat. Eat the foods you love, but in the appropriate quantities.
However, even for those fast-metabolism people out there, there will come a reckoning. Some time in your forties or fifties, your metabolism is going to slow down and you'll have to maintain your appropriate weight through sensible eating and exercise.
But even those folks with slow metabolisms will slow down even more.
Frankly, once you're over 50, you can certainly still lose weight, and maintain weight loss, but it takes longer to do it.
And it will take even longer if you don't eat properly, but rather try to starve yourself into losing weight. It may not sound logical, but if you eat only a thousand calories a day, it will take you longer to lose weight than if you eat fifteen hundred calories a day, or more.
This is because if you cut your caloric intake drastically, your body will think its being starved, and in an effort to save your life, will go into starvation mode - taking energy from your muscles before it takes it from your fat.
So depending on your age, do not become impatient with how long it might be taking you to lose weight. You are not going to lose 10 pounds in only 2 weeks - indeed, if you are able to do that it's because there's something seriously wrong with you! i.e. an illness of some kind that you will need to have checked out.
2 pounds a week is all that can be safely lost, and 1 pound a week is just fine.
In addition, make sure you are doing your weight training. Even if you don't want to mess with exercises for your legs, it is imperative to at least get some dumbbells and do curls, French curls, overhead raises, and shoulder shrugs, to keep your upper body strong, your back straight.
If you're anywhere between fifteen and forty, your metabolism is probably at one level - either fast or slow, and if its fast you're probably not worried about losing weight, you probably never gain.
If its slow, well, you have to make sure you don't overeat. Eat the foods you love, but in the appropriate quantities.
However, even for those fast-metabolism people out there, there will come a reckoning. Some time in your forties or fifties, your metabolism is going to slow down and you'll have to maintain your appropriate weight through sensible eating and exercise.
But even those folks with slow metabolisms will slow down even more.
Frankly, once you're over 50, you can certainly still lose weight, and maintain weight loss, but it takes longer to do it.
And it will take even longer if you don't eat properly, but rather try to starve yourself into losing weight. It may not sound logical, but if you eat only a thousand calories a day, it will take you longer to lose weight than if you eat fifteen hundred calories a day, or more.
This is because if you cut your caloric intake drastically, your body will think its being starved, and in an effort to save your life, will go into starvation mode - taking energy from your muscles before it takes it from your fat.
So depending on your age, do not become impatient with how long it might be taking you to lose weight. You are not going to lose 10 pounds in only 2 weeks - indeed, if you are able to do that it's because there's something seriously wrong with you! i.e. an illness of some kind that you will need to have checked out.
2 pounds a week is all that can be safely lost, and 1 pound a week is just fine.
In addition, make sure you are doing your weight training. Even if you don't want to mess with exercises for your legs, it is imperative to at least get some dumbbells and do curls, French curls, overhead raises, and shoulder shrugs, to keep your upper body strong, your back straight.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Don't Mess With Your Body's Natural Rhythms Unnaturally
A couple of days ago I heard an advertisement on the radio for some kind of a drug, that was to treat "work shift sleep disorder." Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the drug, or if it was over-the-counter or only available through a prescription (and I think it had to be prescription, because of the vast amount of side effects it had) but as the spokesperson went on, she listed all sorts of side effects for this drug - up to and including sudden death!
And I was wondering to myself, how desperate would a person have to be to take such a drug, knowing that a possible consequence could be anything from a rash to a heart attack?
I'm not qualified to help anyone who has "work shift sleep disorder," although I certainly could give some common sense advice on how to deal with it!, but the main reason for this post is to comment more on taking drugs in general.
Some people are so desperate to lose weight - quickly - that they will take drugs that speed up their metabolism. And this is not good - not good at all. Increase the speed of your metabolism, using drugs, means that they're going to increase your heart beat, which will weaken your heart, which will eventually cause a heart attack or stroke.
Medication of any kind has side effects, and you should take as little of it as possible. If you have a health condition which requires medication, obviously you need to take that medication, but you need to take it carefully. You need to keep a journal, day by day, when taking this medication, to see if anything changes - if you get dizzy, feel depressed or euphoroic, etc., and if this occurs, then return to your doctor and explain what's going on. It may take a few adjustments of the dosage before you are taking the correct one. (And make sure your doctor tells you of any possible serious side effects, like increasing danger of heart attacks, etc!)
There are ways to change your body's natural rhythms gradually, just as its possible to lose weight and maintain your new weight, naturally. Trying to do anything too quickly, by using artificial means, should be avoided if at all possible.
And I was wondering to myself, how desperate would a person have to be to take such a drug, knowing that a possible consequence could be anything from a rash to a heart attack?
I'm not qualified to help anyone who has "work shift sleep disorder," although I certainly could give some common sense advice on how to deal with it!, but the main reason for this post is to comment more on taking drugs in general.
Some people are so desperate to lose weight - quickly - that they will take drugs that speed up their metabolism. And this is not good - not good at all. Increase the speed of your metabolism, using drugs, means that they're going to increase your heart beat, which will weaken your heart, which will eventually cause a heart attack or stroke.
Medication of any kind has side effects, and you should take as little of it as possible. If you have a health condition which requires medication, obviously you need to take that medication, but you need to take it carefully. You need to keep a journal, day by day, when taking this medication, to see if anything changes - if you get dizzy, feel depressed or euphoroic, etc., and if this occurs, then return to your doctor and explain what's going on. It may take a few adjustments of the dosage before you are taking the correct one. (And make sure your doctor tells you of any possible serious side effects, like increasing danger of heart attacks, etc!)
There are ways to change your body's natural rhythms gradually, just as its possible to lose weight and maintain your new weight, naturally. Trying to do anything too quickly, by using artificial means, should be avoided if at all possible.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Turn False Pride Into Real Pride
I've just returned from an 8-day driving trip with my mother. I've talked about her before - she's in her 70s, has congestive heart failure, is deaf, walks with a cane, and is about a hundred pounds overweight.
I drove her up to Warroad, MN to visit an old friend of hers (old in every sense of the word) who lives in an assisted living facility there. She has a walker that has wheels on each of its four legs, and she gets around with it pretty good.
My mother has a walker - wheels only on the front - but she refuses to use it, using her cane instead. She holds my hand when we walk up or down inclines...but if she'd use a walker she wouldn't need me, she could move quite independently. But she won't do it.
On our way back home, we stopped in at Murdo, South Dakorta which has a car museum. It is a huge place, lots of walking involved. I tried to tell her that she'd be much better off with her walker, but she said, No, her cane would be just fine.
Result - after walking about 1/5th of the way around the exhibits (which consist of about ten buildings) she was exhausted. So I had to leave her in the restaurant while I walked around on my own.
I've talked to my dad about this and we're going to do an intervention - start taking her out to a local mall with her walker so she can walk around it and get some exercise to lose some weight. And yes, we should have done this a long time ago, but I'm afraid we've been enabling her. So much easier to be firm with one's clients than with one's own mother!
Anyway, to the point of this post. If you need a walker - use one. My mom is 70 years old and looks every day of it. No one is going to look at her oddly for using a walker, but that apparently is what she fears. And she must lose weight. SHe has fallen in the past and, strong as I am, I was unable to lift her to her feet. If my dad hadn't been around to help I'd've had to call 9-1-1 for help (because she has no strength in her arms at all, and precious little strength in her legs.)
Since all of my subscribers are strangers to me, I don't know how many of you have just 10 or 20 pounds to lose, how many of you have 100 pounds to lose, and how many of you have even more than that to lose.
This post is basically for those of you who are a hundred pounds or more overweight. You must exercise, if at all possible. Don't want to go to a pool for water aerobics? Bite the bullet and go! You'll be among friends who are also trying to lose weight, and who will only admire you for doing what needs to be done in that regard. You will increase your strength, and your pride will increase proportionately.
Don't like to bike because your backside spreads over both sides of the seat? Grit your teeth and bear it. People may look at you askance, but that's them and who cares about them. You've got to do what you've got to do.
So get up and do it!
I drove her up to Warroad, MN to visit an old friend of hers (old in every sense of the word) who lives in an assisted living facility there. She has a walker that has wheels on each of its four legs, and she gets around with it pretty good.
My mother has a walker - wheels only on the front - but she refuses to use it, using her cane instead. She holds my hand when we walk up or down inclines...but if she'd use a walker she wouldn't need me, she could move quite independently. But she won't do it.
On our way back home, we stopped in at Murdo, South Dakorta which has a car museum. It is a huge place, lots of walking involved. I tried to tell her that she'd be much better off with her walker, but she said, No, her cane would be just fine.
Result - after walking about 1/5th of the way around the exhibits (which consist of about ten buildings) she was exhausted. So I had to leave her in the restaurant while I walked around on my own.
I've talked to my dad about this and we're going to do an intervention - start taking her out to a local mall with her walker so she can walk around it and get some exercise to lose some weight. And yes, we should have done this a long time ago, but I'm afraid we've been enabling her. So much easier to be firm with one's clients than with one's own mother!
Anyway, to the point of this post. If you need a walker - use one. My mom is 70 years old and looks every day of it. No one is going to look at her oddly for using a walker, but that apparently is what she fears. And she must lose weight. SHe has fallen in the past and, strong as I am, I was unable to lift her to her feet. If my dad hadn't been around to help I'd've had to call 9-1-1 for help (because she has no strength in her arms at all, and precious little strength in her legs.)
Since all of my subscribers are strangers to me, I don't know how many of you have just 10 or 20 pounds to lose, how many of you have 100 pounds to lose, and how many of you have even more than that to lose.
This post is basically for those of you who are a hundred pounds or more overweight. You must exercise, if at all possible. Don't want to go to a pool for water aerobics? Bite the bullet and go! You'll be among friends who are also trying to lose weight, and who will only admire you for doing what needs to be done in that regard. You will increase your strength, and your pride will increase proportionately.
Don't like to bike because your backside spreads over both sides of the seat? Grit your teeth and bear it. People may look at you askance, but that's them and who cares about them. You've got to do what you've got to do.
So get up and do it!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Jennifer Hudson’s weight loss memoir designed to inspire
Tri-State Defender: Jennifer Hudson’s weight loss memoir designed to inspire
Singer-actress Jennifer Hudson is set to release a tell-all memoir chronicling her dramatic weight loss, according to USA Today.
The 29-year-old “American Idol” finalist, Grammy winning singer, and Academy Award winning actress shed nearly 80 pounds, reducing her dress size from 16 to 6 during the past year, with help from Weight Watchers.
“I have to throw my clothes up on the canopy of the bed because I don’t have any space in the drawers or the closet,” Hudson said of the wardrobe revisions forced by the weight change during an appearance on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” in February.
“I’ve taken over the bedroom, the guest room, and now I’m throwing stuff on top of the canopy.”
Her book, which has yet to be titled, is scheduled for release early next year by Dutton Publishing, a Penguin Group USA imprint.
The memoir will not only detail Hudson’s journey to drop the pounds, but her experience “growing up in an environment where healthy living was not a priority,” according to a Dutton press release.
“Hudson wants to inspire anyone coping with weight issues, share some of her own best tips for losing and maintaining weight loss, fitting in exercise and keeping it fun and much more.”
Singer-actress Jennifer Hudson is set to release a tell-all memoir chronicling her dramatic weight loss, according to USA Today.
The 29-year-old “American Idol” finalist, Grammy winning singer, and Academy Award winning actress shed nearly 80 pounds, reducing her dress size from 16 to 6 during the past year, with help from Weight Watchers.
“I have to throw my clothes up on the canopy of the bed because I don’t have any space in the drawers or the closet,” Hudson said of the wardrobe revisions forced by the weight change during an appearance on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” in February.
“I’ve taken over the bedroom, the guest room, and now I’m throwing stuff on top of the canopy.”
Her book, which has yet to be titled, is scheduled for release early next year by Dutton Publishing, a Penguin Group USA imprint.
The memoir will not only detail Hudson’s journey to drop the pounds, but her experience “growing up in an environment where healthy living was not a priority,” according to a Dutton press release.
“Hudson wants to inspire anyone coping with weight issues, share some of her own best tips for losing and maintaining weight loss, fitting in exercise and keeping it fun and much more.”
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Burger King info
I live in Cheyenne, Wyoming, but have been driving for the last several days - taking my mother to visit a friend in Minnesota. Today, on the way home, stopped in at a Burger King in North Dakota, and saw that their tray liners now feature a "650 Calories, Regree Free" menu list. It's been a while since I've been to a Burger King anywhere, so I don't know how long these have been available, or if they are everywhere or just in North Dakota - but I'd assume they'd be everywhere.
So what do we have?
Looks like as long as you eschew mayonnaise, you can get a variety of meals for 650 calories or less.
1. Whopper Jr without Mayo
Small diet soda
Apple fries
and a Hershey's Sundae Pie!
I'd give up the Sundae Pie and have mayo on the hamburger, but that's just me
2.Hamburger
Bottled water
Fresh Apple Fries
Dutch Apple Pie
3. 560 calories
4 pc chicken tender
small diet soda
Fresh apple fries
Hershey's sundae pie
Now, there again I'd take a *6* piece chicken tender and forget the Apple Fries, but keep the Sundae pie!
4. 640 calories
6 pc BK Chicken Fries (which are horrible - stick with chicken tenders!)
Bottled water
Fresh apple fries
Dutch apple pie
I'd skip the apple pie so I could have dipping sauce...
5. 520 calories
Garden salad and fat free ranch dressing
bottled water
apple fries
dutch apple pie
Skip the apple pie and get real ranch dressing!
On the back of this menu they give Nutrition information for all their products
Whopper - 670 calories
Hamburger - 260 calories
Cheeseburge - 300 calories
Steakhouse Burger - 900 calories
Original chicken sandwich - 630 calories (but less if you tell them to go easy on the mayo)
6 piece chicken tenders - 270 calories. Dipping sauces vary - 140 for ranch dressing, 90 for honey mustard, 45 for sweet and sour
Big fish sandwich - 640 calories - again, because of the mayo
Onion rings, large orderm 490 calories
BK Fresh apple fries have only 25 calories
Large french fries 540 calories
a large milk shake has over a thousand calories, a small one only 570.
So what do we have?
Looks like as long as you eschew mayonnaise, you can get a variety of meals for 650 calories or less.
1. Whopper Jr without Mayo
Small diet soda
Apple fries
and a Hershey's Sundae Pie!
I'd give up the Sundae Pie and have mayo on the hamburger, but that's just me
2.Hamburger
Bottled water
Fresh Apple Fries
Dutch Apple Pie
3. 560 calories
4 pc chicken tender
small diet soda
Fresh apple fries
Hershey's sundae pie
Now, there again I'd take a *6* piece chicken tender and forget the Apple Fries, but keep the Sundae pie!
4. 640 calories
6 pc BK Chicken Fries (which are horrible - stick with chicken tenders!)
Bottled water
Fresh apple fries
Dutch apple pie
I'd skip the apple pie so I could have dipping sauce...
5. 520 calories
Garden salad and fat free ranch dressing
bottled water
apple fries
dutch apple pie
Skip the apple pie and get real ranch dressing!
On the back of this menu they give Nutrition information for all their products
Whopper - 670 calories
Hamburger - 260 calories
Cheeseburge - 300 calories
Steakhouse Burger - 900 calories
Original chicken sandwich - 630 calories (but less if you tell them to go easy on the mayo)
6 piece chicken tenders - 270 calories. Dipping sauces vary - 140 for ranch dressing, 90 for honey mustard, 45 for sweet and sour
Big fish sandwich - 640 calories - again, because of the mayo
Onion rings, large orderm 490 calories
BK Fresh apple fries have only 25 calories
Large french fries 540 calories
a large milk shake has over a thousand calories, a small one only 570.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Weight Training Monday
In addition to your new lifestyle of food portion control, you also need to increase your exercise.
Every day you should do some aerobic activity - walking, biking, playing tennis, even playing golf, but every Monday, Wednesday and Friday you should also do some weight training.
I've written about this before - the goal is not for you to bulk up - if you eat a normal diet you will not bulk up - those extremely muscular men and women you see achieve that look only by ingesting quantities of food supplements and muscle builders.
Any woman with kids wants to be able to pick up her toddler and carry him or her around a store for an hour... that's your natural weight training! But a systematic program is better.
For a woman, biceps and triceps are important, as well as back exercises - to prevent sagging breasts in later life. By firming the tricep muscles you eliminate the "widows weeds" - the flabby bit under the arms.
There's nothing like situps for keeping the stomach flat...keep your knees bent and do "stomach crunches" rather than situps - you can do more, it's easier on your bavk, and it works.
Leg exercises are simple: leg extensions for the tops of your thighs, leg curls for the bottom of your thighs and calves.
If you've been following my program but haven't gotten into weight training yet, today's the day to start.
No need to invest in a bowflex or anything of that nature - visit your local Play It Again Sports or even garage sales to find weight benches with leg attachements, barbells and dumbbells.
Every day you should do some aerobic activity - walking, biking, playing tennis, even playing golf, but every Monday, Wednesday and Friday you should also do some weight training.
I've written about this before - the goal is not for you to bulk up - if you eat a normal diet you will not bulk up - those extremely muscular men and women you see achieve that look only by ingesting quantities of food supplements and muscle builders.
Any woman with kids wants to be able to pick up her toddler and carry him or her around a store for an hour... that's your natural weight training! But a systematic program is better.
For a woman, biceps and triceps are important, as well as back exercises - to prevent sagging breasts in later life. By firming the tricep muscles you eliminate the "widows weeds" - the flabby bit under the arms.
There's nothing like situps for keeping the stomach flat...keep your knees bent and do "stomach crunches" rather than situps - you can do more, it's easier on your bavk, and it works.
Leg exercises are simple: leg extensions for the tops of your thighs, leg curls for the bottom of your thighs and calves.
If you've been following my program but haven't gotten into weight training yet, today's the day to start.
No need to invest in a bowflex or anything of that nature - visit your local Play It Again Sports or even garage sales to find weight benches with leg attachements, barbells and dumbbells.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Under Pressure
The news around the United States is rather depressing. Massive flooding in various states. Arizona on fire. 10% of Americans out of work. Gas prices so high most people can't afford to go anywhere on vacations - which of course will put out of business those tourist spots that have just been hanging on by a thread for the last few years...
People are under pressure. And usually when people are under pressure, they eat too much. They use food very much for the comfort it brings - and thus eat chocolate, ice cream, various candies (and more disruptively, but not the topic of this particular blog - drink too much!)
And this pressure - aka stress - manifests itself in other ways as well. People under stress are much more likely to have heart attacks, anger issues, and so on.
So it's as important - if not more important - to control one's stress as to control one's eating.
One solution to try is yoga and meditation. Just after getting up in the morning, or at a certain point in the day, or before you go to bed, set aside ten minutes or so for meditation, and for yoga. (The two work in concert.)
Nip out to your local library and get a book on yoga, and see what it can do for you.
People are under pressure. And usually when people are under pressure, they eat too much. They use food very much for the comfort it brings - and thus eat chocolate, ice cream, various candies (and more disruptively, but not the topic of this particular blog - drink too much!)
And this pressure - aka stress - manifests itself in other ways as well. People under stress are much more likely to have heart attacks, anger issues, and so on.
So it's as important - if not more important - to control one's stress as to control one's eating.
One solution to try is yoga and meditation. Just after getting up in the morning, or at a certain point in the day, or before you go to bed, set aside ten minutes or so for meditation, and for yoga. (The two work in concert.)
Nip out to your local library and get a book on yoga, and see what it can do for you.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Do You Know When You're In The Wrong?
This may seem like it's OT, but bear with me, as I'll connect it up with your weight loss program shortly.
Many's the time, over the course of my 50 years, that I've thought one way, then realized - myself, without help from anyone else- that I was in the wrong and some other person was in the right.
The easiest way to explain this is when you're driving a car, and someone cuts in front of you, and you scream at them through the windshield. Then, after the heat of the moment has passed, you realize that you had a stop sign and they had a yield sign, so actually they were in the right and you were in the wrong, and this should be a lesson to you in future not to get caught up in road rage because the odds are it was either your fault, or the person on the other end didn't realize what he or she had done.
But I've always had these epiphanies, when I go over an incident in my mind. Sometimes I come to the conclusion that yes, I was in the right and the other person was in the wrong. But sometimes, on second thought, it is clear that I was in the wrong.
And I thought these epiphanies occurred to everyone! That everyone, when thinking back on a past event, did so objectively and realized that it was they who'd made the mistake, and they'd learn from that mistake and not make it again.
But apparently this doesn't really happen!
Well...small sample size, I'm thinking of my dad. He still doesn't think that the sailboat debacle was in any way his fault. I've pointed out to him at least twice that my sister clearly had no clue what to do from the get go, but now what he's saying is that common sense alone should have told her - and later on, her husband - what to do.
For whatever reason, he just won't accept the fact that he should have shown them the ropes from the beginning.
Then there's this guy at a blog/message board I read. He's a record producer - small time, but very successful in his niche. His blog is an embarrassment to read, as he uses a "voice" that is very... "twee" as the Brits say. It's all written to a formula - he reverses phrases: "It was all clear and bright, and bright and clear." He reverses words. He goes to visit the Bank of Bur (that'd be Burbank) or the Wood of Holly (Hollywood). He doesn't eat supper or dine, no, he "sups", or picks up "foodstuffs" to eat later.
But yes, I read it every day, through squinted eyes at the first paragraph where his tweeness begins, because it's interesting in the fact that he knows people in Hollywood, talks about them, and so on. Also he talks about his music business and it's interesting to read how he runs that.
But, to cut a long story short, he's 60 years old, was overweight - and I think still is, but in order to lose weight... he eats one meal a day. One. He'd done this a couple of years ago, and jogged, and lost weight, then gained it all back again, and now he's trying to lose the weight again, and again, he's doing it by eating one meal a day.
At one point I was subscribed to his message boards, and tried to point out to him that he was making a mistake, that he needed to eat three meals a day, and I presented my credentials that gave me the right to give him that advice! But, no...he knew best, and knows best. (Indeed, he knows best on any number of subjects. He can't remember if he has any appointments the next day, but he can remember how clear the blues, reds and greens of a movie made 30 years ago were, so he can criticize the restoration of a film and mock those online reviewers who say it's just fine. It's so funny.
So after all that, here's the point I'm trying to make. There's an old cliche, "Do what you always do, get what you always get." If you've tried a variety of methods to lose weight, and they haven't worked, or they've worked but only for as long as it took you to regain the weight... you've got to realize that those programs are flawed, and you need a program that isn't flawed.
Common sense will tell you what that program is. Lose weight gradually, by changing your eating habits. Don't deprive yourself of food you like, but do use portion control. Yes, that takes willpower but willpower is a muscle and you can exercise it and make it stronger. Exercise not only helps you lose weight, and maintain your new weight...but it is also fun!
How long have you been following my program, as outlined in this blog? I've got over 200 subscribers now, and I'm assuming you stay subscribed because this program is working for you!
If it isn't working, if you're reading this blog like you read weight loss books, hoping a miracle will happen and the weight will drop off because of how much you're exercising your eyes (by reading - an attempt at witticism there) then you've got to evaluate what you're doing.
Have you been exercising portion control?
Have you been exercising?
If not, why not? List the reasons why you've been unable to exercise, or not use portion control, and figure out a way to start doing them.
Typically the reason is because you've got a family - hubby and kids - who run you ragged and you just don't have time to take care of yourself.
Well, you must make time.
Many's the time, over the course of my 50 years, that I've thought one way, then realized - myself, without help from anyone else- that I was in the wrong and some other person was in the right.
The easiest way to explain this is when you're driving a car, and someone cuts in front of you, and you scream at them through the windshield. Then, after the heat of the moment has passed, you realize that you had a stop sign and they had a yield sign, so actually they were in the right and you were in the wrong, and this should be a lesson to you in future not to get caught up in road rage because the odds are it was either your fault, or the person on the other end didn't realize what he or she had done.
But I've always had these epiphanies, when I go over an incident in my mind. Sometimes I come to the conclusion that yes, I was in the right and the other person was in the wrong. But sometimes, on second thought, it is clear that I was in the wrong.
And I thought these epiphanies occurred to everyone! That everyone, when thinking back on a past event, did so objectively and realized that it was they who'd made the mistake, and they'd learn from that mistake and not make it again.
But apparently this doesn't really happen!
Well...small sample size, I'm thinking of my dad. He still doesn't think that the sailboat debacle was in any way his fault. I've pointed out to him at least twice that my sister clearly had no clue what to do from the get go, but now what he's saying is that common sense alone should have told her - and later on, her husband - what to do.
For whatever reason, he just won't accept the fact that he should have shown them the ropes from the beginning.
Then there's this guy at a blog/message board I read. He's a record producer - small time, but very successful in his niche. His blog is an embarrassment to read, as he uses a "voice" that is very... "twee" as the Brits say. It's all written to a formula - he reverses phrases: "It was all clear and bright, and bright and clear." He reverses words. He goes to visit the Bank of Bur (that'd be Burbank) or the Wood of Holly (Hollywood). He doesn't eat supper or dine, no, he "sups", or picks up "foodstuffs" to eat later.
But yes, I read it every day, through squinted eyes at the first paragraph where his tweeness begins, because it's interesting in the fact that he knows people in Hollywood, talks about them, and so on. Also he talks about his music business and it's interesting to read how he runs that.
But, to cut a long story short, he's 60 years old, was overweight - and I think still is, but in order to lose weight... he eats one meal a day. One. He'd done this a couple of years ago, and jogged, and lost weight, then gained it all back again, and now he's trying to lose the weight again, and again, he's doing it by eating one meal a day.
At one point I was subscribed to his message boards, and tried to point out to him that he was making a mistake, that he needed to eat three meals a day, and I presented my credentials that gave me the right to give him that advice! But, no...he knew best, and knows best. (Indeed, he knows best on any number of subjects. He can't remember if he has any appointments the next day, but he can remember how clear the blues, reds and greens of a movie made 30 years ago were, so he can criticize the restoration of a film and mock those online reviewers who say it's just fine. It's so funny.
So after all that, here's the point I'm trying to make. There's an old cliche, "Do what you always do, get what you always get." If you've tried a variety of methods to lose weight, and they haven't worked, or they've worked but only for as long as it took you to regain the weight... you've got to realize that those programs are flawed, and you need a program that isn't flawed.
Common sense will tell you what that program is. Lose weight gradually, by changing your eating habits. Don't deprive yourself of food you like, but do use portion control. Yes, that takes willpower but willpower is a muscle and you can exercise it and make it stronger. Exercise not only helps you lose weight, and maintain your new weight...but it is also fun!
How long have you been following my program, as outlined in this blog? I've got over 200 subscribers now, and I'm assuming you stay subscribed because this program is working for you!
If it isn't working, if you're reading this blog like you read weight loss books, hoping a miracle will happen and the weight will drop off because of how much you're exercising your eyes (by reading - an attempt at witticism there) then you've got to evaluate what you're doing.
Have you been exercising portion control?
Have you been exercising?
If not, why not? List the reasons why you've been unable to exercise, or not use portion control, and figure out a way to start doing them.
Typically the reason is because you've got a family - hubby and kids - who run you ragged and you just don't have time to take care of yourself.
Well, you must make time.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Men! Or should I say, Dads?
After a couple of hours, my dad was able to track down the Fatty Knees dinghy and its occupants - driving around the lake and visiting each dock until he found the one that they were closest to.
Apparently the husband deliberately was never raising the sail more than halfway, because he thought it was too windy to do anything more, and of course that meant that they couldn't go anywhere.
My dad, who claims to know how to sail, said that was just plain ignorant (and I'd be willing to bet cash money that husband - who reads the Alexander Kent naval books, was basing his actions on what he read of how the galleons and sailing ships in those books, and others in the same genre, worked.)
In any event, my dad says, "I could have taught them all they needed to know in 5 minutes."
I didn't ask, "Well, why didn't you then?" I just said, "Why didn't you go with them?
And he said, "Well, I thought B (my sister) knew a little bit about what she was doing." That doesn't really hold water, though, because it was obvious when she was out for ten minutes with her son, that she did not have a clue what she was doing.
And my sister had said several times before my dad told her, in essence, "on your way", that she thought maybe they should try rowing first, that it should have been extremely clear that she didn't feel she was ready for doing the sail thing - and frankly that she had expected him to come with her and show her the ropes!
And what I'd like to know is, why didn't my dad, when my sister had gotten to shore, just say, "Hey, I know a bit about sailing, let me go out with you two and show you what's what."
Instead he let the brother in law get in and off they went.
I suspect this is because he doesn't like my brother in law (neither do I, come to that), and so was just resigned to letting the brother-in-law find out how much he didn't know. (Which he did.)
So now my dad tells me my sister is thinking of taking lessons (smart girl!), and he's saying that's a waste, as he could teach her what she needs to know in five minutes. And again I'm thinking - why the hell didn't you do it, then?
But my dad is 78 - an extremely fit 78, he literally looks like he's 60 - and I'm thinking he was just scared to be in a 9 foot boat with 2 other people. Well, he should have "checked out" my sister, to put it in pilot lingo, before letting her go out with her 13-year old son.
An inept operation all around, and while my dad seems to blame my sister and brother in law, I am more inclined to blame him.
Not that they weren't in good spirits when they returned (they are keeping their boat and trailer at our house, and my dad is part owner of it), but there was a lot of time wasted and my dad was sitting around for 2 hours or more, wondering where they were, when if he'd utilized an ounce of common sense he would have been with them.
Well, sorry to vent, but this type of crap just makes no sense to me. Again, they were in a dinghy that was never going to turn over if they'd done the wrong thing (as opposed to a narrow-hulled sailboat that will turn over if you tighten the sail at the wrong time), but it all could have been avoided if my dad had just said, "Let me give you a check-ride, because I can tell you're not too comfortable to be sent out on your own." And if he couldn't have told that, he wasn't paying much attention!
Apparently the husband deliberately was never raising the sail more than halfway, because he thought it was too windy to do anything more, and of course that meant that they couldn't go anywhere.
My dad, who claims to know how to sail, said that was just plain ignorant (and I'd be willing to bet cash money that husband - who reads the Alexander Kent naval books, was basing his actions on what he read of how the galleons and sailing ships in those books, and others in the same genre, worked.)
In any event, my dad says, "I could have taught them all they needed to know in 5 minutes."
I didn't ask, "Well, why didn't you then?" I just said, "Why didn't you go with them?
And he said, "Well, I thought B (my sister) knew a little bit about what she was doing." That doesn't really hold water, though, because it was obvious when she was out for ten minutes with her son, that she did not have a clue what she was doing.
And my sister had said several times before my dad told her, in essence, "on your way", that she thought maybe they should try rowing first, that it should have been extremely clear that she didn't feel she was ready for doing the sail thing - and frankly that she had expected him to come with her and show her the ropes!
And what I'd like to know is, why didn't my dad, when my sister had gotten to shore, just say, "Hey, I know a bit about sailing, let me go out with you two and show you what's what."
Instead he let the brother in law get in and off they went.
I suspect this is because he doesn't like my brother in law (neither do I, come to that), and so was just resigned to letting the brother-in-law find out how much he didn't know. (Which he did.)
So now my dad tells me my sister is thinking of taking lessons (smart girl!), and he's saying that's a waste, as he could teach her what she needs to know in five minutes. And again I'm thinking - why the hell didn't you do it, then?
But my dad is 78 - an extremely fit 78, he literally looks like he's 60 - and I'm thinking he was just scared to be in a 9 foot boat with 2 other people. Well, he should have "checked out" my sister, to put it in pilot lingo, before letting her go out with her 13-year old son.
An inept operation all around, and while my dad seems to blame my sister and brother in law, I am more inclined to blame him.
Not that they weren't in good spirits when they returned (they are keeping their boat and trailer at our house, and my dad is part owner of it), but there was a lot of time wasted and my dad was sitting around for 2 hours or more, wondering where they were, when if he'd utilized an ounce of common sense he would have been with them.
Well, sorry to vent, but this type of crap just makes no sense to me. Again, they were in a dinghy that was never going to turn over if they'd done the wrong thing (as opposed to a narrow-hulled sailboat that will turn over if you tighten the sail at the wrong time), but it all could have been avoided if my dad had just said, "Let me give you a check-ride, because I can tell you're not too comfortable to be sent out on your own." And if he couldn't have told that, he wasn't paying much attention!
Trying Something New? Take Lessons!
Or at least read a book on the subject!
I have just returned from the debacle that was my sister's attempt to sail about in her brand new Fatty Knees dinghy-cum-sailboat.
My sister hadn't sailed in 15 years and when she did sail she was a passenger. I dont think my dad has sailed for 15 years but according to him he knew how to do everything. Only problem was, he was telling me, my mom and my brother what they should do while he was on shore and they - my sister and her husband - were out in the water, out of earshot but nevertheless dead in the water.
"If you know so much," thought I, "why didn't you go out with them instead of refusing to go out?"
In any event, we'd gone to the lake in 3 cars, so I took my mom home after an hour of watching the place where they'd disappeared into another part of the lake, and we hadn't seen them since. [They had achieved that feat by rowing, raising the sail for a few seconds and lowering it again, and drifting. Mostly drifting.] Since it was a dinghy, we know they couldn't tip over, but god knows what they were doing.
Hopefully it will be a humbling lesson for my brother-in-law, who apparently thought he could figure out how to sail without ever having read a book on the subject or even been a passenger in a sailboat.
There's more to the story which is why I'm a bit steamed right now (my sister hadn't actually wanted to sail at first but rather get used to rowing, but they said no no, so she gets in and her 13 year old son gets in, and then my dad says, "Set sail." Two inexperienced people, not having a clue...so they eventually floated back in and that's when her husband decided he'd get in and show them all how it was done...
Well, I guess I'm still ranting. Let's get off that and to the point of this post, which is, if you're going to try a new hobby - even if its something as simple as walking or jogging, read a book on the subject.
Things may seem simple, but nine times out of ten they're not. People with a lot of experience will tell you how to avoid blisters, shin splints, sunstroke, etc. Rather than take a chance on getting any of these afflictions, because you think you know best, spend an hour going through a book on the subject and learn from the pros.
And if you're going to do something complicated like sailing even a small dinghy or hell, just a canoe, read up on that too or better yet take lessons. Yes, you can learn by trial and error but why should you when there is a vast amount of literature out there from which you can draw?
Well...I'm so steamed I"m going to go for a long bikeride and see if I can't work off this feeling....
I have just returned from the debacle that was my sister's attempt to sail about in her brand new Fatty Knees dinghy-cum-sailboat.
My sister hadn't sailed in 15 years and when she did sail she was a passenger. I dont think my dad has sailed for 15 years but according to him he knew how to do everything. Only problem was, he was telling me, my mom and my brother what they should do while he was on shore and they - my sister and her husband - were out in the water, out of earshot but nevertheless dead in the water.
"If you know so much," thought I, "why didn't you go out with them instead of refusing to go out?"
In any event, we'd gone to the lake in 3 cars, so I took my mom home after an hour of watching the place where they'd disappeared into another part of the lake, and we hadn't seen them since. [They had achieved that feat by rowing, raising the sail for a few seconds and lowering it again, and drifting. Mostly drifting.] Since it was a dinghy, we know they couldn't tip over, but god knows what they were doing.
Hopefully it will be a humbling lesson for my brother-in-law, who apparently thought he could figure out how to sail without ever having read a book on the subject or even been a passenger in a sailboat.
There's more to the story which is why I'm a bit steamed right now (my sister hadn't actually wanted to sail at first but rather get used to rowing, but they said no no, so she gets in and her 13 year old son gets in, and then my dad says, "Set sail." Two inexperienced people, not having a clue...so they eventually floated back in and that's when her husband decided he'd get in and show them all how it was done...
Well, I guess I'm still ranting. Let's get off that and to the point of this post, which is, if you're going to try a new hobby - even if its something as simple as walking or jogging, read a book on the subject.
Things may seem simple, but nine times out of ten they're not. People with a lot of experience will tell you how to avoid blisters, shin splints, sunstroke, etc. Rather than take a chance on getting any of these afflictions, because you think you know best, spend an hour going through a book on the subject and learn from the pros.
And if you're going to do something complicated like sailing even a small dinghy or hell, just a canoe, read up on that too or better yet take lessons. Yes, you can learn by trial and error but why should you when there is a vast amount of literature out there from which you can draw?
Well...I'm so steamed I"m going to go for a long bikeride and see if I can't work off this feeling....
Friday, June 3, 2011
Women Athletes, Not Eye Candy
A little bit OT... but since treating women as eye candy has long annoyed me, thought I'd share this.
Of course, women participate in their own downfall sometimes - witness Danica Patrick and her repulsive (IMHO) commercials for GoDaddy. (Not that I have anythign against lesbians, it's the fact that all of her ads are based on sex appeal,and not her skill as a driver, that just annoys the hell out of me.)
(For those who haven't seen them, she's driving along, gets stopped, pulls down her shirt a bit to show some decolletage in order to vamp the male cop into not giving her a ticket... but the cop turns out to be a woman, dressed in the black leather of a motorcycle cop, of course...who is of course turned on by that decolletage...)
Counterpunch.com: Women Athletes, Not Eye Candy
Of course, women participate in their own downfall sometimes - witness Danica Patrick and her repulsive (IMHO) commercials for GoDaddy. (Not that I have anythign against lesbians, it's the fact that all of her ads are based on sex appeal,and not her skill as a driver, that just annoys the hell out of me.)
(For those who haven't seen them, she's driving along, gets stopped, pulls down her shirt a bit to show some decolletage in order to vamp the male cop into not giving her a ticket... but the cop turns out to be a woman, dressed in the black leather of a motorcycle cop, of course...who is of course turned on by that decolletage...)
Counterpunch.com: Women Athletes, Not Eye Candy
by Sherry Wolf
Imagine the NBA being ordered to sex it up a bit by showing some upper thigh and ditching the long baggies now ubiquitous in basketball. Or perhaps Major League Baseball athletes should start playing shirts versus skins to get the straight gals and gay men to start paying more attention to what some of us believe is a pretty snoozy pastime.
That's essentially what just happened in women's badminton before a global chorus of women shouted sexism and stopped the latest madness in women's sports.
Just in time for the promotional campaigns for the 2012 Olympics get in gear, the Badminton World Federation (BWF) decided to create a new dress code for women players "to ensure attractive presentation" by forcing them to wear skirts or dresses, no shorts or trousers allowed. Needless to say, no rule changes were proposed for men.
Hello?—the Eisenhower era just called, they want their stultifying gender norms back.
After female players from around the world protested, including Muslim women who would have been forced to wear skirts over the leggings they wear for religious reasons, the BWF backed down. They hadn't bothered to check with many female players ahead of time, only two are represented on their 25-person governing body.
Maria Sharapova, seeded ninth in women's tennis, recently graced the front page of the New York Times' "Fashion and Style" section for her own self-rebranding as a fashion icon. Injuries have at times waylaid her tennis career in recent years, but this conventionally beautiful tall blonde woman is far better known for her looks than her game.
The image of Sharapova's derriere graces the wall of more than a few sports bars. That lone image of her ass, the only female athlete pictured amidst easily 100 photos and murals of male players, sent me into a rage one evening with the manager of the Hop Haus on the far north side of Chicago. He insisted his customers enjoy the decor, at which point I took an informal poll of the female diners who were about as enamored as I was. (It's unclear whether I'm banned from there, boycotting or both.)
Let's face it, treating women athletes like eye candy is nothing new. But its persistence nearly 40 years after Title IX's passage is that much more chilling. Two generations of women have come of age since that act was passed, which altered many of our bodies and boosted our confidence and self-perception as women.
Yet professional sports and most media that cover them—with some exceptions—still treat fitness and competitiveness in women as reducible to the means by which some become toned and thus more physically appealing to a straight male gaze. The years of hard work and all of the fierce drive behind competitive athletes' achievements are diminished, even nullified by this sexist treatment.
It's enraging, really, to see female athletes who've busted their asses to compete at the top levels of their sport judged purely on their ability to appeal to some straight male desires.
As with all things American, a good dollop of racism is served up with this sexualizing of female athletes. Take a gander at Psychology Today's ode to 19th-century eugenics, "Why are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women," and you get some sense of how odious our culture continues to be. (I'm glad the magazine apologized, but WTF?!)
We're unlikely to ever encounter a full spread in the Times' "Style" section on Danielle Adams, for example, but anyone who watched her bring the Texas Aggies women's basketball team to victory this spring can't deny her power, speed and ball-handling abilities. Adams is the six-foot-one Black female dynamo whose athleticism far outshone anyone who played in the men's NCAA finals this year.
Danielle hasn't got the model-thin looks and demeanor for Vogue, but I'd pay to watch her play professional hoops any day. She's off to a career that I hope will be magnificent, but it is unlikely to be lucrative as women players in one of the few sports where they can play professionally earn a mere $35,190 as rookies. The maximum annual salary for any female basketball player in the WNBA is $101,500—slightly more than the fine Kobe Bryant just paid for screaming "faggot" at a referee.
There's much more to say about all of this and I hope to explore the persistence of this toxic sexism—on the courts and off—in coming months. Suffice it to say, I couldn't be happier that at least now there is a budding new women's movement hitting the streets with all the irreverence and ferocity that decades of getting slapped back has produced.
I fully support the SlutWalk protest in New York City this August 20. Perhaps I wouldn't have chosen that name, but who cares? Focusing on what we call it seems to be placing the emphasis on the wrong syl-LA-ble. There's a fightback on the rise and it's about time!
Sherry Wolf is the author of Sexuality and Socialism. She blogs at Sherry Talks Back.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
7 months to go
It's the second day of June...the beginning of the 6th month of the year...the year is almost half over.
But when it comes to losing weight, you can't really think like that. You may have made your New Year's Resolution to lose weight on January 1, but January 1 is the middle on winter and it is very hard for most people to lose weight during the winter months - unless they're lovers of winter sports, of course.
So let's make June 1st the start of your "New Year's resolution" - the year to last from June to June.
What to do now?
Whether you're just starting or have been working on your weight loss program for a while, let's evaluate or re-evaluate right now.
My program helps you lose weight gradually. 2 pounds a week is the most that anyone should lose...1 pound a week is the average. But after ten weeks - two and a half months, you'll have lost 10 pounds and have more than a 90% chance of keeping that weight off.
Losing weight so gradually can be disheartening...everyone wants to see immediate results, and that just doesn't happen. In any eveny, you're not really losing weight for appearance's sake - although your clothes will fit much better - you're losing weight for health reasons. When you're old and grey, you will be so happy not to have been carrying around an extra 50+ pounds on your knees and back.
If you don't have your health you don't have anything...and that is more than ever tre when you're in your elder years, retired and ready to enjoy life by traveling...mobility impairment is much more likely if you're overweight.
But when it comes to losing weight, you can't really think like that. You may have made your New Year's Resolution to lose weight on January 1, but January 1 is the middle on winter and it is very hard for most people to lose weight during the winter months - unless they're lovers of winter sports, of course.
So let's make June 1st the start of your "New Year's resolution" - the year to last from June to June.
What to do now?
Whether you're just starting or have been working on your weight loss program for a while, let's evaluate or re-evaluate right now.
My program helps you lose weight gradually. 2 pounds a week is the most that anyone should lose...1 pound a week is the average. But after ten weeks - two and a half months, you'll have lost 10 pounds and have more than a 90% chance of keeping that weight off.
Losing weight so gradually can be disheartening...everyone wants to see immediate results, and that just doesn't happen. In any eveny, you're not really losing weight for appearance's sake - although your clothes will fit much better - you're losing weight for health reasons. When you're old and grey, you will be so happy not to have been carrying around an extra 50+ pounds on your knees and back.
If you don't have your health you don't have anything...and that is more than ever tre when you're in your elder years, retired and ready to enjoy life by traveling...mobility impairment is much more likely if you're overweight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
