If you're trying to lose weight, and you're married with a kid or kids, it can be twice as difficult to lose weight. There's so much food available. Of curse there should be only healthy food available... candy bars are okay but your kid doesn't get any benefit out of "fruit rollups" or fruit juices for kids like Hawaiian Punch that are 90% sugar. If you don't want your children drinking pop, start them on real fruit juices, 100% orange juice or grape juice, with no added sugar.
(I say that candy bars or cookies are okay because you - and the kids - aren't being fooled into consuming you think is healthy - fruit - when actually there's only 10% fruit juice and the rest is sugar.
But what about at work? Do you have a colleague who keeps a bowl of candy on her desk for everyone? Don't ask her to remove it so you won't be tempted! That's the first exercise for your willpower muscle. Help yourself to one piece of candy a day, no more. (And don't forget to replenish his/her candy jar once a month or so to show appreciation). Chocolate and candy are not evil! Everything in moderation.
Depending on how overweight you are, cerain people might make cruel remarks. Human nature differs here. Some people decide there and then to lose weight so they wonn't be insulted anymore, others determine to gain more weight to show these creeps that they won't be bullied.
Of course, that's cutting the nose off to spite the face. Yes, you don't want people to think that it was their bullying that caused you to decide to lose weight, on the other hand you must lose weight to reach a healthy level. Answer is simple - you lose the weight because what they say doesn't matter, only your own health matters.
On the other hand, don't suffer in silence - especially if its family members who are making these jokes. Tell them immediately that what they say is hurtful and is not helping you, and if they can't say something positive to be quiet!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Monday: Weight Training Day
You're back at work - if you haven't been before now! The holidays are over and now you have to deal with the aftermath - getting back to a regular 9 to 5 routine, and embarking on the process of transitioning to a healthier life style.
Part of your routine must be weight training - 3 ties a week. I do Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but you can choose any 3 days you like. As a beginner, you can't weight train every day - you'll wear yourself out. So you give yourself a day off between workout days to let your muscles recover.
Having said that, weight training is also something you're not going to go full-bore on to begin with. Go to your local sports store or Walmart, and check out their hand held weights. You don't want to purchase a weight machine - like a Bowflex - just yet. As a beginner it's best to start with free weights - dumbbells of various weights, a weight bench with leg attachment so you can do leg curls and leg extensions, or if you can't afford a weight bench yet - and you only need one with a barbell and a 50 pound set of weights - purchase leg weights from the store, and do your leg curls on the floor and your leg extensions from a chair.
The legs are typically a lot stronger than the arms, particularly in a woman, and it's essential that you do arm exercises of all kinds, such as shoulder shrugs, bicep curls and straight arm raises. By using light weights and doing many repetitions, you'll be working on toning your muscles, and ensure that the flab underneath the arms that affects so many older women won't affect you!
Part of your routine must be weight training - 3 ties a week. I do Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but you can choose any 3 days you like. As a beginner, you can't weight train every day - you'll wear yourself out. So you give yourself a day off between workout days to let your muscles recover.
Having said that, weight training is also something you're not going to go full-bore on to begin with. Go to your local sports store or Walmart, and check out their hand held weights. You don't want to purchase a weight machine - like a Bowflex - just yet. As a beginner it's best to start with free weights - dumbbells of various weights, a weight bench with leg attachment so you can do leg curls and leg extensions, or if you can't afford a weight bench yet - and you only need one with a barbell and a 50 pound set of weights - purchase leg weights from the store, and do your leg curls on the floor and your leg extensions from a chair.
The legs are typically a lot stronger than the arms, particularly in a woman, and it's essential that you do arm exercises of all kinds, such as shoulder shrugs, bicep curls and straight arm raises. By using light weights and doing many repetitions, you'll be working on toning your muscles, and ensure that the flab underneath the arms that affects so many older women won't affect you!
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Time to get serious
It's time to start our year-long journey toward acheiving a healthy weight (and a healthy weight is anything up to being 5 to 10 pounds over the weight the government tells you is your optimum weight!) and more importantly, maintaining it.
It starts today.
You are now working on a process toward changing your lifestyle to a more healthy one. And I repeat - do not cut out all chocolates, all sweets, etc. If you deprive yourself of stuff you love, you'll fail.
Not that there is any failure with my program, because it'a a year long process of exercise - exercising your will-power muscle as well as exercising your body, learning from any setback and applying that knowledge as you progress.
What to do today?
Continue to write in your journal after each meal. Did you eat a donut for breakfast and ten minutes later have a headache? Did you have a lot of energy after a particular meal? If so of what food did that meal consist? Were you feeling sluggish after a meal? If so, what did that meal consist of?
Your weight training program is Monday, Wednesday and Friday, so no need to start on that today. If you live in a sunshiney area,,go for a bikee ride. If you're one of those inundated by snow, try to go for a walk or go skiing.
Step on the scale and record your weight - then don't look at the scale again for 2 weeks. It will take you at least 2 weeks before you start losing weight - because you have to set up a caloric imbalance in your body, and your body has to recognize what you're trying to do. (Yes, I'm anthropomorphising a bit.) Also, since you're going to be lifting weights - light weights, if you're a beginner at it - you could even gain a pound or two in the initial two weeks, because muscle weighs more than fat. But you want muscle. Your body is a temple and muscles are what shape the walls. You don't want a temple that sags in and will blow over at the first sign of a strong wind.
If you eat a lot, you are going to cut down your meals by a fifth. One heaping spoonful of everything rather than two or three.
Also, try to get into the habit of drinking a glass of water about half an hour before each meal...you'll find that it does help to keep you feeling full. If there's a lot of food left over, no problem. Don't throw it away, put it in the fridge, properly marked, and have it for lunch or dinner in the days ahead. (If you've never eaten left-overs before, you may well find that food actually tastes better on the second day. If properly reheated, anyway!)
Above all, remember that this is the first day of the rest of your life. And that life is for enjoying.
It starts today.
You are now working on a process toward changing your lifestyle to a more healthy one. And I repeat - do not cut out all chocolates, all sweets, etc. If you deprive yourself of stuff you love, you'll fail.
Not that there is any failure with my program, because it'a a year long process of exercise - exercising your will-power muscle as well as exercising your body, learning from any setback and applying that knowledge as you progress.
What to do today?
Continue to write in your journal after each meal. Did you eat a donut for breakfast and ten minutes later have a headache? Did you have a lot of energy after a particular meal? If so of what food did that meal consist? Were you feeling sluggish after a meal? If so, what did that meal consist of?
Your weight training program is Monday, Wednesday and Friday, so no need to start on that today. If you live in a sunshiney area,,go for a bikee ride. If you're one of those inundated by snow, try to go for a walk or go skiing.
Step on the scale and record your weight - then don't look at the scale again for 2 weeks. It will take you at least 2 weeks before you start losing weight - because you have to set up a caloric imbalance in your body, and your body has to recognize what you're trying to do. (Yes, I'm anthropomorphising a bit.) Also, since you're going to be lifting weights - light weights, if you're a beginner at it - you could even gain a pound or two in the initial two weeks, because muscle weighs more than fat. But you want muscle. Your body is a temple and muscles are what shape the walls. You don't want a temple that sags in and will blow over at the first sign of a strong wind.
If you eat a lot, you are going to cut down your meals by a fifth. One heaping spoonful of everything rather than two or three.
Also, try to get into the habit of drinking a glass of water about half an hour before each meal...you'll find that it does help to keep you feeling full. If there's a lot of food left over, no problem. Don't throw it away, put it in the fridge, properly marked, and have it for lunch or dinner in the days ahead. (If you've never eaten left-overs before, you may well find that food actually tastes better on the second day. If properly reheated, anyway!)
Above all, remember that this is the first day of the rest of your life. And that life is for enjoying.
The Ridiculousness...and Evil..Continues
Just a couple of days ago I shared an article about parents who were so scared their babies were fat that they'd put them on diets at the age of 3 or 4 months and were starving them to death. This was a bad thing.
Now we've got this article, from Yahoo News, which states that 1 in 3 of all babies are obese.
Bullshit, if you will excuse the language.
The article uses data collected in 2001, and it covers only 2 age groups. 9 month olds and 2 year olds. Okay, how about another study at 5 or even 10, to see how many of these hideously overweight 2 year olds turned into obese 5 year olds, and then went on to being obese 10 year olds?
In addition, it's not until one of the very last paragraphs in the article, after every parent has been guilted into looking at their pudgy baby and thinking, "Oh my god, no food for you today, little one," when there's a sentence that states, "Hispanic kids, and kids of lower socioeconomic status, are the ones who most tend to be obese."
So what's with this 1 of 3 number then? Of the 8,000 babies surveyed, exactly how many were Hispanic? How many were of "low" socioeconomic status? And why does this article still go ahead and treat all babies with the broad brush. Just how many middle class white, Asian and black kids were obese? Out of how many surveyed?
It's impossible to be obese at 2 years old, unless you've got a mom who really shoves the food down your throat (and yes, you see the occasional kid like that on the front cover of the National Enquirer). But the vast percentage of kids are not obese at 2, at least not as any reasonable person calculates obesity, and to plant this in the minds of young parents - just more social engineering, more propaganda to get people obsessed with weight and fear even being a measly 5 pounds overweight.
What about the 8,000 kids who participated in this study? The researchers never saw them! The parents answered questionaires! Even at that age kids have the same 3 frames that grownups have, small, mediium and large. Was any adjustment made for that?
What do I mean by "social engineering"? Well, here's another sentence from that bottom paragraph:
However, the results could help target health education and other interventions [that's be social engineering, sending kids away to fat camps] to the populations that need them, he said. The study found that Hispanic babies were at the highest risk of becoming overweight or obese. Babies in families of low socioeconomic status were also more likely to be heavy. [Okay, Caucasian and Asian families, you've just been told that the 1 in 3 number doesn't apply to you. The numbers are skewed towards Hispanics, and those of lower socioeconomic status. So don't you go putting your child on a diet, because chances are you don't need to!]
Here's the complete article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101231/sc_livescience/athirdof9montholdsalreadyobeseoroverweight
The path toward obesity starts at a young age - even before babies transition to a solid diet, according to a new study.
Almost one-third of 9-month-olds are obese or overweight, as are 34 percent of 2-year-olds, according to the research, which looked at a nationally representative sample of children born in 2001. The study is one of the first to measure weight in the same group of very young children over time, said lead researcher Brian Moss, a sociologist at Wayne State University in Detroit. The results showed that starting out heavy puts kids on a trajectory to stay that way.
"If you were overweight at nine months old, it really kind of sets the stage for you to remain overweight at two years," Moss told LiveScience.
Tracking obesity
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), childhood obesity has tripled over the last three decades. In 2008, 19.6 percent of kids between the ages of 6 and 11 were obese.
But less is known about obesity rates in very young children. In fact, researchers hesitate to label children that young as "obese." Recent studies have raised the alarm about particularly large babies, however. One 2009 paper published in the journal Pediatrics found that babies who gain weight rapidly in the first six months of life are at increased risk of being obese by age 3. Another study, published in April 2010 in the Journal of Pediatrics, found that heavy 6-month-olds are more likely to be obese as 2-year-olds.
What can be done?
"Studies have shown that exclusive breastfeeding - breastfeeding alone, not breastfeeding combined with bottle-feeding -prevents obesity," said Dr. David McCormick, senior author of that study at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. "Getting enough fiber - eating apples instead of drinking apple juice, for example - also helps keep babies on track to a healthy weight. By contrast, improper early introduction of cereal by adding it to an infant's bottle promotes obesity."
Overweight infants
Moss and his co-author, William Yeaton of the University of Michigan, used data from a survey called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort, which contains data on 8,900 babies at nine months and 7,500 of those same babies at 2 years. (Some families moved out of the country or didn't respond to the second round of surveys.) The researchers classified the babies' weights based on CDC growth charts, which compare a baby's growth to a standardized growth curve. Kids in the 95th percentile of weight were categorized as "obese," while kids in the 85th to 95th percentile were counted as "at-risk," similar to the adult category of "overweight," Moss said.
Even in the first year of life, many babies fall into these two categories, Moss and his colleagues report in the January/February issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion. In the 9-month age group, 15.2 percent of babies were at-risk and 16.7 percent were obese. Among 2-year-olds, just under 14 percent were at-risk and almost 21 percent were obese.
"So you're seeing, combined, more kids being at-risk and obese [in the 2-year-old age group]," Moss said. "Of that combined total, more kids are obese than at-risk at two years."
The find hints at an unfortunate pattern: Kids who start out heavier end up heavier. Of kids who were normal weight at 9 months old, 75 percent were still normal weight at 2 years. But kids who were at-risk at nine months had only a 50 percent chance of being normal weight at age 2. More than 28 percent of at-risk kids ended up obese by their second birthday.
Now we've got this article, from Yahoo News, which states that 1 in 3 of all babies are obese.
Bullshit, if you will excuse the language.
The article uses data collected in 2001, and it covers only 2 age groups. 9 month olds and 2 year olds. Okay, how about another study at 5 or even 10, to see how many of these hideously overweight 2 year olds turned into obese 5 year olds, and then went on to being obese 10 year olds?
In addition, it's not until one of the very last paragraphs in the article, after every parent has been guilted into looking at their pudgy baby and thinking, "Oh my god, no food for you today, little one," when there's a sentence that states, "Hispanic kids, and kids of lower socioeconomic status, are the ones who most tend to be obese."
So what's with this 1 of 3 number then? Of the 8,000 babies surveyed, exactly how many were Hispanic? How many were of "low" socioeconomic status? And why does this article still go ahead and treat all babies with the broad brush. Just how many middle class white, Asian and black kids were obese? Out of how many surveyed?
It's impossible to be obese at 2 years old, unless you've got a mom who really shoves the food down your throat (and yes, you see the occasional kid like that on the front cover of the National Enquirer). But the vast percentage of kids are not obese at 2, at least not as any reasonable person calculates obesity, and to plant this in the minds of young parents - just more social engineering, more propaganda to get people obsessed with weight and fear even being a measly 5 pounds overweight.
What about the 8,000 kids who participated in this study? The researchers never saw them! The parents answered questionaires! Even at that age kids have the same 3 frames that grownups have, small, mediium and large. Was any adjustment made for that?
What do I mean by "social engineering"? Well, here's another sentence from that bottom paragraph:
However, the results could help target health education and other interventions [that's be social engineering, sending kids away to fat camps] to the populations that need them, he said. The study found that Hispanic babies were at the highest risk of becoming overweight or obese. Babies in families of low socioeconomic status were also more likely to be heavy. [Okay, Caucasian and Asian families, you've just been told that the 1 in 3 number doesn't apply to you. The numbers are skewed towards Hispanics, and those of lower socioeconomic status. So don't you go putting your child on a diet, because chances are you don't need to!]
Here's the complete article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101231/sc_livescience/athirdof9montholdsalreadyobeseoroverweight
The path toward obesity starts at a young age - even before babies transition to a solid diet, according to a new study.
Almost one-third of 9-month-olds are obese or overweight, as are 34 percent of 2-year-olds, according to the research, which looked at a nationally representative sample of children born in 2001. The study is one of the first to measure weight in the same group of very young children over time, said lead researcher Brian Moss, a sociologist at Wayne State University in Detroit. The results showed that starting out heavy puts kids on a trajectory to stay that way.
"If you were overweight at nine months old, it really kind of sets the stage for you to remain overweight at two years," Moss told LiveScience.
Tracking obesity
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), childhood obesity has tripled over the last three decades. In 2008, 19.6 percent of kids between the ages of 6 and 11 were obese.
But less is known about obesity rates in very young children. In fact, researchers hesitate to label children that young as "obese." Recent studies have raised the alarm about particularly large babies, however. One 2009 paper published in the journal Pediatrics found that babies who gain weight rapidly in the first six months of life are at increased risk of being obese by age 3. Another study, published in April 2010 in the Journal of Pediatrics, found that heavy 6-month-olds are more likely to be obese as 2-year-olds.
What can be done?
"Studies have shown that exclusive breastfeeding - breastfeeding alone, not breastfeeding combined with bottle-feeding -prevents obesity," said Dr. David McCormick, senior author of that study at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. "Getting enough fiber - eating apples instead of drinking apple juice, for example - also helps keep babies on track to a healthy weight. By contrast, improper early introduction of cereal by adding it to an infant's bottle promotes obesity."
Overweight infants
Moss and his co-author, William Yeaton of the University of Michigan, used data from a survey called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort, which contains data on 8,900 babies at nine months and 7,500 of those same babies at 2 years. (Some families moved out of the country or didn't respond to the second round of surveys.) The researchers classified the babies' weights based on CDC growth charts, which compare a baby's growth to a standardized growth curve. Kids in the 95th percentile of weight were categorized as "obese," while kids in the 85th to 95th percentile were counted as "at-risk," similar to the adult category of "overweight," Moss said.
Even in the first year of life, many babies fall into these two categories, Moss and his colleagues report in the January/February issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion. In the 9-month age group, 15.2 percent of babies were at-risk and 16.7 percent were obese. Among 2-year-olds, just under 14 percent were at-risk and almost 21 percent were obese.
"So you're seeing, combined, more kids being at-risk and obese [in the 2-year-old age group]," Moss said. "Of that combined total, more kids are obese than at-risk at two years."
The find hints at an unfortunate pattern: Kids who start out heavier end up heavier. Of kids who were normal weight at 9 months old, 75 percent were still normal weight at 2 years. But kids who were at-risk at nine months had only a 50 percent chance of being normal weight at age 2. More than 28 percent of at-risk kids ended up obese by their second birthday.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Fill-ett or Fil-ay?
I don't normally watch the Cooking Channel - I'm a meat and potatoes girl, I am - but I was channel surfing after watching UConn get defeated by the Oklahoma Sooners (football) and came across Two Fat Ladies. I'd heard of this show - two fat ladies who drive around England in a motorcycle, and cook food.
I'm an Anglophile. When I was young and, more importantly, when my sister lived over there, I went over once a year to take in some plays and drive around the country looking at castles.
And they're fun, although the commercials every five minutes get extremely annoying.
I can't quite place their accents - they say ays instead of ohs (I'm gay-ing to put this sauce on this fish) and so on, a favorite actor of mine, Dinsdale Landen, had the same accent...
But it's interesting, when you listen to British actors pronounce French words, they always pronounce them with a French accent, i.e., properly. But both these ladies pronounce filet - as in beef filet - as fil-ett. Too funny. [And who knew the Brits pronounced oregano, or-a-gah-no, instead of or-egg-uh-no?]
Now I wouldn't eat anything these women cook, not because I don't think they cook well, but because I hate fish, and most vegetables and fruits, and all the other things they cook are way too fancy for me, but it's fun to watch them, and to hear their interplay.
And of course, they're fat. Not extremely obese, but about 100 pounds overweight. Which means they can still move and get about fine.
And the joy of this show is that they are not concerned about calories at all. Or cholesterol. They don't even mention them. It's up to their viewers to cook the food, and portion it out amongst their table companions, and maybe save some for the next day so they don't get a whacking great influx of calories all in one night.
To tell the truth, I doubt if this show is ever shown in England anymore. Just as the English "nanny state" has gone in and digitally removed cigarettes from old movies, so they probably don't want to have these two women, comfortable with their weight, acting as a bad influence on Englanders today who simply must, must, not be overweight!
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that being 100 pounds overweight is healthy for you - I am saying it should be a person's business how much they weigh, and they shouldn't be verbally abused by others because of it. On the other hand, it's ridiculous for an extremely overweight person (i.e., someone 50 or more pounds over weight) to sue a doctor who tells her she is fat and must lose weight, because he "hurt her feelings" (this actually happened). It's a doctor's responsibility - not a layperson's - to give people medical advice, and of course having weight in proportion to your height is simply healthy. Being too thin is worse than being too fat. But being more than 50 pounds overweight cause you so many problems - all that weight to carry on your feet - that it is simply more healthy - especially as you get into your 60s and 70s, to not have to carry that extra weight around.
Okay, so not all guys get a free pass...
Val Kilmer was in the news yesterday, as he's had a tax lien put on his house. The comments section below the article has lots of unkind remarks...most of them laughing at the tax woes of someone who should be rich enough not to have any tax woes, but others regarding the fact that he's about 100 to 150 pounds overweight.
And walking around shirtless, besides.
Interestingly, I checked on the IMDB and he's busy making movies over the last year (being overweight certainly hasn't hindred his career - I daresay he'd even been the leadig man in some of these movies and had a beautiful, slender woman on his arm in each of them...)
Whereas if an actress of similar stature, and age (the 50s) puts on a hundred pounds, she'll probably never work in Hollywood again. And if she was particularly known for her beauty...
Yahoo Has Been Reading This Blog!
or at any rate great minds think alike.
It's Jan 1, and here's what Yahoo news has to say about New Years Resolutions. I share the ones that sound similar to the advice I've been giving you also. (Of course, advice is easy to give, I'm also going to help you follow that advice!)
10 Resolutions You Should Never Make
2. Fit Into Your High School Jeans
Resolving to be healthy is one thing, but setting hard and fast weight loss goals makes them more difficult to achieve. It’s more reasonable to commit to a workout routine, not a number on a scale or some denim that hasn’t been in style for years.
7. Cut Out Sugars and Starches – Completely
Restricting your diet drastically is difficult, if not impossible for an extended period of time. Instead, give yourself small constraints, only eat homemade baked goods, or cut portions in half and you will start to see changes.
The article is written by Marie Claire, and of course it is directed solely at women. Here are some other no-gos that I thought were interesting and a little sad.
1. Get Married by the End of the Year
Marriage is a huge goal, especially if you’re still single, making the odds of failing painfully high. Instead, whether you’re in a relationship or not, focus on what you like about your current situation — you’ve got enough pressure in your life.
[Do some women actually make such a resolution? To get married in a year? How sad, as it implies they're willing to take anyone with enough money, whether or not they're really in love.]
8. Win Back Your Ex
Sure, it’s a fantasy we’ve all had, but an ex is an ex for a reason. Spend the time and energy you would dedicate to getting his attention to looking for new prospects – or better yet, spend it on yourself.
[Another sad one. No wonder guys have got big egos.... once you've been "dumped" - stay dumped. There are plenty of more fish in the sea, and plenty of these will be the right guy for you. Have a little pride!]
10. Try to Change Him
If he’s unwilling to make adjustments for you in his life, you cannot change him. Repeat, if a guy doesn’t want to change, he won’t. Either accept him as is, or walk away.
[And too many women accept him as he is, instead of walking away...]
Okay, sorry to be preachy on Jan 1, but I do find these things so sad and unnecessary - and all brought on by the never-ending media bombardment indoctrinating women into the belief that they have to look like skeletons to be happy, have to have a boyfriend to be happy, have to have a baby to be happy, ya da ya da ya da.
But it's the new year. A time for rebirth. Let's all go onward and upward, ladies.
It's Jan 1, and here's what Yahoo news has to say about New Years Resolutions. I share the ones that sound similar to the advice I've been giving you also. (Of course, advice is easy to give, I'm also going to help you follow that advice!)
10 Resolutions You Should Never Make
2. Fit Into Your High School Jeans
Resolving to be healthy is one thing, but setting hard and fast weight loss goals makes them more difficult to achieve. It’s more reasonable to commit to a workout routine, not a number on a scale or some denim that hasn’t been in style for years.
7. Cut Out Sugars and Starches – Completely
Restricting your diet drastically is difficult, if not impossible for an extended period of time. Instead, give yourself small constraints, only eat homemade baked goods, or cut portions in half and you will start to see changes.
The article is written by Marie Claire, and of course it is directed solely at women. Here are some other no-gos that I thought were interesting and a little sad.
1. Get Married by the End of the Year
Marriage is a huge goal, especially if you’re still single, making the odds of failing painfully high. Instead, whether you’re in a relationship or not, focus on what you like about your current situation — you’ve got enough pressure in your life.
[Do some women actually make such a resolution? To get married in a year? How sad, as it implies they're willing to take anyone with enough money, whether or not they're really in love.]
8. Win Back Your Ex
Sure, it’s a fantasy we’ve all had, but an ex is an ex for a reason. Spend the time and energy you would dedicate to getting his attention to looking for new prospects – or better yet, spend it on yourself.
[Another sad one. No wonder guys have got big egos.... once you've been "dumped" - stay dumped. There are plenty of more fish in the sea, and plenty of these will be the right guy for you. Have a little pride!]
10. Try to Change Him
If he’s unwilling to make adjustments for you in his life, you cannot change him. Repeat, if a guy doesn’t want to change, he won’t. Either accept him as is, or walk away.
[And too many women accept him as he is, instead of walking away...]
Okay, sorry to be preachy on Jan 1, but I do find these things so sad and unnecessary - and all brought on by the never-ending media bombardment indoctrinating women into the belief that they have to look like skeletons to be happy, have to have a boyfriend to be happy, have to have a baby to be happy, ya da ya da ya da.
But it's the new year. A time for rebirth. Let's all go onward and upward, ladies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
