If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
I may need to rethink this dusting thing, Lee
Fred wrote in message ... Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds them foreign exercise!!!!! (G) On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce wrote: I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old* me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise, and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure laundry is not the exercise option for me. G Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee, who thinks she and Joyce are related Fred wrote in message . .. No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the wireless router more. G Joyce On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred wrote: Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds them foreign exercise!!!!! (G) On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce wrote: I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old* me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise, and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure laundry is not the exercise option for me. G Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee, who thinks she and Joyce are related Fred wrote in message ... No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
Last night I discovered that the pressurized air cans work beautifully as dusters.
I was crawling around playing with the computer, noticed the desk and shelf were rather fuzzy, grabbed the can and gave it a squirt. Viola, nice and clean again! Just have to remember to move papers out of the way first. G Joyce On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:28:57 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I'll let you know if I take APs for dusting, that is if I ever do it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old* me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise, and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure laundry is not the exercise option for me. G Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee, who thinks she and Joyce are related Fred wrote in message .. . No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
Glad you found it helpful. I took a day to consider whether to post
anything about this. I'm really not advocating any one particular thing. And I didn't want to sound crazier than I am actually am. LOL Prairie Roots, thankful I'm using a screen name G On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:22:25 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: Thanks for sharing this, I am always looking for this kind of stuff, I don't think this is how I am but I look at this type of thing as background and preventative, thanks again, Lee Prairie Roots wrote in message .. . I didn't click on the hyperlink, but the topic of the relationship between light and its effects on mood and food cravings has been of interest to me for a while. Although I've had a couple of bouts of depression serious enough to warrant medication, I haven't needed medication for a couple of years. Yet througout my life I've frequently experienced extended periods of what I call "low grade depression," not serious enough to start the zoloft, but present enough that my mood, my sleep, my appetites, my energy, and my concentration abilities are not quite normal. During my informal research about what might be the solution, I came across a book called "When Your Body Gets the Blues." The woman behind the theory of Body Blues is a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. I think she has a clinic there as well. Anyway, the symptoms of Body Blues a Low Energy Overeating Weight Gain Tension and Irritability Sleep Difficulties Difficulty Concentrating Mild Anxiety Mild Depression Decreased Interest in Sex I can honestly say that's a dead-on description of me. Long story short: the recommended therapy for Body Blues is 1. walking outdoors at a brisk pace for 20 minutes daily; 2. getting more light during the day; 3. vitamins B-1, B-6, B-12, folic acid, D, and selenium. Anyone interested in reading more about it, there's a Web site: http://www.bodyblues.com Maybe it's the placebo effect, but I'm a different person when I follow the regimen, including the vitamins. Especially the vitamins. I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm just stating what seems to be true for me. So yes, I do believe there's a connection between light and food cravings. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them - maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead? I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz. No, thanks for the suggestions. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as well. So for some people it seems to be true. Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the spam posting earlier today) G On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim. Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink (can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So there is some protein there??? Not much. Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week - the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki. Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g) The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein. FWIW. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred wrote: No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
It's either the vitamins or the above freezing temps and melting snow
we're having or the upcoming trip plans. Or all of the above. I'm feeling good right now. Addicted to bike commuting? That'll be the day!! First things first. I have to buy a bike. I called the bike shop today. They have some in stock. They open at 10 on Saturday. Stay tuned. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:58 -0800, Fred wrote: Sounds like you have pretty well defined what and when and have found a solution. Yes, those BIG plans like Atlanta can bouy one for a long haul. Making my bigger hiking plans right now. Now to find the vacation time to do it ALL (G) Many bike commuters get addicted to it to and it helps cabin fever - may you be so blessed. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:33:15 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I went through the diagnostic evaluation for SAD because I'm so much worse in the winter. The conclusion was that my "blues" might be seasonally associated and psychological counseling was indicated, but I didn't fit the criteria for SAD. Mine starts later and lasts longer than is typically associated with SAD. I'm usually good through October. SAD starts in September and begins to lift in February or March--here in MN, anyway. Mine starts in November and lasts through April or May at the shortest. September is usually one of my best months. I've had enough counseling. I'm managing with my remaining neuroses. But I do like functioning, so try to remember the importance of exercise, vitamins, and light. So far that combination keeps me believing I feel better. As does weight loss. Yes, I can believe that your weekend activities have the effect of keeping your spirits uplifted during the week. My upcoming trip to Atlanta next month has brightened more than a few days for me this winter. Alaska in the summer, yes. Alaska in winter: no way. I don't even go to Duluth in the winter. Cabin fever makes me want to crawl out of my skin. On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0800, Fred wrote: I can believe she is located here in Seattle where the winter dreary must drive many to distraction. I know that SAD has been definitively accepted and this extreme northern clime together with the very gray weather really does some folks in. Quite a few of those lights on desks of people at work. It is terrific that you found a reasonable remedy and one that is not dependent on artificial drugs. I think that my ourdoor activities - the skiing keeps me going. I kind of feel that if it is raining down here, there will be snow forming up there and that gets me through but sometimes the weekends are just a gray and the weather up in the mountains is rain rather than snow. Cabin fever hits a pitch. A friend's wife got clinically depressed when she joined him in Alaska. She could not take the perpetual dark On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:13 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I didn't click on the hyperlink, but the topic of the relationship between light and its effects on mood and food cravings has been of interest to me for a while. Although I've had a couple of bouts of depression serious enough to warrant medication, I haven't needed medication for a couple of years. Yet througout my life I've frequently experienced extended periods of what I call "low grade depression," not serious enough to start the zoloft, but present enough that my mood, my sleep, my appetites, my energy, and my concentration abilities are not quite normal. During my informal research about what might be the solution, I came across a book called "When Your Body Gets the Blues." The woman behind the theory of Body Blues is a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. I think she has a clinic there as well. Anyway, the symptoms of Body Blues a Low Energy Overeating Weight Gain Tension and Irritability Sleep Difficulties Difficulty Concentrating Mild Anxiety Mild Depression Decreased Interest in Sex I can honestly say that's a dead-on description of me. Long story short: the recommended therapy for Body Blues is 1. walking outdoors at a brisk pace for 20 minutes daily; 2. getting more light during the day; 3. vitamins B-1, B-6, B-12, folic acid, D, and selenium. Anyone interested in reading more about it, there's a Web site: http://www.bodyblues.com Maybe it's the placebo effect, but I'm a different person when I follow the regimen, including the vitamins. Especially the vitamins. I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm just stating what seems to be true for me. So yes, I do believe there's a connection between light and food cravings. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them - maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead? I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz. No, thanks for the suggestions. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as well. So for some people it seems to be true. Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the spam posting earlier today) G On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim. Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink (can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So there is some protein there??? Not much. Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week - the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki. Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g) The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein. FWIW. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred wrote: No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
we all have quirks and something I learned in college has stayed with me all
these years, the difference between a personality trait and a mental health issue is the depth of the trait, Lee Prairie Roots wrote in message ... Glad you found it helpful. I took a day to consider whether to post anything about this. I'm really not advocating any one particular thing. And I didn't want to sound crazier than I am actually am. LOL Prairie Roots, thankful I'm using a screen name G On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:22:25 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: Thanks for sharing this, I am always looking for this kind of stuff, I don't think this is how I am but I look at this type of thing as background and preventative, thanks again, Lee Prairie Roots wrote in message .. . I didn't click on the hyperlink, but the topic of the relationship between light and its effects on mood and food cravings has been of interest to me for a while. Although I've had a couple of bouts of depression serious enough to warrant medication, I haven't needed medication for a couple of years. Yet througout my life I've frequently experienced extended periods of what I call "low grade depression," not serious enough to start the zoloft, but present enough that my mood, my sleep, my appetites, my energy, and my concentration abilities are not quite normal. During my informal research about what might be the solution, I came across a book called "When Your Body Gets the Blues." The woman behind the theory of Body Blues is a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. I think she has a clinic there as well. Anyway, the symptoms of Body Blues a Low Energy Overeating Weight Gain Tension and Irritability Sleep Difficulties Difficulty Concentrating Mild Anxiety Mild Depression Decreased Interest in Sex I can honestly say that's a dead-on description of me. Long story short: the recommended therapy for Body Blues is 1. walking outdoors at a brisk pace for 20 minutes daily; 2. getting more light during the day; 3. vitamins B-1, B-6, B-12, folic acid, D, and selenium. Anyone interested in reading more about it, there's a Web site: http://www.bodyblues.com Maybe it's the placebo effect, but I'm a different person when I follow the regimen, including the vitamins. Especially the vitamins. I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm just stating what seems to be true for me. So yes, I do believe there's a connection between light and food cravings. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them - maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead? I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz. No, thanks for the suggestions. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as well. So for some people it seems to be true. Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the spam posting earlier today) G On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim. Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink (can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So there is some protein there??? Not much. Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week - the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki. Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g) The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein. FWIW. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred wrote: No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce wrote: LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned, although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the wireless router more. G Joyce On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred wrote: Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds them foreign exercise!!!!! (G) On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce wrote: I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old* me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise, and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure laundry is not the exercise option for me. G Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee, who thinks she and Joyce are related Fred wrote in message m... No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
Good luck purchasing it on Sat - first thing
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:44:42 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: It's either the vitamins or the above freezing temps and melting snow we're having or the upcoming trip plans. Or all of the above. I'm feeling good right now. Addicted to bike commuting? That'll be the day!! First things first. I have to buy a bike. I called the bike shop today. They have some in stock. They open at 10 on Saturday. Stay tuned. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:58 -0800, Fred wrote: Sounds like you have pretty well defined what and when and have found a solution. Yes, those BIG plans like Atlanta can bouy one for a long haul. Making my bigger hiking plans right now. Now to find the vacation time to do it ALL (G) Many bike commuters get addicted to it to and it helps cabin fever - may you be so blessed. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:33:15 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I went through the diagnostic evaluation for SAD because I'm so much worse in the winter. The conclusion was that my "blues" might be seasonally associated and psychological counseling was indicated, but I didn't fit the criteria for SAD. Mine starts later and lasts longer than is typically associated with SAD. I'm usually good through October. SAD starts in September and begins to lift in February or March--here in MN, anyway. Mine starts in November and lasts through April or May at the shortest. September is usually one of my best months. I've had enough counseling. I'm managing with my remaining neuroses. But I do like functioning, so try to remember the importance of exercise, vitamins, and light. So far that combination keeps me believing I feel better. As does weight loss. Yes, I can believe that your weekend activities have the effect of keeping your spirits uplifted during the week. My upcoming trip to Atlanta next month has brightened more than a few days for me this winter. Alaska in the summer, yes. Alaska in winter: no way. I don't even go to Duluth in the winter. Cabin fever makes me want to crawl out of my skin. On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0800, Fred wrote: I can believe she is located here in Seattle where the winter dreary must drive many to distraction. I know that SAD has been definitively accepted and this extreme northern clime together with the very gray weather really does some folks in. Quite a few of those lights on desks of people at work. It is terrific that you found a reasonable remedy and one that is not dependent on artificial drugs. I think that my ourdoor activities - the skiing keeps me going. I kind of feel that if it is raining down here, there will be snow forming up there and that gets me through but sometimes the weekends are just a gray and the weather up in the mountains is rain rather than snow. Cabin fever hits a pitch. A friend's wife got clinically depressed when she joined him in Alaska. She could not take the perpetual dark On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:13 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I didn't click on the hyperlink, but the topic of the relationship between light and its effects on mood and food cravings has been of interest to me for a while. Although I've had a couple of bouts of depression serious enough to warrant medication, I haven't needed medication for a couple of years. Yet througout my life I've frequently experienced extended periods of what I call "low grade depression," not serious enough to start the zoloft, but present enough that my mood, my sleep, my appetites, my energy, and my concentration abilities are not quite normal. During my informal research about what might be the solution, I came across a book called "When Your Body Gets the Blues." The woman behind the theory of Body Blues is a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. I think she has a clinic there as well. Anyway, the symptoms of Body Blues a Low Energy Overeating Weight Gain Tension and Irritability Sleep Difficulties Difficulty Concentrating Mild Anxiety Mild Depression Decreased Interest in Sex I can honestly say that's a dead-on description of me. Long story short: the recommended therapy for Body Blues is 1. walking outdoors at a brisk pace for 20 minutes daily; 2. getting more light during the day; 3. vitamins B-1, B-6, B-12, folic acid, D, and selenium. Anyone interested in reading more about it, there's a Web site: http://www.bodyblues.com Maybe it's the placebo effect, but I'm a different person when I follow the regimen, including the vitamins. Especially the vitamins. I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm just stating what seems to be true for me. So yes, I do believe there's a connection between light and food cravings. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them - maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead? I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz. No, thanks for the suggestions. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as well. So for some people it seems to be true. Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the spam posting earlier today) G On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim. Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink (can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So there is some protein there??? Not much. Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week - the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki. Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g) The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein. FWIW. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred wrote: No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
Well I won't be there when the store opens. My contractor called
tonight. He's stopping by at 11 on Saturday to finalize all the details with me and set a construction start date for my bathroom and kitchen rehab. With the purchases of these exercise toys, I planned to cancel my YWCA membership. But I'm keeping it active for now just so I'll have someplace to shower during the 8-12 weeks of construction. Good thing it's only 3 blocks from home. Guess I'll be buying a portapotty this weekend, too, in addition to the bike. Man, my g'ment check better be deposited tomorrow as scheduled. Sometimes life is too good. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:23:32 -0800, Fred wrote: Good luck purchasing it on Sat - first thing On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:44:42 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: It's either the vitamins or the above freezing temps and melting snow we're having or the upcoming trip plans. Or all of the above. I'm feeling good right now. Addicted to bike commuting? That'll be the day!! First things first. I have to buy a bike. I called the bike shop today. They have some in stock. They open at 10 on Saturday. Stay tuned. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:58 -0800, Fred wrote: Sounds like you have pretty well defined what and when and have found a solution. Yes, those BIG plans like Atlanta can bouy one for a long haul. Making my bigger hiking plans right now. Now to find the vacation time to do it ALL (G) Many bike commuters get addicted to it to and it helps cabin fever - may you be so blessed. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:33:15 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I went through the diagnostic evaluation for SAD because I'm so much worse in the winter. The conclusion was that my "blues" might be seasonally associated and psychological counseling was indicated, but I didn't fit the criteria for SAD. Mine starts later and lasts longer than is typically associated with SAD. I'm usually good through October. SAD starts in September and begins to lift in February or March--here in MN, anyway. Mine starts in November and lasts through April or May at the shortest. September is usually one of my best months. I've had enough counseling. I'm managing with my remaining neuroses. But I do like functioning, so try to remember the importance of exercise, vitamins, and light. So far that combination keeps me believing I feel better. As does weight loss. Yes, I can believe that your weekend activities have the effect of keeping your spirits uplifted during the week. My upcoming trip to Atlanta next month has brightened more than a few days for me this winter. Alaska in the summer, yes. Alaska in winter: no way. I don't even go to Duluth in the winter. Cabin fever makes me want to crawl out of my skin. On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0800, Fred wrote: I can believe she is located here in Seattle where the winter dreary must drive many to distraction. I know that SAD has been definitively accepted and this extreme northern clime together with the very gray weather really does some folks in. Quite a few of those lights on desks of people at work. It is terrific that you found a reasonable remedy and one that is not dependent on artificial drugs. I think that my ourdoor activities - the skiing keeps me going. I kind of feel that if it is raining down here, there will be snow forming up there and that gets me through but sometimes the weekends are just a gray and the weather up in the mountains is rain rather than snow. Cabin fever hits a pitch. A friend's wife got clinically depressed when she joined him in Alaska. She could not take the perpetual dark On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:13 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I didn't click on the hyperlink, but the topic of the relationship between light and its effects on mood and food cravings has been of interest to me for a while. Although I've had a couple of bouts of depression serious enough to warrant medication, I haven't needed medication for a couple of years. Yet througout my life I've frequently experienced extended periods of what I call "low grade depression," not serious enough to start the zoloft, but present enough that my mood, my sleep, my appetites, my energy, and my concentration abilities are not quite normal. During my informal research about what might be the solution, I came across a book called "When Your Body Gets the Blues." The woman behind the theory of Body Blues is a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. I think she has a clinic there as well. Anyway, the symptoms of Body Blues a Low Energy Overeating Weight Gain Tension and Irritability Sleep Difficulties Difficulty Concentrating Mild Anxiety Mild Depression Decreased Interest in Sex I can honestly say that's a dead-on description of me. Long story short: the recommended therapy for Body Blues is 1. walking outdoors at a brisk pace for 20 minutes daily; 2. getting more light during the day; 3. vitamins B-1, B-6, B-12, folic acid, D, and selenium. Anyone interested in reading more about it, there's a Web site: http://www.bodyblues.com Maybe it's the placebo effect, but I'm a different person when I follow the regimen, including the vitamins. Especially the vitamins. I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm just stating what seems to be true for me. So yes, I do believe there's a connection between light and food cravings. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them - maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead? I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz. No, thanks for the suggestions. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as well. So for some people it seems to be true. Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the spam posting earlier today) G On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim. Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink (can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So there is some protein there??? Not much. Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week - the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki. Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g) The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein. FWIW. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred wrote: No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
Remodel???? DO NOT DO IT!!!! YIKES!
Oh, well, it will eventually be enjoyable (G) Kitchen and bath - wow - really doing all the water places. Okay, you are allowed to go to the bike shop a bit later. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:13:08 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Well I won't be there when the store opens. My contractor called tonight. He's stopping by at 11 on Saturday to finalize all the details with me and set a construction start date for my bathroom and kitchen rehab. With the purchases of these exercise toys, I planned to cancel my YWCA membership. But I'm keeping it active for now just so I'll have someplace to shower during the 8-12 weeks of construction. Good thing it's only 3 blocks from home. Guess I'll be buying a portapotty this weekend, too, in addition to the bike. Man, my g'ment check better be deposited tomorrow as scheduled. Sometimes life is too good. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:23:32 -0800, Fred wrote: Good luck purchasing it on Sat - first thing On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:44:42 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: It's either the vitamins or the above freezing temps and melting snow we're having or the upcoming trip plans. Or all of the above. I'm feeling good right now. Addicted to bike commuting? That'll be the day!! First things first. I have to buy a bike. I called the bike shop today. They have some in stock. They open at 10 on Saturday. Stay tuned. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:58 -0800, Fred wrote: Sounds like you have pretty well defined what and when and have found a solution. Yes, those BIG plans like Atlanta can bouy one for a long haul. Making my bigger hiking plans right now. Now to find the vacation time to do it ALL (G) Many bike commuters get addicted to it to and it helps cabin fever - may you be so blessed. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:33:15 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I went through the diagnostic evaluation for SAD because I'm so much worse in the winter. The conclusion was that my "blues" might be seasonally associated and psychological counseling was indicated, but I didn't fit the criteria for SAD. Mine starts later and lasts longer than is typically associated with SAD. I'm usually good through October. SAD starts in September and begins to lift in February or March--here in MN, anyway. Mine starts in November and lasts through April or May at the shortest. September is usually one of my best months. I've had enough counseling. I'm managing with my remaining neuroses. But I do like functioning, so try to remember the importance of exercise, vitamins, and light. So far that combination keeps me believing I feel better. As does weight loss. Yes, I can believe that your weekend activities have the effect of keeping your spirits uplifted during the week. My upcoming trip to Atlanta next month has brightened more than a few days for me this winter. Alaska in the summer, yes. Alaska in winter: no way. I don't even go to Duluth in the winter. Cabin fever makes me want to crawl out of my skin. On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0800, Fred wrote: I can believe she is located here in Seattle where the winter dreary must drive many to distraction. I know that SAD has been definitively accepted and this extreme northern clime together with the very gray weather really does some folks in. Quite a few of those lights on desks of people at work. It is terrific that you found a reasonable remedy and one that is not dependent on artificial drugs. I think that my ourdoor activities - the skiing keeps me going. I kind of feel that if it is raining down here, there will be snow forming up there and that gets me through but sometimes the weekends are just a gray and the weather up in the mountains is rain rather than snow. Cabin fever hits a pitch. A friend's wife got clinically depressed when she joined him in Alaska. She could not take the perpetual dark On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:13 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I didn't click on the hyperlink, but the topic of the relationship between light and its effects on mood and food cravings has been of interest to me for a while. Although I've had a couple of bouts of depression serious enough to warrant medication, I haven't needed medication for a couple of years. Yet througout my life I've frequently experienced extended periods of what I call "low grade depression," not serious enough to start the zoloft, but present enough that my mood, my sleep, my appetites, my energy, and my concentration abilities are not quite normal. During my informal research about what might be the solution, I came across a book called "When Your Body Gets the Blues." The woman behind the theory of Body Blues is a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. I think she has a clinic there as well. Anyway, the symptoms of Body Blues a Low Energy Overeating Weight Gain Tension and Irritability Sleep Difficulties Difficulty Concentrating Mild Anxiety Mild Depression Decreased Interest in Sex I can honestly say that's a dead-on description of me. Long story short: the recommended therapy for Body Blues is 1. walking outdoors at a brisk pace for 20 minutes daily; 2. getting more light during the day; 3. vitamins B-1, B-6, B-12, folic acid, D, and selenium. Anyone interested in reading more about it, there's a Web site: http://www.bodyblues.com Maybe it's the placebo effect, but I'm a different person when I follow the regimen, including the vitamins. Especially the vitamins. I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm just stating what seems to be true for me. So yes, I do believe there's a connection between light and food cravings. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them - maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead? I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz. No, thanks for the suggestions. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as well. So for some people it seems to be true. Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the spam posting earlier today) G On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred wrote: I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim. Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink (can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So there is some protein there??? Not much. Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week - the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki. Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g) The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced. On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein. FWIW. Prairie Roots On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred wrote: No more mudslides - too bad (G) I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks (probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.) Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days to just keep the mind fresh (G) On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote: On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred wrote: You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe I just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather around my waist. I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that I have ... we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few pounds, it all balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place permanently. I think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said that if we are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm thinking, my friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not. I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place - like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE. Which is as it should be when you are where you belong. Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is just going to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week. Then I killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a down week again! Oh, still under goal. Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that bottle is now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer bother me. Probably be another year before I see one again. G I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last night - that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar last week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS. For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control, with exception to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few days I haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy. Maybe I need to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have anything to do with hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to eat, eat, eat! Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking. Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are better snacks than years past. Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually (but not always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is nowhere near the amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant snacking phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone else. My stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not feeling quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating seems to be the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit here in front of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues sitting right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container. Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast cookie. too much stuff. Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like you've really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't THAT bad? Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me feeling incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my finger on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from snacking. I haven't had one snack all day long. Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm probably way off base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the amount of activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories expended = 1 activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok, so what if roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could still lose weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode, which really does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still working with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not eating enough and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey my thoughts well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play today when I was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week. Roughly 13 points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it calories. Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough activity points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into calorie mode instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions on my treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only eating what ww says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain why my weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit that feeding frenzy? Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth? (G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then - driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn, I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming. I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs. points conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any sense at all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself once again. My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between points eaten and activity points is probably because most people will figure those activity points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really considered high exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at 220 pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely was a chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if figured high, you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling people that 30 minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite figure that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other than a few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30 minutes on the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor. While I do still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the goal itself has definitely changed. I'm confused again. G Same here. Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it. Joyce Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 Prairie Roots 232/161/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 | NR | General Discussion | 6 | June 18th, 2004 12:37 PM |
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 | NR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | June 18th, 2004 12:37 PM |
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 | NR | General Discussion | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 05:39 PM |
How fat are the fat acceptors? | The New Lady Veteran | General Discussion | 2 | April 21st, 2004 06:47 AM |
How fat are the fat acceptors? | The New Lady Veteran | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | April 21st, 2004 06:47 AM |