I'm always amazed at the profound need of catalog producers and magazine editors to take skinny women and photoshop them to the point that they look abnormal. Case in point, Kate Middleton in her wedding dress.
Check out the dreadful photoshop next to one that's not as dreadful here.
Frankly, I think the Duchess looks better before the waist slimming.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Another Reason To Go Organic
Organic agriculture fights the spread of antibiotic resistent bacteria. A new study confirms that the wide-spread use of antibiotics on livestock causes naturally occuring microbes to become resistent to drugs. The new study, was headed by Amy Sapkota of the University of Maryland and published in Environmental Health Perspectives.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Too Poor to be Thin? CTD
Earlier this week I posted why I disagreed with a new study stating that it was too expensive for the poor to eat better quality foods.
Well, I'm not alone. I saw this post on the Huffington Post and thought it was worth noting.
Like me, the author blasts the "too poor to be thin" meme as nothing but an urban myth, saying:
I say, that no matter what the budget, it is possible to eat healthy and be thin. As the author of this blog acknowledges, but doesn't state clearly, it's just a matter of learning HOW to do so.
Also, like me, he argues that one of the primary problems is not WHAT the poor eat but HOW MUCH they eat. We are now living in an age of cheap food, and cheap calories, but the "more is better food-wise" still holds a lot of sway. The more food and calories a dollar buys is primary, and more important than the inherent nutritional quality of the food.
Instead of "more is better" the poor should be taught that their their food dollars are best spent on better quality, not better quantity.
Well, I'm not alone. I saw this post on the Huffington Post and thought it was worth noting.
Like me, the author blasts the "too poor to be thin" meme as nothing but an urban myth, saying:
Like everyone else, I had heard innumerable times that "more nutritious food costs more," but was never very impressed with the data given to support the claim. So my colleagues and I generated some. We designed a simple experiment: we gave a volunteer shopper criteria for more and less nutritious foods, and had her pick examples of both from multiple food categories. We paid the grocery bill, so she didn't need to worry about prices. We then compared the cost of more and less nutritious foods, category by category, from soup to nuts (well, soda to snacks, anyway). We found no difference. In almost every aisle of almost every supermarket, it's possible to trade up nutrition substantially without spending more money.
So why don't people routinely do so? Cluelessness. I don't mean that as an insult -- I mean literal lack of the clues required to identify the more nutritious foods that don't cost more!He also brings up the health care cost issue as I did:
Next, there's tunnel vision. We think of the costs of food as if money spent on food has no impact on any other money we spend or make. This is certifiable nonsense. The personal costs of eating badly are enormous: ill health, obesity, high medical bills, absenteeism, presenteeism, lower income. Economists routinely think in terms of "externalities" -- the costs or savings associated with a choice that don't show up on the price tag per se. When thinking about the true costs of our food choices, we would be well advised to do likewise. Eating well is an investment in health, and health provides rich returns in both human potential and dollars.Finally, he brings up what I always say, the focus is too much on quantity of food, not quality. After all, isn't it patently obvious that someone weighing 300 pounds is just eating way too much? Here's what he says:
Lastly, there is a cultural anachronism. Think, for a minute, about how you measure food value. If you are like most people, it's simple: more is better. The all-you-can-eat-buffet exemplifies this attitude, as does "super-sizing."I like this guy's thinking. Like me, he doesn't give in to the meme, he challenges it. To say the poor have no choice, is to give them no hope, and when you have no hope, you don't try.
But is more really better? In an age of epidemic obesity, does more food -- and more calories -- per dollar spent really constitute a bargain? Is it ever a bargain to get more of what you already have too much of?
Throughout most of human history, calories were relatively scarce and hard to get, and physical activity was unavoidable. It was in this context that more food, more calories per unit "expense" (dollars, effort, risk etc.) became the prevailing measure of food value.
But we now live in a modern world where physical activity is scarce and calories are unavoidable. Being poor actually increases the risk of obesity! Increasing our chances of getting fat and sick at no extra charge doesn't exactly sound like a bargain. Getting more food at low cost and then spending a fortune to lose the weight we gained for free does not redound to the credit of our bank account, or common sense. Calories per dollar as a measure of food value is a cultural anachronism. It's long past time to think of nutrition per dollar -- or vitality conferred per dollar -- as a new-age measure of the value of food. On such a scale, even fresh produce is far more economical than we tend to think.
I say, that no matter what the budget, it is possible to eat healthy and be thin. As the author of this blog acknowledges, but doesn't state clearly, it's just a matter of learning HOW to do so.
Also, like me, he argues that one of the primary problems is not WHAT the poor eat but HOW MUCH they eat. We are now living in an age of cheap food, and cheap calories, but the "more is better food-wise" still holds a lot of sway. The more food and calories a dollar buys is primary, and more important than the inherent nutritional quality of the food.
Instead of "more is better" the poor should be taught that their their food dollars are best spent on better quality, not better quantity.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Working those Dairy Free Smoothies
.jpg/79px-Berries_(USDA_ARS).jpg)
I'm happy to report that I managed to lose the weight. I'm back down to 129 pounds, and am hoping to lose a few pounds more.
Part of my recommittment to eating well involved creating new breakfast options for myself, including non-dairy smoothies. I posted how I was making myself smoothies with almond milk, bananas, berries, and ice, and my commentators gave me some very good suggestions for making them better.
First of all, a major hat tip to Laurie who suggested using frozen banana. It really does give the smoothie a lot of body, and allowed me to eliminate the ice cubes which created an unsatisfactory texture. Whenever bananas start to turn brown, I peel them, slice them and store them in Zip-loc bags in the freezer to make smoothies with.
Next, adding ground flax seeds was also brilliant. My colon is forever grateful for that suggestion.
So, here is how I now make my morning smoothies. I'm including calorie counts of the ingredients.
Banana Berry Non-Dairy Smoothie
Ingredients
1 medium-sized frozen banana--105 calories
1 cup fresh berries --45-85 calories depending on type of berries used
1 teaspoon ground flax meal-15 calories
4 ounces unsweetened almond milk--20 calories
6 ounces of water
Put all the ingredients in a blender and blend until smooth.
Total Calories 185 - 225
I found that this smoothie fills me up for the entire morning.
I'm also working on a Chocolate Banana Protein Smoothie, but that still needs work. I'll get back to you with that one soon.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change and Health
I've been advocating eating less meat for health and weight loss/maintenance reasons for a while now, but did you know that it also impacts climate change?
There is a fantastic report out by the Environmental Working Group that shows why we all need to be eating fewer animal products--both meat and dairy. You really have to check it out there are all kinds of cool factoids and graphs.
Like this one--if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, over a year, the effect on emissions would be the equivalent of taking 7.6 million cars off the road.
Another interesting fact, a 2009 National Cancer Institute study of 500,000 Americans found that the people who ate the most red meat were 20 percent more likely to die of cancer and at least 27 percent more likely to die of heart disease than those who ate the least. Another study found that those who ate the most processed meat had a 67% higher chance for pancreatic cancer then those who ate the least.
And for those concerned about their weight, this section will be of interest:
There is a fantastic report out by the Environmental Working Group that shows why we all need to be eating fewer animal products--both meat and dairy. You really have to check it out there are all kinds of cool factoids and graphs.
Like this one--if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, over a year, the effect on emissions would be the equivalent of taking 7.6 million cars off the road.
Another interesting fact, a 2009 National Cancer Institute study of 500,000 Americans found that the people who ate the most red meat were 20 percent more likely to die of cancer and at least 27 percent more likely to die of heart disease than those who ate the least. Another study found that those who ate the most processed meat had a 67% higher chance for pancreatic cancer then those who ate the least.
And for those concerned about their weight, this section will be of interest:
Recent research suggests that eating all this meat is contributing to the U.S. obesity epidemic. Several major epidemiological studies have found an association between high meat consumption levels and being overweight. A 2009 Johns Hopkins University study found that those who consumed the most meat consistently ate an average of 700 calories more per day and had a 27 percent greater likelihood of being obese than meat eaters who consumed the least (Wang 2009). Another large-scale European study found that men and women who ate the most meat consumed an average of 900 and 600 more calories per day, respectively, than those who ate the least. The study attributed weight gain to the high fat content and calories in many meats and concluded that “a decrease in meat consumption may improve weight management” (Vernaud 2010).
Friday, August 5, 2011
Critic
One of my readers posted a comment in my post Too Poor to be Thin? and added some additional commentary on her own blog.
Here's what she had to say:
Another point, yes, a potato is a lot of starch, but it is still healthier than a bag of potato chips. I was trying to do somewhat of an apples to apples comparison. If you have a choice between eating a bag of chips or a baked potato, which do you feel you are better off eating for both your health and your weight?
And beans are simply an inexpensive protein source. Yes, you probably are better off eating a leaner, meaner protein source such as fish, but the point was to try to be as cheap as possible. Around here a pound of whole wheat pasta costs about $1.50, a can of lentils $2. Add some garlic, olive oil, herbs for around another $2 more and you can feed a family of four for about $5.50. Now, you could go to McDonalds and feed that same family on Dollar meals for about the same price, but which one do you think will lead to at least one member of that family being overweight?
But beyond that, let's get to the reality. If someone on food stamps weighs over 300 pounds, they are eating an excess of calories. Because processed food is so cheap, it leads to over consumption. The problem we have in this country is not that people on food stamps are starving, it's that they are often-times obese. They actually should not be consuming the overall amount of food that they are consuming. They can afford to be eating more fruits and vegetables because they can and should be eating less.
But I realize that for the poor, the perception is that they have to "maximize" their food dollars by getting as much food for each dollar as they can. My husband has a friend from college who is on Food Stamps and weighs over 300 pounds. My husband relates to me about how he goes to McDonalds with this friend (who claims it's the only place he can afford to eat) who then super-sizes meals to get the biggest bang for his buck.
This guy weighs over 300 pounds and has serious health conditions (which is why he can't work and is on food stamps). He doesn't need to be getting the biggest bang for his buck, he needs to be sitting down to a meal of rice and beans or a couple of baked potatoes even if it's overall less food then that super-sized McDonald's meal.
And, let's not forget the inherent health costs of the diet of that supposedly more "affordable" diet of potato chips and McDonald's. It's where the maxim "penny wise and pound foolish" comes into play. The poor may be spending less on food now, but their future health costs will more than make up for any perceived "savings" later.
Here's what she had to say:
I always feel bad when otherwise intelligent bloggers post something that is so far off base that I kinda want to reach through the screen and give them a good shake and a healthy dose of reality. Today it was from one of my favorite bloggers at Losing Weight after 45 is a Bitch, who started off by mischaracterizing the study she was reporting on by saying "that you have to be rich to eat right." In all fairness, AP mischaracterized it as well in the same fashion. First off, she criticized the study for talking about "adding" nutrients, but the article clearly says "adding MORE .." (emphasis mine). She also talks about substituting a bag of potatoes for potato chips as an example. First off, A SINGLE Russet (baking) potato is $3.99 at Albertsons this week. A big bag of chips is $1.99. Second, potatoes: a lot of starch... not so much nutrition, except for the potassium. A lot of people who are poor live on filler foods like pasta, rice, and potatoes (when they can get them cheap) and use filling snacks like chips just to feel full. Beans are another item you have to be careful of but poor people eat a lot of... beans are also high in starch.Look, I like to hear divergent opinions, but $3.99 for a single potato? Around here you can buy a 5 pound bag of russets for less then that. I don't profess to be an expert on regional food prices, but if that is the case, then something should be done so that fairly priced produce is available nation-wide.
I've written over and over and over about this topic. It's important to know. And it's also important to know the difference between someone who is firmly in the middle class and feeling the pinch of a changing economy and people who are genuinely below the poverty level. A while back (in 2007) I posted on the Congressional Food Stamp Challenge and discussed some of the foods the Congressmen (and women) who took the challenge ended up buying on their equivalent of food stamp budgets. You can see the official blog with information on those politicians who agreed to try to eat on what the average per person allowance for food is in families who are on food stamps. It's an eye opener.
Another point, yes, a potato is a lot of starch, but it is still healthier than a bag of potato chips. I was trying to do somewhat of an apples to apples comparison. If you have a choice between eating a bag of chips or a baked potato, which do you feel you are better off eating for both your health and your weight?
And beans are simply an inexpensive protein source. Yes, you probably are better off eating a leaner, meaner protein source such as fish, but the point was to try to be as cheap as possible. Around here a pound of whole wheat pasta costs about $1.50, a can of lentils $2. Add some garlic, olive oil, herbs for around another $2 more and you can feed a family of four for about $5.50. Now, you could go to McDonalds and feed that same family on Dollar meals for about the same price, but which one do you think will lead to at least one member of that family being overweight?
But beyond that, let's get to the reality. If someone on food stamps weighs over 300 pounds, they are eating an excess of calories. Because processed food is so cheap, it leads to over consumption. The problem we have in this country is not that people on food stamps are starving, it's that they are often-times obese. They actually should not be consuming the overall amount of food that they are consuming. They can afford to be eating more fruits and vegetables because they can and should be eating less.
But I realize that for the poor, the perception is that they have to "maximize" their food dollars by getting as much food for each dollar as they can. My husband has a friend from college who is on Food Stamps and weighs over 300 pounds. My husband relates to me about how he goes to McDonalds with this friend (who claims it's the only place he can afford to eat) who then super-sizes meals to get the biggest bang for his buck.
This guy weighs over 300 pounds and has serious health conditions (which is why he can't work and is on food stamps). He doesn't need to be getting the biggest bang for his buck, he needs to be sitting down to a meal of rice and beans or a couple of baked potatoes even if it's overall less food then that super-sized McDonald's meal.
And, let's not forget the inherent health costs of the diet of that supposedly more "affordable" diet of potato chips and McDonald's. It's where the maxim "penny wise and pound foolish" comes into play. The poor may be spending less on food now, but their future health costs will more than make up for any perceived "savings" later.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Problem with Serving Sizes
A very good article in the New York Times.
I have always took issue when serving sizes are less then the full package or can. Let's get real here, who opens up a can of soup and doesn't eat the whole thing? Does anyone actually dole out 2.5 servings?
Well, according to the NYTs very few do:
I have always took issue when serving sizes are less then the full package or can. Let's get real here, who opens up a can of soup and doesn't eat the whole thing? Does anyone actually dole out 2.5 servings?
Well, according to the NYTs very few do:
A similar number of the people asked, 61 percent, said they would also eat the entire can of a condensed soup, like Campbell’s Chicken Noodle, which lists 2.5 servings per can. A single serving contains 890 milligrams of sodium, and the full can has 2,390 milligrams. About 27 percent of respondents said they would eat just half a can in one sitting.Also enlightening is the "zero" calorie claims of cooking sprays:
Another product that made the list of egregious offenders was cooking sprays, which list nutritional information based on “ridiculously tiny serving sizes,” the group said. One of the most popular, PAM, boasts zero calories and zero fat on the label of its original canola cooking spray. But that information refers to a spray lasting just a quarter of a second.
“That’s just not the way people use them,” Mr. Jacobson said. “It’s probably impossible to spray for a third of a second. We suggested six seconds might be kind of reasonable.” A six-second spray, he said, has 50 calories and six grams of fat.
Too Poor to be Thin?
I always have problems with studies like this which claim that you have to be rich to eat right.
First of all, it's kind of vague. It says that adding potassium, vitamin D, calcium and fiber to diets will add hundreds to groceries bills, but then doesn't explain how or why.
Additionally, it talks about ADDING these nutrients, not substituting. If you're not spending $3 on a bag of potato chips you can then take that money and buy a few potatoes, bake them and viola you've added fiber and Vitamin D to your diet (while eliminating salt and fat).
Now, I don't want to seem to be insensitive, but, I'm sorry, there are better food alternatives for the poor than eating $1 meals at McDonald's.
Because my grandmother was an Italian immigrant I grew up eating a lot of "peasant" food, and a plate of beans and rice is a cheap alternative to a fast-food burger that provides you with a lot more nutrients and a lot less fat and sodium. Another alternative is pasta with lentils. It's cheap, it's filling, and it won't make you balloon up to 300 or more pounds.
Or how about something as simple as a banana for breakfast or a baked potato for lunch?
If you're not buying fast food and junk food, then that frees up funds to buy food that is healthier, more nutritious and less fattening.
First of all, it's kind of vague. It says that adding potassium, vitamin D, calcium and fiber to diets will add hundreds to groceries bills, but then doesn't explain how or why.
Additionally, it talks about ADDING these nutrients, not substituting. If you're not spending $3 on a bag of potato chips you can then take that money and buy a few potatoes, bake them and viola you've added fiber and Vitamin D to your diet (while eliminating salt and fat).
Now, I don't want to seem to be insensitive, but, I'm sorry, there are better food alternatives for the poor than eating $1 meals at McDonald's.
Because my grandmother was an Italian immigrant I grew up eating a lot of "peasant" food, and a plate of beans and rice is a cheap alternative to a fast-food burger that provides you with a lot more nutrients and a lot less fat and sodium. Another alternative is pasta with lentils. It's cheap, it's filling, and it won't make you balloon up to 300 or more pounds.
Or how about something as simple as a banana for breakfast or a baked potato for lunch?
If you're not buying fast food and junk food, then that frees up funds to buy food that is healthier, more nutritious and less fattening.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Happy Meals?? I Don't Think So.
Last Tuesday McDonalds announced that they will be tweaking Happy Meals to make them more "healthy." Here's what they had to say:
The new Happy Meal will automatically include both produce (apple slices, a quarter cup or half serving) and a new smaller size French fries (1.1 ounces) along with the choice of a Hamburger, Cheeseburger or Chicken McNuggets, and choice of beverage, including new fat-free chocolate milk and 1% low fat white milk. For those customers who prefer a side choice of apples only, two bags of apple slices will be available, upon request.
Get that? The only real change they are making is that they will now be including apple slices (no doubt drenched in some chemical to keep them from turning brown). Notice that soda is still looks to be the default option, but you now have the choice of getting low-fat milk.
Yippee!!! Problem solved!! We can now all sleep easier because kids eating Happy Meals will now get some disgusting apple slices which they may or may not eat. That will more then make up for the excess trans fats, sodium and added sugars they will be consuming along with those apple slices.
Marion Nestle, as always, has some excellent commentary on the change on her blog. Marion points out that McDonald's move has less to do with actually being concerned with childhood obesity then business. Sales of Happy Meals are down because kids don't want the junk toys anymore.
It seems that marketing food as "healthy" is the newest way to increase sales these days, so what does McDonald's do? It makes some negligible improvement to an overall unhealthy pile of crap and calls it "healthy" (which is why you should never believe marketing).
If that ain't corporate whitewashing, I don't know what is. Do you really think that McDonald's would be adding apple slices to a Happy Meal if they didn't think there was money to be made?
Here's the deal, if you really want your kids to eat healthy, then don't ever take them to McDonald's. "Healthier" Happy Meals are certainly not the solution to the child-hood obesity epidemic in this country, particularly when they are not so much "healthier" but really just "slightly less unhealthy."
If McDonald's really wants to do right by kids and work to help end the child-hood obesity epidemic in this country there is actually one positive step they could take--they could stop their predatory marketing practices aimed at kids.
Instead of a "healthier" Happy Meal, let's get rid of the junky toys, the playgrounds and Ronald McDonald.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Why Can't We Get Good Apples????
Last week I journeyed up to Montreal to visit my cousin for a long weekend. It was wonderful spending some girl time with my "little" cousin (who is now 34) and touring the city from an "insiders" perspective.
Although we share the same continent, I always find that travelling to Quebec is like travelling to to Europe. I may have never stepped on a plane, but it feels like I did. Everything is so European from the language (French) to the restaurants, food stores, and bakeries.
One thing that really struck me, as it did when I travelled in Ireland last year, is how good the fruit is. Why is it in America that when you buy an apple, nine times out of ten it's inedible? Yet, in Montreal no matter where I bought apples they were delicious.
I really would like that mystery fully explained to me. I buy and eat plenty of apples in the Fall when they're local and fresh picked, but once January hits you pretty much can't find a decent apple.
Yet, last April in Ireland and last week in Montreal, every apple I ate was fabulous.
The other thing that struck me in Montreal, as it did in Ireland, was portion sizes. Restaurant portions were way smaller then they are here, and even pastries and bread products, such as croissants, muffins and bagels, were smaller. You didn't see the humongous portions and pastries on steroids you see here.
You can see the influence of fresh tasting fruit and smaller portions on the street. I didn't see one obese person the whole time I was there. I saw plenty of heavy people, but overall, they were much thinner.
Although we share the same continent, I always find that travelling to Quebec is like travelling to to Europe. I may have never stepped on a plane, but it feels like I did. Everything is so European from the language (French) to the restaurants, food stores, and bakeries.
One thing that really struck me, as it did when I travelled in Ireland last year, is how good the fruit is. Why is it in America that when you buy an apple, nine times out of ten it's inedible? Yet, in Montreal no matter where I bought apples they were delicious.
I really would like that mystery fully explained to me. I buy and eat plenty of apples in the Fall when they're local and fresh picked, but once January hits you pretty much can't find a decent apple.
Yet, last April in Ireland and last week in Montreal, every apple I ate was fabulous.
The other thing that struck me in Montreal, as it did in Ireland, was portion sizes. Restaurant portions were way smaller then they are here, and even pastries and bread products, such as croissants, muffins and bagels, were smaller. You didn't see the humongous portions and pastries on steroids you see here.
You can see the influence of fresh tasting fruit and smaller portions on the street. I didn't see one obese person the whole time I was there. I saw plenty of heavy people, but overall, they were much thinner.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Been Away, but I'm Ba-a-a-ack
Sorry for the silence, but I've been away. I promise to get cracking on new and interesting posts ASAP.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
I Love Your Inner Thighs
Last night my husband told me "I love your inner thighs." I won't go into the details of how this comment came up (it's a little personal), but it surprised me none-the-less because in the 20-plus years that we've known each other he has never commented on my thighs.
My husband is a bit of a boob-dude, so most of his body compliments to me through the years have been directed to my breasts.
Being that I'm a 32D I've pretty much always had breast men attracted to me, and like most naturally endowed women I know, I've got the ass and thighs to go with the boobs.
I've always kind of figured that when men like breasts (the real ones that is), they've always pretty much know that they have to put up with the butt and thighs as being part of the bargain.
As I told a rather ample-bosomed friend of mine years ago who was complaining about her body, "you've got the kind of body women hate when it's theirs, but the kind that men just love" (and believe me, men went crazy for this girl because she was built like Christina Hendrickson).
Now my big ass has never really bothered me that much. Yeah, there have been times when I would've liked a smaller one, but ever since Jennifer Lopez glamorized big booties, I've begun to appreciated my curvy bottom.
But, my thighs, particularly my inner thighs, have always been the main focus on my liposuction fantasies.
Girls, I'm sure you know what I mean. Let's be real, I know I'm not the only woman in the world to stand in front of a full-length mirror and think "now if I could only get a little liposuction here. . . . "
I've been fantasizing about having my inner thighs liposuctioned for over 30 years now, because my inner thighs have always been one of my major "problem" areas whenever I gain weight. It's the first place the weight goes to, and the last place I seem to lose it from.
So that you know what I'm talking about here they are:
They're not exactly thunder-thighs, but they certainly don't look like Michelle Pfeiffer's either. BTW, that's a chair leg in my bathroom that appears to be hanging down between my legs (I never professed to be anything more than a rank amateur photographer).
So while I've spent most of my life loathing my thighs, it turns out that my husband has actually appreciated them.
It doesn't mean I'll give up on the lipo fantasy, but I guess I shouldn't be so critical of myself either.
My husband is a bit of a boob-dude, so most of his body compliments to me through the years have been directed to my breasts.
Being that I'm a 32D I've pretty much always had breast men attracted to me, and like most naturally endowed women I know, I've got the ass and thighs to go with the boobs.
I've always kind of figured that when men like breasts (the real ones that is), they've always pretty much know that they have to put up with the butt and thighs as being part of the bargain.
As I told a rather ample-bosomed friend of mine years ago who was complaining about her body, "you've got the kind of body women hate when it's theirs, but the kind that men just love" (and believe me, men went crazy for this girl because she was built like Christina Hendrickson).
Now my big ass has never really bothered me that much. Yeah, there have been times when I would've liked a smaller one, but ever since Jennifer Lopez glamorized big booties, I've begun to appreciated my curvy bottom.
But, my thighs, particularly my inner thighs, have always been the main focus on my liposuction fantasies.
Girls, I'm sure you know what I mean. Let's be real, I know I'm not the only woman in the world to stand in front of a full-length mirror and think "now if I could only get a little liposuction here. . . . "
I've been fantasizing about having my inner thighs liposuctioned for over 30 years now, because my inner thighs have always been one of my major "problem" areas whenever I gain weight. It's the first place the weight goes to, and the last place I seem to lose it from.
So that you know what I'm talking about here they are:
They're not exactly thunder-thighs, but they certainly don't look like Michelle Pfeiffer's either. BTW, that's a chair leg in my bathroom that appears to be hanging down between my legs (I never professed to be anything more than a rank amateur photographer).
So while I've spent most of my life loathing my thighs, it turns out that my husband has actually appreciated them.
It doesn't mean I'll give up on the lipo fantasy, but I guess I shouldn't be so critical of myself either.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
We're being Manipulated
The bottom line, advertising and marketing gets us to buy stuff we don't need until we're in debt, as well as convincing us that products will do for us what we want them to do (even if they won't).
I've always preached that if a product is marketed that it will help you lose weight or be healthy, then the chances are it will actually do just the opposite..
Let's get real, if something actually will make you thin, it doesn't have to be marketed that way. You don't see the tag line "the skinny food!!" on a bag of carrots because no there's no need for it. But a bag of processed, chemical filled junk does need marketing to seduce you to buy it by appealing to your emotions and desires.
Don't fall for it.
Monday, July 25, 2011
I'll Believe it When I See It ---NOT!!!
Campbell's goes back on it's promise to reduce sodium in it's soups because they didn't sell. Marion Nestle has some good commentary on the turn around here. Quotable quote:
Make no mistake: food companies are not social service agencies. When it comes to a commitment to public health, the bottom line is all that counts—and has to be, given the way Wall Street works.
This is the reason why we can't depend on mass-produced food if we want to be thin or healthy. Mass-produced food has to appeal to the masses, and, unfortunately, the masses want food that is pretty much unhealthy and fattening.
Again, losing weight starts in the kitchen. If you want to lose weight, you have to take control of your own food.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Resting Metabolic Rate--Why Losing Weight after 45 is a Bitch
Following an exchange I had with a commentator in a previous post, I thought I should blog a little bit about Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR), and the closely related Basal Metabolic Rate or BMR. In a nutshell, it's the calories you burn at rest. Even if you stay in bed all day doing nothing, your body still burns calories.
Essentially, RMR and BMR are the base of calories you can eat in a day and not gain weight. They are the bottom line, if we do absolutely no moving in a day, amount of calories we can consume without gaining any weight.
Now, here's a sad fact, as we get older, RMR and BMR drops, i.e., the minimum calories we burn in a day decreases.
Let me explain. There are four factors that go into BMR and RMR calculations, your weight, your age, your gender and your height. You can find quite a few calculators on the web including here and here.
For example, I am a 5'2" 50 year-old, woman who weighs 130 pounds. My BMR is 1,276 calories and my RMR is 1,163 calories.
Now, take the same height and weight and sex but pretend I'm 20 years old-- my BMR is 1,416 calories a day and my RMR is 1,313 calories a day. That's approximately 150 calories fewer calories I can consume in a day, at rest and not gain weight.
What does this mean? It means if I do nothing to my regular diet and exercise program, I will gain weight as I get older for no other reason then I got older and my body just burns approximately 10% fewer calories on it's own.
Remember that it only takes 3,500 calories to gain a pound, so burning 150 fewer calories a day means a new pound gained every 24 days.
So, lesson number one in losing weight is that as we age we have to constantly adjust our daily calorie consumption lower JUST TO NOT GAIN WEIGHT.
Metabolism slow down is just one of those natural things about aging, you can't do anything about it (although we can take steps to not make it worse). The commentor is indeed correct that not moving as much as we age is also a factor in weight gain, but slowing metabolism as we age is a fact that we have to also deal with in confronting weight gain.
Additionally, while we're at it, I thought I should bring up the impact that weight loss has on RMR and BMR. Remember, WEIGHT is also factored into calculating both.
So, assume I weighed 160 pounds, not 130. At my current height and age, my BMR would be 1,406 and my RMR would be 1,299.
By dropping 30 pounds, my RMR goes down by 136 calories per day.
Lesson number two for the day--this is why you can never go back to your old eating habits. Once you drop weight, you actually burn fewer calories in a day, so you have to adjust your overall calorie consumption down to fit with your new weight. If you go back to your old eating habits, you'll go back to your old weight because that's where you'll reach caloric stasis again.
Third lesson, if you've hit a plateau in your weight loss, it means that because your calories in now equal calories out, you are not going to lose further weight until you further reduce calories and/or find new ways to burn more calories in a day.
Essentially, RMR and BMR are the base of calories you can eat in a day and not gain weight. They are the bottom line, if we do absolutely no moving in a day, amount of calories we can consume without gaining any weight.
Now, here's a sad fact, as we get older, RMR and BMR drops, i.e., the minimum calories we burn in a day decreases.
Let me explain. There are four factors that go into BMR and RMR calculations, your weight, your age, your gender and your height. You can find quite a few calculators on the web including here and here.
For example, I am a 5'2" 50 year-old, woman who weighs 130 pounds. My BMR is 1,276 calories and my RMR is 1,163 calories.
Now, take the same height and weight and sex but pretend I'm 20 years old-- my BMR is 1,416 calories a day and my RMR is 1,313 calories a day. That's approximately 150 calories fewer calories I can consume in a day, at rest and not gain weight.
What does this mean? It means if I do nothing to my regular diet and exercise program, I will gain weight as I get older for no other reason then I got older and my body just burns approximately 10% fewer calories on it's own.
Remember that it only takes 3,500 calories to gain a pound, so burning 150 fewer calories a day means a new pound gained every 24 days.
So, lesson number one in losing weight is that as we age we have to constantly adjust our daily calorie consumption lower JUST TO NOT GAIN WEIGHT.
Metabolism slow down is just one of those natural things about aging, you can't do anything about it (although we can take steps to not make it worse). The commentor is indeed correct that not moving as much as we age is also a factor in weight gain, but slowing metabolism as we age is a fact that we have to also deal with in confronting weight gain.
Additionally, while we're at it, I thought I should bring up the impact that weight loss has on RMR and BMR. Remember, WEIGHT is also factored into calculating both.
So, assume I weighed 160 pounds, not 130. At my current height and age, my BMR would be 1,406 and my RMR would be 1,299.
By dropping 30 pounds, my RMR goes down by 136 calories per day.
Lesson number two for the day--this is why you can never go back to your old eating habits. Once you drop weight, you actually burn fewer calories in a day, so you have to adjust your overall calorie consumption down to fit with your new weight. If you go back to your old eating habits, you'll go back to your old weight because that's where you'll reach caloric stasis again.
Third lesson, if you've hit a plateau in your weight loss, it means that because your calories in now equal calories out, you are not going to lose further weight until you further reduce calories and/or find new ways to burn more calories in a day.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
What You Eat Matters
There's a really interesting article in the New York Times about a study linking the kinds of food eaten to weight loss and gain.
Unfortunately, the lead of the article seems to imply that calories don't matter. If you read the article a bit more carefully, you would see that they do, because, the foods that lead to weight gain are high caloric and those that do not lead to weight gain are naturally less caloric.
So what foods lead to weight gain? According to the article:
As I indicated above, I think calories do matter. This study basically proves that if you eat high calorie foods, you'll eat more to feel sated, and gain weight. If you want to avoid gaining weight (or lose it) you need to fill up on low-calorie fruits and vegetables.
Period. End of story.
Unfortunately, the lead of the article seems to imply that calories don't matter. If you read the article a bit more carefully, you would see that they do, because, the foods that lead to weight gain are high caloric and those that do not lead to weight gain are naturally less caloric.
So what foods lead to weight gain? According to the article:
The foods that contributed to the greatest weight gain were not surprising. French fries led the list: Increased consumption of this food alone was linked to an average weight gain of 3.4 pounds in each four-year period. Other important contributors were potato chips (1.7 pounds), sugar-sweetened drinks (1 pound), red meats and processed meats (0.95 and 0.93 pound, respectively), other forms of potatoes (0.57 pound), sweets and desserts (0.41 pound), refined grains (0.39 pound), other fried foods (0.32 pound), 100-percent fruit juice (0.31 pound) and butter (0.3 pound).And the foods that lead to weight loss?
Also not too surprising were most of the foods that resulted in weight loss or no gain when consumed in greater amounts during the study: fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Compared with those who gained the most weight, participants in the Nurses’ Health Study who lost weight consumed 3.1 more servings of vegetables each dayAdditionally, the study said that dairy had a neutral effect on weight gain/loss and those who ate the most yogurt and nuts experienced the most weight loss. Also interesting was that metabolism slows with the consumption of refined grains, but stayed the same with the consumption of whole grains.
As I indicated above, I think calories do matter. This study basically proves that if you eat high calorie foods, you'll eat more to feel sated, and gain weight. If you want to avoid gaining weight (or lose it) you need to fill up on low-calorie fruits and vegetables.
Period. End of story.
Losing Weight is A Bitch
This morning I stepped on the scale and for the first time since the beginning of April I'm finally back under 130 pounds--129.8.
As I blogged here I managed to put on five pounds over the course of a month and a half. In the beginning of April I was 129 pounds, but by the end of May I was 134 pounds.
Five pounds for me is a full dress/pants size, so all my clothes were snug. I've learned from past experience that an extra five pounds, if not attended to, quickly turns into 10, and ten pounds is a hell of a lot harder to lose then five.
So, I rolled back my eating and amped up my exercise, and watched as the scale remained firmly at 134 pounds through the end of June. But, I've learned from the past not to let this discourage me. As I've explained before, when you're in weight gain mode, you're obviously eating too many calories, so your initial calorie cutback/more exercise efforts generally just stops the weight gain.
In other words, I was making progress because, although I wasn't losing weight, I wasn't gaining it as well.
So, after the July 4 weekend, I ramped up my efforts even more. I increased my raw food percentage to cut calories even further (eating raw fruits and vegetables generally fills you up while cutting calories), and starting juicing whenever I could.
The scale then started to move downward. Last week I was able to juice until dinner three days, and was even able to complete an entire day of juice fasting.
I lost 2 pounds last week--the most I've lost in a week since May when I started trying to lose weight again.
This week, thus far, I've juiced until dinner twice. Today I'm having a smoothie for breakfast but plan to juice for lunch and have a salad for dinner.
I've lost the weight I put on from the beginning of April, but I'm trying to get down to around 125 pounds which is really were I like to be.
I have to say that it has not been easy. Losing weight is definitely a bitch. It takes a lot of effort and you have to keep at it for a long time to see any results.
And, I'm applying lessons learned from past weight loss experience.
First, fast weight off, is fast weight on. Rather than launching into a huge, initial calorie cut-back, I rolled back calories gradually. If you initially cut back calories too fast, my body seems to revolt and then does anything it can to try to put that weight back on again.
Second, don't get discouraged by a stuck scale. If you're no longer gaining weight, you're moving in the right direction.
Third, don't let yourself get hungry. Cut calories, but don't let yourself get hungry.
Fourth, eat more raw fruits and vegetables. You'll reduce calories while filling yourself up.
Fifth, move more. Exercise is great, but sometimes is just all the extra moving that counts. Park farther away and walk, take that extra trip up the stairs instead of letting things pile up until you go up, take the stairs instead of the elevator.
As I blogged here I managed to put on five pounds over the course of a month and a half. In the beginning of April I was 129 pounds, but by the end of May I was 134 pounds.
Five pounds for me is a full dress/pants size, so all my clothes were snug. I've learned from past experience that an extra five pounds, if not attended to, quickly turns into 10, and ten pounds is a hell of a lot harder to lose then five.
So, I rolled back my eating and amped up my exercise, and watched as the scale remained firmly at 134 pounds through the end of June. But, I've learned from the past not to let this discourage me. As I've explained before, when you're in weight gain mode, you're obviously eating too many calories, so your initial calorie cutback/more exercise efforts generally just stops the weight gain.
In other words, I was making progress because, although I wasn't losing weight, I wasn't gaining it as well.
So, after the July 4 weekend, I ramped up my efforts even more. I increased my raw food percentage to cut calories even further (eating raw fruits and vegetables generally fills you up while cutting calories), and starting juicing whenever I could.
The scale then started to move downward. Last week I was able to juice until dinner three days, and was even able to complete an entire day of juice fasting.
I lost 2 pounds last week--the most I've lost in a week since May when I started trying to lose weight again.
This week, thus far, I've juiced until dinner twice. Today I'm having a smoothie for breakfast but plan to juice for lunch and have a salad for dinner.
I've lost the weight I put on from the beginning of April, but I'm trying to get down to around 125 pounds which is really were I like to be.
I have to say that it has not been easy. Losing weight is definitely a bitch. It takes a lot of effort and you have to keep at it for a long time to see any results.
And, I'm applying lessons learned from past weight loss experience.
First, fast weight off, is fast weight on. Rather than launching into a huge, initial calorie cut-back, I rolled back calories gradually. If you initially cut back calories too fast, my body seems to revolt and then does anything it can to try to put that weight back on again.
Second, don't get discouraged by a stuck scale. If you're no longer gaining weight, you're moving in the right direction.
Third, don't let yourself get hungry. Cut calories, but don't let yourself get hungry.
Fourth, eat more raw fruits and vegetables. You'll reduce calories while filling yourself up.
Fifth, move more. Exercise is great, but sometimes is just all the extra moving that counts. Park farther away and walk, take that extra trip up the stairs instead of letting things pile up until you go up, take the stairs instead of the elevator.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Personal Set-Backs Ctd.
Previously I posted as to how a shoulder injury was impacting my yoga practice. It's been rather frustrating for me since I can't practice any yoga asanas which put pressure on my shoulder including bakasana and chatturanga. I can't even practice something as basic as down-ward facing dog.
Well, I had an MRI done, and it showed no actual damage. What it did show, however, is a severe bursitis brought on by my bursa rubbing up against the inside of my shoulder bones. It seems that because of the structure of my shoulder, the cavity in which the bursa moves is very narrow, and because the bursa is now irritated and enlarged, the space is even narrower.
My doctor gave me a cortisone shot into the irritated bursa, and is recommending I continue to put absolutely no pressure on the shoulder until at least September, and then only gradually reintroduce asanas.
If that doesn't work, I may need surgery to widen the area in my shoulder in which the bursa moves.
Needless to say that while I'm pleased to have dodged surgery (for now), I'm not pleased that I have to continue with an abbreviated, abridged yoga practice for the next several months.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Out and About
Today I was out and about for most of the day, teaching yoga, going to a doctor's appointment, etc., and around noon, I was somewhat hungry.
Now, I've been juicing on and off for the last week and a half, so when I spotted a Robek's Franchise, I thought "perfect" and pulled in.
Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Robeks it's a franchise that specializes in fresh fruit juices and smoothies. There's a multitude of them around Fairfield county, and whenever I'm out and about and finding myself a bit peckish, I pull in for a refuel.
As I always do, I surveyed the menu board with some suspicion. They have all these smoothie concoctions which while I'm sure are probably delish (judging from the multitudes who buy them), are probably more calorie laden then I need (when are we finally going to get those calorie counts posted on menus?)
So, I ordered what I always order at Robeks, their "Green-V" which is nothing more then freshly squeezed carrot, spinach and celery juices (and comes in at 96 calories for 12 ounces according the the Robek's nutritional chart). Since I juiced for breakfast, that kept me on the juicing track for half a day thus far.
Now, I've been juicing on and off for the last week and a half, so when I spotted a Robek's Franchise, I thought "perfect" and pulled in.
Now, for those of you unfamiliar with Robeks it's a franchise that specializes in fresh fruit juices and smoothies. There's a multitude of them around Fairfield county, and whenever I'm out and about and finding myself a bit peckish, I pull in for a refuel.
As I always do, I surveyed the menu board with some suspicion. They have all these smoothie concoctions which while I'm sure are probably delish (judging from the multitudes who buy them), are probably more calorie laden then I need (when are we finally going to get those calorie counts posted on menus?)
So, I ordered what I always order at Robeks, their "Green-V" which is nothing more then freshly squeezed carrot, spinach and celery juices (and comes in at 96 calories for 12 ounces according the the Robek's nutritional chart). Since I juiced for breakfast, that kept me on the juicing track for half a day thus far.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Creamy Cauliflower Mac
The New York Times' Mark Bittman has this great recipe that sneaks cauliflower into a Mac and Cheese recipe.
I am always, always, always trying to find ways to get my daughter to eat vegetables--any vegetables, and the ONLY WAY I have succeeded thus far, is by stealth.
Let me tell you how bad my daughter is, not only will she not eat the vegetables, she used to throw tantrums if they even showed up on her plate (refusing to eat whatever else was on the plate because of the contamination). It took a long time to break her of that habit, but she will still remove the vegetables (quietly) from her plate if they show up. I guess the next step is getting her to leave the vegetables on her plate and then into her mouth.
So, stealth is the order of the day when it comes to getting her to eat her veggies, (I've discovered that boiled, then pureed veggies blend seamlessly into a wide variety of meals) so next time I see cauliflower at that farmer's market I'm picking some up to make Bittman's recipe.
BTW, what do you think about Kraft adding freeze-dried cauliflower powder into its macaroni and cheese? I'm not a big fan of Kraft, but I am thinking of possibly keeping some pureed cauliflower in the freezer to utilize whenever I make a boxed version of Macaroni and cheese for my daughter.
I am always, always, always trying to find ways to get my daughter to eat vegetables--any vegetables, and the ONLY WAY I have succeeded thus far, is by stealth.
Let me tell you how bad my daughter is, not only will she not eat the vegetables, she used to throw tantrums if they even showed up on her plate (refusing to eat whatever else was on the plate because of the contamination). It took a long time to break her of that habit, but she will still remove the vegetables (quietly) from her plate if they show up. I guess the next step is getting her to leave the vegetables on her plate and then into her mouth.
So, stealth is the order of the day when it comes to getting her to eat her veggies, (I've discovered that boiled, then pureed veggies blend seamlessly into a wide variety of meals) so next time I see cauliflower at that farmer's market I'm picking some up to make Bittman's recipe.
BTW, what do you think about Kraft adding freeze-dried cauliflower powder into its macaroni and cheese? I'm not a big fan of Kraft, but I am thinking of possibly keeping some pureed cauliflower in the freezer to utilize whenever I make a boxed version of Macaroni and cheese for my daughter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)