I can never think of good subject lines
Tuesday, 5 August 2008 11:05![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
earthbelow
Wow, I really haven't posted here in a while, have I? I guess because my life is really not that interesting right now.
The two big deals are my writing and my renewed attempts to lose weight. I'm thinking of doing a weight loss filter, but I'm not sure. It's not that the details of me trying to shed pounds is all that private, it's just that I know some people might now want to read about it.
I've started up keeping my food/exercise log again, and I'm sticking as faithfully as I can to my pledge to get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day, three or more times a week. I feel frustrated, because I've done this before and the weight comes off so excruciatingly slowly. It feels like I've been trying to take off the same five pounds forever.
Doesn't help that my mom thinks I should be dropping the weight much faster. Her theory is that I'm either very sick or I'm lying about how hard I'm trying to lose the weight and not doing what I say I'm doing.
Why, yes, that was the sound of part of spirit just shriveling up. Nothing makes you want to sob and curl up under the blankets and give up like your mom not believing you when you say you're doing your damndest. I don't think I'm sick, I just think I have insulin resistance and a godawfully slow metabolism and this is how I lose weight, bit by bit.
My mom gave me a bunch of Weight Watchers stuff before I left Florida, and I was somewhat appreciative. It's just that, well, in order to eat all the points they say I'm allotted, I'd have to consume more than my usual 1000-1200 calories a day. It is useful to have the guide though.
I think Weight Watchers is good for most people, but it wouldn't work for me. It doesn't take sugar into account, for one. And a lot of foods that are "lower fat" are that way because they take out the fat and pour lots of sugar in so it doesn't taste so awful. That's why there are no low fat *and* low sugar foods that are worth putting in your mouth. It's also why sugarfree foods aren't all that much healthier than anything else, because they have loads of calories and fat.
It also sucks when you realize how hard you have to exercise just to burn a few calories. For instance, my very brisk, sweat-drenched, pavement pounding 30 minute walk with bits of jogging inserted burned, maybe, two hundred calories. That's not even most of a Lean Cuisine or anything. Which makes me want to cry, because ZOMG, how am I supposed to take any weight off if I can't even burn off one crummy little diet lunch?
Not to mention the very, very depressing factoid that it takes 3,300 calories for you to gain a pound. Thus, you have to burn 3,300 calories to lose one. And if you have a metabolism like a hybrid car, then you burn through calories at a mindnumbingly slow rate.
But I will prevail (god willing and the creek don't rise). It's discouraging now, but I can be plucky. I can stick with it.
I try to think of the upsides, which are that I enjoy my walks. It gives me more energy, and helps charge up the creative fuel cells. Also? I'm not really depriving myself of any foods I like, I'm just going to eat less of them.
Also, in a weird way, it's a sign that I'm evolutionarily more fit than other people. Another weird factoid is that what we call a "slow" metabolism is actually a more efficient one. Back in the caveman days, where you got to eat maybe every two or three days if you were lucky, those who burned calories slowest were better off.
Which is why women are better than men, from an evolutionary standpoint. Women have more efficient calorie burning resources. Of course, that doesn't help when society prefers to us to be tall, blonde, and starving - but still. So, ladies be proud. Back in the Neanderthal days, women rocked. And men...just sort of hit things with rocks.
Things don't change much, do they? *ducks*.
The two big deals are my writing and my renewed attempts to lose weight. I'm thinking of doing a weight loss filter, but I'm not sure. It's not that the details of me trying to shed pounds is all that private, it's just that I know some people might now want to read about it.
I've started up keeping my food/exercise log again, and I'm sticking as faithfully as I can to my pledge to get at least 30 minutes of exercise a day, three or more times a week. I feel frustrated, because I've done this before and the weight comes off so excruciatingly slowly. It feels like I've been trying to take off the same five pounds forever.
Doesn't help that my mom thinks I should be dropping the weight much faster. Her theory is that I'm either very sick or I'm lying about how hard I'm trying to lose the weight and not doing what I say I'm doing.
Why, yes, that was the sound of part of spirit just shriveling up. Nothing makes you want to sob and curl up under the blankets and give up like your mom not believing you when you say you're doing your damndest. I don't think I'm sick, I just think I have insulin resistance and a godawfully slow metabolism and this is how I lose weight, bit by bit.
My mom gave me a bunch of Weight Watchers stuff before I left Florida, and I was somewhat appreciative. It's just that, well, in order to eat all the points they say I'm allotted, I'd have to consume more than my usual 1000-1200 calories a day. It is useful to have the guide though.
I think Weight Watchers is good for most people, but it wouldn't work for me. It doesn't take sugar into account, for one. And a lot of foods that are "lower fat" are that way because they take out the fat and pour lots of sugar in so it doesn't taste so awful. That's why there are no low fat *and* low sugar foods that are worth putting in your mouth. It's also why sugarfree foods aren't all that much healthier than anything else, because they have loads of calories and fat.
It also sucks when you realize how hard you have to exercise just to burn a few calories. For instance, my very brisk, sweat-drenched, pavement pounding 30 minute walk with bits of jogging inserted burned, maybe, two hundred calories. That's not even most of a Lean Cuisine or anything. Which makes me want to cry, because ZOMG, how am I supposed to take any weight off if I can't even burn off one crummy little diet lunch?
Not to mention the very, very depressing factoid that it takes 3,300 calories for you to gain a pound. Thus, you have to burn 3,300 calories to lose one. And if you have a metabolism like a hybrid car, then you burn through calories at a mindnumbingly slow rate.
But I will prevail (god willing and the creek don't rise). It's discouraging now, but I can be plucky. I can stick with it.
I try to think of the upsides, which are that I enjoy my walks. It gives me more energy, and helps charge up the creative fuel cells. Also? I'm not really depriving myself of any foods I like, I'm just going to eat less of them.
Also, in a weird way, it's a sign that I'm evolutionarily more fit than other people. Another weird factoid is that what we call a "slow" metabolism is actually a more efficient one. Back in the caveman days, where you got to eat maybe every two or three days if you were lucky, those who burned calories slowest were better off.
Which is why women are better than men, from an evolutionary standpoint. Women have more efficient calorie burning resources. Of course, that doesn't help when society prefers to us to be tall, blonde, and starving - but still. So, ladies be proud. Back in the Neanderthal days, women rocked. And men...just sort of hit things with rocks.
Things don't change much, do they? *ducks*.