If you recall, the first item on my goals list for 2011 is trimming down. (Let's just go ahead and get that collective groan out of the way now, shall we?)
I've done it before, losing weight that is.
Back in 2002, I had gotten, well, just plain fluffy. (Yes, we'll call it fluff!) Not morbidly obese. No health issues or anything like that. I was just sloppy in my eating habits and a little too lax on exercising. So I started dieting and exercising regularly and lost a lot of fluff. I trained down to approximately a size 4 and was really very comfortable in my body.
I reached my goal weight in September of 2003.
I got pregnant with Isaac about 8 weeks later.
Go figure.
Fast forward a year, and I started back onto my healthy eating and exercise program and lost 90% of the baby weight.
I got pregnant with Mara in May of 2005.
As there's an obvious correlation between weight loss and pregnancy, I spent a couple years content with my fluffiness. It was too easy just to wear bulky sweaters, leggings and baggy sweatshirts. But now I'm not feeling so content.
Now that the holidays are over and all the baklava and fudge have been given away, I'm ready to really buckle down and get back to a healthier weight and condition. I won't give you any exact numbers but my goal is to lose approximately 20 lbs, give or take, hopefully by summer. That works out to under 1 pound a week, which is a totally reasonable goal based on my past experiences.
My only hesitation about dieting at this point is that it's too easy to depend on Frankenfoods. I used a lot of Frankenfoods when I dieted the first time around and I don't want to do it this time. Do you know what I mean by Frankenfoods? Chemical foods. I remember reading nutrition labels of certain items that looked like food but boasted things like no fat, no sugar, no sodium, low carbs and only 9 calories.
What the heck is it made from????? Air?
So my goal this time around is to lose the weight using real, recognizable, pronounceable foods. Whole foods, fresh fruits, whole grains, lean meats and healthy fats. It sounds good, if I can only make it past the first week or two.
Anyone care to play along with me?
25 comments:
I'm joining you!! I want to lose 20lbs as well. I used to be able to drop weight with no problem but now find it's getting more difficult since I hit 30!
Good luck with your goal!
Hi Autumn! Thanks for joining me! If you don't mind my asking, what approach are you using to lose the fluff? I'm going to use a modified-Weight Watchers approach: low on Frankenfoods and processed carbs, high on protein, fruits and veggies.
I will be dropping 2 vices this year and one of them is weight. I will be doing it with lots of soups, fruits and vegies. Homemade and frankensoup. MSG free though! I horsed around with it last year, but am actually quite excited to start the new me.
And the other vice is smoking. Yes I've said it. Only because I'm online and no one knows me. Many people do not know I have this vice, because I'm hooked on something I'm ashamed of. I try and keep it top secret, but this year I am going to try and completely kick the habit.
Shelly-
Don't be ashamed of yourself for smoking...especially now that you've decided to kick the habit. You can do it! It won't be easy, but you can do it. My mom did it...she chewed on toothpicks and a lot of hard candy, but she's been quit nearly 10 years!
And you can absolutely lose the weight too. May I suggest working on one vice at a time? Start developing good habits in one area before you try to tackle another or you may find it overwhelming and frustrating.
Andrea
I'll join you, what the heck!
I began a de-fluffing mission of my own approximately six months ago. I'm down 32 pounds so far. I was down 35 but then came the holidays. Why is it that losing 3 pounds takes two or three weeks but gaining that much can be accomplished in two or three (holiday) meals? Ugh!
My goal is still to lose another 40 or so by the end of next summer. I'm limiting my carbs to <35/day and trying to eat smaller portions of whatever I eat. My primary motivation is to be healthier but being able to wear clothes again that I had ...ahem, outgrown ...is also incentive.
Here's to success for all of us in the year to come!
: )
I've just given up on weight loss. I am what I am.
Did the Atkins diet and lost about 30 pounds over a year, but then went off it and gained it all back. However, I'd recommend the Atkins diet book to all interested simply for the introductory chapter on the role of refined foods, diabetes and insulin production. Very interesting, and not often discussed.
I'm not sure what "Frankenfoods" are...I don't eat much of anything in the way of prepared foods - I do everything from scratch - so have to say I don't think the "franken" part is the main problem!
I suspect my problem is a bit like the government's - you have to balance the in-come and the out-go. I don't think I eat that much, but the out-go is even less, and there-in lies the problem. It doesn't matter how small the calorie intake is, you have to "spend" any calories over and beyond the ones that exceed what you need for maintenance of your body. If you're an exercise fanatic, you "spend" lots of calories, and need to take in more to maintain your weight.
And like autumn, I think age definitely is a factor - but whether it's a change in metabolism or a change in activity level - that I _don't_ know! My weight problems started when I hit about 33...before then, I could eat _anything_ and not gain weight. Then everything I ever ate caught up with me!
@suek...
I agree it's a budgetary problem ('in'coming calories consumed must balance with 'out'going calories burned) but metabolism plays a big factor too. Just as there are gas-guzzlers and super efficient economy cars, we all have different 'engines' too. If that were not the case, it would be so simple! Eat this, weigh that. Simple, simple.
For my height and age, the charts say I should weigh 128 pounds. At 132, I started looking like a refugee ...gaunt and dark hollows under my eyes. When I was 135 pounds, I was a size 6 and it fit me loose. That was ten years ago, My goal now is 140-145. I will probably be able to wear a 6 ...or 8 and that's just fine with me.
I lost 60 pounds in six months the first time I went on Adkins in 1996. I kept it off until 2003 when I had ankle surgery and spent nine months in a boot or on crutches. I gained 30 pounds that nine months and only ever managed to get 10 pounds back off. In 2008, I was back in a boot for 6 months, then went through some horrific personal trials that lasted another 12 months. I ended up gaining 40 pounds. So the 70 I am trying to lose (30 gone so far) is the weight I gained those two times plus 10 pounds for good measure. I know I can keep it off once it's gone ...as long as I can stay out of the friggin' boot!
To give you youngun's some perspective ...please note that I was 40 in 1996 when I lost that first 60 pounds. If you think losing weight after 30 is tough, wait until your lookin' at the back side of 50!
Andrea I'm with you, I would like to drop 10 lbs every 3-4 months or about 30 lbs over the next year.
Welll...
Another book I read - absolutely _had_ to pick up off the bargain table - was "The 200 Calorie Solution". I had been on an 800 calorie diet (under medical supervision) otherwise known as the "why bother eating at all" diet. I thought "200 calories" ??? no way!!
So I bought it. To save you the trouble and dollars needed to buy it today (and yes, it's on Amazon!), the deal is that you cut 100 calories per day from your average intake, and increase your caloric expenditure by another 100 calories. The book is full of info of the how many calories for both sides. Probably the most valuable info is the info about the calorie expenditure for many different physical activities, based on the 100 calories burned requirement.
The most discouraging thing in the book is the fact that if you eat the equivalent of 1 Tbsp of fat (about one pat of butter) per day in excess of your maintenance requirements, you'll gain 10 pounds a year. Nice round number - easy to multiply - in 10 years, that's ONE HUNDRED pounds!!! Holey moley!!
No wonder we old folks have problems!
But bear this in mind - if you _do_ get your weight down to where you want it, it's a heck of a lot easier to lose 10 lbs than that 100 lbs! Make a resolution at that point that if you _ever_ get back up by 10 lbs, you'll do what you have to to get it off again.
Oh yeah...another discouraging fact...your fat cells include water as part of their chemical make up - it's why camels can live without water as they use up their fat hump - so a significant part of initial weight loss is indeed water weight. One pound of fat is approximately 3600 calories (9calories per gram, 454 grams to a pound)...to give you an idea of how many calories you have to eliminate over a period of time. But that one pound of fat will probably be several pounds of weight by your scale's measurement.
Thanks for all the great comments!
Suek- Frankenfoods are foods that contain nothing but artificial ingredients or are so modified/processed, they don't resemble real food. If you're eating from scratch, I doubt you're eating any Frankenfoods. And excellent tips about the 200 calorie diet. Very sensible stuff.
Woman-congrats on the weight loss! It must be a great feeling being halfway there! Glad to have you on board! Oh, and PS...my mom is just a smidge older than you and she says the same thing...weight that dropped off in the 30s and 40's is much more difficult to lose in the 50's.
Pete-That is a very reasonable goal! I know you can lose it! BTW-are you managing to stay high and dry out there?
How about we all touch base every 2weeks or so to keep each other accountable???
I think I can join you in losing 20 pounds. I may even shoot for 40! I'm a pretty husky guy so 40 wouldn't hurt me! At least I'm hoping....!!...
Joe-
Glad to have you aboard! I'm sure your kids would love having a leaner, meaner dad! Well, leaner anyway :)
LOL, I like your comment about everytime you slim down you end up preggers!
I have found for me the hands-down best approach is the process used by NutriSystems. You eat a lot of small meals throughout the day. 5 or 6 evenly spaced meals, each of 200-300 calories.
The idea is your body is a fire. If you throw a big log on the fire, most of it doesn't get burned up - you keep the fat. The small meals are efficiently burned, and nothing is left over.
It initially takes some getting used to, but then becomes the norm. What's nice is, if you go out to dinner or whatever for one day, it doesn't mess you up.
I dropped 30 pounds a few years ago, and have more or less kept it off. Small swings, but nothing radical.
>>most of it doesn't get burned up - you keep the fat>>
Atkin's theory is that your body "prefers" to use up the immediate energy offered by the carbs you eat, and tends to store the fat for "future" use. Sort of a biological "prepper" thing! By restricting carbs, it forces your body into burning the fat. The problem is that you can't eat much of _anything_ with carbs if you want to use this trick effectively. While I was on it, I mentally considered I was eating _no_ carbs, and what I did eat was "cheating" legally so to speak.
To give you an idea (assuming you have no experience with Atkins), we went to visit family the first week-end I was on the diet. Stopped at KFC. No fries, baked chicken, and coleslaw. Sounds pretty "legal", right? Well...checked the nutrition chart on the way out (invisible on the way in due to location, traffic pattern etc) and in that _one_ serving of coleslaw (coleslaw!), I had eaten something like 20grams out of the 23 grams of carbs I was permitted for the day! _And_...if you mess up and eat all the fats you're allowed on the diet and then exceed the limited quantity of carbs you're permitted...you'll _gain_ weight!!
So...Atkins is good - but can also be a quicksand trap!
CI-
I did something similar when I lost weight. Smaller meals with a couple substantial snacks throughout the day. I was never famished or tempted to overeat and the weight came off very quickly. I also ate a lot of dense foods: meats, fruits, veggies and cheeses, very little bread, pasta or carbs. As there will be no more babies, I'm encouraged that I'll be able to keep it off this time around!!!
Suek-
I think Atkins started out with the best of intentions encouraging people to eat real foods but it sort of snowballed somewhere! I can remember when my mom and stepdad did Atkins---it was very effective, but the amount of weird food recommended was horrifying. (Splenda is not a food and shouldn't be used liberally!!!) I'm all for reducing carb intake...no one should live on cookies, cakes, breads, donuts, rolls...but when fruits and veggies are restricted and Splenda and butter are staple ingredients, there's just something not right with the picture.
I'm doing this too! I've decided to make a major committment. I'm 50 and the weight needs to come off. I'm tired of being overweight.I'm blogging about it as I try to lose 50 pounds over the next year.
http://fitandfrugalatfifty.blogspot.com/
I'll join in. I would really like to lose the 10 pounds I gained in the last year and then some! I'm looking into the new WW points plus program.
Welcome ladies! Stacy, I love the little runner at the top of your blog! What a fun way to keep track of what you lose!
Carla, I love WW! Any program that allows gingersnaps and dark chocolate gets an A+ in my opinion.
Costco has a new WW cookbook for sale this month...$17.99, I think.
And a new Sunset cookbook...mighty tempting! But then - I'm always tempted by cookbooks...like I could even begin to make half the recipes I've cut out over the last few decades!
One thing I've noted when I look at recipes I've cut out, the quantities have changed over the years. My old old recipes tend to be "serves 8-10" or maybe "serves 6-8". My newer ones are mostly "serves 4-6" with some "serves 6-8". Also, there was a period when fish was recommended as a budget trimmer. Not any more!
I've noticed the same thing Sue. I have my grandmother's Better Homes and Gardens cookbook from the 30's and the portion sizes have definitely changed.
The other thing that has changed is that today's cook books are more like assembly directions: take a can of this, add a box of that, stir in a package of whatever. That frustrates me beyond belief.
>>the portion sizes have definitely changed. >>
Portion size! That never occurred to me...I assumed it meant that the recipes had been scaled down to accommodate smaller average family size!
Definitely a "Hmmmmm"....
I'll have to go back and check similar recipes for quantities of ingredients...!
Suek, check this out:
http://blog.healia.com/00285/restaurants-cookbooks-show-portion-inflation-over-years
This morning I put my 1930's BHG cookbook side by side with my 1996 BHG and looked at identical dishes like chicken ala king and pot roast, etc. The ingredients were comparable, some slight adjustments here or there, but overall very comparable. The number of servings were very different. Many dishes that fed 8-10 in the 30's now only feed 4-6.
>>This morning I put my 1930's BHG cookbook side by side with my 1996 BHG and looked at identical dishes like chicken ala king and pot roast, etc. >>
Well darn! Just when you think you know it all, something like this comes along...!!
LOL. We thought we could trust Better Homes and Gardens and here they've been making us obese all along.
Post a Comment