substitute: (fester ptui)
[personal profile] substitute
According to my physician, I am at risk for, or may already be in, insulin resistance syndrome. It's now called "metabolic syndrome" which seems insufficiently precise to me. But he makes a convincing case.

Therefore, the best thing I can do for myself is to get to my target weight of 200 lbs in one year. This will be ~50 lbs, or 1 lb per week.

I repeat, I have to lose 50 pounds in one year.

Aiiigh.

I'm already eating a much better diet than I was a year ago. This is why I weigh ~250 rather than 275, which is where I started on this journey. However I suck at the exercise. There is an exercise machine in the house that my mom used before that I can make use of, so I shall. I sweat like a freaking PIG when I exercise and hate to do this in front of strangers so the health club is a big washout. Paxil is great for making the depression go away but it makes me into a kind of perspiratory fountain apparatus.

And walking is to smile. It burns like 1 calorie per 1000 miles. Anyone else tells me to try walking, I'm splattering lipids all over them from my bulging midriff.

It surprises me that I am overweight. I was always a skinny kid. Stupid depression, stupid depression meds. Blurg.

thank you!

Date: 2003-05-22 08:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] substitute.livejournal.com
Good info, bookmark bookmark

My diet is pretty good. I need to cut out a few things but mostly it's the exercise that needs to change. I plan to carry around an anvil or something.

Also hack off both legs 364 days from now to meet deadline.

whelp

Date: 2003-05-22 08:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marm0t.livejournal.com
Hi, see this boat? We're both in it.

Things that helped me lose ~70 lbs in 2001:
- vegetables
- fruit
- more vegetables
- diet shakes, a la slim-fast, in lieu of snacks
- a 2000-calorie-a-week exercise goal, periodically met
- period of unemployment DURING WHICH I LOST MOST OF THE WEIGHT (see: lack of job stress, sufficient time in which to exercise)
- more fruit
- even more vegetables
- *complete* avoidance of resturants for 5 months
- *complete* avoidance of people eating things I couldn't
- having nothing in my kitchen that wasn't a fruit, a vegetable, or a dietarily-sanctioned food

Things that helped me put most of it back on in 2002:
- abhorrence of exercise
- boredom with vegetables, fruits
- job stress
- overextended schedule
- vending machine
- utterly sedentary desk job & hobbies

Last week, I started adding diet shakes, fruits & veggies back in, and got back to the gym for 1300 calories. I hated it. It sucked. I lost five pounds.

If you need a cheerleader, I'm happy to be of service.

Re: whelp

Date: 2003-05-22 11:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flipzagging.livejournal.com
2000 calories of exercise in a gym? well I personally can't contemplate it. Weight training isn't all that intense, calorie-wise, so that would be much more than an hour a day, unless I'm totally mistaken.

Or do you do aerobics, treadmill, etc.?


It's just math.

Date: 2003-05-23 08:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marm0t.livejournal.com
My particular program defines exercise as "moving your body through space," and does not have any specific requirements as to how you arrive at your 2000-calorie expenditure. You can walk dogs, mow the lawn, walk through the mall, go rollerskating, play a sport... or you can, as I do, go to the gym, and bring magazines and cds to help the time pass as quickly as possible.

At my weight and age, moderate aerobic activity burns about 15-16 calories per minute. At that rate, burning 2000 calories per week means spending about 30 minutes four times a week, 45 minutes three times a week, or 1 hour twice a week. It's not that difficult to contemplate.

Obviously, as Ig points out, if you're only walking, it's going to take a longer period of time to arrive at that kind of calorie-expenditure goal. I choose to use an elliptical trainer because that gives me a decent calorie-burning bang in a relatively short investment of time.

Though it doesn't give you that kind of calorie bang, weight training does burn some calories, and moreover, it increases the amount of metabolically active tissue in your body, so it's important. I try to work in a few sets at the end of each aerobic session.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 02:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flipzagging.livejournal.com
Maybe the exercise calorie counts I've been using are on the low side. From what I can see, 15 cals/minute would be very vigorous activity, like running 7.5 mph (12 km/hr). I personally couldn't sustain that on the road for an hour. Even 30 minutes would be quite challenging.

But now that I think about it, your choice of the elliptical trainer is probably the easiest way to get to that burn rate. No impact, constant activity. Some of the people using that machine seem almost superhuman (to me), they move at a high speed for a very long time.

PS

Date: 2003-05-22 08:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marm0t.livejournal.com
During my weight loss, I ate corn and potatoes. In fairly large quantities. Like, daily. I ate anything even loosely termed a "vegetable." And I lost multiple lbs per week. My diet instructor laughed when I expressed concern about the corn, and said she'd never seen a case where eating corn niblets resulted in significant weight gain.

Because, two things: as it turns out, corn and potatoes are better than Hershey's. And: you really can only eat so much corn.

YMMV, especially if your thang is insulin-related, but really if you think about it, it all boils down to crowding out fattening food with less-fattening food.

Oh yeah, one other thing: keep yourself full. I ate a lot, and often. I eat far less now... and I weigh far more. Life is strange.

Good luck!

Re: PS

Date: 2003-05-22 09:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stimps.livejournal.com
That's cool, but corn and potatoes do get turned pretty quickly into sugars, which is pretty dangerous when you've got insulin and blood-sugar related problems like I do. If I eat a big serving of potatoes, I get high and sugary in a verrrry short period of time; same with corn. Whole wheat pasta, no prob. So I'm just sayin'. =)

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 06:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scromp.livejournal.com
Yeah.. eating a raw potato spikes your blood sugar higher than eating *a cup of sugar* because it's metabolized easier. That makes my head hurt just a little bit.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 08:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marm0t.livejournal.com
But from a calorie perspective, the potato totally wins.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 08:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scromp.livejournal.com
Yeah, it's very much a special case for diabetics. Potatoes also have a lot more vitamins than a cup of sugar if you eat the skin. :)

(no subject)

Date: 2003-05-23 09:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stimps.livejournal.com
Yeah, that freaked me out too, when I first found out. WHAT BUT I READ OH SHIT. This explains so much not only of my pre-diabetic stuff, but also why I had so many problems with getting tired (the spikes & all). Sigh. Oh well, I'm MUCH BETTER NOW... I think.

Re: PS

Date: 2003-05-23 08:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marm0t.livejournal.com
Yep. That's why I included the YMMV disclaimer above. From a calories-to-food-mass perspective, there's nothing inherently evil about corn and potatoes, so if blood sugar isn't an issue and weight loss is, you're a lot better off sating your snack urges with those kinds of things.

Re: PS

Date: 2003-05-23 09:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stimps.livejournal.com
Yeah, the poor old potato gets such a bad rap. I mean, they're so USEFUL! =D I love potatoes personally, I just have to watch it, or eat them with a lot of things that take me longer to digest or I get the carb floaties. =)

Profile

substitute: (Default)
substitute

May 2009

S M T W T F S
      1 2
3 456 78 9
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags