So referring to it as a diet is still a misnomer, but I don't have a better way to refer to it. Anyway, here is how things stand. For the last month, Aug. 21 to today, I've lost 11.5 pounds and 22.5 pounds since the start of weight loss. My goal is to lose 1 pound every four days, but I am exceeding that, losing almost 1/3 lb per day. I chalk this up to underestimating how many calories I am burning. I assume that I make as many overestimation as underestimation errors in terms of calories consumed.
As of this morning I am happily at 236 lbs. Weight loss, to this point, is pretty linear on the graph, which is what science says one should expect if you maintain a roughly constant calorie deficit ever y day. Funny thing, you eat less, you lose weight. I am prepared for that to not continue. I kind of expect to hit a plateau. I haven't yet and maybe I won't. That would be nice.
To help manage calorie consumption, I have switched to packaged meals from Lean Cuisine and Healthy Choice for maybe a third of my meals. They make calorie counting a cinch. I still am eating home made things and am starting to feel more comfortable with calorie estimation. I would definitely not say this has become easier (or harder) but it has never been particularly hard, either. The hardest part is determining how to deal with hunger pangs. Because I get real ones, not just snaking urges, though I get those too. Mostly I just have a 50-100cal snack and reduce my dinner meal or take a longer walk, later.
Oh yeah, to keep my metabolism up, I have taken up nightly walks of about 2 miles. I call that about 150cal though it could be more.
It has been crucial to weigh myself every day and carefully monitor my calorie intake. Other than that, I have eaten anything I like. For instance, last Sunday, I made roast beef tenderloin with home-made gnocchi and broccoli and had a couple of toasted marshmallows for desert. I called that 950 calories and did not feel deprived by my portion size (and it tasted good, too.) I woke up late that day so I had two breakfast tacos with eggs and cheese for brunch for about 600 calories. On that day I had a calculated 800 calorie deficit.
That's all for now. I plan to celebrate when I see 229.5 or less on the scale. I haven't been there in quite a few years. That should only be a couple of weeks off. A bit of that previously mentioned gluttony may be in order :-)
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
September 19 - Support the Troops
Is withdrawing from Iraq supporting the troops?
A liberal friend snipes that the troops do not wish to get shot so a withdrawal plan is supporting the troops.
Did anyone ask the troops? I turns out that yes, they have been asked and they (sweeping generalizations, here, but by "they" I mean "most of those asked") see their mission as still good and unfinished. I don't think it is supporting the troops to do something that denies what they want. Not that what the troops want necessarily comes into it. In fact, I doubt a commander takes into account what his troops want beyond giving due consideration to morale when making a decision. But to say that doing what they don't want is supporting them seems wrong to me. Unless...
Unless you think you know better than them. Kind of like they are children. But that is the liberal way. Always thinking that you know what is good for everyone. The hubris always astounds me but particularly here. I mean, these are the people in-situ where the material affect of American presence can be directly observed and, based on what they observe, the mission is still valid, not yet finished and progressing.
Do they really not want to get shot? That statement is very loaded. Of course no one WANTS to get shot. However, do people who say such things really think that soldiers do not expect to be put in harm's way? If so, they are so wrong. I'd prescribe taking some time to read Audie Murphy's autobiography some time, To Hell and Back, and then marvel at the possibility, despite the constant bombardment of shrill liberal dogma, that this country still has men and women brave enough to risk their lives to protect it and it's ideals and to even try to bring those ideals to others. It astounds me every time I think about it. I almost cry in pride when I run into a man or woman in uniform, these days. I am struck speechless every time.
Children? Uneducated? Every soldier that I have personal knowledge of in Iraq has a college degree. Many of the troops over there are reserves who, prior to being called up were making a living just like you and I. I am sure they are far and away more mature and responsible than I am. To suggest that one knows what is best for such people is, well, the adjectives and adverbs I have left are insufficient.
To suggest that supporting the troops involves removing them from harm's way is rather like supporting police by telling them not to break up domestic disputes or the coast guard not to rescue people in stormy weather. You have to assume that the vast majority of the troops understand that they may be put in danger when they choose to join the military. It is no more "supporting the troops" by bringing them home than it is supporting firefighters by telling them they don't have to go into a burning building.
A liberal friend snipes that the troops do not wish to get shot so a withdrawal plan is supporting the troops.
Did anyone ask the troops? I turns out that yes, they have been asked and they (sweeping generalizations, here, but by "they" I mean "most of those asked") see their mission as still good and unfinished. I don't think it is supporting the troops to do something that denies what they want. Not that what the troops want necessarily comes into it. In fact, I doubt a commander takes into account what his troops want beyond giving due consideration to morale when making a decision. But to say that doing what they don't want is supporting them seems wrong to me. Unless...
Unless you think you know better than them. Kind of like they are children. But that is the liberal way. Always thinking that you know what is good for everyone. The hubris always astounds me but particularly here. I mean, these are the people in-situ where the material affect of American presence can be directly observed and, based on what they observe, the mission is still valid, not yet finished and progressing.
Do they really not want to get shot? That statement is very loaded. Of course no one WANTS to get shot. However, do people who say such things really think that soldiers do not expect to be put in harm's way? If so, they are so wrong. I'd prescribe taking some time to read Audie Murphy's autobiography some time, To Hell and Back, and then marvel at the possibility, despite the constant bombardment of shrill liberal dogma, that this country still has men and women brave enough to risk their lives to protect it and it's ideals and to even try to bring those ideals to others. It astounds me every time I think about it. I almost cry in pride when I run into a man or woman in uniform, these days. I am struck speechless every time.
Children? Uneducated? Every soldier that I have personal knowledge of in Iraq has a college degree. Many of the troops over there are reserves who, prior to being called up were making a living just like you and I. I am sure they are far and away more mature and responsible than I am. To suggest that one knows what is best for such people is, well, the adjectives and adverbs I have left are insufficient.
To suggest that supporting the troops involves removing them from harm's way is rather like supporting police by telling them not to break up domestic disputes or the coast guard not to rescue people in stormy weather. You have to assume that the vast majority of the troops understand that they may be put in danger when they choose to join the military. It is no more "supporting the troops" by bringing them home than it is supporting firefighters by telling them they don't have to go into a burning building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)