Funny!

Kirk Is wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
The Historian wrote:

I still think her coffee thread with Kirk was pretty silly, however.

If advising people to eliminate sources of excessive, non-nutritive
calories from their daily intake is wrong, I don't want to be right.

I really didn't mean to get back into this, but...

Then don't.

In general, you're correct.

Ya think?

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
In general, you're correct.

Ya think?

Yes, if it was solely a matter of losing 1.2 lbs more / month, we'd be in
complete agreement. (Kind of; I'm still not convinced about your half and
half vs skim milk)

As for letting people make their own reasoned judgement about what they
are likely to find sustainable, maybe not so much. Even the reality that
this will add a month or so of time needed to complete the weightloss
portion of my WOE/WOL change isn't enough to deter me from my skim milk
and sugar lovin' ways.

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Sorry Rob. I don't think 'Being a Dork' qualifies as being a performance
piece. And bringing in your laundry hoping someone will do it for you is
not a multimedia installation."

Kirk Is wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
In general, you're correct.

Ya think?

Yes, if it was solely a matter of losing 1.2 lbs more / month, we'd be in
complete agreement.

It has very little to do with weight loss and almost everything to do
with changing ****ty, useless habits.

But you're only interested in making changes that agree with what you
already think you know.

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message
...
Kirk Is wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
The Historian wrote:

I still think her coffee thread with Kirk was pretty silly, however.

If advising people to eliminate sources of excessive, non-nutritive
calories from their daily intake is wrong, I don't want to be right.

I really didn't mean to get back into this, but...

Then don't.

I didn't give up my cheetos until long after I made goal. 1 serving (29
pieces) every night. about 200 calories.. .I still lost 70 lbs in 9
months... I've now been maintaining for almost 3 years. Shouldn't everyone
get to chose where they cut and where they won't?
Will~


In general, you're correct.

Ya think?

Willow Herself wrote:
I didn't give up my cheetos until long after I made goal. 1 serving (29
pieces) every night. about 200 calories.. .I still lost 70 lbs in 9
months... I've now been maintaining for almost 3 years. Shouldn't
everyone
get to chose where they cut and where they won't?

That's essentially my point. But according to her majesty, newbies like me
have no chance of making such calculated decisions, so we need to use half
and half in our coffee instead of skim milk, in order to lose weight.
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back." --Gladiator

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
Kirk Is wrote:
Yes, if it was solely a matter of losing 1.2 lbs more / month, we'd be in
complete agreement.

It has very little to do with weight loss and almost everything to do
with changing ****ty, useless habits.

Little to do with weight loss? Then why bother mentioning it here? It's
alt.support.diet, not alt.support.changing.****ty.useless.habits. I've
already described the pleasure a large iced coffee brings me on my morning
commute, and usually a little after. It is not a ****ty useless habit by
my reckoning.

But you're only interested in making changes that agree with what you
already think you know.

Sure! I think I know that if I consume less calories and keep up the
exercise, I'll lose weight. I even think I know that monitoring calories
closely can help that! I EVEN think I know (and this is the wild and crazy
part) that allowing certain indulgences within a rigorous calorie counting
framework can help me formulate a sustainable WOL/WOE with less
unhappiness about it overall.

So that's what I think I know, and I've made changes accordingly, and I've
been losing weight. Will the plan stall out? And if not, will I be able to
parlay the weightloss into a permanent change in WOL? The jury's still
out on those questions, but I think I'll keep doing things this way 'til I
have a clearer indication that it won't work.

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back." --Gladiator

Kirk Is wrote:
Willow Herself wrote:

I didn't give up my cheetos until long after I made goal. 1 serving (29
pieces) every night. about 200 calories.. .I still lost 70 lbs in 9
months... I've now been maintaining for almost 3 years. Shouldn't
everyone get to chose where they cut and where they won't?

That's essentially my point. But according to her majesty, newbies like me
have no chance of making such calculated decisions, so we need to use half
and half in our coffee instead of skim milk, in order to lose weight.

Of course you get to choose what calories go in your mouth. But part of
what Queenie does (and I do) is bring to your attention that these ARE
choices and those choices have consequences and you have the option of
choosing differently.

This is a continuous and important process if you're going to go from
fat to slender. If you're going to change you have to change. Not
being open to change is a huge warning flag when someone comes here
seeking help in losing weight.

Dally

I am not taking sides here, but I want to make a few remarks.

One can lose weight eating just about anything, if the overall
quantity remains small enough.

Numerous people find that they can "eat healthy" and remain fat,
because they eat too much of "healthy" food.

We do not quite know just what "healthy food" means. What we do know,
with a modest degree of certainty, is that being fat is unhealthy.

The main point of "eat no junk food" restrictions, which I personally
follow, is that it makes dieting easier (supposedly), not that it
makes us closer to the Holy Spirit or whatever.

So, if eating some food does not make dieting any more difficult, I
cannot see why it should not be eaten. I suspect -- though I never
tried -- that eating "junk food", ice cream, cake etc, would make my
dieting more difficult, so I choose not to eat that.


i

Ignoramus12948 wrote:
The main point of "eat no junk food" restrictions, which I personally
follow, is that it makes dieting easier (supposedly), not that it
makes us closer to the Holy Spirit or whatever.

Heh, good way of putting it!

So, if eating some food does not make dieting any more difficult, I
cannot see why it should not be eaten. I suspect -- though I never
tried -- that eating "junk food", ice cream, cake etc, would make my
dieting more difficult, so I choose not to eat that.

I see your point, and it sounds like that's the right way for you.

What seems to be working for me is having a LOT of freedom within my
calorie count. I avoid the worst of the worst (like the 400 calorie
poptarts I'm still tempted with at work...) simply because I know it will
be tougher to eat enough food later to satisfy me and stay within my
goals, but I really believe that, for me, small, controlled indulgences
have changed dieting from a demoralizing forced march to a mere
inconvenience.

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Anyone who says life is short really isn't paying attention." --March 4 2001

The part that I thought was "funny" is that I would cross paths with
someone in a totally unrelated newsgroup.

If I hadn't called her out by name, that would be the end of the
"story." So...sorry for doing that part.