Funny!

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
Dally wrote:
I'd amend that to say you were, but you aren't necessarily now. People
can grow out of that stage.

How many really have what it takes, though? You know what's involved.
How many people do you know who are willing to do the hard work? We've
got a reasonable group of them here, but I don't think they're
representative of people in general.

The thing is, there's more than one way to get the hard work done

I wouldn't be surprised if for some people, it's better to be a bit more
strict and harsh, with more weighing of food, and absolute removal of junk
from the diet, etc... that if they get more casual about things it becomes
a slippery slope to being lax and going to bad habits.

But I have reason to think that there's another workable approach that
says "if things are going to be sustainable, if they're going to be a
permanent part of my WOL/WOE, they should be as inobtrusive as possible,
or else I'm going to be unhappy and drop it". Rather than a slippery
slope, this approach is more concerned about a sudden cliffdrop.

So, maybe there are a bunch of people who think they're in the latter
category but are actually in the first, and you're trying to chase them
away from that slope. But I think people deserve the benefit of the doubt,
not just loudly and harshly expressed doubt.

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
--John Lehman, secretary of the navy 1981-1987

Willow Herself wrote:
My father in law, who's gone now, always said "It doesn't take all kinds to
make a world, we just have all kinds"

In the realm of "'honors' which, when combined with a quarter, will buy
you a newspaper, at least in some cities", I've added this quote to my
collection on kisrael.com:
http://www.kisrael.com/viewblog.cgi?date=2006.07.08

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
--John Lehman, secretary of the navy 1981-1987

Kirk Is wrote:
The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:

Dally wrote:

I'd amend that to say you were, but you aren't necessarily now. People
can grow out of that stage.


How many really have what it takes, though? You know what's involved.
How many people do you know who are willing to do the hard work? We've
got a reasonable group of them here, but I don't think they're
representative of people in general.

The thing is, there's more than one way to get the hard work done.

I wouldn't be surprised if for some people, it's better to be a bit more
strict and harsh, with more weighing of food, and absolute removal of junk
from the diet, etc... that if they get more casual about things it becomes
a slippery slope to being lax and going to bad habits.

I call this the "willpower" mode. I honestly don't think you can do the
whole thing with willpower and I think you agree with me there, but
there IS an element of willpower that comes in when you start to
implement the changes you've decided to make.

Decided to make. THAT is the crucial step, in my opinion. If you
aren't decided to do this, then every excuse will be an insurmountable
obstacle. If you ARE decided to do this then you'll figure out a way to
overcome all obstacles.

But I have reason to think that there's another workable approach that
says "if things are going to be sustainable, if they're going to be a
permanent part of my WOL/WOE, they should be as inobtrusive as possible,
or else I'm going to be unhappy and drop it". Rather than a slippery
slope, this approach is more concerned about a sudden cliffdrop.

I think of this method as tackling one project at a time. First you
give up soda. Make drinking water a normal and sustainable part of your
diet. Then you start to get in a daily walk. Make exercise a normal
and sustainable part of your life. Then you tackle portion size. Make
small, frequent, balanced meals a part of your normal life. Etc etc.
(don't take my order as your order, it's just representative.)

I agree with the "progress not perfection" concept. I certainly used
that method in my life, conquering one obstacle after another. Some
battles I saved for another day, though.

So, maybe there are a bunch of people who think they're in the latter
category but are actually in the first, and you're trying to chase them
away from that slope. But I think people deserve the benefit of the doubt,
not just loudly and harshly expressed doubt.

This is where we differ. I think "progress not perfection" has to have
a huge component of self-awareness. Don't fool yourself into thinking
you're doing all you could. Be satisfied with your compromises, sure,
but know that they're compromises. Don't make good the enemy of
perfect, but don't lose sight of perfect, either.

Dally

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message
...
Willow Herself wrote:

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote:
Kirk Is wrote:

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.

I never suggested that there was only one way. I never suggested that
"my way" was the right way.

All I did was suggest that there was a different way.

And all you did was make excuses for not even giving it a try.

You are the very essence of the Whiny Fat **** In Denial.

Oh nice... the insult add so much to the discussion... you're really
proving
your point here..

Oh, boo ****ing hoo.

When someone is willing to continue whinging ad nauseum about their
right to consume crap on a daily basis while they're pretending to care
about making changes that are supposed to last a lifetime, that's Whiny
Fat ****iness.


Whatever.. keep playing on the "fat" line of insults.. we haven't heard them
enough already..
Will~

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Willow Herself wrote:
"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~

Agreed. I still have the occasional soft pretzel or other piece of junk
food. And I'm sure that other elements of my diet can be criticized. So
what? I'm doing well in so many other places that I don't care.

That's why this entire debate is so ridiculous. Kirk isn't going to be
undone by a daily coffee, anymore than "Cheese" will be destroyed by a
pancake. Or "Willow" by a Cheeto. Although I am glad you gave those
awful things the boot. :-)

Neil
385/309/220


Oh well.. the fact that it's turning into nasty insults proves the weight of
the arguments behind the debate..

You'd think we're in a highschool or something..

Will~

Dally wrote:
Kirk Is wrote:
The thing is, there's more than one way to get the hard work done.

I wouldn't be surprised if for some people, it's better to be a bit more
strict and harsh, with more weighing of food, and absolute removal of junk
from the diet, etc... that if they get more casual about things it becomes
a slippery slope to being lax and going to bad habits.

I call this the "willpower" mode. I honestly don't think you can do the
whole thing with willpower and I think you agree with me there, but
there IS an element of willpower that comes in when you start to
implement the changes you've decided to make.

It's true. Calorie counting is a significant pain. But I *would* say, for
me, and for now, I've found a system that takes dedication but less
willpower.

Technically, I didn't even mean to start my plan when I did, I was
thinking of taking the Hacker's Diet advice of "just count calories
without trying to cut back for a week or two". But the mere act of
carefully recording what I consumed added elements of knowledge and
accountability that were lacking from my previous WOE, and when combined
with frozen lite dinners and other premeasured foods, isn't all that much
willpower to implement, though of course eating out or over is still
tricky.

I guess I'm fortunate because of the kind of eater I am; I eat for
novelty, not so much for hunger or emotion. So turning that off wasn't too
bad.

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"Let 'em all go to hell except cave 76"
--The 2000 year old man singing an early national anthem

Kirk Is wrote:

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
Dally wrote:
I'd amend that to say you were, but you aren't necessarily now. People
can grow out of that stage.

How many really have what it takes, though? You know what's involved.
How many people do you know who are willing to do the hard work? We've
got a reasonable group of them here, but I don't think they're
representative of people in general.

The thing is, there's more than one way to get the hard work done

No ****, Sherlock?

I never would have guessed.

Willow Herself wrote:

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote:
Willow Herself wrote:
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote:
Kirk Is wrote:

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.

I never suggested that there was only one way. I never suggested that
"my way" was the right way.

All I did was suggest that there was a different way.

And all you did was make excuses for not even giving it a try.

You are the very essence of the Whiny Fat **** In Denial.

Oh nice... the insult add so much to the discussion... you're really
proving
your point here..

Oh, boo ****ing hoo.

When someone is willing to continue whinging ad nauseum about their
right to consume crap on a daily basis while they're pretending to care
about making changes that are supposed to last a lifetime, that's Whiny
Fat ****iness.


Whatever.. keep playing on the "fat" line of insults.. we haven't heard them
enough already..

It's only an effective insult if it hits home. If it doesn't apply,
then a person should be able to breeze right by it without any trouble
at all.

The Historian wrote:

Agreed. I still have the occasional soft pretzel or other piece of junk
food. And I'm sure that other elements of my diet can be criticized. So
what? I'm doing well in so many other places that I don't care.

That's why this entire debate is so ridiculous. Kirk isn't going to be
undone by a daily coffee, anymore than "Cheese" will be destroyed by a
pancake. Or "Willow" by a Cheeto. Although I am glad you gave those
awful things the boot. :-)

Once again: I never suggested giving up coffee. I suggested not making
coffee a 100-200 calorie per day thing. The closer a person gets to
goal, the fewer calories they consume. When your calorie limit is 1700
or 1800, wasting 200 calories on something that you could easily be
having for 50 or 60 is going to be a necessity. And if a person can't
make the small changes, they're not going to have much luck with the big
ones.

The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
Kirk Is wrote:
The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
The thing is, there's more than one way to get the hard work done

No ****, Sherlock?

I never would have guessed.

Judging by the way you treat newbies who disagree with you about how they
should handle their lives, I can't be 100% sure you're being sarcastic.

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"I want to do to you what the spring does to cherry trees."
"I want to do to *you* what you do to chinese food." --tufts.general