Atkins Diet

"janice" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:45:07 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 16:28:42, Crafting Mom
wrote:

15 ml is one tablespoon, the equivalent of 3 teaspoons, and there are
many people who simply do not measure their mayonnaise and misjudge the
size of their serving.

I suppose that is easy to do if you buy it in squeezy bottles. We
usually buy ours in jars.

Well, I buy tomato ketchup in squeezy bottles, and I find it very easy
to measure it into a teaspoon measure before I serve it.


janice
233/179/133

How did we ever survive without the squeezy bottlesg I haven't bought a
jar of mayo, ketchup or mustard for ages. I think they went a little too
far when they started making the ketchup blue, green, etc. My grandkids
have tried it but even they didn't care for it. I just can't imagine
putting blue ketchup on my hot dog!

Beverly

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:40:01 -0400, "Beverly"
wrote:


How did we ever survive without the squeezy bottlesg I haven't bought a
jar of mayo, ketchup or mustard for ages. I think they went a little too
far when they started making the ketchup blue, green, etc. My grandkids
have tried it but even they didn't care for it. I just can't imagine
putting blue ketchup on my hot dog!

Beverly

They sold that here a while back, but I don't know if it took off. I
haven't heard it mentioned for some time, so perhaps not.

janice

Dally wrote in message ...
Annabel Smyth wrote:
Look, I believe that low-fat helped you to lose weight. The problem is
that we all tried it and all regained every pound (plus some) and found
a more sane way to do it. I'm not a Atkins dieter, I'm not a
"low-carber", even... but I've lost nearly 30% of my body weight by
changing my habits AWAY from low-fat high fiber and I'm never hungry and
I'm not using willpower and it seems like I've got something to teach
you beyond what you already know.

my strategy too

200 kcal of almonds is a great little snack. I get the very spicy kind
(Chili Picante) so there's not even any willpower involved -- 1oz is
all I can stand anyway. (1oz of honey-roast cashews would be another
story).

I have not had a serious hunger pang yet on this diet. A bit of fat
here and there (in the place of empty carbs) works for me...

232/185/182

Dally wrote in message ...
Annabel Smyth wrote:
Look, I believe that low-fat helped you to lose weight. The problem is
that we all tried it and all regained every pound (plus some) and found
a more sane way to do it. I'm not a Atkins dieter, I'm not a
"low-carber", even... but I've lost nearly 30% of my body weight by
changing my habits AWAY from low-fat high fiber and I'm never hungry and
I'm not using willpower and it seems like I've got something to teach
you beyond what you already know.

my strategy too

200 kcal of almonds is a great little snack. I get the very spicy kind
(Chili Picante) so there's not even any willpower involved -- 1oz is
all I can stand anyway. (1oz of honey-roast cashews would be another
story).

I have not had a serious hunger pang yet on this diet. A bit of fat
here and there (in the place of empty carbs) works for me...

232/185/182

Heywood Mogroot wrote:

I have not had a serious hunger pang yet on this diet. A bit of fat
here and there (in the place of empty carbs) works for me...

I'm worried that I've picked on her too much. I've seen it a lot:
people stick to the diet they THINK they're supposed to do, but get
hungry and sick of being unsated and sick of being "good" and just quit.
And we never see them again and they get fatter and fatter with the
frustration of people who never even knew what hit them.

Sigh.

I've been that person.

I just wish I had some way of getting through to people with the message
that you have to CHANGE in order to change.

Dally
244/174/168

Heywood Mogroot wrote:

I have not had a serious hunger pang yet on this diet. A bit of fat
here and there (in the place of empty carbs) works for me...

I'm worried that I've picked on her too much. I've seen it a lot:
people stick to the diet they THINK they're supposed to do, but get
hungry and sick of being unsated and sick of being "good" and just quit.
And we never see them again and they get fatter and fatter with the
frustration of people who never even knew what hit them.

Sigh.

I've been that person.

I just wish I had some way of getting through to people with the message
that you have to CHANGE in order to change.

Dally
244/174/168

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"Heywood Mogroot" wrote in message
om...
What do you mean by "rationally"? Is it calorie counting or "balanced"
diet?
Or just following your hunger?

altering my level of food intake to match which way the scale is
going.

How do you define "food intake"? I mean, it's only calories that matter. If
you always eat the same food, then you can just adjust the quantities, and
it will be pretty reliable.

quantities, yes. Size of the bowl of cereal. Half and apple or the
whole thing. one serving or two of beans. etc.

brain has done a good evaluation of the caloric load of the shake. The level
of precision seems to be very high, your taste buds are able to gauge the
amount of sugar in a product down to the gram. Then, it appears there are
further adjustements from one meal to the next and at a week level. They're
at work when the brain has made a bad mistake at its short term evaluation
("light" products do that for a couple of days, before the brain identifies
them correctly) or when emotional issues cause over-eating.

yeah I do that too. I try to limit high-GI carbs in a meal.

Your method might mimick these longer cycles well, but you're still lacking
the fine-tuning from the brain's almost instant evaluation. You have to use
a low precision calorie table instead and use the delayed feedback of your
scale.

I just ballpark the calorie estimates, and I do use hunger too. If I
am hungry and not losing, then I need to eat more and exercise more.

I think so too, but I think you're ignoring the possible gradient here
where the me of 10 years ago could eat more than the me of now and not
gain as much.

Of course, unless you put on some muscle. But it's true that your metabolism
might vary. It does for normal people as they age, go through their
menstrual cycle or change lifestyle. By eating like a slim person, I didn't
mean in quantities. I meant being regulated by your hunger only. I don't
really care if I eat 300g or 400g of food, as long as I'm not hungry anymore
by the end of the meal, I'm satisfied.

Yes. I still have maybe an extra 5lbs of fat I didn't have 10 years
ago around my abdomen. Apparently this fat is considered a separate
organ by endicrinologists and can alter my response to foods to some
extent.

Here's a fun piece... Statistical studies have shown that if you compare
people who lose weight with medical supervision and those who do it on their
own, the second population has the highest success rate. The best
configuration seems people losing weight on their own, but with the support
of an informal support group (friends or newsgroup rather than weight
watcher).

I believe it. People don't like being told what to do.

Atkins Inc, bless them, has said they're going to start spending their
millions doing good research.

Mmm... More special bars to make me thin?

no, more longitudinal studies, and I hope people following actual
plans not fake no-carb plans.

Well I think that's probably a good basis for research. I've been
saying here the best way to control one's eating habits is to not want
the bad stuff in the first place. Where does the 'want' for ice cream,
chocolate, and all the other diet-killing treats come from?

There, I disagree. I don't think there is a problem with "wanting" ice cream
or chocolate. There is a problem with wanting it beyond your hunger. I mean,
if you believe in the caloric balance, then it doesn't matter where you get
your calories from. If you get your 2000 calories a day from chocolate only,
and if 2000 calories is your daily need, you should keep a stable weight.
Granted, that would not be healthy, but it would nevertheless allow you to
keep a stable weight.

Nobody needs ice cream to survive. It's a splurge. We all know how
little splurges can turn into big splurges.

In the course of adjusting to my feelings and losing weight, I did eat
chocolate and other "bad stuff". And I do not mean a chunk or two. I mean a
meal. The protocol was to replace 4-5 lunches in a row by a single "bad
stuff". In some cases, it was in controlled quantities, the goal being to
experience satiety and see how the next meal was adjusted. That meant eating
around 600-700 calories of that food (so, a plate with around 120g of
chocolate for lunch). In other cases, the quantities were free. Here is the
list : French fries, chocolate (all kind, from white to black, I like
variety), cheese+bread, pastry, cookies. That pretty much cover all kind of
"bad stuff". I kept doing my weekly weighting, so I had a before and
after value, with some extra days in. The only limitation was that I would
stop eating when I felt satiated, and that I would eat whatever I wished for
dinner (including more "bad stuff").
- This didn't prevent me from losing weight, weight curve kept perfectly on
track.

yeah I eat cheese even though I know it really doesn't have that great
a profile. When in a good loss groove eating crap can just slow losses
I suppose.

So, it seems they are compatible with weight loss. It also seems that the
body adjusts our cravings when we start lacking something (in that case,
proteins, fibers...).

Sure. It doesn't really matter what crap you eat as long as you don't
binge on it for weeks at a time.

I think the "wants" come from the fact that we are the most evolved mammal.
We eat energy and nutriments, but we also eat emotions. When I only ate
energy, I craved for nutriments. It seems there are specific hungers, for
instance for proteins, when there is a lack.

yes. Plus the mammalian desire to get fat before winter comes.

The problem is that we associate them with "bad stuff". This is a moral
judgement. Just like in the case of a diet, you're messing up with your body
control by adding a moral value to food. When you eat "bad stuff", you sin.
Of course, what is sinful is always tempting, so you're all the more
attracted to that food - it's like the jam pot your mother used to hide on
top of the kitchen cabinet.

yes. I don't outlaw the bad stuff, I just recognize the patterns that
made me fat and do not wish to go down that road again.

I can't have liters of Mt Dew per week any more, so really don't see
the need to have a soda in restaurants.
I can't scarf a tube of chocolate cookie dough, so don't see the need
to buy it any more.
Costco has Reese's Peanut Butter Cups by the case, but I can't go
through a case in a week any more so I don't see the need to treat
myself with a little here and there.

Memories of these food behaviours will have to suffice for now.

I'm still trying to lose fat so I'm avoiding all this crap within
reason. If & when I get to a healthy body I'll revisit these, but
right now I'm just sticking with what is working for me.

that you are going to gain several pounds because of that sin. So, in
essence, with breaking that single taboo, you threw off your whole diet.
Months of privations and suffering wasted because of a single chunk of
chocolate... No wonder you get depressed and just dump the whole diet...

yes, keeping things in proportion is important. The worst you can do
in one meal is just push out the end goal by a day or so. It's only
going off the plan altogether where one does serious damage.

properly in sync again. You also seem to add some "bad food - good food"
manicheism to the equation that doesn't have much to do with the curves
too...

See above about past habits. Once I get into maintenance I should have
more caloric headroom for more enjoyment with food. Right now I need
the calories to count...

one of my rules is eat something when it's time to. I think the key
thing about dieting is never ever starve yourself -- but also never
ever eat too much at one time.

That's exactly what you achieve when you let hunger and satiety regulate
you. If you eat when you're hungry, per definition, you're not going to
starve yourself. If you stop eating when you're satiated, per definition,
you can't eat too much.

Well I've got to eat pretty slowly for satiety to stop me. I used to
eat 2 Double-Doubles, fries, and a large coke and In&Out in college.
At the end I'd feel really sick, but I could get through it fine.

Now, occasionally I eat a single double-double, or a single
cheeseburger + fries, and water. I know I don't need to cram 2000 kcal
down my throat for dinner, and a 1000kcal dinner should get me through
the night fine.

I guess my point is I can eyeball calories pretty closely now so the
feeling of satiety isn't that important. I know how much I exercised
that day, and adjust my eating appropriately without waiting for
satiety; it'll come.

yup -- I do agree that we tend to think too much and listen to our
inner voice giving us ideas on what to eat and that's what screws us
up.

The problem is that we are overloaded by diet informations. Most people are
bombarded by values about how to diet, when to eat, what to eat... It's very
hard to have a neutral stance towards your plate and to just let nature do
its job. I'm afraid the War On Obesity that is currently going on in the USA
(it's still going on, right?) is only going to worsen the problem.
Especially since they're probably going to push most people on a low fat
diet.

I think most successful dieters have something close to your
common-sense view. Food need not be an obsession if you can just avoid
over eating!

I think WLS patients are basically hoping the shock of altering their
physiology will enable them to regain some control over their
impulses.

WLS?

weight loss surgery.

"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"Heywood Mogroot" wrote in message
om...
What do you mean by "rationally"? Is it calorie counting or "balanced"
diet?
Or just following your hunger?

altering my level of food intake to match which way the scale is
going.

How do you define "food intake"? I mean, it's only calories that matter. If
you always eat the same food, then you can just adjust the quantities, and
it will be pretty reliable.

quantities, yes. Size of the bowl of cereal. Half and apple or the
whole thing. one serving or two of beans. etc.

brain has done a good evaluation of the caloric load of the shake. The level
of precision seems to be very high, your taste buds are able to gauge the
amount of sugar in a product down to the gram. Then, it appears there are
further adjustements from one meal to the next and at a week level. They're
at work when the brain has made a bad mistake at its short term evaluation
("light" products do that for a couple of days, before the brain identifies
them correctly) or when emotional issues cause over-eating.

yeah I do that too. I try to limit high-GI carbs in a meal.

Your method might mimick these longer cycles well, but you're still lacking
the fine-tuning from the brain's almost instant evaluation. You have to use
a low precision calorie table instead and use the delayed feedback of your
scale.

I just ballpark the calorie estimates, and I do use hunger too. If I
am hungry and not losing, then I need to eat more and exercise more.

I think so too, but I think you're ignoring the possible gradient here
where the me of 10 years ago could eat more than the me of now and not
gain as much.

Of course, unless you put on some muscle. But it's true that your metabolism
might vary. It does for normal people as they age, go through their
menstrual cycle or change lifestyle. By eating like a slim person, I didn't
mean in quantities. I meant being regulated by your hunger only. I don't
really care if I eat 300g or 400g of food, as long as I'm not hungry anymore
by the end of the meal, I'm satisfied.

Yes. I still have maybe an extra 5lbs of fat I didn't have 10 years
ago around my abdomen. Apparently this fat is considered a separate
organ by endicrinologists and can alter my response to foods to some
extent.

Here's a fun piece... Statistical studies have shown that if you compare
people who lose weight with medical supervision and those who do it on their
own, the second population has the highest success rate. The best
configuration seems people losing weight on their own, but with the support
of an informal support group (friends or newsgroup rather than weight
watcher).

I believe it. People don't like being told what to do.

Atkins Inc, bless them, has said they're going to start spending their
millions doing good research.

Mmm... More special bars to make me thin?

no, more longitudinal studies, and I hope people following actual
plans not fake no-carb plans.

Well I think that's probably a good basis for research. I've been
saying here the best way to control one's eating habits is to not want
the bad stuff in the first place. Where does the 'want' for ice cream,
chocolate, and all the other diet-killing treats come from?

There, I disagree. I don't think there is a problem with "wanting" ice cream
or chocolate. There is a problem with wanting it beyond your hunger. I mean,
if you believe in the caloric balance, then it doesn't matter where you get
your calories from. If you get your 2000 calories a day from chocolate only,
and if 2000 calories is your daily need, you should keep a stable weight.
Granted, that would not be healthy, but it would nevertheless allow you to
keep a stable weight.

Nobody needs ice cream to survive. It's a splurge. We all know how
little splurges can turn into big splurges.

In the course of adjusting to my feelings and losing weight, I did eat
chocolate and other "bad stuff". And I do not mean a chunk or two. I mean a
meal. The protocol was to replace 4-5 lunches in a row by a single "bad
stuff". In some cases, it was in controlled quantities, the goal being to
experience satiety and see how the next meal was adjusted. That meant eating
around 600-700 calories of that food (so, a plate with around 120g of
chocolate for lunch). In other cases, the quantities were free. Here is the
list : French fries, chocolate (all kind, from white to black, I like
variety), cheese+bread, pastry, cookies. That pretty much cover all kind of
"bad stuff". I kept doing my weekly weighting, so I had a before and
after value, with some extra days in. The only limitation was that I would
stop eating when I felt satiated, and that I would eat whatever I wished for
dinner (including more "bad stuff").
- This didn't prevent me from losing weight, weight curve kept perfectly on
track.

yeah I eat cheese even though I know it really doesn't have that great
a profile. When in a good loss groove eating crap can just slow losses
I suppose.

So, it seems they are compatible with weight loss. It also seems that the
body adjusts our cravings when we start lacking something (in that case,
proteins, fibers...).

Sure. It doesn't really matter what crap you eat as long as you don't
binge on it for weeks at a time.

I think the "wants" come from the fact that we are the most evolved mammal.
We eat energy and nutriments, but we also eat emotions. When I only ate
energy, I craved for nutriments. It seems there are specific hungers, for
instance for proteins, when there is a lack.

yes. Plus the mammalian desire to get fat before winter comes.

The problem is that we associate them with "bad stuff". This is a moral
judgement. Just like in the case of a diet, you're messing up with your body
control by adding a moral value to food. When you eat "bad stuff", you sin.
Of course, what is sinful is always tempting, so you're all the more
attracted to that food - it's like the jam pot your mother used to hide on
top of the kitchen cabinet.

yes. I don't outlaw the bad stuff, I just recognize the patterns that
made me fat and do not wish to go down that road again.

I can't have liters of Mt Dew per week any more, so really don't see
the need to have a soda in restaurants.
I can't scarf a tube of chocolate cookie dough, so don't see the need
to buy it any more.
Costco has Reese's Peanut Butter Cups by the case, but I can't go
through a case in a week any more so I don't see the need to treat
myself with a little here and there.

Memories of these food behaviours will have to suffice for now.

I'm still trying to lose fat so I'm avoiding all this crap within
reason. If & when I get to a healthy body I'll revisit these, but
right now I'm just sticking with what is working for me.

that you are going to gain several pounds because of that sin. So, in
essence, with breaking that single taboo, you threw off your whole diet.
Months of privations and suffering wasted because of a single chunk of
chocolate... No wonder you get depressed and just dump the whole diet...

yes, keeping things in proportion is important. The worst you can do
in one meal is just push out the end goal by a day or so. It's only
going off the plan altogether where one does serious damage.

properly in sync again. You also seem to add some "bad food - good food"
manicheism to the equation that doesn't have much to do with the curves
too...

See above about past habits. Once I get into maintenance I should have
more caloric headroom for more enjoyment with food. Right now I need
the calories to count...

one of my rules is eat something when it's time to. I think the key
thing about dieting is never ever starve yourself -- but also never
ever eat too much at one time.

That's exactly what you achieve when you let hunger and satiety regulate
you. If you eat when you're hungry, per definition, you're not going to
starve yourself. If you stop eating when you're satiated, per definition,
you can't eat too much.

Well I've got to eat pretty slowly for satiety to stop me. I used to
eat 2 Double-Doubles, fries, and a large coke and In&Out in college.
At the end I'd feel really sick, but I could get through it fine.

Now, occasionally I eat a single double-double, or a single
cheeseburger + fries, and water. I know I don't need to cram 2000 kcal
down my throat for dinner, and a 1000kcal dinner should get me through
the night fine.

I guess my point is I can eyeball calories pretty closely now so the
feeling of satiety isn't that important. I know how much I exercised
that day, and adjust my eating appropriately without waiting for
satiety; it'll come.

yup -- I do agree that we tend to think too much and listen to our
inner voice giving us ideas on what to eat and that's what screws us
up.

The problem is that we are overloaded by diet informations. Most people are
bombarded by values about how to diet, when to eat, what to eat... It's very
hard to have a neutral stance towards your plate and to just let nature do
its job. I'm afraid the War On Obesity that is currently going on in the USA
(it's still going on, right?) is only going to worsen the problem.
Especially since they're probably going to push most people on a low fat
diet.

I think most successful dieters have something close to your
common-sense view. Food need not be an obsession if you can just avoid
over eating!

I think WLS patients are basically hoping the shock of altering their
physiology will enable them to regain some control over their
impulses.

WLS?

weight loss surgery.

Mary M - Ohio wrote:

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...

I am not making any excuses for myself; I have been greedy, and eating
too much. This is why I need to use willpower to learn to eat rather
less. I personally find the easiest way of cutting my calorie intake is
by cutting my fat intake, since fat has over twice the calories per
gramme than any other sort of food does.

End of.


Do what works for YOU, Annabel.

I agree with that. I'm just worried that she's NOT doing what works for
her, but doing what she THINKS she's supposed to be doing. Going 7 or 8
hours between meals, using will-power not to snack when she's hungry,
eating high-carb low-fat low-protein meals because she thinks that's
healthy...

I am doing very well on a food plan that is both low
in refined carbohydrates AND low in fat.

Which means it's high in protein, right? (Either that or alcohol.) :-)
I don't know what you mean by "low" or high, but I found tracking food
at www.Fitday.com was incredibly illuminating. I bet none of us are
eating over 60% carbs AND successfully losing weight month after month.
Any takers?

My
philosophy is keep an open mind, but don't let others force their ideas on you.

My philosophy is to figure out what works for me based on how my body
works - not based on what some diet guru told me.

I had been following a retarded 75% grain diet - aiming to be vegan and
Ornish and as low-fat as possible. Then I figured it out. I had to
change EVERYTHING. It was all tied together. I had to eat MORE, I had
to eat differently, I had to move differently. I had to CHANGE.

Did you lose your weight by changing just one thing?

Once
I made up my mind to go to a nutritionist (2 years ago and still under his care) I
also decided that I would stick with what he recommended and not listen to the
millions of conflicting opinions and pieces of advice out there. I have become much
less susceptible to others who think they know it all for everyone. My jeans size and
my mirror are definite proof that low fat works just fine for me. (Some assume that
"lowfat" means "high refined carbohydrate" -- which is simply not true in my case.)

What does "lowfat" mean to you? And how do you get lowfat and high
protein without hitting 30% fat? Proteins come bundled with fat so much
of the time. Just for some definitions, I generally think of low-fat as
in the 10-20% range. And of course the tendancy is to avoid as much fat
as you possibly can, which generally ends up meaning hardly any protein,
either.

Compare 7 pounds lost in
4 months to 40 lbs. lost in 4 months, which happened with my nutritionist's balanced
eating plan.

Balanced. As in 33/33/33? So you're saying not to listen to criticism
but then saying the same thing I am: that you didn't lose any weight
until you went on a balanced diet that was higher in protein than yours
used to be as a percentage of calories and that had carbs under 50%.

One thing I've always found interesting is that we came from different
directions and different eating preferences and even label it
differently, but ALL of the big long-term losers seem to be eating
pretty much the same, give or take 5 or 10%.

Despite the way it looks, I'm not interested in picking on Annabel until
she runs crying from the group or kill-files me or anything. It's just
that she's here trying to do this and it only makes sense to let her
know how we did it.

Mary
325-154-148

Dally
244/174/168

Mary M - Ohio wrote:

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...

I am not making any excuses for myself; I have been greedy, and eating
too much. This is why I need to use willpower to learn to eat rather
less. I personally find the easiest way of cutting my calorie intake is
by cutting my fat intake, since fat has over twice the calories per
gramme than any other sort of food does.

End of.


Do what works for YOU, Annabel.

I agree with that. I'm just worried that she's NOT doing what works for
her, but doing what she THINKS she's supposed to be doing. Going 7 or 8
hours between meals, using will-power not to snack when she's hungry,
eating high-carb low-fat low-protein meals because she thinks that's
healthy...

I am doing very well on a food plan that is both low
in refined carbohydrates AND low in fat.

Which means it's high in protein, right? (Either that or alcohol.) :-)
I don't know what you mean by "low" or high, but I found tracking food
at www.Fitday.com was incredibly illuminating. I bet none of us are
eating over 60% carbs AND successfully losing weight month after month.
Any takers?

My
philosophy is keep an open mind, but don't let others force their ideas on you.

My philosophy is to figure out what works for me based on how my body
works - not based on what some diet guru told me.

I had been following a retarded 75% grain diet - aiming to be vegan and
Ornish and as low-fat as possible. Then I figured it out. I had to
change EVERYTHING. It was all tied together. I had to eat MORE, I had
to eat differently, I had to move differently. I had to CHANGE.

Did you lose your weight by changing just one thing?

Once
I made up my mind to go to a nutritionist (2 years ago and still under his care) I
also decided that I would stick with what he recommended and not listen to the
millions of conflicting opinions and pieces of advice out there. I have become much
less susceptible to others who think they know it all for everyone. My jeans size and
my mirror are definite proof that low fat works just fine for me. (Some assume that
"lowfat" means "high refined carbohydrate" -- which is simply not true in my case.)

What does "lowfat" mean to you? And how do you get lowfat and high
protein without hitting 30% fat? Proteins come bundled with fat so much
of the time. Just for some definitions, I generally think of low-fat as
in the 10-20% range. And of course the tendancy is to avoid as much fat
as you possibly can, which generally ends up meaning hardly any protein,
either.

Compare 7 pounds lost in
4 months to 40 lbs. lost in 4 months, which happened with my nutritionist's balanced
eating plan.

Balanced. As in 33/33/33? So you're saying not to listen to criticism
but then saying the same thing I am: that you didn't lose any weight
until you went on a balanced diet that was higher in protein than yours
used to be as a percentage of calories and that had carbs under 50%.

One thing I've always found interesting is that we came from different
directions and different eating preferences and even label it
differently, but ALL of the big long-term losers seem to be eating
pretty much the same, give or take 5 or 10%.

Despite the way it looks, I'm not interested in picking on Annabel until
she runs crying from the group or kill-files me or anything. It's just
that she's here trying to do this and it only makes sense to let her
know how we did it.

Mary
325-154-148

Dally
244/174/168