I'm baaaaacccckkkkk

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:50:38 -0400, UsenetID wrote:

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
It's definitely also life challenges. For instance, after Coco Lopez
(our
pet name) is born, you'll probably not see me post for quite a while.
Not
because I don't want to post, but because I'll be too dang tired to
post!

Oh it may not be that bad . When our daughter was born she slept 6
hours
at a stretch, right from the beginning, and was sleeping 8 hours through
a
just 3 weeks old. I know a lot of people expect the worst, but a lot of
people also don't get the worst .


Well, that would be great. I've read a book that classifies babies into 4
or 5 classes, and maybe you got an "angel baby". Your story is
encouraging, though.

--
Bob in CT

was that the Baby Whisperer book?

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:21:53 -0400, nanner wrote:


"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:50:38 -0400, UsenetID wrote:

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news It's definitely also life challenges. For instance, after Coco Lopez
(our
pet name) is born, you'll probably not see me post for quite a while.
Not
because I don't want to post, but because I'll be too dang tired to
post!

Oh it may not be that bad . When our daughter was born she slept 6
hours
at a stretch, right from the beginning, and was sleeping 8 hours
through
a
just 3 weeks old. I know a lot of people expect the worst, but a lot
of
people also don't get the worst .


Well, that would be great. I've read a book that classifies babies
into 4
or 5 classes, and maybe you got an "angel baby". Your story is
encouraging, though.

--
Bob in CT

was that the Baby Whisperer book?



Yep.

--
Bob in CT

"Roger Zoul" writes:

I really think that what's happened to you and nanner can happen to
any of us. IMO, no one is immune. If you've ever had a weight
problem, you will always be susceptable to your weight getting out
of control, IMO. I think people who've never had a weight problem
cannot understand this notion.

That's a good point, and it's interesting, because in all other cases
of addictive or habitual behavior, the recommendation from the experts
is always to cut it out cold turkey. Alcoholics aren't told to cut
back to two beers a day; they're told to stop immediately and never
touch the stuff again, often keeping track of exactly when they
stopped. Ditto smoking, hard drugs, gambling, pornography, and all
the other things that people have a hard time quitting. Step one is
always: "Stop doing that." Then step two is: "Deal with it."

Yet when it comes to carbohydrates, despite the fact that they also
cause a chemical reaction that you get mentally and physically
attached to, the recommendation is always to cut back in small ways --
eat smaller portions, eat different kinds of carbs, or eat the same
and burn off a few more calories in exercise. For some reason, in
this case and this case only, going cold turkey (or even close to
that) on the substance that gives you trouble is considered a radical
step.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Aaron Baugher wrote:

That's a good point, and it's interesting, because in all other cases
of addictive or habitual behavior, the recommendation from the experts
is always to cut it out cold turkey. Alcoholics aren't told to cut
back to two beers a day; they're told to stop immediately and never
touch the stuff again, often keeping track of exactly when they
stopped. Ditto smoking, hard drugs, gambling, pornography, and all
the other things that people have a hard time quitting. Step one is
always: "Stop doing that." Then step two is: "Deal with it."

There are some many people who don't want to do whatever plan
because something is forbidden. Some idiots read the rules for
Induction and think that level of restriction lasts forever. Others
consider that half of the Atkins concept is that food intolerances
can trigger addictive behavior and they aren't willing to give up
whatever foods they might be addicted to.

Yet when it comes to carbohydrates, despite the fact that they also
cause a chemical reaction that you get mentally and physically
attached to, the recommendation is always to cut back in small ways --
eat smaller portions, eat different kinds of carbs, or eat the same
and burn off a few more calories in exercise. For some reason, in
this case and this case only, going cold turkey (or even close to
that) on the substance that gives you trouble is considered a radical
step.

There are at least two different mechanisms that trigger addictive
reactions.

One is foods over some glycemic load triggering an insulin swing.
The only way to avoid eternal cravings is to only eat foods below
that level of glycemic load. Sure enough the Atkins "Carb Ladder"
is sorted partially by glycemic load. Find that foods over some
glycemic load trigger cravings in you and you are screwed if you
try a plan that allows anything.

Another is food intolerances tend to trigger a behavior pattern
I've heard called "self inoculation". Consider that many alcoholics
end up discovering they are actually intolerant to yeast and their
addiction is a drive to inoculate themselves against yeast to
keep their defenses active. Other food intolerances can act the
same way - My wheat intolerance does this. Find that specific
foods consistantly trigger binges in you and you are screwed if
you try a plan that allows anything.

There are some many people who don't want to do whatever plan
because something is forbidden. Some idiots read the rules for
Induction and think that level of restriction lasts forever.

A large part of this "idiot" group you are talking about is made up of
people who write articles and columns for newspapers and magazines. They
just assume that induction is the entire plan.

Pat in TX

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 23:12:28 -0400, Pat wrote:


There are some many people who don't want to do whatever plan
because something is forbidden. Some idiots read the rules for
Induction and think that level of restriction lasts forever.

A large part of this "idiot" group you are talking about is made up of
people who write articles and columns for newspapers and magazines. They
just assume that induction is the entire plan.

Pat in TX



Which is probably logically the best thing for them to do, as they
typically have an agenda to discount low carb and to instead proselytize
people to whatever happens to be the "correct" diet (i.e., low fat, high
carb, the "Med" diet, etc.).

--
Bob in CT

"nanner" wrote in message
...

"glassman" wrote in message
...

"nanner" wrote in message
...
oh fooey.

i regained all my lost weight because i spent the last 1-2 years
binging.



Not to pick on you alone, but in general.... why do folks wait until
they get back to the starting point before they do it all over again I
wonder? Can you imagine if you started up again when you were only 10-20
lbs gone? Gotta be some sort of emotional trigger here?



Hey another familiar name!

actually over the last 2 years I have started over many times only to fall
off the wagon hard. So i DID restart after a 5lb gain, then start again at
10lbs then didn't get on the scale then it was 25lbs and i was so
disgusted but tried again and fell off hard, went into denial....etc etc

until you get to the point where you scare yourself and know you better do
something (family intervening etc) and you that is usually around the time
one starts way back when in the first place!!!!!

i feel like i have been trying to reel myself in for a few years and have
just been out of control. i had many starts - best probably being about a
month long before crashing




It's that emotional trigger of being back at the beginning I'm talking
about. Seems like if we lose 57 lbs, we'll keep binging on & off until we
gain back 57 lbs, not 53 or 62. At that point we get serious again. I
think we need to keep throwing out clothes and keeping the current ones
snug.


--
JK Sinrod
www.SinrodStudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com