Funny!

The Historian wrote:

Dally wrote:

If you want to lose fat then you're going to have to eat less and
exercise more. Period. Any sentence that beings with, "that won't work
for me because..." means you're a FFID.

Not as you've expressed it. There are real reasons why a person may not
be able to do "that", depending on the person and what "that" is. The
obvious example would be suggesting long walks to a poster in a
wheelchair. Or, mpre personally, my bad knees kept me away from many
lower body exercises when I started.

So you're saying you can't exercise more? Absolutely no changes to
activity level whatsoever because of your bad knees or bad back or MS or
what have you? I don't buy it. It's excuses that set up roadblocks to
your success. If you want to lose weight then you say, "I think I can
find a way to do this." Perhaps it's elastic tubing or soup cans for
resistance training from your wheel chair. Perhaps it's doing adaptive
trail hikes. Perhaps it's swimming or water aerobics or simply walking
up your own stairs. I just don't believe I've ever met a single person
who couldn't integrate exercise at some level into their lives. The
inability to confront an obstacle and overcome it is one of the
hallmarks of a FFID.

If you want to lose weight you can figure out how to make it work. It's
not rocket science. You eat less and exercise more. You can whine
about how it's hard (and we'll listen and commiserate) or you can rant
about the way obstacles keep coming (I had my MIL over for dinner
tonight for her birthday and there's cake in my house AGAIN!). But if
you say, "I can't exercise" or "I can't eat less" then you're just
fooling yourself and are therefore ****ed. And fat.

Dally

Dally wrote:

I don't think making choices that aren't optimal makes you a FFID.

The term is poignant in that the person is a ****ed by their own denial
of the reality of how to get unfat. It's a sentence of being fat
forever, a sentence of being a victim, ****ed over, because you can't
get a handle on the reality of the situation.

If you want to lose fat then you're going to have to eat less and
exercise more. Period. Any sentence that beings with, "that won't work
for me because..." means you're a FFID. Any sentence that starts with,
"It's not my fault because..." means you're a FFID.

Ok, I'd agree with all of the above. When I was living my fat
lifestyle, though, I didn't really come up with reasons why I was the
way I was (other than the universal and true "It's hard to lose
weight!"). For me, it was all about denying that there even was that
much of a problem. I would constant look at other fat women and compare
myself to them. "I'm not nearly as big as she is!" I would think, as if
that somehow made a difference or something. I don't know that you can
get more denial than that.

I guess I the post I made that prompt this thread came from what I
believe was the sentiment expressed that if you do make choices that
aren't optimal, you are a FFID. If that is true, than yes; yes I am. I
do believe that there are more than one valid way to weight loss,
however. I'm just glad I came up with a strategy that works for me!
And I'm happy for whomever comes up with a strategy that works for them,
even if it is very different from the way I am doing it.

--
Annie

As of 06-30-06: 258/189.5/140 Standing at 5 foot 4.

68.5 pounds lost. 49.5 left to go. Started February/07/05

Come visit my weight-loss web site, Annie Takes Off.
http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/DietFrontPage.html

Dally wrote:
The Historian wrote:

Dally wrote:

If you want to lose fat then you're going to have to eat less and
exercise more. Period. Any sentence that beings with, "that won't work
for me because..." means you're a FFID.

Not as you've expressed it. There are real reasons why a person may not
be able to do "that", depending on the person and what "that" is. The
obvious example would be suggesting long walks to a poster in a
wheelchair. Or, more personally, my bad knees kept me away from many
lower body exercises when I started.

So you're saying you can't exercise more?

I do wish you would read before posting. That is NOT what I am saying.
Try rereading my paragraph and start again.

I've snipped the remainder as it starts from such an obviously false
premise.

Annie Benson Lennaman wrote:
weight!"). For me, it was all about denying that there even was that
much of a problem. I would constant look at other fat women and compare
myself to them. "I'm not nearly as big as she is!" I would think, as if
that somehow made a difference or something. I don't know that you can
get more denial than that.

Heh, has anyone here read Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle? One concept of the
made up, but pretty cool religion Bokononism is the idea of a wrang-wrang,
"a person who steers people away from a line of speculation by reducing
that line, with the example of the wrang-wrang's own life, to an
absurdity."

(The quote says "line of speculation", though the example given in the
book, it's more like "way of life", sdepecifically in the example a kind
of frantic artistic nihilism.)

Anyway, it might sound a bit cruel or declasse, but as a guy who has been
fairly constantly overweight, but only recently to the lower realms of
"clinical obesity", I view "really fat people" with gratitude as
wrang-wrangs, the people whose example showed me where I didn't want to
go.

(Unfortunately, that kind of feeling didn't spur me into making the
changes I needed about 30-40 lbs before my highwater mark)


--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"No why. Just here." -John Cage, Life Magazine's "Why are we here"

The Historian wrote:
Dally wrote:

The Historian wrote:


Dally wrote:

If you want to lose fat then you're going to have to eat less and
exercise more. Period. Any sentence that beings with, "that won't work
for me because..." means you're a FFID.

Not as you've expressed it. There are real reasons why a person may not
be able to do "that", depending on the person and what "that" is. The
obvious example would be suggesting long walks to a poster in a
wheelchair. Or, more personally, my bad knees kept me away from many
lower body exercises when I started.

So you're saying you can't exercise more?


I do wish you would read before posting. That is NOT what I am saying.
Try rereading my paragraph and start again.

Dally: Eat less and exercise more.
FFID: "That won't work for me because I've got MS and can't walk. I'm
doomed to stay fat because I'm just not as lucky as you are."
Dally: [fleeing FFID.]

Dally: "Eat less and exercise more."
FFID: "That won't work for me because I live with a man who eats an
enormous dinner every night."
Dally's Compassionate Friend: "Couldn't you figure out a way to overcome
this obstacle?"
FFID: "Why are you picking on me?"
Dally: [laughing at her compassionate friend for being sucked into a
FFID drama.]

Dally: "Eat less and exercise more."
FFID: "That won't work for me because I've got bad knees and a bad heart
and the car accident left me in bed from severe back pain and going to
physical therapy is too painful and too expensive."
Dally: "Wow, I guess you're ****ed."

I've snipped the remainder as it starts from such an obviously false
premise.

It did not. You said, "depending on what 'that' is." But THAT was
clearly and explicitly, "Eat less and exercise more." If you start out
by explaining that you can't use THAT method then you're a FFID.

Yes, it's more difficult to exercise if you're not ready to join a
soccer team. But difficult we can help with; now you're talking about
problem-solving, obstacle-surmounting. You're doing it, I did it,
people in wheel chairs are doing it, Gloria with MS is doing it... with
adaptations, with thoughtful problem-solving, with a slow build-up.

But if you start out explaining why my magic methods won't work for you,
then you're a FFID. You're denying your ability to solve this. You're
****ed by your own attitude.

The only weakness in my argument is that it is possible for some people
to lose fat merely by cutting calories and not increasing activity level
(and vice versa.) Personally, I don't think this is a sustainable
lifestyle change. I think the synergy you get from the combination of
fueling your body because you're using your body is too good to pass up.
I also think (and recent studies have shown this) that people who use
their body out of joy, i.e., with pleasurable movement, are more likely
to sustain their weight loss. It's not enough to drop bunches of
weight: the trick is in dropping FAT and keeping it off and changing
your life forever. That requires movement. If you just plain out and
out claim you can't move more then I think you're doomed. If not by
your attitude then my your method. But that's a personal belief, not a
certainty.

Dally

Dally wrote:
It did not. You said, "depending on what 'that' is." But THAT was
clearly and explicitly, "Eat less and exercise more." If you start out
by explaining that you can't use THAT method then you're a FFID.

No, your original quote was

If you want to lose fat then you're going to have to eat less and
exercise more. Period. Any sentence that beings with, "that won't work
for me because..." means you're a FFID. Any sentence that starts with,
"It's not my fault because..." means you're a FFID.

Now it might be a technicality, but you said "Any sentence that begins
with [...] Period." Maybe what you meant to say is "Any RESPONSE TO THAT
('eat less, exercise more') that begins with [...] Period." It sounds like
a niggling point, but it's actually crucial, because, for instance, I've
chosen to ignore some somewhat reasonable advice about modifying my coffee
ritual, but since I'm NOT ignoring "eat less, exercise more", I'm not a
FFID, despite noise to the contrary.

The second thing is, the Historian *specifically* said that there were
some kind of *lower body exercise* that people suggested to him that he
wasn't able to do because of his knees. He wasn't a FFID, he tackled the
eating less and work on the exercise as it was appropriate to his
improving body type.


--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less travelled by,
Tripped over a branch, and broke my nose

Kirk Is wrote:
Dally wrote:

It did not. You said, "depending on what 'that' is." But THAT was
clearly and explicitly, "Eat less and exercise more." If you start out
by explaining that you can't use THAT method then you're a FFID.


No, your original quote was

If you want to lose fat then you're going to have to eat less and
exercise more. Period. Any sentence that beings with, "that won't work
for me because..." means you're a FFID. Any sentence that starts with,
"It's not my fault because..." means you're a FFID.

Now it might be a technicality, but you said "Any sentence that begins
with [...] Period." Maybe what you meant to say is "Any RESPONSE TO THAT
('eat less, exercise more') that begins with [...] Period."

Ah, I see. You're reading more into it than I intended. If I say, "why
don't you go for a run?" and you say, "That won't work for me because...
" I totally agree that you are not a FFID.

But that was never the way I meant it (nor really how I wrote it, I keep
re-reading it and I'm pretty clear.)

I'm specifically speaking about any RESPONSE to the statement "eat less
and exercise more" where "That won't work for me" is the starting sentence.

Believe me, it's a sure-fire signal that I'm about to get trapped in a
life-sucking moment with a FFID. I flee when I hear this.

Fat Person: "How did you lose your weight? I wish I could do that."
Dally: "You can! You can do what I did. I ate less and exercised more."
Newly Revealed FFID: "That won't work for me because..."
Dally: "Oops, pardon me, I think I hear my mommy calling me! Gotta run."

It sounds like
a niggling point, but it's actually crucial, because, for instance, I've
chosen to ignore some somewhat reasonable advice about modifying my coffee
ritual, but since I'm NOT ignoring "eat less, exercise more", I'm not a
FFID, despite noise to the contrary.

I agree. This thread started when I said that you USED to be a FFID but
aren't anymore because you understand the distinction between "can't"
and "don't choose to." You may still be fat, but now it's a temporary
thing until you get around to solving it. You're no longer ****ed by
being in denial.

The second thing is, the Historian *specifically* said that there were
some kind of *lower body exercise* that people suggested to him that he
wasn't able to do because of his knees. He wasn't a FFID, he tackled the
eating less and work on the exercise as it was appropriate to his
improving body type.

Right. I never said that made him a FFID. His arguing he wasn't didn't
reflect any on me being able to identify people who ARE.

Dally

Dally wrote:
Now it might be a technicality, but you said "Any sentence that begins
with [...] Period." Maybe what you meant to say is "Any RESPONSE TO THAT
('eat less, exercise more') that begins with [...] Period."

Ah, I see. You're reading more into it than I intended. If I say, "why
don't you go for a run?" and you say, "That won't work for me because...
" I totally agree that you are not a FFID.

Yeah, the Historian and I might be Too Damn Literalist when it comes to
writing...

I agree. This thread started when I said that you USED to be a FFID but
aren't anymore because you understand the distinction between "can't"
and "don't choose to." You may still be fat, but now it's a temporary
thing until you get around to solving it. You're no longer ****ed by
being in denial.

Well, personally I feel like my stance has been pretty consistent: I'm
choosing to faithfully apply The Hacker's Diet, which means I'm
deliberately ignoring some suggestions that would intuitively seem
"better" for me (even if I sill have my belief that a sustainable program
might have a few compromises that help guard its core of eating less and
exercise) I might have given reasons why my last bit of maintenence failed
(divorce, change of routine, "she" got the stairmaster, new girlfriend
likes to make rich dinner, etc) but the fact is I blew through several
milestone (Ok, at 190, I'll start dieting. Ok at 200. Ok at 210, I'll
*really* take action. etc etc 'til I wound up at 227) and that's my fault,
and hopefully I'm succesfully addressing the situation now. (Despite a
weekend with some "off plan" moments at a family reunion and GF's family
campsite)

--Kirk, 227/213.5/180

--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
"If I can't be free, at least I'll be cheap"--some guy on the net

In article ,
Annie Benson Lennaman wrote:


Ok, I'd agree with all of the above. When I was living my fat
lifestyle, though, I didn't really come up with reasons why I was the
way I was (other than the universal and true "It's hard to lose
weight!"). For me, it was all about denying that there even was that
much of a problem. I would constant look at other fat women and compare
myself to them. "I'm not nearly as big as she is!" I would think, as if
that somehow made a difference or something. I don't know that you can
get more denial than that.



That was my experience as well. I surrounded myself with large people so
that I could feel better about myself. I avoided my thin friends. I
denied that I was fat for a long time. It takes an AHA! moment for many
of us to acknowledge the problem and make a change.

Amy
168/117/115

"Annie Benson Lennaman" wrote in
message . ..


Kirk Is wrote:


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.

For what it's worth, this is the approach I've taken to my weight
loss. I love food that I know isn't so good for me. If I had to look
at a lifetime of never eating fried chicken, barbecued ribs, or french
fries again I know that I would get disheartened and just say "to hell
with this". I eat an occasional candy bar. I drink apple martinis. I
eat potato chips and cheetos.

But... I also eat much smaller portions of food than I used to on a
daily basis. I eat alot more food that is good for me than I used to,
and now rarely have the junk. Sure, I really enjoy it when I do, but
it's not a daily way of life eating for me anymore. I know that I can
eat the way I am eating now for the rest of my life and not feel overly
deprived. I might not be losing weight as fast as someone who is
maintaining a more rigid way of eating, but that's okay. I would much
rather keep it off forever than lose it quicker and then regain.

So yeah, I might have some bad food habits that I have no intentions
of quitting. Does this make me a FFID? Perhaps, I suppose. But I am
less of a Fat **** than I used to be, and still losing. I can live with
that. Forever.

--
Annie

As of 06-30-06: 258/189.5/140 Standing at 5 foot 4.

68.5 pounds lost. 49.5 left to go. Started February/07/05

Come visit my weight-loss web site, Annie Takes Off.
http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/DietFrontPage.html

Yup, Annie, I agree. I don't want to be in the "food as fuel" camp. I like
to eat (and drink) and I need to fit my weight control around that. So yes
I eat "bad things" and some most days - a gin and (slimline) tonic always
goes down a treat. But I would probably not stick to a stricter regime so it
works for me. I've been maintaining at around 116 for nearly 18 months now
so I hope I'm getting there!

Rachael
176/116/119