This is me, today. I look old? Well, what should we expect? I'm 70 this year.
Those of you who read this blog regularly know I've been trying for.... well, most of this year, to get below 200 pounds. I am stalled out between 203 and 209 (5' 4.5" tall, which puts me in a women's size 16 -- at least in the "Just My Size" line). Hubs says he thinks I look smaller since I've been going with him to the workout center, and my size 16 JustMySize pants feel looser, but it just isn't showing on the scale. They say, "Muscle weighs more than fat". They say when your fat storage cells (think honeycomb) empty out, that they fill with water and water is heavier than fat. Obviously, both of these statements are meant to keep the person trying to lose pounds from becoming disillusioned, giving up, and going into a binge. Their are lots of reasons why weight can fluctuate from one day to another that might have something to do with what you ate, such as, how much does it weigh and have you eliminated it yet. Or how salty it was and whether you're holding water. Maybe you showed a loss because something didn't agree with you, or you caught a virus of some kind and you've been running back and forth to the bathroom. Maybe you're dehydrated. Remember that your body has a pretty large percentage of water and you can have tidal waves just like the ocean does. Well, not JUST like -- would that be funny or scarey to watch? But, LOL, you know what I mean. Barometric pressure and your body's natural cycle can make a difference, too.
They also say "Muscle burns calories", but I haven't felt like that's happening. If you track what you weigh and you can see the numbers going downwards, then you're OK, no matter how gradual it is. But I had really hoped I'd be below 200 WEEKS, if not MONTHS ago.
So, what am I doing wrong? Limiting the amount of refined sugar I consume has become a way of life. I know that I'm "carb sensitive" (AKA "addicted to sugar") and that, for me, there is a point where I can get out of control. But if I want something bad enough, I have it. And it seems like it just doesn't taste so good anymore. As an example, we bought some ice cream a few months ago. Normally when we buy ice cream, we buy a half-gallon block, one for him, one for me, as we like different flavors. I love the kind that's shot-through with gooey caramel and has pecans in it. Hubs' favorite is dark chocolate with chocolate chunks, marshmallows, nuts and coconut. I've been known to finish off my block of ice cream in two days. Sometimes, just one day. But this time, the stuff was just so sweet that by the time I'd eaten all the creamy, melty places around the edges, I was feeling kind of sick. It was soooo sweet. For the first time, I also understood why, back in "the old days", when they served you a little dish of ice cream in a restaurant, it was always accompanied by a glass of ice-water. Just like me, this time, people back then had not been conditioned to be accustomed to something that sweet.
It seems now I can taste the sugar in almost everything. Hubs picked up some peanuts in a jar at Aldi and it didn't say anything on the front of the jar that might reveal that there was sugar in it. It said "seasoned with sea salt". If it says "honey glazed" then you know for sure there's sugar, and probably only enough honey in it so they can put it on the ingredients list. So even Hubs knows to steer clear of that. Anyway, he opened the jar and I had some. I tasted sugar. Turned to the back label, and sure enough, sugar was on the ingredients list. I was kind of disappointed with Aldi and we'll be more careful next time.
Sometimes I have a spoon of jam on toast, not often. I have a muffin recipe that I like to use, it's full of all kinds of good things, like pumpkin puree, walnuts, and dried fruit, and I use all whole-wheat flour and have cut back the sugar to only 1/4 of what the recipe calls for. When I bake bread, there's 1/4 cup of honey in a batch that makes 12 sandwich rolls. I slice a roll and eat just half whenever I make toast or a sandwich. So, right now, sugar does not seem to be my problem. HOWEVER, now I seem to crave salty things like potato chips, which I used to not really even LIKE very well. I don't even buy nacho tortilla chips though, because those dang things know my name and they call to me from the pantry. Nor will I buy those bags of dehydrated veggie chips that Aldi has. I've eaten them in the past, thinking they were a healthy alternative, but all I had to do was read the back label, and, well, NOPE. 17 grams of carbs per serving, and there's not very dang much in a serving. There's 4.2 carb grams in one teaspoon of sugar. So it's like, equal to 4 teaspoons of sugar.
My goals have been to eat in such a way that allows me to live without cravings, and to not become so involved in making food choices and tracking each day's consumption that food becomes an obsession. Eat to Live, not the other way around. And it's been better and easier and less stressful than many weight-loss methods I've tried. I know this because I've been dieting since I was about ten years old, and in that time I've tried nearly everything. I've seen a lot of change in the "science" behind losing weight in those past sixty years.
I've always said that people who struggle with their weight are not gluttons. They are nice people, caught in a disease that nobody wants to believe IS a disease, and losing weight is not as simple as just pushing yourself away from the table, as some doctors say is the first exercise you should do if you need to lose weight. They think they're being funny. Humor at the expense of someone's feelings is not humor. It's bullying.
CAN you be predisposed to being overweight in your family? Lots of people think so. Or is it that you are trained to be fat by what you are fed when you are a baby and a child? In families where almost everyone is overweight, it's most likely because the person in charge of cooking for the family creates dishes that are loaded with carbs. And now all that has been confirmed as we learn about sugar and how it feeds cancer and creates insulin resistance. Once you become insulin-resistant, losing weight is extremely difficult. After white-knuckling it through to the goal, the next struggle is keeping it off. We all know that, we've seen those weight loss commercials. Why do people lose weight so well and so fast on those programs, the ones where they sell you packages of pre-made meals with all those magic ingredients? It's because those companies that charge you so much for those magic meals know the science, and they've developed all these recipes that are built around it, most of which are full of fake food ingredients. They try to keep their process a secret because, of course, if you can't keep the weight off without them, they've got you. And THAT's how they make their money. Billions of it. When you appear to people who have not seen you in awhile, and you are slimmed 'way down, you get their attention immediately. The first thing they ask you is, "WHAT have you been doing? This has not gone un-noticed by the weight-loss industry and it is the cornerstone of their marketing process.
Of course if they cared more about helping people and less about how much money they could get out of them, they'd be teaching people how to choose the proper foods after they've met their goal. But, they'd eliminate all their repeat business. I was watching a video done by a doctor who practices Tai Chi, and he said he is a patriot and wants to see his country strong. A country is only as strong as it's people. So if it's full of sick people, it's stressful on the country. More people on disability programs, or welfare programs, less people productive, earning money, paying taxes. More sick old people being a drain on Medicare or crowding into nursing homes. So why doesn't anyone see anything wrong with these corporations that poison us with chemicals? Why doesn't anyone see that these weight loss corporations aren't helping us lose weight permanently? Sad, don't you think? It's like cleaning an oil spill off a little gosling and then throwing it back into contaminated water before you walk away from it. More and more, I can't feel much other than sadness when I see newly-slimmed down people that have lost weight this way. They still don't know that, once you've BEEN overweight, you can never keep a weight loss off if it doesn't come from changing your eating habits permanently. You MUST make a decision: what do you really want? Do you want the fleeting pleasure of gobbling down your favorite foods, or do you want freedom from obesity-induced illnesses; from doctors not even trying to treat you because they say whatever is wrong with you would go away if you lost weight; freedom from embarrassment about your looks and that awful mirror; freedom from the joint pains, hernias, lack of energy, lack of mobility, discomfort in your clothes and in standard-sized furniture?? I've known people who have gotten stuck in turnstyles, or on the play equipment at the park when they're there with a child, or who have been made to buy an extra seat on an airplane. I've known people who cannot wear a seat belt in their car because the belt isn't long enough. Almost all these people also know what it feels like to have family and friends who think they are "fair game" for ridicule and derision because, afterall, it's all their fault that they're in that situation, right? All they have to do to lose weight is to stop eating. But no, it's not that simple. Our bodies have all kinds of defense mechanisms that get in the way. Our brain, and maybe our gut, which people are now saying is more like "a second brain", learns, over time, what is normal for us. But it doesn't make a judgment based on whether our normal is really normal. We almost have to look at our body as being in the grip of an enemy in order to get in the right frame of mind to try to outsmart its defenses. We have to get mad. We have to get stubborn. We have to learn to be patient. Fast weight loss is not the answer. It just sets us up for failure.
I do feel like, of all the weight loss corporations, Weight Watchers probably comes closest to really helping people than any of the others do. I saw Oprah on TV the other day and while she is losing weight slowly, she's pretty much living her life. She does have to count points. But she talks like what she's doing now is something she can do forever, so she has the right attitude. I do hope she succeeds. I have seen reviews where people have said that their customer service is horrible and after they cancel their membership, they continue to see their credit cards be charged. Weight Watchers sells cookbooks and other stuff, membership is kind of expensive and so are the things they sell. I joined Weight Watchers twice. The first time, it really helped me. The second time, I just couldn't get into it.
One day last month I was in front of the TV when Dr. Oz came on and his guest was Tim Tebow. I was impressed by the kind of person he seemed to be. We need our athletes to be so much better than the idiots who are womanizers and abusers and who, when they go to other countries to compete, get drunk out of their minds, then use that as an excuse to do something that makes them a mighty poor representative of our country while they're there. "I was drunk at the time", is not a valid excuse for anything. It just adds insult to injury and shows us all how stoopit and immature they really are. Unfortunately, when they do this stuff in other countries, they might be one of a very small group of Americans that people in these countries have occasion to interact with, and so they tend to think we're ALL like that. Yikes. Being as how I live here, I've had the pleasure to know many Americans who are wonderful people. People with large egos are taking credit where credit is not due. I fully believe large egos and hateful personalities grieve God. And yes, I've known my share of THAT kind of American, too, sad to say.
Tim was talking about how he follows a ketogenic eating plan and I did a little research on that and found that it's pretty much an enhancement of the Atkin's Diet, which I went on once in the 1980's and was pretty successful with it as long as I could stand to be on it. That was long before I understood my body and how sugar packs a real wallop for me. I had family and friends who kept pushing sugar-laden stuff at me and saying things like, "It won't hurt you to have just ONE...." And oh, yeah, it would, and it did, because even if I managed to fight it off, at the time, after I got away from them I'd start feeling deprived, because they'd planted the seed of deprivation, and I'd have something I shouldn't, and then all the cravings would start back up again. Maybe by then I wouldn't be strong enough or smart enough about how my body works to fight against it and then I'd start feeling like a failure and start bingeing. I could gain five pounds overnight. I swear it's true. And then they'd all smirk and say, "Oh, she better enjoy being as slim as we are while she's there because she'll be fat again the next time we see her." And yeah, that was true. And when that happened, they'd laugh as if it was funny. In fact, one time I met a woman who knew some of my family, and she told me that when they found out she had met me the first thing they asked was whether I'd gained all my weight back yet. That's really all we need to know about THEM, if you know what I mean. So if you ever catch yourself sabotaging someone, or worse, body-shaming someone, maybe you ought to examine your motives. If you get pleasure from seeing them fail, once again, then a little introspection might reveal that you're not as superior to your fat friends and relatives as you thought, because there are worse things to be than fat, is all I'm sayin'..... Pretty IS as pretty DOES.
But anyway, Tim and Dr. Oz explained about how the body will burn sugar (carbs) first, if it can get it, and only fat if there isn't any sugar. That was new information to me. And I realized that, while I'm still doing pretty well at avoiding foods high in refined sugar, I'm probably just eating too many CARBS. Because carbs are the same thing as sugar in the body and they are hidden in lots of things. I love my 100% whole wheat bread and I've felt OK about it because I grind the wheat berries myself. It's grown locally and organic and my recipe is free of all that crap that's in the stuff on store shelves that passes for bread. You know, the "fiber", which can be almost anything people don't normally think of as food. Or GMO stuff, like soy. Or high-fructose corn syrup. In my homemade bread there are just six ingredients: 100% whole wheat flour, water, olive oil, local honey, yeast and a little salt. I mean, it's better for us than the alternative, but probably about 14 carb grams (equal to about 3 teaspoons of sugar) in half a hamburger-bun-sized roll, and I generally eat the other half of the bun later on in the day. So, once I add an apple and a glass of milk, I've gone 'way past Tim Tebow's threshold right there. And no, I couldn't just cut out the honey in the bread recipe because the yeast needs it in order to develop the dough. Without it, you get hockey pucks. Plus, there are carbs in wheat. DANG.
A good resource for finding how many carbs are in the foods that you enjoy is carbcounter.org.
So I decided to cut 'way back on the carbs and add in some extra fats to see if I couldn't bust myself out of this plateau I'm on. It was just horrible. For one thing, I don't like to "count" things: calories, fat grams, carb grams, exchanges, points, etc. It makes me spend too much time having to think about food and before I know it, that's ALL I'm able to think about. Not good. It turns out that a low carb / high fat diet upsets my stomach, and I keep opening the refrigerator door and longingly looking at the apples. I definitely got "in ketosis", as I had a bad taste in my mouth that didn't go away even after I brushed my teeth and tongue. I'm not really much of a meat eater. I missed bread and fruit. But I ate green salads and my homemade vegetable soup (canned vegetable soup from the store is mostly water, and it contains a lot of added sugar, just so ya know...). Tim Tebow works out a lot harder than I do and maybe he needs all that extra fat for energy, but do I?
I thought about this a lot, and, OK, if the body will burn sugar first and won't dip into the fat stores until it can't get sugar, I get that. But WHY wouldn't consuming extra fat be counter-productive? If the body gets new fats to burn every day, it's not going to dip into the old fats to burn for energy, right? Doesn't make sense to me. Atkins didn't have people actually counting fat grams to make sure they were getting ENOUGH, although there were things you could have as much of as you wanted, such as bacon, and meat. I love the smell of bacon. But I think it's the sugar curing that's doing it for me. And Tim Tebow says to buy uncured bacon. Yuk. There goes my stomach on another spin.
On the other hand, I think I could easily be a vegetarian, especially a lacto-ovo vegetarian, which means there would be no restrictions on eggs and milk products. And I've read articles that say only 6% of American vegetarians are overweight as opposed to 33% of all Americans being overweight. Note here that really, that 33% number is even higher if you take the vegetarian population out of it.
But then, again, there are 11 grams of carbs in a cup of milk or plain yogurt and it doesn't matter whether it's full-fat or skim. 9 in an ounce of cheddar cheese. It's those milk sugars.
Our bodies are miracle "machines". I mean, do you ever take the time to really appreciate the body that carries your brain and soul around? Your body is like an expensive car. It requires a certain kind of fuel. When it gets the wrong stuff in the tank, when its fluids are allowed to get all mucked up or burned up or spilled out, then it quickly turns into a "junker" and in many cases there's just no going back. Although the body, unlike a car, has the ability to heal itself, there is a point of no return. And that is when we sicken and die.
I think when I did my rant on Losing Weight Safely On Your Own last year at this time, I mentioned that people in the early 1800's ate so much less sugar than we do. And most of that was because people didn't have machines to do things for them. If you wanted whipped eggwhites, whipped cream, butter, you did all that beating by hand. And there was so much else you had to do, the hard way, that there was little time or energy left to be toiling over something like that. It was for special times. Refrigeration as we know it was not invented yet and so the person who cooked the meals did not make more than what could be eaten in one meal. Anything left was thrown out, fed to the pigs, whatever. So people ate what they could hold. Of course there were things that didn't need refrigeration, like cake and cookies, but even they went stale. Bread went moldy. We know today that when fresh things grow stale, they lose vitamins and minerals.
Also in the 1700's and early 1800's, the sugar required to make sweet things was hard to get because it was grown far away, harvested and processed manually and then shipping was a headache. Therefore they were in short supply and expensive. Those of us who had pioneer ancestors know how sugar was not even available out on the prairie. They felt lucky to have sorghum and everybody celebrated if they found a beehive. According to a timeline I saw on candyfavorites.com, the first packaged box of Whitman's chocolate was introduced in 1854, and then the production of all kinds of candies followed suit. It is my understanding that the process of cooking sugar into a syrup that would harden into a candy was developed by a druggist who was trying to perfect a way to make medicine more palatable. Little did he know, at the time, to what he was opening the door. Little did he know that someday there would be people employed at trying to find "The Bliss Factor" for foods, which is a marketing-friendly term for just seeing how much sugar, fat and salt you can add to certain things before the taste starts to turn people's stomachs.
There is a big campaign right now going on about how many "packets" of sugar is in soft drinks. And in some places they've even slapped a "tax" on soft drinks. That's the American way. Pinpoint something people have become addicted to and tax it. Without addiction, people would just quit buying something that was carrying a huge tax burden. So what's next? Will they start measuring the amount of sugar in foods and taxing it accordingly? Why stop at soft drinks? In some states, they do not tax groceries. However, if it's considered a non-grocery item, such as cake, cookies, soft drinks, candy, etc., you pay sales tax. So in a way, they are taxing empty calories. But we just buy a can of tomato soup and we can get our sugar fix that way. That's why kids don't like homemade tomato soup. Add sugar, and they're on it. And why? Because they've been conditioned to the taste of sugar, since birth. If you doubt, 2.3 grams of carbs per ounce, ready to feed, in formula. I couldn't find any information on how many carbs were too many for an infant. Only that a 9-month old infant's daily intake should be 50-60% of their total caloric needs, which is 600 calories a day. So, Yikes, 300 calories worth of carbs? That's equal to about 18.5 teaspoons of sugar or 77 grams of carbs. And, formula makers add stuff, like corn syrup, to get this ratio right. Considering that infants are unable to process anything BUT milk, at first, it is essential that they be breast-fed, and that the mother is eating healthy during this time. Oh, and they're able to have juice at a pretty young age. I haven't read the package to see if corn syrup is added to baby juice or not, but even if it's not, there are other ways you can make juice sweeter. Like adding a juice concentrate to it.
We live in over-abundance, here in America. And the World Health Organization, where it sees hunger, has announced that bugs are a good source of protein for humans. Does this seem lop-sided to anyone? We have such abundance that we are galumping around in huge clothes, while there exist people who eat BUGS to stay alive? If we didn't consume so much, maybe the chemical companies, the poisoners of everything they touch, could not say with any credibility (IF they, indeed, can NOW) that what they are doing is necessary in order to "feed the world". Never mind that we are dying from chemical toxicity as a result of those chemicals being in the food chain. In some places, already, those chemicals have rendered the soil virtually barren. What a great business plan! Create starvation, so that eventually nothing will grow in our soil. Then we have no choice but to consume fake food, made from chemicals. Soylent Green is here. Charlton Heston is spinning in his grave.
So. (End of rant.) Where do we go from here?
Knowing that our bodies burn any available sugar BEFORE any available fat is helpful. Apparently, then, when fat is consumed but not burned, it goes straight to storage. Carbs (sugar) must be converted to fat before they are stored. And so it makes sense, from an efficiency point of view, that the body will use sugars first because if it can burn all the sugar, that skips a step in the fat-storage process. So, by all means, you want to make sure those sugars are burned off every day. Not JUST because they get converted to fat. Even if you are not carrying around too much weight, you should also be careful with sugar consumption because cancer cells thrive on sugar. That's why, when doctors want to scan your body for cancer cells, they give you something to drink first that contains sugar bound with something that will light up during the scan. The cancer cells draw the sugar to them. And then that stuff that's bound up in the sugar lights up on the scan. Then the doctor can see where the cancer cells are. How cool is that?
So, if you want your body to start dipping into fat stores, you will have to burn ALL the sugar AND fat you take in each day, AND THEN SOME. It is only when your dietary sugars and fats are burned that your body starts dipping into stored fat. This would be an argument for eating more lean protein (an egg contains only one carb gram but five grams of fat; an ounce of chicken breast contains no carbs and 1.4 grams of fat). I've looked at DIY recipes for protein shakes and belly-busting shakes and they all are based on milk. HOWEVER, if you sub almond milk for the milk, you're getting 1.4 grams of carbs and 3.5 grams of fat per cup, but only 1.5 grams of protein, which you need, as compared to skim milk at, 11.88 grams of carbs, 0.44 grams fat, 8.35 grams protein. BUT. You need that calcium, vitamin D, potassium, and all that other stuff that's in dairy. Can you take that in pill form? Yes. But it has to be in certain proportions and it's easy to get unbalanced. Plus, the experts are not sure your body even absorbs that stuff that you get in pill form. And they say if you get your nutrients in food, there are so many trace nutrients that regulate everything, that you don't get an imbalance. So maybe whey powder, that stuff the body-builders use, could bridge the gap? That strikes me of being in the category of "fake food" but I could be wrong on that.
I can see it coming up over the horizon as I write. It is rearing it's ugly head. Dang. It's the temptation to cut 'way back, just so I can get the scales under 200, so I can say I did it. And oh, yessssss. I KNOW how to drop pounds. But will they stay off? NO, they won't.
I went to healthycalculators.com. Plugged in my weight, age, height. To maintain my current weight, they say I would need 76 grams of protein, 282 grams of carbs and 68 grams of fats. To lose half a pound a week, I'd need 67 grams of protein, 278 grams of carbs and 60 grams of fats. Does this make sense? Not sure.
I plugged in my target weight, which is 145. 65 protein, 237 carbs, 57 fats. Kind of looks like the biggest adjustment is in the carbs.
I know I need protein to keep muscles from being robbed. They say for every pound that's lost, 25% of it is burned muscle. And if there haven't been enough carbs and fats, it can be even more. I know I need carbs and fats for energy. But do I need as many carbs and fats as that? What would happen if I just made sure I got the protein number they say I need and went below the carb and fat gram counts?
So, I researched WHY I need to eat fats if I'm trying to get my body to burn its fat stores. I mean, I have enough fat stored up to live off for quite awhile. And here is where I start running into the body's natural life-preservers. You know what I mean. It's a shame we can't communicate to our bodies that, this is OK because it's what we're trying to do. But we can't. So, say we cut our calories down 'way low because we want to lose weight fast. The body's monitoring system sees that and thinks we're stranded somewhere with no available food. So we might lose a big chunk of weight at first because we lose water weight and then the body starts burning muscle. It takes a little bit for your monitoring to decide you're in trouble. But before very long, it will, and then it'll back off your caloric needs to a ridiculously small amount so that your weight loss will stop. The problem is that you can't function on 500 calories a day and eventually you'll go off the diet. The body's monitoring system either does not notice the change or will not acknowledge it, and everything you put in your mouth goes straight to your fat stores. Crash dieting can mess up your metabolism in this way and it can continue to be messed up for a long time.
Well, it turns out that there is yet another natural life-preserver in play when you are trying to lose weight. It seems that there is something similar to a "gate keeper" that keeps the gate to where your fat is stored, locked. If it sees that you are bringing in new fats, it will open the gate and let some of the old fats out. Here is how they explain it:
"Dietary fat helps break down existing fat by activating PPAR-alpha and fat-burning pathways through the liver."
Here is where the topic branches out in two directions.
We all know by now what the good fats are. Fatty fish like salmon, tuna, mackerel, sardines. Avocados are high in fat but it's a good fat with lots of other important nutrition included. Olive oil, although some people say you can get crappy olive oil even when you think you're getting EVOO because, they say, the mafia is involved. I don't know.... That's what they say.... There's also coconut oil. We used to be told not to use any kind of palm oil because it was bad for us. But now it turns out coconut is a miracle oil that can be used internally and externally. Almost like the castor oil was thought of during the time when Edgar Cayce was alive. And yes, castor oil is still considered to be wonderful stuff. Just be aware it enhances the growth of hair if it's used regularly, so it's not a good idea for women to use it on their faces. Castor oil is an ingredient in prescription lubricating eye drops. People who use the eye drops report that one of the side-effects is fuller eyelashes. But that's about the only place on the face that we women would be happy about if it sprouted more hair. Castor oil can also be a powerful laxative, so don't use it internally. I was thinking, though, that those people who had to quit using mineral oil on cornsilks to deter worms, because it's a petroleum product, might be able to use castor oil instead. In the 60's we learned about safflower oil and how healthy it was for us and we don't hear much about it now. More recently we've placed a lot of faith in Canola oil and turns out that's really rapeseed oil and some people say it's an industrial oil for lubricating machinery that got over-produced in Canada and now it's being marketed to us as good food when it's really a bad thing. Again, I don't know...... It's still a seed oil and seed oils are good fats. Maybe it is that rapeseed is grown GMO? The bad stuff that you should never eat is trans-fats, that's anything that's been processed into a solid. I can't seem to get a consensus on dairy fats, some people say, "Butter Makes Your Pants Fall Off" (there's a YouTube with that title), and Tim Tebow puts a dollop in his coffee. Others say butter is good only if it's turned into ghee, and that other dairy fats, except for maybe cheese, are not good choices. Then there are the meat fats, which apparently Tim Tebow has in his diet as well, since he eats bacon. So that means you might be able to eat other pork products, use lard, and maybe you could eat beef, although that's fast being morphed into a bad thing because of all those growth hormones and antibiotics that they pump into the cow, plus there are the GMO grains that are used to grow the feed cows that are not grass fed. Even grass-fed is not completely safe now that chemicals are leached into the soil, water and even the air. When it's in the air, it's also in the rain. So, there ya go. This ends the discussion of the first branch, as mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph.
The second branch is that all this information, once understood, begs the question as to whether it is possible to get the necessary fats, meaning the "good" fats and in an amount such that the body's monitoring system will open the fat storage pathway and thus release the stored fat, without having to do something to increase your caloric needs? I mean, who cares if the pathway is open if all you really needed was satisfied when the carbs and new fats were burned and you have no more need for fuel? Maybe the only reason that the pathway has been opened is because the body's monitoring system is getting it ready to accept whatever new fats you don't burn. So you better burn off all those carbs, and there better be some fats with them or the gate won't open at all. I haven't seen this said anywhere, but I assume that the body makes a "blend" of new fats and old fats when burning fats. This is the only way I can think of that would tie in to Tim Tebow's assertion that the more fats you take in, the more stored fats you burn. To burn off caloric fats PLUS stored fats, then, extra exercise might be needed. Yes, I said it.
I hate to exercise. I hate to sweat. I don't mind being a little bit muscular, but I don't want to have "body-builder muscles". Is just going to the workout center three times a week, where I bicycle 3 miles in 20 minutes, and then walk a mile around the track, taking about 20 minutes, enough?
I looked on my calendar to see when I actually stopped losing pounds. It was in late August. Well, that's reasonable. I mean, hot outside, not much growing in the garden so not much need (or motivation) for being out in the garden doing things. But I remember that I was working on pathways during the cool of the mornings, and that was involving weed pulling, raking, and carrying buckets of woodchips around. I probably should've started back at the workout center then instead of waiting for cold weather. For the year of 2015, I lost a total of 25 pounds. For 2016, I actually lost only 6 pounds. Not a good year. Better than gaining, but not meeting my objective in any way, shape or form.
By January 7 I weighed what I weighed in June. Only 2.8 pounds more to lose and be able to start on pounds lost that I can count for 2017. I like those "New Territory" pounds and will be glad when those start coming off. In the meantime, I thought it might be worth my while to see what I can do to make the seat of my stationary bike more comfortable. I don't use it because the seat just absolutely kills my tailbone. If I could get past that obstacle, I could use the bike on my off-days. Or I might dig around and find my line-dance cheat-sheets and the tape we were all given to practice with. that time Hubs and I took lessons. Or I could start going to the workout center every day. They're even open on Sundays, in the afternoons. Or I could go on YouTube and take those beginner Qigong or Tai Chi lessons that I had planned to use LAST winter. I am not without resources.
Well, that gets you up to speed on The Fat Fight in my little corner of the world. This is now January 8 and this morning I found a wonderful Tai Chi beginner course on YouTube. To get there, go to this URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FkTb-3uaM
Keep on keepin' on, and Hubs and I will do the same. Hugs xoxoxo