Margie has been under the weather for a few days — no overt pustules or other oozings, just Not Feeling Well — and, in fact, she bailed on a meeting…
Margie has been under the weather for a few days — no overt pustules or other oozings, just Not Feeling Well — and, in fact, she bailed on a meeting she had to go to this morning.
And now Kitten’s got a fever …
Per the mail back from the lab whilst we were away: Cholesterol is good (162, where the target is under 200). My HDL (“good” cholesterol) is at 39 (target over…
Per the mail back from the lab whilst we were away:
And, for the record, my kidney, liver, and thyroid all seem to be doing their thang, and no hint of diabetes. Woo-hoo.
And the other good news? Despite a week of Eating, Drinking, and Being Merry, I appear, as of this morning, to have only gained one pound. Which makes me wonder whether there’s some sort of gravitational anomaly surrounding my bathroom scale, but that’s another story.
She gave me an early Fathers Day gift for our upcoming vacation. Jeans. Size 38. Still a bit snug — though not as snug as 40s were on me a…
She gave me an early Fathers Day gift for our upcoming vacation. Jeans. Size 38.
Still a bit snug — though not as snug as 40s were on me a few months back (which is why I have a closet full of falling-off-of-me 42s). Probably won’t wear them. Yet.
But soon.
Been holding steady at the same weight (207-208 lbs.) since around Katherine’s birthday. Which, in some ways, may be a good thing, given that there have been birthday celebrations, big…
Been holding steady at the same weight (207-208 lbs.) since around Katherine’s birthday. Which, in some ways, may be a good thing, given that there have been birthday celebrations, big restaurant dinners with the ‘rents, business trips, etc., in the interim. So maybe it’s not the Dreaded Plateau, but simply managing to hold my own.
We’ll see. I do wish it could have waited another 10 lbs., just for round numbers’ sake …
First the good news … Up in my closet, I found a big bag full of dress ties I’d pulled out of rotation a long time ago (probably when we…
First the good news …
Up in my closet, I found a big bag full of dress ties I’d pulled out of rotation a long time ago (probably when we went to business casual in the office), Some fun, wild stuff. Happy.
And in a big bag next to it: suspenders! Which is pretty handy when dealing with pants that are a scosh or more too large (and while I don’t want to buy more pants, not knowing where my waistline is going.
Which brings us to the … well, don’t know as I can call it bad news, but …
We finally found a cheap dry cleaners in the area, so we were going through the long-term dry cleaning stack, which included a number of dress slacks, suit slacks, etc. I hadn’t pressed for the dry cleaning myself, because it was mostly (a) ties, which I wasn’t wearing, and (b) slacks, which I didn’t fit any more.
So before we actually took any of it to the cleaners, I decided to try them on, to see if they’d started fitting again. I mean, why get something cleaned if …
… uh, what the –?
… Okay, so they were too big for me. But, well, I knew I was no longer fitting 42s, but I didn’t think I had —
— huh?
They’re 40s? Must be a glitch in this one, I’ll just —
… 40s? A 40 waist is too big for me?
Son of a — well, boo-yah! That’s pretty damned keen!
Inconvenient, but keen!
It’s not just the Foothill Freeway any more….
It’s not just the Foothill Freeway any more.
Damn. Still stuffed from last night. So no breakfast burrito (a new “Friday Morning Feature” here at the office) for me, alas….
Damn. Still stuffed from last night. So no breakfast burrito (a new “Friday Morning Feature” here at the office) for me, alas.
Coke and Pepsi are rejiggering their soda lines again with new semi-diet drinks. The new drinks contain the standard high-fructose corn syrup that sweetens regular soda but in smaller amounts….
Coke and Pepsi are rejiggering their soda lines again with new semi-diet drinks.
The new drinks contain the standard high-fructose corn syrup that sweetens regular soda but in smaller amounts. The corn syrup is supplemented with Splenda, a no-calorie, no-carbohydrate sweetener made from sugar.
The result is a soda with fewer calories than regular but more than no-cal. For instance, Pepsi says a 12-ounce can of Edge has 20 grams each of sugar and carbohydrates, and 70 calories, compared with regular’s 41 grams each of sugar and carbohydrates, and 150 calories.
Actually, I remain quite happy with Pepsi One — but, being someone who drinks their sodas with plenty of ice, I find even totally zero-cal diet soda somewhat palatable. And it’s nice to be able to drink it and not have to count calories. Which the half-diet sodas won’t give me, because, really, 70 calories is still something you should pay attention to.
Now, if they did 20 calories, that might be pretty spiffy.
But I’m sure that’s coming. As surely as the sun rises and sets, soda companies are unable to figure out what to do in the vast waist-land (so to speak) between full-sugar sodas and diet sodas. I doubt this particular scheme will work (“It’s like all the dandilions, but half the size each!”), but I’m not particularly well-known for judging popular taste.
We’ll see.
(via BoingBoing)
If you get a nice, relatively healthy Jamba Juice for lunch, and put in a “Burner Boost” which is touted for “increasing metabolism, burning fat, and suppressing hunger while providing…
If you get a nice, relatively healthy Jamba Juice for lunch, and put in a “Burner Boost” which is touted for “increasing metabolism, burning fat, and suppressing hunger while providing energy and great nutrition,” you will, on the way back down from the incredible vision-blurring caffeine high, get such incredible low-blood-sugar munchies that you will be forced to buy a bag of M&Ms from the vending machine at the office, thus blowing any caloric advantage to getting a nice, relatively healthy Jamba Juice.
You have been warned.
Remarkably enough, besides going 150% calorie-wise while the Big Boss was out visiting (and may I recommend Luke’s – A Steak Place in Wheat Ridge? A faboo steak house in…
Remarkably enough, besides going 150% calorie-wise while the Big Boss was out visiting (and may I recommend Luke’s – A Steak Place in Wheat Ridge? A faboo steak house in a strip mall. Who’da thunk?), and not getting some of my exercise to boot, I still dropped a little this week, down to 216. Huzzah!
Next few weeks should be more normal, and more amenable at lunch to walking. I’ve found a more interesting route to take, so that will help. I’ve also discovered, on hot days, that a full-sized Jamba Juice is as refreshing and filling as a Tokyo Joe’s rice bowl, and a few hundred calories less, so I’ll be doing some of that, too.
I’ve decided, though, to do weighings on Tuesday and Friday, not Monday and Friday. The last two Mondays my weight has spiked up a few, and been back down by Tuesday, so I think this will help smooth the graph a bit.
Sooner or later I know things will plateau, but I’m enjoying the coast downhill just fine while it lasts.
Been meaning to calculate this for a while, but … In November 2003, my Body-Mass Index was 34, which was in the, ah, Obese range. When I started my diet…
Been meaning to calculate this for a while, but …
In November 2003, my Body-Mass Index was 34, which was in the, ah, Obese range.
When I started my diet at the beginning of March 2004, it was 32.3. Still Obese.
And now? According to this calculator, It’s 29.8. Which is, just barely, only Overweight, instead of Obese.
Which doesn’t sound all that swell, but, hell, I’ll take those victories where I can get them.
(According to these tables, I’ll need to drop below 184 lbs. to get to the Normal BMI of 24.9. Which doesn’t seem likely, but, y’never know …)
BMI is by no means a perfect gauge of health, or even obesity. But it’s still kind of neat to have slipped into a not-quite-so-bad category.
UPDATE: And — huzzah! — I fit quite nicely into some size 40s that were up on my rack, as opposed to my previous size 42. Again, huzzah!
There are indications that curry may protect the brain against oxidative damage. Mmmmmm … curry … (via, once again, GeekPress)…
There are indications that curry may protect the brain against oxidative damage.
Mmmmmm … curry …
(via, once again, GeekPress)
Yes, folks, I understand that sunlight can be dangerous. We’ve all had it drummed into our heads that UV radiation can cause melanoma and other skin cancers. But it’s also…
Yes, folks, I understand that sunlight can be dangerous. We’ve all had it drummed into our heads that UV radiation can cause melanoma and other skin cancers.
But it’s also a source of Vitamin D, and it’s a condition that humanity has lived with for — well, all of its existence. Does that make preaching minor exposure to sunlight a firing offense in the science community? Evidently so.
Michael Holick, a dermatologist at Boston University, was recently asked to resign from school’s department of dermatology because of a book in which he describes the importance of sunlight in boosting vitamin D levels and his ties to the indoor tanning industry.
Holick’s book “is an embarrassment for this institution and an embarrassment for him,” department chair Barbara Gilchrest told the Boston Globe. According to the Globe, which first reported the story, Holick was asked to resign from the department of dermatology in February. He has resigned, but continues to teach and to direct the medical center’s vitamin D lab, and has not received a pay cut.
Although the benefits of vitamin D in bone health have been long known, new research is emerging that suggests the fat-soluble vitamin may also help prevent different types of cancer. As a result, Holick argues that moderate amounts of sunlight—the main source of vitamin D—are more beneficial than dangerous, and he recommends that fair-skinned people who live in the Boston latitude spend a few sunblock-free minutes a couple of times per week outside, with their skin exposed. He summarizes his thoughts on the issue in The UV Advantage, scheduled to be released in May.
Or, described in more detail:
In the book, The UV Advantage, to be published next month in the US, Holick recommends people spend a few minutes two to three times a week, depending on skin type, exposed to the Sun or lying under a sun lamp (without sunscreen) to ensure they get enough vitamin D.
He says he does not advocate tanning or sun worship but “moderate” exposure to the Sun sufficient to gain its benefits. “I am advocating common sense, something often in short supply in America’s approach to health. Our society doesn’t seem to believe in a happy medium, only in extremes. The notion that we have to protect ourselves from the Sun all the time is misguided and unhealthy.”
And for his sins?
In a statement to The Scientist, Boni E. Elewski, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, argued that even a few minutes of sunlight exposure can be dangerous, and people can get what they need of the vitamin through supplements. “Any group, organization, or individual that disseminates information encouraging exposure to UV radiation, whether natural or artificial, is doing a disservice to the public,” Elewski said.
Even a few minutes? Whether or not Holick has ties to the Indoor Tanning Association, he’s not suggesting everyone sport a “healthy” tan, just that they get a few minutes in the sun a couple of times a week. That the ADA finds this to be dangerous to the point of unacceptability is, itself, illuminating.
[Dr Barbara Gilchrest, chairwoman of the department of dermatology at the university] added: “I would ask anyone to resign his appointment in the department if I felt that person was conducting himself in a way that was professionally irresponsible, potentially dangerous to the public and not conforming to what I think are very high standards for reporting scientific information.”
The AAD said Holick was irresponsible and compared his advice on the benefits of the Sun to suggesting that smoking might be used to combat anxiety.
Which might be true if he were discussing how space aliens and perpetual motion machines would keep sun burns from being dangerous. But Holick has plenty of non-lunatic support:
Some vitamin D experts said that Holick should not have to resign. “If he was fired for his opinion, which is based on science, then it would appear to be a violation of the principles of academic freedom,” James Fleet, who studies nutrition and vitamin D at Purdue University, told The Scientist. Whether small amounts of sunlight can boost vitamin D intake without raising the risk of cancer “is an issue worth debating,” Fleet said.
Reinhold Vieth of the University of Toronto, who has worked with vitamin D since 1974, said that shunning Holick from the department of dermatology represents a “narrow-minded” approach to health. “It’s like a horse with blinkers, and the only thing they see is melanoma,” he told The Scientist.
I’m not trying to downplay the dangers of skin cancer here, given my own family history, but it seems to me that if only a few minutes exposure to sunlight every couple of days is, in fact, of significant danger, we would be seeing skin cancer as the number one killer in America, and folks like Holick would be worthy of firing (not to mention laughingstocks), as opposed to the other way around.
Neil Walker, chairman of the UK Skin Cancer Prevention Working Party and a consultant dermatologist at Churchill Hospital, Oxford, said: “If dermatologists say ‘never go in the sun’ people are going to look at us as idiots.
“We have got to find a way of putting the message across about the most damaging behaviour which is why I tell my patients not to bake or burn. There are lot of people who have this almost religious conviction about the dangers of the sun.
“My view is that we have got to look at things practically.”
How … refreshing.
(via GeekPress)
When I first started watching my calories, I mentioned changing from regular soda to diet soda. Some folks immediately chided me that such stuff was Tooth Decay on Wheels. “It’s…
When I first started watching my calories, I mentioned changing from regular soda to diet soda. Some folks immediately chided me that such stuff was Tooth Decay on Wheels. “It’s a lot more acidic than regular soda — it’ll rot your teeth right out.”
I finally got around to googling on the subject, and, despite that claim being echoed in text at various sites (many of which are flogging their own Health Water, ahem), the only actual figures I found indicated that diet soda is less acidic than regular pop — and, lacking sugar, is less conducive to cavity-creating bacteria.
I was able to find a few sites with info on pH levels of sodas. Recalling that low pH is more acidic (battery acid is 1.0, water is 7.0), here are some comparisons (regular vs diet): Coke (2.6 vs 3.4), Doctor Pepper (2.9 vs 3.4), Pepsi (2.5 vs 3.1), Mountain Dew (3.2 vs 3.3), Barq’s (4.6 vs 4.6).
In nearly all the the cases, the “real” soda has a more acidic pH than the diet version.
Diet sodas get a lot of attention on their acid content because, well, they don’t have sugar, and that’s the obvious thing to talk about with regular sodas. (Indeed, it’s a lot harder to find pH for regular soda, except for vague warnings of the diabolical nature of Coke).
All of which is not to say that diet soda is particularly good for you, or that the acids there are to be sneezed at. You should still brush your teeth, or flush your mouth out with water (or both) after a can of Diet Coke. All soda is acidic.
But the idea that diet soda is more acidic than its sugary counterpart seems to be — well, just plain wrong.
Okay, try this … I am going to force you to do something — something you consider immoral, abetting behavior you consider immoral, something that violates your conscience, your religion,…
Okay, try this …
I am going to force you to do something — something you consider immoral, abetting behavior you consider immoral, something that violates your conscience, your religion, your holy vows. I am going to force you to do it. If you don’t, I’m going to ruin your livelihood, your business, and I’m going to sue you for every last penny you own. You have no choice. No choice at all.
And, on the other hand …
I don’t like you. I don’t approve of you, or of what you do, or why you do it. So you know what? To hell with you. I’m not going to help you. I don’t care if it makes you suffer. I don’t care if it hurts you. I don’t care if it’s my job to help you. I just don’t care for trash like you and your kind. Get out of here.
Michigan’s legislature is in the process of passing the “Conscientious Objector Policy Act” and related legislation. It shields health-care workers and insurance companies from firing or law suits if they refuse to perform a medical procedure, fill a prescription or cover treatment for something they object to for moral, ethical or religious reasons.
In most of the debate on the matter, the focus is on abortions and emergency (morning-after) contraceptive services. But as this article notes, it could also give someone an out to turn away someone from (non-emergency) medical care just because they’re, say, gay. While there is evidently a provision in the bill to prevent discrmination based on race, deciding that homosexuals are abominations before the Lord, and therefore can be refused treatment or insurance coverage would evidently be perfectly legal.
Yeesh.
And yet, by the same token, should a Catholic pharmacist who believes that abortion is a sin be compelled to sell someone morning-after contraception? I’m not sure I’m willing to say yes — but I’m also not sure I’m willing to have someone be unable to get such a (legal) prescription because of it.
(Oddly enough, ordinary contraception is excepted by the bill, which seems to fly in the face of its basic principles.)
In other words, the ostensible principles (never mind for a moment anything about ulterior motives) behind the bills seem sound, but their application is troubling.
Republican state Rep. Randy Richardville of Monroe, who introduced the main bill of the package, said the legislation is intended to protect religious, moral and ethical freedoms of health-care providers. “Nothing in this bill, not a thing, denies a patient from receiving medical care,” he said. “This simply means a medical professional cannot violate their religious obligations.”
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promoted the constitutional right to religious freedom.
“Individual and institutional health-care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching,” he said in a written statement.
But the odd set of exceptions — the two noted above, race (can’t folks be bigotted for religious reasons?) and birth control (which, last I checked, was also against Catholic doctrine) — make this a bit less than a pure First Amendment defense. And the breadth of what discrimination could be allowed, and the pain and suffering that could stem from that (even if emergency services cannot be denied), seems a dangerous path to take.
And that doesn’t even get into what constitutes a “legitimate” religious objection, something I’m as loath to let the courts decide as I’m sure they are — but which I’ll be damned (so to speak) if I’m to let someone claim it as a rationale for whatever they do or don’t want to do.
If the specific, openly-debated matters of conscience were themselves the only target of the bill, I might see it as a reasonable compromise between religious convictions (even ones I don’t share) and the public good. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but unhappiness is usually part of compromise. But by turning it around and making it about everything except a few sacred cows, it seems to open the door far too wide to let individual — and institutional — discrimination prevail.
(via Scott)
UPDATE: Subject revisited.
As of this morning, I’m halfway toward my “goal.” I started at 238 on 1 March, and, when asked what I wanted to aim toward, said dropping to 200 at…
As of this morning, I’m halfway toward my “goal.” I started at 238 on 1 March, and, when asked what I wanted to aim toward, said dropping to 200 at a pound a week (which put me out in November to reach there).
Well, it’s gone more like 3 lbs. a week, since I weighed in at 219 this morning, huzzah.
So on we go.
Are we actually eating fatter and less healthy diets today? That’s the common wisdom, but it may not be accurate according to this look. The recipes in a Baptists Ladies’…
Are we actually eating fatter and less healthy diets today? That’s the common wisdom, but it may not be accurate according to this look.
The recipes in a Baptists Ladies’ Cook Book, published January 1st 1895, by the Ladies of Monmouth, Illinois, do not support the assertion that Americans of a century ago ate a leaner diet. There is hardly a recipe in the collection that does not contain butter, cream, eggs or lard, beginning with the soup chapter and ending with the substantial array of desserts. Most meat recipes call for gravy made with drippings, and occasionally with added cream. Vegetable recipes include asparagus dressed in cream, four versions of cabbage in a cream sauce, corn and eggplant fritters fried in lard, potato balls fried in “good drippings” and parsnips fried in bacon fat.
Sea food recipes include “Fish a la Creme”, “Escalloped Fish”, “Creamed Salmon” and “Cream Fish”. “Sauce for Broiled Fish” calls for “one large spoonful of butter to one gill [one-half cup] of cream”. A whole chapter devoted to oysters includes recipes for deviled oysters made with egg yolks, creamed oyster patties made with eggs and butter, oysters wrapped in bacon, escalloped oysters, oyster pie made with one quart of cream, oyster fritters fried in drippings, oysters fried in hot lard and escalloped oysters made with butter and milk. Organ meat recipes include fried veal liver and sweet breads, both creamed and fried. There are separate chapters for cheese and eggs.
And there’s more, though I feel like I’ve gained ten pounds just reading it.
Of course, there’s a difference between what’s in the cookbook and what people ate on a regular basis. As I tell people who marvel over Margie’s cooking, we don’t (and can’t, and maybe wouldn’t even want to) eat like that every day.
Regardless of what was eaten, there’s caloric outgo to go with the input. I suspect the folks of Monmouth, Illlionis in 1895 led a bit more active life than what many of us do. If you’re burning the fat you don’t store it on your bod, right?
And the odd conclusions at the end of the article that, even if folks really were eating 2900 calorie diets, they were, in fact, healthier than we are today seems unsupported. Gout, for one thing, seems to have been a bigger deal in the past than today. And, for that matter, life expectency was shorter a century-plus ago than it is now (how much of that is from excessive fat consumption may be another question).
Still, it’s an interesting view into recipes that, today, would send people reeling away, clutching their hearts …
Faboo time with the Testerfolk, Randy, Stan, and Jackie’s friend Angie. Preliminary snacks by Randy, then ham, potatoes, some nice dinner and dessert (and hors d’oevre) wine, and amazing cheesecake…
Faboo time with the Testerfolk, Randy, Stan, and Jackie’s friend Angie. Preliminary snacks by Randy, then ham, potatoes, some nice dinner and dessert (and hors d’oevre) wine, and amazing cheesecake and chocolate tort stuff (from Jackie) with toppings by Margie. An occasion to break out the good china, silver, and crystal, and to have a good time. Most excellent.
Needless to say, I utterly blew any semblance of diet this week, in aggregate.
Everyone bailed around 7:45 so they could get home to watch Alias. Ha, ha, ha. Just as well, because I’m ready to crash …
As of this a.m., I’ve lost 15 lbs. since the start of my Geek Diet (as Margie calls it) a month ago (3/1), dropping from 238 to 223. W00T!…
As of this a.m., I’ve lost 15 lbs. since the start of my Geek Diet (as Margie calls it) a month ago (3/1), dropping from 238 to 223. W00T!
Off to the dentist, now, jiggedy-jig … Bottom line, all’s well in tooth-land. Just my semi-annual cleaning and reaffirmation of What Good Teeth I Have. Which I am not complaining…
Off to the dentist, now, jiggedy-jig …
Bottom line, all’s well in tooth-land. Just my semi-annual cleaning and reaffirmation of What Good Teeth I Have. Which I am not complaining about let me assure you. I’ve had three cavities, and they all hit me in one year as a little kid, and since then my teeth have been sound (if requiring braces, requiring removal for wisdomy nature, and being stained by a youth full of tetracycline).
It’s amazing how dental tech and practice continue to advance. On the tech side, you have things like fully-digital X-rays and orange-cream tooth polish. On the practice side, everything these days is disposable, swathed in plastic, and/or otherwise shielded from spattering of body fluids. I remember back when the dentist didn’t wear a face mask, eye shields, and was, in fact, the dude that cleaned your teeth. And when you were done, you spit in the little swirling rinse bowl …
The one thing that hasn’t changed is that we let folks with stainless steel pointy things poke and scrape and probe and gouge their way around our mouths, fergoshakes. Where the hell are the little plaque-removing nanobots, I ask you?
BONUS HUMOROUS OBSERVATION! When you are looking at a little ad at the dentist’s office counter that is waxing eloquent about the wonders of teeth whitening treatments, and it wraps up with a fabulous Save $100! offer, it probably means it’s really expensive.
BONUS DENTAL FACT! Did you know that the dark stains caused by tetracycline are actually photosensitive, and grow darker in the light?