The Wii Fit tells me that I've gained three pounds in the last four days, undoing two or three weeks' worth of progress.
But I bought some jeans a couple of weeks ago that I could zip up but not sit down in, and as of this morning, I can, in fact, both zip them up and sit down. They're not the comfiest pair of pants I own, but I'm wearing them and expect to make it through the day just fine.
What. The. Hell.
(Oh yeah, and this weekend? Valentine's party. For which I've already made cupcakes. I don't expect next week's weigh-in to be anything like happy.)
Showing posts with label pessimism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pessimism. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Underwhelmed
Weigh-in day.
I confess, I was secretly hoping that last week's bump up had been a twitch of the scale and that this week I'd have one of those suspiciously large losses that made the two-week average into something perfectly reasonable. It's happened before, several times. And this week, all my bras are on their third (tightest) row of hooks, which was promising.
For the last three days, my unofficial morning weigh-in has been 192.8, which isn't a large loss, but it was respectable. It would have meant that last week's gain was honest, but that I was firmly back on track. And it would have put me, officially, at 80 pounds lost. So if I couldn't have my secret hope, this was a perfectly acceptable fallback, and this is, hopes aside, more or less what I was expecting.
Instead, I got on the scale this morning and found 193.2. Not quite enough to make the 80 pound mark (79.8). Exactly one pound lost from last week, a grand total of 0.2 pounds lost over the last two weeks.
...The hell? What did I do yesterday that made me gain half a pound? Nothing, that's what. I've been really good this week, trying to make up for the Hungry Hippo weekend I had. Was it the three Tums I ate at three this morning to dispel a (likewise inexplicable) case of heartburn? Do Tums make you retain water or something?
Sigh.
I know I said I'd just be happy to lose what I'd gained last week, but if anyone believed me, they should probably get their heads examined. I'm not quite ready to kick puppies over it, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little... underwhelmed.
I confess, I was secretly hoping that last week's bump up had been a twitch of the scale and that this week I'd have one of those suspiciously large losses that made the two-week average into something perfectly reasonable. It's happened before, several times. And this week, all my bras are on their third (tightest) row of hooks, which was promising.
For the last three days, my unofficial morning weigh-in has been 192.8, which isn't a large loss, but it was respectable. It would have meant that last week's gain was honest, but that I was firmly back on track. And it would have put me, officially, at 80 pounds lost. So if I couldn't have my secret hope, this was a perfectly acceptable fallback, and this is, hopes aside, more or less what I was expecting.
Instead, I got on the scale this morning and found 193.2. Not quite enough to make the 80 pound mark (79.8). Exactly one pound lost from last week, a grand total of 0.2 pounds lost over the last two weeks.
...The hell? What did I do yesterday that made me gain half a pound? Nothing, that's what. I've been really good this week, trying to make up for the Hungry Hippo weekend I had. Was it the three Tums I ate at three this morning to dispel a (likewise inexplicable) case of heartburn? Do Tums make you retain water or something?
Sigh.
I know I said I'd just be happy to lose what I'd gained last week, but if anyone believed me, they should probably get their heads examined. I'm not quite ready to kick puppies over it, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little... underwhelmed.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Cheater, Cheater, Soup-Eater
There are lots of ways to "cheat" on the Weight Watchers diet without actually cheating. Most of them involve abusing the way points are calculated so that you're skating as close as possible to having to spend another point without quite getting there... This is one reason why, the first time I was on this diet (ten or so years ago), I lost twenty-five pounds and then slammed into a brick wall. This time around, I promised myself that I would try to follow the spirit of the law in addition to its letter, and I'm doing much better.
They didn't have the online tools back then. The online tools are handy, and mean I don't have to carry a converter doohickey with me everywhere I go. (Which is good, because I'm an online-only member, so they don't give me a converter doohickey to carry.) It's worth noting that the sidebar calculator doesn't work quite the same way as the database's calculator. The sidebar rounds to the nearest whole point, whereas the database will calculate to the nearest half unit, if your idea of a serving size doesn't match up with its default stored serving size.
You either already know all this, or else I'm boring you silly, or both, but this is worth mentioning so you can understand my complaint.
For a while now, I've enjoyed Campbell's Select Harvest Light soups. WW granted its countenance to the Progresso light soup line, but I think the Campbell's tastes better. When I first found them, they weren't in the WW database, so I had to add them, which wasn't a big deal -- I do that a lot. Let's take, for example, the Italian-Style Vegetable, which is the diet-friendliest of the bunch. According to the can, a serving is 50 calories, 0g fat, and 4g fiber, which is 0 points. But there's 2 servings in the can, and I dunno about anyone else, but I usually eat the whole can. So when I put it in the database, I put it in for "my" serving, which is 100 calories, 0g fat, and 8g fiber, which works out to 1 point. (It's worth nothing that Nutrition Facts labels are allowed to round their numbers off quite a bit, but even if you assume the posted 0g fat is almost 1g, and the 4g fiber is closer to 3g -- moving both of those numbers in the least advantageous direction for me -- it still works out to 1 point for the can of soup.) Which is a pretty damn good deal, and this is why I try to keep a few cans of this stuff around, in case I'm having a Hungry Hungry Hippo day. The other varieties of the soup go up to 3 points/can, and I keep them around too, because 3 points is a good deal for a reasonably filling lunch on a day I'm planning a big dinner.
With me so far? Good.
So the other day, I went to add a snack of some soup to my day's tally, and because I don't want to type "Campbell's Select Harvest Light Italian-Style Vegetable Soup, 1 can" every time, I just put "Campbell Harvest" into the search bar, assuming it would pull up my three or four hand-entered entries and I could click on the one I wanted from there.
Much to my surprise, it pulled up about twelve options: Apparently, WW has added some of the line to its own internal database! Wahoo! I clicked on their entry, and right away was confused. It said 1 cup of soup was 1 point. Well, it's a rounding thing, maybe, I thought. I changed the 1 to a 2, since the whole can is about 2 cups. The points changed to 2.
I blinked. It should have read 1.5, at most.
Now, I was eating a variety of crackers for a while that, between one batch and the next, changed nutrition data on me -- I actually had the two boxes side-by-side, and they were different, even though nothing else about them seemed to have changed. Maybe I hadn't noticed a change in the soup's data? I pulled out a can, but it didn't look different to me. Just to be sure, I re-entered everything into the calculator. It still told me 0 points for 1 cup, and 1 point for the 2-serving can.
Unfortunately, WW doesn't tell you what nutrition data they're basing their points on in the database. So as near as I can guess, what's happening is that for whatever reason, they're not accounting for the fiber. What frustrates me is that I'm not sure why -- and the cynical commentator in my brain tells me that it's deliberate, that they're not counting the fiber portion for the Campbell's soup because that makes it look like it's more points than the Progresso, which after all, still has the Weight Watcher's logo on its cans and (presumably) is paying a premium for that endorsement... Shall we do a compare?
The Progresso Light Italian-Style Vegetable has 10 more calories per serving, the same fat and fiber, about 2 fewer grams of non-fiber carbohydrates, and... fewer vitamins/minerals (on average, though Progresso wins on Vitamin C), and more than 50% more sodium (700mg vs 480mg). I'm not kidding: check out the published nutrition information here and here.
I'd like to believe that whoever put the Campbell's data into their database just didn't have the fiber information available, but how likely is that? Not very, considering that, even in absence of an actual can, I managed to find the information online in about thirty seconds.
And how likely is it now that I'm going to stop trusting their database to have the correct data for brand names? That... That's pretty darned likely.
They didn't have the online tools back then. The online tools are handy, and mean I don't have to carry a converter doohickey with me everywhere I go. (Which is good, because I'm an online-only member, so they don't give me a converter doohickey to carry.) It's worth noting that the sidebar calculator doesn't work quite the same way as the database's calculator. The sidebar rounds to the nearest whole point, whereas the database will calculate to the nearest half unit, if your idea of a serving size doesn't match up with its default stored serving size.
You either already know all this, or else I'm boring you silly, or both, but this is worth mentioning so you can understand my complaint.
For a while now, I've enjoyed Campbell's Select Harvest Light soups. WW granted its countenance to the Progresso light soup line, but I think the Campbell's tastes better. When I first found them, they weren't in the WW database, so I had to add them, which wasn't a big deal -- I do that a lot. Let's take, for example, the Italian-Style Vegetable, which is the diet-friendliest of the bunch. According to the can, a serving is 50 calories, 0g fat, and 4g fiber, which is 0 points. But there's 2 servings in the can, and I dunno about anyone else, but I usually eat the whole can. So when I put it in the database, I put it in for "my" serving, which is 100 calories, 0g fat, and 8g fiber, which works out to 1 point. (It's worth nothing that Nutrition Facts labels are allowed to round their numbers off quite a bit, but even if you assume the posted 0g fat is almost 1g, and the 4g fiber is closer to 3g -- moving both of those numbers in the least advantageous direction for me -- it still works out to 1 point for the can of soup.) Which is a pretty damn good deal, and this is why I try to keep a few cans of this stuff around, in case I'm having a Hungry Hungry Hippo day. The other varieties of the soup go up to 3 points/can, and I keep them around too, because 3 points is a good deal for a reasonably filling lunch on a day I'm planning a big dinner.
With me so far? Good.
So the other day, I went to add a snack of some soup to my day's tally, and because I don't want to type "Campbell's Select Harvest Light Italian-Style Vegetable Soup, 1 can" every time, I just put "Campbell Harvest" into the search bar, assuming it would pull up my three or four hand-entered entries and I could click on the one I wanted from there.
Much to my surprise, it pulled up about twelve options: Apparently, WW has added some of the line to its own internal database! Wahoo! I clicked on their entry, and right away was confused. It said 1 cup of soup was 1 point. Well, it's a rounding thing, maybe, I thought. I changed the 1 to a 2, since the whole can is about 2 cups. The points changed to 2.
I blinked. It should have read 1.5, at most.
Now, I was eating a variety of crackers for a while that, between one batch and the next, changed nutrition data on me -- I actually had the two boxes side-by-side, and they were different, even though nothing else about them seemed to have changed. Maybe I hadn't noticed a change in the soup's data? I pulled out a can, but it didn't look different to me. Just to be sure, I re-entered everything into the calculator. It still told me 0 points for 1 cup, and 1 point for the 2-serving can.
Unfortunately, WW doesn't tell you what nutrition data they're basing their points on in the database. So as near as I can guess, what's happening is that for whatever reason, they're not accounting for the fiber. What frustrates me is that I'm not sure why -- and the cynical commentator in my brain tells me that it's deliberate, that they're not counting the fiber portion for the Campbell's soup because that makes it look like it's more points than the Progresso, which after all, still has the Weight Watcher's logo on its cans and (presumably) is paying a premium for that endorsement... Shall we do a compare?
The Progresso Light Italian-Style Vegetable has 10 more calories per serving, the same fat and fiber, about 2 fewer grams of non-fiber carbohydrates, and... fewer vitamins/minerals (on average, though Progresso wins on Vitamin C), and more than 50% more sodium (700mg vs 480mg). I'm not kidding: check out the published nutrition information here and here.
I'd like to believe that whoever put the Campbell's data into their database just didn't have the fiber information available, but how likely is that? Not very, considering that, even in absence of an actual can, I managed to find the information online in about thirty seconds.
And how likely is it now that I'm going to stop trusting their database to have the correct data for brand names? That... That's pretty darned likely.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Holding Pattern
No loss again this week. Stuck at 205.
I'm not quite as irritable about it as the last one, because I have some idea of what happened, I think. Or at least, there are several factors at play.
Item one is that it's probably a partial bounce-back from when I was sick the week before.
Item two is that my daughter has been taking swimming lessons, which has resulted in us having dinner on-the-go -- namely, a sandwich. Which, since my sandwiches are about 4 points each, leaves me with rather a lot of points at the end of the day, so I've been having late evening snacks to make up the difference. Eating late in the day is bad for weight loss.
Item three is my current position on the menstrual roller coaster.
So there's that.
On the other hand, I can't say I'm happy about it, either. I'd bought new (smaller) clothes this week and was feeling pretty good about them. I'd made some changes to my routine at the gym and my Wii Fit workout that (I felt) stepped things up a little. I thought I'd have at least a pound to show, this week.
And the kid is still in swim lessons this week, and Saturday is the Fourth of July, which we will be celebrating with a cook-out with my family, so... Next week doesn't look terribly promising, either. And the week after that is the Summer Bash...
Bleh and bleh and bleh. I would really, really like to drop below 200 in the next three weeks, in time for my high school reunion. Though I acknowledge the stupidity of that -- no one who will be there has seen me since graduation, so I will still look fat to them (I was 135 when they last saw me, after all) and it's not like the difference between 205 and 199 will actually be visible, even to me. It's strictly psychological.
Bleh.
I'm not quite as irritable about it as the last one, because I have some idea of what happened, I think. Or at least, there are several factors at play.
Item one is that it's probably a partial bounce-back from when I was sick the week before.
Item two is that my daughter has been taking swimming lessons, which has resulted in us having dinner on-the-go -- namely, a sandwich. Which, since my sandwiches are about 4 points each, leaves me with rather a lot of points at the end of the day, so I've been having late evening snacks to make up the difference. Eating late in the day is bad for weight loss.
Item three is my current position on the menstrual roller coaster.
So there's that.
On the other hand, I can't say I'm happy about it, either. I'd bought new (smaller) clothes this week and was feeling pretty good about them. I'd made some changes to my routine at the gym and my Wii Fit workout that (I felt) stepped things up a little. I thought I'd have at least a pound to show, this week.
And the kid is still in swim lessons this week, and Saturday is the Fourth of July, which we will be celebrating with a cook-out with my family, so... Next week doesn't look terribly promising, either. And the week after that is the Summer Bash...
Bleh and bleh and bleh. I would really, really like to drop below 200 in the next three weeks, in time for my high school reunion. Though I acknowledge the stupidity of that -- no one who will be there has seen me since graduation, so I will still look fat to them (I was 135 when they last saw me, after all) and it's not like the difference between 205 and 199 will actually be visible, even to me. It's strictly psychological.
Bleh.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Not Shrinking
No change this week. This is the first non-loss that I don't have an answer for; I missed my weekend wiirkout and didn't feel all that challenged by the gym, but that shouldn't be enough to make me not lose at all. I didn't eat anything particularly horrible. (Well, I had some samples at Sam's Club Sunday, but I counted points for them, and even if I massively underestimated, it wasn't enough to use up my APs, much less touch my flex points.) And I don't think I "snitch" ate enough to account for it.
Nor do I think I've reached the point where more is less -- I'm not working out more than 45 minutes a day (and only 5 days a week, at that), and I'm eating 25 or so points a day.
So I have no explanation, and I'm feeling pretty irritable about it. So much for my lingering faint hope of making it below 200 in time for the summer bash in July.
Well, fuck.
Nor do I think I've reached the point where more is less -- I'm not working out more than 45 minutes a day (and only 5 days a week, at that), and I'm eating 25 or so points a day.
So I have no explanation, and I'm feeling pretty irritable about it. So much for my lingering faint hope of making it below 200 in time for the summer bash in July.
Well, fuck.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Minimal
When I first got on the scale this morning, it said I'd lost a bit over 2 pounds, and then it said "ERR0" which means it needs to be zeroed. So I zeroed it out and stepped on again, and this time it said I lost only half a pound this week. Bleh.
It probably didn't help my case any that I only went to the gym twice this week (it was closed for Memorial Day, and I didn't plan ahead enough to take that into account) and skipped my Wii Fit workout on Sunday after walking all over the museum (but the walk was probably not quite enough to make up for the Fit workout, pointwise). Still, it might be an artificial partial-gain, since I went to a luncheon at work yesterday. Chinese buffet food, even when I plan it out in advance so I don't blow my points, is pretty heavy on salt and makes me retain water for a while.
But it's still slightly disappointing. Especially on top of the extremely craptastic Wii Fit workout I had last night.
So today I'm hoping to be able to hide in my office and get some work done that I've had on my plate for a bit, and to go over to the gym at lunchtime and really get back into the swing of things there, too.
But hey, I'm wearing new pants! Size XL! (I squeezed into a size 16, actually, but it wasn't very comfortable. I would've bought them to fit into in about a month, but like most non-elastic-waisted pants, they gaped hugely at the back, and UGH. I'm never going to be able to get away from tunic-length shirts. And in another twenty pounds or so, I won't be able to buy Lane Bryant's wonderful shape-tailored jeans that actually fit right, waaah! Maybe when I get all the way down to my goal weight, I should splurge on actual tailored pants.)
...Yeah, attempting to be positive just isn't working for me today. Maybe next week.
It probably didn't help my case any that I only went to the gym twice this week (it was closed for Memorial Day, and I didn't plan ahead enough to take that into account) and skipped my Wii Fit workout on Sunday after walking all over the museum (but the walk was probably not quite enough to make up for the Fit workout, pointwise). Still, it might be an artificial partial-gain, since I went to a luncheon at work yesterday. Chinese buffet food, even when I plan it out in advance so I don't blow my points, is pretty heavy on salt and makes me retain water for a while.
But it's still slightly disappointing. Especially on top of the extremely craptastic Wii Fit workout I had last night.
So today I'm hoping to be able to hide in my office and get some work done that I've had on my plate for a bit, and to go over to the gym at lunchtime and really get back into the swing of things there, too.
But hey, I'm wearing new pants! Size XL! (I squeezed into a size 16, actually, but it wasn't very comfortable. I would've bought them to fit into in about a month, but like most non-elastic-waisted pants, they gaped hugely at the back, and UGH. I'm never going to be able to get away from tunic-length shirts. And in another twenty pounds or so, I won't be able to buy Lane Bryant's wonderful shape-tailored jeans that actually fit right, waaah! Maybe when I get all the way down to my goal weight, I should splurge on actual tailored pants.)
...Yeah, attempting to be positive just isn't working for me today. Maybe next week.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Ugh.
I was good this week. Ate well, no leftover Easter candy to tempt me, even managed to stick to soup and salad at the birthday luncheon I went to yesterday, consistently came in under my points for the day all week, moderate exercise every day. Three separate people mentioned, completely out of the blue, how good I look and how impressed they are with my weight loss.
I was feeling good and positive as I got on the scale this morning, wondering where it would be. 217? Possibly even a smidge below that?
But... I only lost .4 pounds. 218, for a total loss of 55 pounds. (It couldn't even give me 217.8, for the psychological benefit of a new number. Stupid scale.)
Given that I was good this week, I can only really think of two reasons for it: either I've hit a plateau, or there's some holdover weight gain from last week's anniversary splurge. (I suppose it could also be feminine-cycle weight, but my cycle is completely flipping unpredictable these days. Four weeks? Six? Nine? Whatever.)
Anyway, I won't know if it's a temporary cause or a plateau until next week's weigh-in (assuming I'm good this week, of course). It's a little disheartening, though, to have to consider the possibility that I've gotten rid of all the "easy-come, easy-go" weight that I put on since my last diet a few years ago, and now I'm going to have to struggle for every loss, because from here on out, this is all weight I've been harboring for ten years or more.
That's just the kind of day I'm having, I guess.
I was feeling good and positive as I got on the scale this morning, wondering where it would be. 217? Possibly even a smidge below that?
But... I only lost .4 pounds. 218, for a total loss of 55 pounds. (It couldn't even give me 217.8, for the psychological benefit of a new number. Stupid scale.)
Given that I was good this week, I can only really think of two reasons for it: either I've hit a plateau, or there's some holdover weight gain from last week's anniversary splurge. (I suppose it could also be feminine-cycle weight, but my cycle is completely flipping unpredictable these days. Four weeks? Six? Nine? Whatever.)
Anyway, I won't know if it's a temporary cause or a plateau until next week's weigh-in (assuming I'm good this week, of course). It's a little disheartening, though, to have to consider the possibility that I've gotten rid of all the "easy-come, easy-go" weight that I put on since my last diet a few years ago, and now I'm going to have to struggle for every loss, because from here on out, this is all weight I've been harboring for ten years or more.
That's just the kind of day I'm having, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
