boogies_workout_blog | Recent Entries

cross-posted to my livejournal :

BP was 102/70, heartrate 72, officially down 20 lbs (last measurement there was 279, and this one 259). Doc's lowering one of my meds, and i promised myself i'd get an obgyn appt in sept. I haven't for several reasons, including the infamous 'i haven't had time!', which is true, but it's also true that i hate obgyn appts with a firey passion. i know it's related to my rape when i was 7, and it sucks ass, and i know nothing's 'going to happen' - but that doesn't mean it's easy to get myself into the gynecologist's office.

*but*! i'm excited about the low BP and the lower heart-rate. it means that even the not-very-much exercising i've been doing is helping a lot.

and then i laughed for 15min while the nurse tried to draw blood. i'm a hard stick, and it's always fun to see what they try next.

-bs

boogieshoes

Whatever your approach to health, I think we can all agree getting to 'healthy' requires two things: 'eating correctly' and 'exercising right'.

Different health goals result in different definitions of 'eating correctly' and 'exercising right'. I'm not a physiologist, nutritionist, or medical person; I'm an engineer, and can really only tell you about my experience. I have come up with several theories, but they're primarily based on my experience, and the sum of these experiences are why I espouse Health At Every Size.

For one, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I had to solve - or at least successfully deal with - the majority of my mental/emotional baggage/issues before I could even start to look at body health. This was in large part because I didn't even realize until relatively recently that I had issues regarding food that have affected me all this time. These are the kind of issues that I'll struggle with probably until my dying day, and it influences how I *practice* HAES.

But in the end, as an engineer, I'm fated to believe that there is some kind of model out there that works for everyone. The problem is, the human body is a bundle of interactions as complex as the weather - subject to the butterfly effect, which implies that there is no microscopic level too small to effect the macroscopic presentation. My father, who worked for the Air Force as a meteorologist for 20 years (and still has his books and knows more about the atmosphere than I can hope to forget), tells me that even the most modern and advanced weather modelling is only accurate to about 3 days. They start getting iffy about 5 days out and increase in faultines until they fall apart completely after about 10 days.

And that's *today's* models, not the models my father was working with in the Air Force at the end of his military career in the '80s. Those were worse. The problem in this case isn't stupid modellers; it's that the system is too complex to model completely, or completely effectively. There are several cycles that interact to form weather patterns, plus wind trends, plus geological activities and features, plus... all kinds of stuff - and it's all dynamic, and all subject to the interconnectedness between each other.

The human body is going to shape up to be the same way - several systems, plus 'external influences', all interacting and feeding on and off and to each other, resulting in a complexity of galactic proportions. Can it be modelled correctly? Yes. Just not with any accuracy today, given what we actually know. And we know a *lot* - just not *enough*.

Presumably, though, although everyone will have their own individual variations,

New Body mass = original mass + mass in - mass out - heat produced

Mass out is waste: both the stuff you leave in the toilet bowl and the stuff you sweat through your skin, as well as exhaled gases. You can't really do anything about this; it's part of the body's natural processes and it is what it is, whether you will or no.

Mass in is pretty self-explanatory: it's what you eat.

Like most people, I've got a theory about what you should eat. I believe the most generalized parts of my theory are applicable to everyone - but of course as soon as you start refining things even to 'guideline' level, you automatically move to the 'this works for me category, because I don't have the data that says it works for everyone'. Actually, no one has any data that says 'x' eating rule works for everyone. At any rate, here are the rules I believe work for everyone, caveating, of course, the complete and utter lack of data:

1) Listen to your body (I had to learn to listen to it). Eat when you're hungry, stop when you're comfortably full.

1a) Eat right for your body type and needs. This rule literally can't get more specific without falling down for someone, because *everybody* is going to have different intake needs both in terms of calories and nutrition, and what form they have to take.

2) If you can, avoid HFCS, MSG, and anything that sounds like a chemical in the ingredients list. This includes growth hormones. You may not be able to, or maybe you love Doritoes and can't let them go. That's fine - don't beat yourself up about it. But if you *can* avoid chemicals, do so.

3) Don't worry about indulging - for one, a craving usually signals that you *need* a particular nutrient in your system. For another, if you compromise, you'll end up feeling cheated *and* guilty *and* will continue to crave. If you indulge, get the real thing. Unless the diet thing is what you're craving.

4) Avoid preservatives, chemical insect repellants, and chemical applications to fruit and vegetables, if you can. Again, you may not be able to - this is usually an economic issue, but maybe you don't have or know of the local farmer's market, or you live in MooseJaw, Saskatchewan where you're lucky to get canned goods in the winter. Don't beat yourself up over it - do the best you can and leave it at that. Well, you may want to run fresh fruit and vegetables under hot running water for a few minutes to get the worst of the stuff off of it.

And that's as close as you can get to universal intake rules, as far as I can see.

This leaves the other part of the equation:

Heat produced: This includes both energy of being - what it takes to keep you functioning at your basal temp - and calories burned by exercise.

And here's where I - and many others - fall down on the job. It makes sense that if this is at all formulaic that there's a minimum level of physical fitness that counts as 'fit' - but what is that level? FDA recommends raising your heart-rate 30 minutes 3x a week. That's a reasonable start, but it's a rather vague description. Raising your heartrate through watching a horror movie and/or having nightmares afterwards, for example... probably doesn't count as 'fit'.

Cross-fit philosophy defines 'fit' as 'as much as it takes to allow you to do what you want to do with your body'. That sounds good, because it's somewhat job-related (where 'job' isn't just what you do to earn pay, but is rather defined as 'the functions you ask your body to do'). It's not very specific, either, but at least you can start defining it on a somewhat individual basis.

For example, Ragen, whom I remind myself to keep in mind as an inspiration, is impressive to me: she's 5'4", 284lbs, and dances ballet 25 hrs a week. This sounds like an awful lot to me, but it 'only' works out to be 5 hrs in a workday. Only is in quotes there because she's also a company CEO, and puts in 60hr workweeks on a regular basis. I don't know if the dancing is in addition to, or as a part of, but either way, i'm always awed that she does that. I'm also somewhat croggled, because my only real-life experience with athletes is the low-body-fat due to training kind. But it's obvious that Ragen is fit, and much fitter than many other people at that. (That's the inspirational part, because even if I don't lose the amount of weight I'm aiming for, Ragen is the proof that you can kick major muscle, grace, and power, even with a plus-size bod.)

I'd like to be able to garden and/or work in a wood-shop 4-5hrs/day if i feel the need to, and I'd *really* like to be able to hike all kinds of terrain that doesn't require climbing links in all kinds of weather. I'd also like to be able to do some gymnastics, especially the flexibility and strength moves.

But see, here's where cross-fit philosophy falls apart on the face of it*. See, I can get as fit as I can to do most of that stuff, but the hiking may prove difficult. Running, too, although it'd be nice - I've got joint issues with my hips, ankles, back, and knees that might preclude me ever running again, and I might not ever be able to jump on the trampoline, and power moves on floor and power release/ dismount moves are right out. So I've got this 'hard-limit' issue that I've got to work with. Am I never going to be 'fit' because my body will never move like a little kid's again? (And my *sister's* little kid-body, at that!)

Obviously, the answer is 'no' - but the question has to be asked, because it pays to define 'fitness' in terms that are acheiveable. On the individual level, this is fairly easy define for yourself, because specific you can take into account all the variables of what you can and can't do and then you can decide what you want to define 'fit' as. You might or might not need professional help to set up an exercise program to fit your needs, but don't hesitate to ask questions, certainly.

On the macro-level, however, 'minimally fit' becomes infinitely difficult to define across any cross-section of the population, simply because there's all kinds of ability levels, preferences, etc, even between the members of small groups - and if the group becomes too small, the data is statistically insignificant. What is an engineer to do?**

Truthfully, I don't have an answer. I don't think anyone really does. All I say is that I'm out of shape by both the FDA standards, and my own, which right now amounts to 'can spend an afternoon doing a garden project and actually get it done... assuming she has all the equipment and materials she needs.' All I can say to others looking to 'get fit', and feeling somewhat lost about it, is that you shouldn't tie your final fitness goals to weight. Instead, look to Ragen and other athletes of size to remind you that 'fit' constitutes 'being able to do without overly stressing your body', not 'must be within the BMI range'.

But since I'm an engineer, I'll keep thinking about this, and maybe one day I'll have general trend data that's worth something and makes some sense.

-bs

* If you dig a little deeper into their websites, cross-fitters generally actually say 'you should be as fit as you *can* be, which is somewhat different than 'be as fit as you need to be to do X'. I know it sounds the same, but when you start picking it apart with an eye towards limiting issues, the differences show up fast. To be frank 'as fit as you can be' is a better way of thinking about things, but I'm taking a bit of authorial license here for illustrative purposes.

**Gripe. (Smirk)

boogieshoes

and a week before my dr's appt besides, guh.

weighed in at 260.6 this morning, and last night's workout on the elliptical thingy was only 500 strides, which was less than last monday (750) and the last time before that, which i believe was 1000 strides.

i can't be doing enough to build muscle - i just can't last that long right now. but i'm thinking maybe i'm gaining weight because i'm unconciously changing what i eat. in summer, i tend to do chips and cheese, because it's easy, and not too hot to cook. i think i need to make a conscious effort to go for the fruit and veggies in the evenings. we've already discussed that for me, carbs are not so good.

i realize i'm just beginning this journey, but it's hard to get everything to hang together appropriately. i have all these great theories, but getting the practice down is somewhat difficult.

in other news, i have bought a set of 2lb weights and 3lb weights. because i am a completist, i will probably order 1lb and 4lb weights from amazon.com. i plan on doing dumbbell exercises tues-thurs, but i need to make sure i don't sit on the couch when i get home. apparently, the couch is an energy black hole. you sit on it, and then you wake up 3hrs later going 'wtf?' ;)

ETA: i just finished my first dumb-bell workout, arms only. 3lb weights it is. until i get stronger.

in other other news, i randomly found a pizza place that sells gluten-free pizza - Godfather's pizza chain. no idea if it's any good, but a possible resource for those who need gluten-free diets.

-bs

boogieshoes

fat is not being able to buy off the shelf knee braces because they don't freakin' fit. fat is also getting out of breath after a measly 750 strides on the elliptical/ stairmaster thing. thin is... being able to fit an 4XL knee brace, and arm braces, and not feeling like i'm gonna have an asthma attack after i get all hot and sweaty.

one of these days, i'm going to be able to do 30min on that thing, and get off and do some leg lifts on the weight machines. i just gotta keep working at it. also, i will hike to mountaintops and sit up there at night to watch the cold clear stars.

but... 750 more than the last two weeks. last week i was sick, week before that, i was recovering from mom. love the woman, but she's the energizer bunny on crack, with all the weird brain shit that implies.

discovered today that i've vastly underestimate how much i was eating during the day, calorie-wise. it's hard to estimate grazing cals, but a quick check on a calorie counter says i'm probably closer to 1000cal/ work-day than the original 300 i'd thought. i'm ok with this. remember, i'm mostly curious about my numbers.

dinner tonight is home-made nachos:
ground buff meat,
diced bell peppers
mushrooms,
cheese,
chips

probably last me a couple days.

-bs

boogieshoes

I now have 3.5 workout DW posts that I've written, and I haven't posted any of them, because I'm really not sure people want to hear what I have to say. I'm consequently going to compound this problem by writing post #5. (I'm waiting for another search to execute at work.)

I said in this post (link - except that I haven't put it up yet!) that I wasn't going to go into my 'eating guidelines' because
those guidelines only worked for me (and also, the post was dragging on a little long). What I'd like to do in this post is set out what I believe, including those eating guidelines, as it relates to the human body and being 'in shape and healthy'. I don't
expect anyone to agree with me 100%, but hopefully it will allow readers to understand a bit where I'm coming from.

In no particular order, I believe that:

1) Genetics matter. They control so very much, and while you can fight your genetics to an extent, it's much easier to work *with* your genetic make-up to the highest degree possible. In terms of health, the important points are a) how genetics influence your bodily reactions (to everything), and b) what your genetically en-coded starting point is.

1a) Everyone has a set-point. By which I mean, everyone has a point their body will want to weigh, given a healthy diet, and a resting rate of metabolism that their body will maintain tenaciously. These set points are different for everyone, and are influenced by genetics, chemical intake (both 'food' and 'non-food' chemicals), and prior behaviors (frex, yo-yo dieting, anorexia, starvation or overeating due to circumstances, etc). You *can* influence your set point and basal metabolism, but it takes time and effort, and may or may not be worth it to you.

2) Mental and emotional health are more important than physical health, and should be prioritized. (This is one of the few statements I believe is unequivocally true for everyone.)

2a) The health of your endocrine and lymphatic systems should be prioritized over your weight, too. By which I mean - make sure your internal chemical soup has the right balance, first. And don't necessarily rely on doctors for this - medicine is art as much as science, and sometimes the body goes right off the canvas. My aunt's appropriate amount of thyroid replacement hormone is approximately 1/3 the 'lowest normal' dose for her size and weight. At the normal dosage, she gains weight like a grizzly preparing for hibernation. At the *correct* dosage, she stays close to her natural set-point without doing an awful lot of 'extra' stuff. By the same token, don't just write off Western medicine, either. Western medicine is some of the best *diagnostic* medicine ever. You may have to haul your medicos there kicking and screaming, but push to make sure your endocrine system is correctly balanced - again, *for you*; chances are, it'll be different for anybody else.

3) Numbers are important - and as an engineer, I'm well aware how many different things you can do with numbers - but understanding them and how (or if) they apply is even more important. For example, talking about BMR (basal metabolism rate) again, there are, logically, several things that should affect that number. Oxygen uptake efficiency (do you really have 95% O2 saturation in your blood, or are you struggling to get there because of sleep apnea, pneumonia, allergies...?) is one influence. Basal temperature is another - the usual is 98.6F, but mine is actually 96.8F. A calorie is defined as the amount of energy it takes to raise one gram of water one degree centigrade. As endothermic animals - organisms that produce the energy it takes to stay warm enough for our brains and organs to function - we burn energy just to keep our body at the preferred operating temperature. By definition, I'm burning less energy because my body prefers to operate at a lower temperature, which means my metabolism system is not required to have as heavy an output, and like any machine, the default state is to do as little work as possible in order to conserve energy.

This is a connection that doesn't take much thinking to produce, but it's not one that the weight loss industry makes at all. I'm not convinced the medical industry does, either.

What I'm finding as I go along is that one of the signals that I'm ready to tackle this big project of losing weight is that I'm embracing the numbers involved - not obsessing over them, as I did before, but putting them into context, and making a concerted effort to figure out what really applies, what I can take with a grain of salt, and what's just bad science. So my weight, which when I started this shindig on Jan 1st was 269lbs, is today 255.2lbs. It's been 20 or 21 weeks since Jan, and by recording my weight each week, I can make a chart, and by doing a linear regression of the points, I can find out the average rate of weight loss, and make a projection to the end of the year.

This kind of stuff is fun for me, and while I don't recommend it for everyone, because it really is easy to slide into obsessiveness over it, I also recognize that some people just want to discuss the numbers - and I'll never say you can't do that on this blog.

4) Bread is the enemy. This is definitely caveated with 'for me'. I believe physical health has to include eating right for you and your body type. Which will not be the same as *me* and *my* body type - or my friends in fandom, or my friend the retired X-ray tech, or the girl who lives in Cali and does a lot of hiking. What I mean for this is, for my body type, goals, and bodily chemical reactions, a high-carb diet is not so good. For me, the diet that seems to work best is high protein, high dietary fats, low carbs. On the other hand, I can't cut out carbs completely - I take medications that, especially the morning round - really need to be taken with carbohydrates to cushion their harsher side effects. (One of the things I learned with the Atkins diet - I was hungry all the time, but my stomach hurt like I ate straight caffeine pills, even when I cut out all caffeinated beverages. Turns out it was medication I don't care to be off of - it's made to be taken with carbohydrates to cushion the stomach.)

5) Milk is the enemy commander. I'm lactose intolerant enough to matter, which I found out by deleting milk from my diet for about 2-3 weeks and seeing if it helped the IBS - it did. What this means for my nutritional intake is that I drink lactaid milk, if at all, and can't eat some of my favorite foods because they're made with regular milk that's not been cooked long enough to break down the lactose proteins: no ricotta, cottage cheese, pudding, tapioca, and various other cheeses that i haven't nailed down. Some cheeses are fine in moderate amounts, so when I pick up something new, I try to keep an eye on my GI reactions so I know what to avoid in the future. Some processed foods don't cook milk enough - the fancy milk and dark chocolates? No can do. Quiche is right out. Alfredo sauces, too.

Other au naturelle foods that I can't eat for IBS reasons: lettuce and it's relatives, except for cauliflour and mild amounts of broccoli. Blueberries give me issues, and I think I just don't really digest corn and peas. All of which sucks, because I love fruits and vegetables, and would love to eat salads, especially raw spinach - not happening.

6) Okay, bread isn't the enemy, part 1. I had a friend tell me once that he had half an apple for dessert and that was his carb quotient for the day. That kind of thinking is a little bit silly. It's not the sugar that's the problem, it's the form of the sugar.

Processed foods are not as good for you as whole foods - except when they are. Like cheeses: protein and fats. According to my own guidelines, they're better than strawberries and apples, but I don't really know anyone who thinks strawberries or apples are 'bad' - so why do view apple carbs the same as, say, angel-food cake carbs? There does come a point where processing is bad - we all know that - but 6 calories of natural sugars in a strawberry out-qualities 6 calories of HFCS or MSG, any time. And if it's 6 calories of aspartame, lay yourself down in the dirt-patch right now.

It comes back to how the chemical processes in your body react to the chemicals you're ingesting. I'm not a nutrition guru, and I'm not going to tell someone how to eat, and I can't exactly point fingers as I'm pretty addicted to diet coke (aspartame!) myself. The point here is to be aware of what you're eating and why. My general guideline for food-like input is to avoid anything with an ingrediant-list including things I can't pronounce.

OTOH... reading the ingredient list is how I learned that I 'could' eat Xoahuital (sp?) chips - they include cornmeal, sea salt, and peanut oil - so, you know, be careful.

7) Bread isn't the enemy part 2. One of the things I've been reading about on some blogs lately is that all bread-and-pasta carbs suck, and you should just avoid them. I suspect what's really going on is that breads and pastas in our modern age has been processed way past the point of food-like, and into the point of food-not. Read the back of most breads and pastas and you find they fail the 'no unpronounceable ingredients' list.

But bread, and bread-making, is also a traditional food and culture that's lasted thousands of years. It is relatively high-calorie, BUT, it's not the end-all be-all of bad health. If you can be sure of the ingredients, and be sure they're as un-processed and natural as possible and still be flour, salt, sugar, etc, you're probably ok. Most foods are like this - the stuff you find in the grocery store, the stuff in restauraunts - not necessarily the most healthy stuff, and not because it's fried. Avoid additives like the plague, if you can, you'll be healthier.** But if you can garauntee the ingredients, you can garuntee the 'health factor', even if it's not exactly 'good for you' (maple sugar candy, I'm looking at you!).

8) Natural solutions are better, if you can do it that way. This is a philosophy based on the belief that our bodies have evolved to digest the plants and animals around us, as well as the sure and certain knowledge that medical science just does not have as good an understanding of our chemical reactions and interactions to substances as we would like to think.

This is not to say 'eat belladonna! it's natural and therefore good for you!' It is to say that if you're having problems sleeping, instead of taking a pill, try hot tea - and not necessarily chamomile, just whatever floats your boat. If you have allergy issues, nasal steroid sprays may be something you have to do, but a saline sinus rinse is probably easier on your system.

I'm also *definitely not* saying that you should avoid prescriptions and vax shots and etc, especially if the natural world does not have a remedy for you. I have clinical depression, which St John's Wort is touted for as a natural remedy - I had a bad reaction to the 'natural plant', and am rather happy on my Paxil now. I still worry about the effects of the binding ingredients in the pills on my liver and kidneys - they *say* it's inert, but they used to say asbestos wouldn't hurt you, either. But I'd rather have the positive side affects now and deal with a potentially bolluxed liver later.

And some things don't *have* a 'natural remedy - take the bubonic plague. You were lucky if you survived in the 1300s. But if they diagnose it quickly enough today - and there are several cases each year in the American SW - your survival rate is closer to 100% than the untreated 10% chance of the Middle Ages.

9) I believe in HAES - that is, I believe that people can be healthy at any size, and should work towards being healthy before and/or in preference to being that perfect weight. So one may ask why, if I believe this, I'm trying to lose around 100lbs? Well, I have this knee, and it's not happy with me. A lot. I have a history of weight-related diabetes in my family. I have lower back issues what with the Sacro-Ilium tilt thing I've got going on.

If I lose weight, I'll have less stress on my knees and back and less chance of weight-related diabetes. I also want to get back on a horse again, without breaking the horse's back. Not likely, but the less weight on him/her, the better, too.

But losing weight is my mid-range, goal, not even the *real* long-term goal. The long-term goal is to have a body fat percentage of around 20%, which may be a stretch for my body type, and to be as flexible and strong as I can be. Eventually, I'd like to get into cross-fit, do some gymnastics - at least the slow strength moves - long-distance swimming, maybe skiing, and test myself against military skills standards - successfully. And I'm working on that because eventually, I'd like to own a ranch and work on it, which needs strength and mobility, and have a carpentry shop, and continue my gardening, and oh yes - be able to hike portions of the Continental Divide and Appalachian trail, which will require endurance and strength.

The 'losing weight' portion of the program is just as much to get me into a habit of working out as it is for health purposes. Then I'll build muscle and flexibility, all in an effort to do what I want to do, now that I've got the time and money to do it.

Practical Fall-Outs:

Practically, I don't want to change my habits any more than anyone else, so I have guidelines I try to follow during my daily routines instead. I have a strong tendency towards mentally filing things by activity (and location, which is why I can meet someone in a new place and think I've never seen them before, if I don't already know them very well).

So for 'eating out', the guideline is: 'Eat protein items first, veggies second, breads third.' This tends to influence my ordering. I often order appetizers - and they tend to be mozzerella sticks, mushroom caps, fried zucchini... life is good. I also deliberately
look for dishes where the components can be separated pretty easily. So few soups, although this is ok, because a lot of restauraunt soups taste more salty than I like. I'll substitute sweet potatoes for baked potatoes, or for fries. This is partially because I like sweet potatoes, and also because by the time I get there, a couple bites of a loaded sweet potato acts as a 'dessert'.

I don't bother eating fish. I don't like seafood unless it's fried, which kind of undoes all the good seafood is supposed to do for you.

When I go shopping, the guidelines are:

'No MSG, HFCS, ingredients that are unpronounceable, or additives.' This rules out about 90% of products. Seriously. I like easy snacks, but I buy them only at a local organic foods store now, because neither Wal-Mart or Winn-Dixie have decent pre-made stuff. As a matter of fact, the last time I went to Winn-Dixie, the only items I got on my list were soda, water (I can't drink the stuff out of the tap, and I can't drink it from the bottle if it doesn't have flavoring of some sort in it - bad me), unsalted peanuts, and guacomole dip. If I really have a hankering for something, I'll buy it anyway (Bush's Grillin' Beans, yum!). The other time I break this rule is if I can't find a version without. I'm thinking of the last time I made chile, and I couldn't find 'diced tomatoes' without at least 'natural flavoring added'... And I'm in the store thinking 'if it's natural, why did you have to add it?'

'No preservatives, no food coloring, no hormones.' You'd be surprised at some of the things that happen in the process of getting our foods to the store. Most of us are aware of BGH - the bovine growth hormone given to cattle to make them grow more meat (and be more valuable per head), which does things like make little girls menstruate at 7. You may not be aware that a lot of fruits - like apples - are put in to cold storage for up to two years after they're picked, sprayed with a preservative to keep them from decaying and a colorant to make them 'attractive'. All that's after they're picked, and exposed to whatever chemicals a farmer might have used to control weeds and insect pests. Seriously, you shouldn't have to wash off your apples before you eat them.

But this also clashes with my 'au naturelle' philosophy of not taking 'medicine' if you can find another way. Neither the FDA nor anyone else really knows what happens with those chemicals when they're taken in to the body. We can make guesses, but without objective data, there's no certainty to be had - and the FDA regularly accepts test results for human consumption safety from the party who invented the chemical in the first place. This is bad science - that party is going to pay for a study only if it shows what they want it to show, so the FDA sees only what those parties want them to see.

So, for fruits and vegetables, I shop at my local organic store, where I'm garunteed this season's freshness. The food doesn't last as long - but it tastes a heck of a lot better! And if I've got any choice, I'm not going back. For meat at home, I order yearly from a place in Colorado (I think, I order through their website). They deal in buffalo, deer, elk, and occasionally goat. They butcher the animals themselves, so I can be sure of no BGH at any point, and no other chemicals involved. They send their packages with ice and dry ice to keep things cold (works very well!).

I eat out a fair bit, and I know I can't control what's in the meat served at restauraunts, but I do try to eat pork instead.

'If you want it, buy it.' This is the whole diet thing. If I deny myself what I want, I end up craving it, and will later go a bit nuts on whatever it is, eating more than I really wanted, and then feeling guilty about the whole thing. Since I can't control that reaction yet, I'm trying to work around it. Better to eat a little now, than a lot later.

When I'm making dinners at home, the guidelines are more geared towards not touching off the IBS:

'Don't eat stuff that'll sit you on the throne later.' Sometimes it's unavoidable. And sometimes I just have to have that cheesecake. But I feel much healthier when I'm not spending so much time in the bathroom.

'Easy on the spices.' I have a tendency to be so easy on the spices I forget to put them in, but even when I make a choice to add spices, I start light. I don't have a good memory for tastes and/or a mental taste separation ability, so I never know how much is too much spice. I do know that I have a low heat tolerance - I'm not even sure I own black pepper, and bell pepper heat was just accomplished a few years ago.

'No extra salt.' I have high blood pressure anyay, so this is a good guideline in general. It helps that I pretty much hate things that taste salted - I hate ham and a lot of lunch meats, for example. But, especially if I have something canned in the dish, I never add more salt to the pot - I always figure I get enough from the canned foods, even if it says 'no salt added'. I do like bacon, but it has to be a 'treat' thing for me, darnit. (But having it every day results in sky-high BP...)

'You can stop when you're full; there *will* be food available to eat tomorrow.' This is just as important to me as the permission to buy whatever I like, healthy or not. Both the diet reaction and the tendency to eat as much as I can every time I sit down are food hoarding behaviors I have to deal with every day.

The 'Pantry Corollary' to this is 'If you're done with it, or don't like it, throw it away.' It's really hard for me to throw out food, even when it goes bad, or I hate it. It's really important for me to give myself permission to get rid of it, and to re-assure myself that I'll still be able to eat tomorrow.

It's hard to explain without sounding like a whiner about my family situation and the things that contributed to my food hoarding. It's also what makes me pissed whenever anyone says anything like 'just cut out carbs!' 'just eat less' 'if you don't keep it in the pantry, you won't be tempted!' Because those old tapes can be tricky to find, much less fight.

Wrap-up:

Such is my philosophy of my body. It's how I'm approaching my dietary needs. Since a lot of this stuff is attitudinal and based on personal experience of how my body reacts, I'm not expecting a lot of people to be 100% in agreement with me - every person is going to have a different view of dieting and what works for them and their body, and that's ok, because we're all unique (just like everyone else).

But feel free to discuss your own philosophy of body health here - all views are welcome.

-bs