I'm not sure what my point is in all this -- it's just interesting. In a disconcerting sort of way. I've been kind of smug all along that I DID lose real weight and keep it off -- but I really haven't. OTOH, I did start exercising regularly at the start of this blog, and except for two unusual phases (one because I was between gyms while my money was in limbo with the first, and one because we were in Norway) I have exercised consistently (if not perfectly) since. So I have made that one improvement. And my the beginnings of my big weight upswings also coincide with the non-exercise phases. So maybe I won't be as yo-ish this time as I have been in the past?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
It turns out I'm a yo-yo dieter
I just went back and put my weights into Daily Plate (well, Livestrong -- I still think of it as the Daily Plate) as far back as it would take it (January, 2006, four months after we started the blog). This meant I got to go back and re-read old blog posts, which was fun. So now I can see everything about my weight history since we started, except for the first few months, when I lost almost 30 pounds. Since then, I hit a low of 132, a high of 151, a low of 132, a high of 162, and (so far) a low of 139 (though the high since then was only 147). Now I'm kind of working my way down again -- so I think the recent low was only a partial low. I hope. But at no point during the last five and a half years has my weight ever been stable for more than a few months. August through December of last year was my best -- almost five months in the low 140s. I've never regained to that 173 point, but that was also just a post-partum plateau; odds are I would have shed to the 160s, eventually, in which case my post-Norway peak (and I can't blame ONLY Norway, because I gained five pounds more afterwards) was a full regain. I'm not even following a regular cycle -- I lost the weight in 9 months, regained for 18, lost for 4 or 5, regained for 22, lost for 8, steady for 5, and uneven since then -- I peaked a bit early in the year but am now back to last year's "steady" weight. Most years I have a slight dip during Lent and then a struggling period after Easter, so I might just be in my Lenten dip and really on an upswing again -- or starting to get moving on a real downswing. Or holding steady. Hard to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Funny, I was thinking about the same thing this week--about how pleased I've been that I lost weight five or six years ago and essentially kept it off. Except I really haven't--I've been up and down between 130 (my low in March of 2006) and as high as 154 (only six pounds below my starting/fat weight!) last year right after Christmas (which is also when my back was at its worst and I started PT). I think I've had a bit more stability than you, though--after hitting that low of 130, I crept back up to the 135 - 140 range and stayed there a good long while. I went UP to 140 - 143 when I started triathlon training, which I attributed to muscle gain (prior to that I exercised regularly, but never really *hard* so it kept off the fat but didn't build much muscle). Then I went up to 146 when we went to Ireland and Norway, which I attributed to fish and chips and beer.
And there I stayed except at Christmas both years, when I gained weight (up to 154 last year, 150 this year). I could force my weight back down to the low to mid 140s, but it never stayed long--I'd always gradually get back up to 146.
And that's why I'm forcing myself back down to 140 now. It bugs me that as I hit each new steady weight (first 135 - 140, then 140 - 143, then 146) I decide that it's o.k. to be at that weight. I liked the 135 - 140 range because it was well within the healthy range for my height instead of being at the upper reaches of the healthy range. I don't know if I'll aim for that range again--I think when I went up to 140 - 143 with triathlon training it reflected my new thighs. You can't run and bike as much as I was doing without building huge thigh muscles, and they weigh a lot (and don't fit in "skinny" jeans), but I really am o.k. with that. But there's no excuse for the backflaps and the hip bulges. I don't need them and they have to go away.
P.S. I don't think this makes us yo-yo dieters--I think that term refers to people who try one fad diet after another, lose a bunch of weight on the diet, then regain that weight as soon as they are off the diet. That sort of extreme dieting can be dangerous, and clearly doesn't help with long-term weight loss. When we lose weight, we tend to do it slowly and steadily and it involves calorie counting and exercise. When we gain weight it's generally because we have an unhealthy affection for jelly beans and Christmas cookies at a time when exercise is hard to come by, and we *usually* manage to catch ourselves quickly and get back to our healthier routines.
A bit of editing after spot checking my past weights--turns out my 130 - 135 stage lasted about a year, then 135 - 140 stage was only about nine months in 2007. I hit the 140 - 143 stage in early 2008 and that's where I stayed for about a year and a half. Ireland and Norway got me up to 146 and except for Christmas, that's where I've been ever since--another year and a half.
Yo-yo dieting does not require or mean the use of fad diets. It means going on and off diets in repsonse to your weights going up and down. I also think of that more in terms of a lot of weight loss - but it wouldn't HAVE to be. What you guys have done is changed your life style, introduced new and good habits and have watched your weight move up and down what it naturally wants to be - which is probably around 140.
But - again - your weight is only one, fairly insignificant number. I am not going to die of fatness. I am going to die of a heart attack or something else that is traditionally associated with people who are fat. Eating right and regular exercise will help reduce the risk. BUT OTOH, being fat isn't the only thing that puts you at high risk. DAD was probably at the perfect weight and exercised regularly. People who gain weight around the belly - Sarah and Katie - are at higher risk than those of use who gain around our butt and boobs.
I am fat - but, other than my iron, my counts are good. So, if Mom is more worried about my health than Sarah's, she needs to redirct her energies. Lots of elements come in to play. The question becomes WHY do you want to lose weight? Personally I want to lose weight because the images I see of me in the mirror or photos does not match who I see in my head. I want to be able to buy the cute clothes that only women who are size 14 or smaller are allowed to wear. Personally I am more worried about NOT fitting in a coffin than I am about dropping dead. So - it is all about what your focus is.
Just for the record, my waist-to-hip ratio is pretty bad -- my fat hangs around my waist AND my boobs. Sigh. But my numbers (anytime I've had them checked -- I haven't had cholesterol or anything like that done in a long time) are good except for iron (which the Red Cross checks for free, so I know I'm marginal on that one).
Post a Comment