What are your plans for 2019?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Survive.
@Bee - if you are worried about continuing with your writing, my question is this: Didn't you just get some sort of recognition for your writing? I saw that in another thread. You would have to ask WHY you would discontinue this artistic outlet. It IS, of course, your call. But I would ask myself two questions: Why did I start writing? {followed by} What changed that the reason I started is no longer valid?
@Bee - if you are worried about continuing with your writing, my question is this: Didn't you just get some sort of recognition for your writing? I saw that in another thread. You would have to ask WHY you would discontinue this artistic outlet. It IS, of course, your call. But I would ask myself two questions: Why did I start writing? {followed by} What changed that the reason I started is no longer valid?
Funny you should mention getting a lodger, we may have to in the near future. Kids have left Home and we've got empty rooms. Should really move somewhere smaller, but there's a small chance there's development potential on this plot, so I'd like to hang on as long as possible! Regarding a lodger, I'd be interested if you discover any useful contracts and/or any other advice. I do have sort of a "lodger contract", not sure if it's any good.
And losing weight! - Yes, the less said the better
Regarding writing, I've been writing a sci-fi story for years now, just can't get it right. And that's not that I've written much, it's getting the whole thing right, the whole picture. I've got a nice overview of the plot, however when I start thinking about the details, getting those right it all Falls to pieces.
Changing jobs, access is really pissing me off lately - I don't think it's access, I think it's sitting at the computer screen all day. I need a change!
And losing weight! - Yes, the less said the better
Regarding writing, I've been writing a sci-fi story for years now, just can't get it right. And that's not that I've written much, it's getting the whole thing right, the whole picture. I've got a nice overview of the plot, however when I start thinking about the details, getting those right it all Falls to pieces.
Changing jobs, access is really pissing me off lately - I don't think it's access, I think it's sitting at the computer screen all day. I need a change!
My intentions are many, including:
- six-pack challenge: can I lose about 16lbs over 90 days.
- get up at 7:45am (instead of 9:30am average)
- significant change to diet, lowering carb intake. Plays into the six-pack challenge
- double my income: 2 x £low is not as hard as you think!
- start doing some computer consultancy again (also linked to above)
- six-pack challenge: can I lose about 16lbs over 90 days.
- get up at 7:45am (instead of 9:30am average)
- significant change to diet, lowering carb intake. Plays into the six-pack challenge
- double my income: 2 x £low is not as hard as you think!
- start doing some computer consultancy again (also linked to above)
Weight loss, to be health and sustainable, should not exceed 1 pound per week. Anything less is fluid loss that strains the kidneys.
For me a six-pack challenge is no longer possible. It will have to be a keg challenge.
Actually, I tell people I'm not fat. I'm part camel and one day I leaned over. When I did, my hump came loose and moved to the front.
For me a six-pack challenge is no longer possible. It will have to be a keg challenge.
Actually, I tell people I'm not fat. I'm part camel and one day I leaned over. When I did, my hump came loose and moved to the front.
I disagree, vehemently, Doc. The same common 'wisdom' tells us a low fat diet is the answer. And yet in the Western world, we have an unprecedented obesity crisis. And why? Because low fat products are pumped full of sugar. Sugar (and carbs) are the real scourge.
Atkins got it right. And having shed 6 stones (84lbs) following a low-carb, high-fat diet there is nothing in this world that will convince me otherwise. On top of the weight loss, my blood sugar is stable at between 5.5 - 6.8 and the amount of Metformin I am taking is reducing. Metformin is not given to control diabetes, but to protect the kidneys - ironically.
Atkins got it right. And having shed 6 stones (84lbs) following a low-carb, high-fat diet there is nothing in this world that will convince me otherwise. On top of the weight loss, my blood sugar is stable at between 5.5 - 6.8 and the amount of Metformin I am taking is reducing. Metformin is not given to control diabetes, but to protect the kidneys - ironically.
Bee, look again. I said nothing about HOW to lose weight - I only said that losing too fast risks dehydration from too rapid a fluid loss, and that dehydration threatens the kidneys and other organs that rely on water for transport of whatever nutrients you are getting. That isn't merely "common knowledge" or "conventional wisdom." My gastroenterologist lectured me on staying hydrated while I was going through my liver / gall bladder upset. I actually paid a professional for that advice.
If you were referring to my "six-pack" statement, it was an attempt at a joke.
If you were referring to my "six-pack" statement, it was an attempt at a joke.
I would like to chip in an alternative explanation. The common wisdom of 1lb weight loss per week is a good standard. 2lb per week is fast, perhaps starting to lose a bit of muscle at the same time. However, there is something that has been omitted from this advice. Let me explain in a wordy roundabout way!
The max dose for penicillin is 2 x 500mg four times per day. What I would like to know is the effect of body mass on this dosing limit. Would a petite 8 stone lady have the same safe limit to that of a 19 stone giant behemoth of a man? My common sense suggests his safe dosing limit would be higher. I doubt a mouse would have the same safe limit to that of a blue whale. You get my point?
Likewise, the safe speed at which you can lose weight is likely to depend on your starting weight. Imagine a human weighing 100,000lbs. To lose more than 1lb per week is likely to be safe. I use the extreme to illustrate the point. The point is, size matters!
Let me throw in another factor which brings in the balance of probabilities. Each day that goes by being seriously overweight has a toll on the body, increasing both the morbidity and mortality risk. Each day you lose too much weight (factoring in a custom safe limit depending on starting weight), you have to weigh up that risk against the increased mortality risk of being overweight for that extra day. Of coarse, the calculation is well nigh impossible but the principle of isolating risk for one element while ignoring the other is a biased probabilistic model.
Doc, the thought of me actually getting a six-pack, rather than my one-pack of excuses, is also a bit of a joke. But let's see if I can make my joke come true! It's going to involve changing my identity from someone who lives to eat to someone who eats to live.
The max dose for penicillin is 2 x 500mg four times per day. What I would like to know is the effect of body mass on this dosing limit. Would a petite 8 stone lady have the same safe limit to that of a 19 stone giant behemoth of a man? My common sense suggests his safe dosing limit would be higher. I doubt a mouse would have the same safe limit to that of a blue whale. You get my point?
Likewise, the safe speed at which you can lose weight is likely to depend on your starting weight. Imagine a human weighing 100,000lbs. To lose more than 1lb per week is likely to be safe. I use the extreme to illustrate the point. The point is, size matters!
Let me throw in another factor which brings in the balance of probabilities. Each day that goes by being seriously overweight has a toll on the body, increasing both the morbidity and mortality risk. Each day you lose too much weight (factoring in a custom safe limit depending on starting weight), you have to weigh up that risk against the increased mortality risk of being overweight for that extra day. Of coarse, the calculation is well nigh impossible but the principle of isolating risk for one element while ignoring the other is a biased probabilistic model.
Doc, the thought of me actually getting a six-pack, rather than my one-pack of excuses, is also a bit of a joke. But let's see if I can make my joke come true! It's going to involve changing my identity from someone who lives to eat to someone who eats to live.
Last edited:
In New Orleans, we are at a major disadvantage since we live to eat. Because of my liver, I can't live to drink, and because of my age and other infirmities, let's just say that food is all I've got left in the proud OR guilty pleasures department.
Jon, you are correct that faster weight loss is possible if you have more weight to lose, but that extra weight is NOT the governing factor. It all comes down to your liver and kidneys. Weight loss involves tissue breakdown. The breakdown products must be excreted because otherwise, they interfere with metabolism. Has to do with the fact that metabolism produces X in the blood, but chemical potential of X ALREADY in the blood slows down further metabolism of X. If you lose too much too fast, your ability to filter the blood goes haywire and you risk the potential of metabolic shock due to, essentially, counter-potential. So if you have a healthy liver and kidneys you MIGHT make more than about a pound a week. If not, you will do more harm than good. This is why any reputable weight-loss method will recommend that you keep in touch with your physician during your dieting process.
If you want to have a mental model of this counter-pressure, imagine inflating a tire by mouth. You can put air in the tire up to the hardest you can push your chest muscles. But at some point, you simply cannot blow harder into the tire than X number of pounds because either your mouth, your lungs, or your chest and diaphragm are at their limit. No more air can go in because the counter-pressure from the air already in the tire resists your actions. And I picked a tire because it is non-stretchy.
So yes, bigger people have more to lose, but NO, it is not automatic that they can lose faster. It is their liver and kidneys that make the difference. Since I have a liver disorder, that is why I offered my joke about six-packs. I am not able to lose fast.
Jon, you are correct that faster weight loss is possible if you have more weight to lose, but that extra weight is NOT the governing factor. It all comes down to your liver and kidneys. Weight loss involves tissue breakdown. The breakdown products must be excreted because otherwise, they interfere with metabolism. Has to do with the fact that metabolism produces X in the blood, but chemical potential of X ALREADY in the blood slows down further metabolism of X. If you lose too much too fast, your ability to filter the blood goes haywire and you risk the potential of metabolic shock due to, essentially, counter-potential. So if you have a healthy liver and kidneys you MIGHT make more than about a pound a week. If not, you will do more harm than good. This is why any reputable weight-loss method will recommend that you keep in touch with your physician during your dieting process.
If you want to have a mental model of this counter-pressure, imagine inflating a tire by mouth. You can put air in the tire up to the hardest you can push your chest muscles. But at some point, you simply cannot blow harder into the tire than X number of pounds because either your mouth, your lungs, or your chest and diaphragm are at their limit. No more air can go in because the counter-pressure from the air already in the tire resists your actions. And I picked a tire because it is non-stretchy.
So yes, bigger people have more to lose, but NO, it is not automatic that they can lose faster. It is their liver and kidneys that make the difference. Since I have a liver disorder, that is why I offered my joke about six-packs. I am not able to lose fast.
I lost 2 stone in 6 weeks. Yes, I had a lot to lose. It didn't kill me. It didn't even make me feel ill. As I have regular bloods taken (including my creatinine levels) the doctor and the Diabetic Nurse were both very suprised at my results. They'd never seen anything like it. And that's because the NHS over here advocate a low-fat diet, not a low-carb one.
My point back to them is that conventional wisdom says diabetics must avoid sugars. What are sugars? Carbs. So, by limiting carbs and tuning my body to burn fat, I am both improving my diabetes and slowing it down - as well as helping my metabolism to work more effectively and efficiently. The result is quicker weight loss.
And, my metabolism was about as slow as it could be as I had cancer of the thyroid prior to its complete removal in September 2016.
So now my doctor and nurse agree not to ask me about my diet, but they do beam with encouragement when they see that not only have I lost 6 stone, but I've kept it off. At no time has either of them ever suggested that I am losing weight too quickly - they simply dislike the low-carb diets because current NHS guidance hasn't caught up with alternatives to low-fat.
My point back to them is that conventional wisdom says diabetics must avoid sugars. What are sugars? Carbs. So, by limiting carbs and tuning my body to burn fat, I am both improving my diabetes and slowing it down - as well as helping my metabolism to work more effectively and efficiently. The result is quicker weight loss.
And, my metabolism was about as slow as it could be as I had cancer of the thyroid prior to its complete removal in September 2016.
So now my doctor and nurse agree not to ask me about my diet, but they do beam with encouragement when they see that not only have I lost 6 stone, but I've kept it off. At no time has either of them ever suggested that I am losing weight too quickly - they simply dislike the low-carb diets because current NHS guidance hasn't caught up with alternatives to low-fat.
Back to topic - next on my to do list is to find somewhere to live close to my new job. I'll be living away from home half the week as it's too far to commute daily. I'm also considering getting a Monday-Friday lodger to offset the cost of the additional living expenses. I'll be back home on a Thursday afternoon, so I'd only have to share the house with someone else for one evening - and I'm at college on a Thursday evening in any case.