How to get fit?

[Dave Kahn]

[email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> LOL! Actually I am in a determined mood to do something about my flab. Started a weight reduction
> regime two weeks ago. Weighing all food, keeping a diary of what I eat + getting weighed by nurse
> at doc's surgery + cycling. In two weeks I've lost a sniff under 12lbs - so this morning I am
> feeling smug.

Hey, good going!

> It's allow myself that or hit the chocolate ;-)

Don't do it! When you find yourself reaching for that sugary snack you don't need, and deep down
really don't want, just ask yourself, "Which do I want more: two minutes of self indulgence or a
lean body?"

Furthermore if you don't buy the snacks in the first place they won't be there warbling their siren
song from the fridge. Raw carrots are not that bad, you know.

--
Dave...

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Furthermore if you don't buy the snacks in the first place they won't be there warbling their
> siren song from the fridge. Raw carrots are not that bad, you know.
>

I'm sure that raw carrots are not only not that bad, they're probably very good, at least as long as
they are organic ones - but they do lack a certain something that chocolate has! Something about all
those reasons why

Rich

 

[Dave]

"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Hey, good going!
>
> Thank you
>
Hear, hear ;-)

> >Don't do it! When you find yourself reaching for that sugary snack you don't need, and deep down
> >really don't want, just ask yourself, "Which do I want more: two minutes of self indulgence or a
> >lean body?"
>
> Both!
>
LOL, That's ma girl ;-)

> >Furthermore if you don't buy the snacks in the first place they won't be there warbling their
> >siren song from the fridge.
>
> I actually don't anyhow. It's one of the things my teenage son bemoans -
that I
> don't buy the cakes, biscuits and sweets that his mates' mums do.
>
> > Raw carrots are not that bad, you know.
> >
>
> I'm probably one of the few women whose eyes light up at the sight of a
nice
> big carrot or cucumber for a *healthy* reason ;-) I have no problem
whatsoever
> eating plenty of veggies.
>
> I rarely eat chocolate anyhow - hence the ";-)" For years I have not had
added
> salt to the diet, rarely ever eat any bread other than wholemeal, and have
had
> only skimmed milk for over 20 years, plus no added sugar to drinks,
cereals
> etc. It's one of the things the doc is bemused by - other than being overweight, I have none of
> the adverse side effects commonly associated
with
> being overweight. My blood pressure is *excellent* as is my cholestrol
level
> and I have no signs of diabetes developing - had it all checked out
recently.
> My weakness is too much fat in my diet generally.
>
...and how unfair is it, Helen ? It's ssoooooooooOOOOOO UNFAIR!!! <stomping foot on ground>,
innit? ;-)

> Last night the Unfit family went out to see The Matrix Reloaded & we had a
meal
> out before the film. I had a tuna salad to eat - no mayo etc. & to drink I
had
> plain soda water with a slice of lemon. No problemo. I occasionally have a slice of cake as a
> treat, but that's it.
>
Maybe the answer's in the film ....As Agent Smith said in Matrix 1, they initially gave us a perfect
Nirvana-like experience but we couldn't take it 'cos we're designed to have problems / challenges in
our lives. Look at the rest of your life. If you feel you have a near perfect life, then maybe this
is your little bit of imperfection that makes life acceptable. After all, if the doc is happy with
your 'level 3 diagnostic' readout, then everything really is perfect ;-)

> Cheers, helen s
>
>
Cheers, Dave.

>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> Clean up the waste & get rid of the trapped wind to send a reply
>
> Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the
keyboaRRRDdd
> ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Alan Oakley]

Pretty tough going loosing weight through emotionally tough time. Good work James.

Sounds like you have the problem cracked. When I get below 13 stones I will be much happier and
hopefully a faster cyclist. Then all I have to do is keep the weight down.

On Sat, 24 May 2003 18:26:06 +0100, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 May 2003 15:27:31 +0100, Alan Oakley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I started a simlar regime about two months ago. Even with all my cycling I still stayed at 14 1/2
>>stone. It just didn't shift. Then two of my friends went the calorie counting route and have now
>>lost more than a stone. I am now below 14 stone for the first time in ages. It really makes a
>>difference adding in the cycling, but not pigging out helps get the weight off.
>>
>
>Hi Alan
>
>About nine years ago my mother died and I suddenly had to learn to cook more than boiled eggs and
>beans on toast.
>
>A combination of the above and also more cycling resulated in my weight dropping from a gross 18
>stones to a far better 15 stones within about three months. A shed a further three stones in the
>following few months.
>
>My trick, such as it was, was merely to eat a little less of everything. So, for example, I'd eat
>two or three potatoes rather than four or five. I never once felt lethargic during this time.
>
>I'm currently about 12.5 stones and intend to rid myself of another stone this summer.
>
>My other rapid weight loss method - albeit unintentional - was to inadvertantly put a shampoo
>bottle top underneath my bathroom scales. Sadly, this method, when discovered, resulted in a weight
>gain as rapid as the believed weight loss :-/
>
>James
>PS 6'00"

 

[James Hodson]

On Mon, 26 May 2003 10:59:25 +0100, Alan Oakley <[email protected]> wrote:

>Pretty tough going loosing weight through emotionally tough time. Good work James.
>
>Sounds like you have the problem cracked. When I get below 13 stones I will be much happier and
>hopefully a faster cyclist. Then all I have to do is keep the weight down.
>

Hi Alan

Funnily enough, I took the whole thing quite calmly and with a stiff upper lip - don't ask about the
blubbing lower lip! OTOH, I cried my eyes out on the two occasions when I had to ask the vet to
murder Smudge and Olympus: cats.

Being honest, Alan, at least for me, it's far harder to lose the bulk than to keep it off. My
recent weight gain is due to the fact I have been unable to get much exercise during the past 18
months or so.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Tenex]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:
> LOL! Actually I am in a determined mood to do something about my flab. Started a weight reduction
> regime two weeks ago. Weighing all food, keeping a diary of what I eat + getting weighed by nurse
> at doc's surgery + cycling. In two weeks I've lost a sniff under 12lbs - so this morning I am
> feeling smug. It's allow myself that or hit the chocolate ;-)

One way to hit the chocolate and avoid consuming huge amounts (and calories) is to switch to the 70%
coca stuff. One small square and you have the satisfying taste of chocolate lingering for hours
which helps avoid the next square. Quite like the 85% stuff but don't honestly think there's all
that much difference.

If you do convert to 70% + then you'll also find ordinary chocolate unsatisfying (simply sweet and
not chocolatey) so you won't want to eat it. HTH

 

[Geraint Jones]

"Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote: ) ... Quite like the 85% stuff but don't honestly think there's all
that ( much difference. ) ( If you do convert to 70% + then you'll also find ordinary chocolate )
unsatisfying (simply sweet and not chocolatey) so you won't want to eat it.

Ah, so you've not come across the 99% yet, then.

 

[Peter Clinch]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:

> Och no ;-) The 70% stuff is only for cooking - I can't eat it tried it & find it too bitter for my
> tastes. Mind you, Nathan loves the stuff. Me, I'm a Whole Nut person ;-)

Sorry, but you're just not doing it properly. If you're a "whole nut person" the only *real* way is
buy a large bag of plain chocolate brazils. Otherwise it's just pretending.

> As for eating one small square of chocolate - are you entirely of this planet??? The whole
> point of chocolate is that one can never, but never, eat less than an entire bar - preferrably
> a large one!

Ah, the point is with good chocolate that you can eat it slowly *one square at a time*. You don't
actually *stop* there, but since you don't just chew through heaps of it as with Dairy Milk,
Galaxy etc. it does last a lot longer. Try a chunk[1] of Nathan's next 70% experience and just let
it melt in your mouth, no chewing allowed! As with coffee, the pure experience is a bit
overpowering at first but with a little work you get rid of all that wasted milk that's better
used for other things.

> (me, a chocoholic??)

If you don't already have it, check out Chocolate: the Consuming Passion by Sandra Boynton. I'm
practically certain that you will *love* this book.

Pete.

[1] "chunky" chunks are, frankly, a bit on the big side, and half chunks are best for a "melt in the
mouth" approach in such cases IME.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tenex wrote:

> One way to hit the chocolate and avoid consuming huge amounts (and calories) is to switch to the
> 70% coca stuff. One small square and you have the satisfying taste of chocolate lingering for
> hours which helps avoid the next square. Quite like the 85% stuff but don't honestly think there's
> all that much difference.

I actually found Lindt's 85% bar to be the exception proving the rule about you can't have too much
of a good thing. Despite being a "more cocoa mass" chap for the most part I do actually prefer the
Lindt 70%.

Oxfam's is pretty good, as is Tesco Finest, Thorntons and Green and Black.

> If you do convert to 70% + then you'll also find ordinary chocolate unsatisfying (simply sweet and
> not chocolatey) so you won't want to eat it.

I'll still east Dairy Milk et al, and I enjoy it. I don't particularly think of it as *chocolate*,
but it's nice enough in its own way.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[James Hodson]

On 03 Jun 2003 14:39:20 GMT, [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:

>As for eating one small square of chocolate - are you entirely of this planet??? The whole point of
>chocolate is that one can never, but never, eat less than an entire bar - preferrably a large one!
>

Damned Puritan.

I bet you make Nathan sit on a spike!

The trick is to shop at either Christmas time or Easter time (or both) when one can buy four LARGE
bars of Cadbury's Dairy Milk in one pack quite cheaply.

The intention, of course, is to make them last several weeks or even months. The truth is that
they'll all be gone within a few hours.

This is the road to Hell. But it's worth it ... temporarily.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Dave Larrington]

Helen S wrote:

> (me, a chocoholic??)

I've often wondered what this chocohol stuff is. Unless it's shorthand for a Brandy Alexander...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Chris]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Tenex wrote:
>
> > One way to hit the chocolate and avoid consuming huge amounts (and
calories)
> > is to switch to the 70% coca stuff. One small square and you have the satisfying taste of
> > chocolate lingering for hours which helps avoid the
next
> > square. Quite like the 85% stuff but don't honestly think there's all
that
> > much difference.
>
> I actually found Lindt's 85% bar to be the exception proving the rule about you can't have too
> much of a good thing. Despite being a "more cocoa mass" chap for the most part I do actually
> prefer the Lindt 70%.
>
> Oxfam's is pretty good, as is Tesco Finest, Thorntons and Green and Black.
>
> > If you do convert to 70% + then you'll also find ordinary chocolate unsatisfying (simply sweet
> > and not chocolatey) so you won't want to eat
it.
>
> I'll still east Dairy Milk et al, and I enjoy it. I don't particularly think of it as *chocolate*,
> but it's nice enough in its own way.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells
> Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
> http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
I thought "choclate" was just cocoa adulterated with sugar, fat, skimmed milk solids other fillers
less expensive than cocoa. Cocoa on its own is unpalatable to most I would guess. Chris

 

[Peter Clinch]

Chris wrote:

> I thought "choclate" was just cocoa adulterated with sugar, fat, skimmed milk solids other fillers
> less expensive than cocoa. Cocoa on its own is unpalatable to most I would guess.

If you see steel as "just iron adulterated with carbon and some other metals such as chromium and
molybdenum" you might think this way...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Arthur Clune]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:

: As for eating one small square of chocolate - are you entirely of this planet??? The whole
: point of chocolate is that one can never, but never, eat less than an entire bar - preferrably
: a large one!

That is the point of the 70% stuff. You really can't eat a whole bar.

Took me a while to aquire the taste (ex girlfriend converted me) but I'd not go back now.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester

 

[James Hodson]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 16:41:08 +0100, "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> (me, a chocoholic??)
>
>I've often wondered what this chocohol stuff is.

Choc2-H5-OH? A brown substance which often solidifies into square crystals.

It should be noted that the crystaline form of Choc2-H5-OH is often imperfect with these
imperfections taking the form of Cadbury, Galaxy or similar. I seem to recall that the nature of
these imperfections is dependent on exactly where the solidification occurs.

Now, Choc2-H5-OH should not be confused with C2H5OH, a variation of which can be found just to the
left of the "Caps Lock" key on my keyboard.

I would get my coat but I don't know where it is.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Tenex]

Geraint Jones wrote:
> "Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote: ) ... Quite like the 85% stuff but don't honestly think there's
> all that ( much difference. ) ( If you do convert to 70% + then you'll also find ordinary
> chocolate ) unsatisfying (simply sweet and not chocolatey) so you won't want to eat it.
>
> Ah, so you've not come across the 99% yet, then.

Sadly, no. I find Lindt 70% more bitter than 85% oddly.

 

[Tenex]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Tenex wrote:
>
>> One way to hit the chocolate and avoid consuming huge amounts (and calories) is to switch to the
>> 70% coca stuff. One small square and you have the satisfying taste of chocolate lingering for
>> hours which helps avoid the next square. Quite like the 85% stuff but don't honestly think
>> there's all that much difference.
>
> I actually found Lindt's 85% bar to be the exception proving the rule about you can't have too
> much of a good thing. Despite being a "more cocoa mass" chap for the most part I do actually
> prefer the Lindt 70%.
>
> Oxfam's is pretty good, as is Tesco Finest, Thorntons and Green and Black.
>
>> If you do convert to 70% + then you'll also find ordinary chocolate unsatisfying (simply sweet
>> and not chocolatey) so you won't want to eat it.
>
> I'll still east Dairy Milk et al, and I enjoy it. I don't particularly think of it as *chocolate*,
> but it's nice enough in its own way.
>
> Pete.

As said above I find 70% Lindt more bitter, but I'm happy with either.

Recently discovered Green and Black and it's distinctly superior if in need of a flavoured
chocolate.

 

[Geraint Jones]

"Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote: ( > Ah, so you've not come across the 99% yet, then. ) ( Sadly, no.
I find Lindt 70% more bitter than 85% oddly.

Michel Cluizel "Noir Infini". It comes in 100g bars, and the first time you see one you think: 100g,
that's barely a mouthful. Pah. On first putting a fragment in your mouth it tastes of nothing. At
all. But as it melts it hits you. No other chocolate is ever quite satisfactory afterwards. (Which
you may think a sad thing, but you would be wrong.)

Never CYCLE to Paris without paying a visit to No. 201, rue St-Honoré.

 

[Tenex]

Geraint Jones wrote:
> "Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote: ( > Ah, so you've not come across the 99% yet, then. ) ( Sadly,
> no. I find Lindt 70% more bitter than 85% oddly.
>
> Michel Cluizel "Noir Infini". It comes in 100g bars, and the first time you see one you think:
> 100g, that's barely a mouthful. Pah. On first putting a fragment in your mouth it tastes of
> nothing. At all. But as it melts it hits you. No other chocolate is ever quite satisfactory
> afterwards. (Which you may think a sad thing, but you would be wrong.)
>
> Never CYCLE to Paris without paying a visit to No. 201, rue St-Honoré.

Hmmm, friend just relocated back from Paris last week. Pity you didn't say sooner.

Don't suppose Tesco or Sainbury's have it? ;-)

 

[Andymorris]

Tenex wrote:

>
> Recently discovered Green and Black and it's distinctly superior if in need of a flavoured
> chocolate.

They do a plain as well. The orange one is pretty good tho.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/