![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisMood crash. I was being so good, and then there were free cookies and brownies and I ate them... and...
Now, feeling depressed and anxious and pre-migraine-y.
Yesterday I took a cab from the airport along with Patron and her husband. The taxi driver suggested that they go gamble, and then suggested that they buy a lottery ticket. I was laughing so hard. Patron's husband responded, "No thanks, I know what the expected value of a lottery ticket is."
*giggles*
The editor at the Globe and Mail responded. I'm so humiliated. My pitch suggested running it in their Science pages on Sunday. They don't even HAVE a Sunday edition, which was not clear from looking at their website. Furthermore, the editor to whom I pitched, who edits the health section, does NOT handle science even though on their website the Science section is under the Health tab.
One of the cardinal rules of pitching a new market is to Know Your Market, and slant the pitch to match them. I failed. Hopefully, however, the editor in question will still be interested in the article for this week, or next weekend, on Saturday.
*tries not to be miserable*
I met the science advisor to the prime minister, and got his card. I want to do an article on trends in Canadian science as a whole, if I can find a market. Should be interesting.
I also spoke with the full time science correspondent for the Star, Peter Calamai. He didn't seem the least threatened by me, and even avidly encouraged me, which was really nice. He said that this is the first time in a long time that they've had an editor (the guy I've been pitching to) who is really into science. He says this editor loves science and regularly puts many pages of science into the paper, and that he is probably eager to have more pitches from me. Good to know... I'll just have to keep on plugging away. I think I will fully believe that he likes my writing and pitches when I've written three or four stories for him. The first one, he may have just thought I was going to be good. The second one could have been a pity story for the mess up on my name in the first one. A third would be confirmation though that he likes my actual writing.
Statistics on weight loss are discouraging. Because of people's inability to adhere to any diet for longer than 6 months, there is currently NO form of diet known to scientists that produces long term weight loss. Seriously, within five years 95% of dieters have regained all of their weight, and most of that regain occurs in the first year. And, the average weight lost by these people was clinically insignificant anyway.
Changing diet composition rather than caloric intake was unhelpful. Lower fat, lower fiber, more veggies... none of it worked. They all resulted in a clinically insignificant loss of weight.
Note that these studies also compared adherents to Weight Watchers, Atkins, Ornish, and The Zone. They all showed identical weight loss, adherence, and change to other things like cholesterol, LDL, and HDL levels. In fact, adherence to Atkins and Ornish were WORSE than WW and The Zone. And, the changes that DID occur were also clinically insignificant.
Also worth noting is that while exercise can have benefits such as those your cardiovascular system experiences, it has NO significant effect on weight loss. It's like trying to stop an avalanche with a garden hoe. Not only is the effect most exercise programs could have minimal, but most people end up eating more when they are exercising, thus negating the weight loss. No commentary, however, on non-exercise activity thermogenesis and whether it is an effective technique for weight loss.
The good news is that monkeys in controlled conditions who are never allowed to gain weight beyond their adult weight do not develop diabetes, and thus, none of the other problems which are caused by diabetes. So, if we can solve this adherence-to-diet problem, then we win. But we have no idea how to do so.
So, the thought is that the secret for the moment is prevention. Never allow yourself to gain that weight, and you have a manageable problem. Too bad those of us who have already gained weight are shit out of luck, but at least we can strive in the meantime to keep the weight problem from getting worse.
The other interesting thing was some research on mortality rates as related to BMI. As it turns out, there's a U shape. Being underweight is, to a point, as bad as being overweight. at the bottom of the U is a very large plateau... larger than many thought. The U begins to curve up in terms of mortality around 32, but they do point out that at 25 we start to see diabetes, and below it, we don't.
phew. That was a lot of info. I hope you all feel, um, educated. Now you know how hopeless your weight loss efforts are! Yay! Um. Yeah.
Anyway, I'm heading back to the hotel. I have two hours of downtime before I have to be up and at 'em for the evening events, and do that whole quantum two-places-at-once thing. Weee! I will hydrate and lie down and maybe nap, and maybe take some headache medicine to make this gawdawful headache go away.
Now, feeling depressed and anxious and pre-migraine-y.
Yesterday I took a cab from the airport along with Patron and her husband. The taxi driver suggested that they go gamble, and then suggested that they buy a lottery ticket. I was laughing so hard. Patron's husband responded, "No thanks, I know what the expected value of a lottery ticket is."
*giggles*
The editor at the Globe and Mail responded. I'm so humiliated. My pitch suggested running it in their Science pages on Sunday. They don't even HAVE a Sunday edition, which was not clear from looking at their website. Furthermore, the editor to whom I pitched, who edits the health section, does NOT handle science even though on their website the Science section is under the Health tab.
One of the cardinal rules of pitching a new market is to Know Your Market, and slant the pitch to match them. I failed. Hopefully, however, the editor in question will still be interested in the article for this week, or next weekend, on Saturday.
*tries not to be miserable*
I met the science advisor to the prime minister, and got his card. I want to do an article on trends in Canadian science as a whole, if I can find a market. Should be interesting.
I also spoke with the full time science correspondent for the Star, Peter Calamai. He didn't seem the least threatened by me, and even avidly encouraged me, which was really nice. He said that this is the first time in a long time that they've had an editor (the guy I've been pitching to) who is really into science. He says this editor loves science and regularly puts many pages of science into the paper, and that he is probably eager to have more pitches from me. Good to know... I'll just have to keep on plugging away. I think I will fully believe that he likes my writing and pitches when I've written three or four stories for him. The first one, he may have just thought I was going to be good. The second one could have been a pity story for the mess up on my name in the first one. A third would be confirmation though that he likes my actual writing.
Statistics on weight loss are discouraging. Because of people's inability to adhere to any diet for longer than 6 months, there is currently NO form of diet known to scientists that produces long term weight loss. Seriously, within five years 95% of dieters have regained all of their weight, and most of that regain occurs in the first year. And, the average weight lost by these people was clinically insignificant anyway.
Changing diet composition rather than caloric intake was unhelpful. Lower fat, lower fiber, more veggies... none of it worked. They all resulted in a clinically insignificant loss of weight.
Note that these studies also compared adherents to Weight Watchers, Atkins, Ornish, and The Zone. They all showed identical weight loss, adherence, and change to other things like cholesterol, LDL, and HDL levels. In fact, adherence to Atkins and Ornish were WORSE than WW and The Zone. And, the changes that DID occur were also clinically insignificant.
Also worth noting is that while exercise can have benefits such as those your cardiovascular system experiences, it has NO significant effect on weight loss. It's like trying to stop an avalanche with a garden hoe. Not only is the effect most exercise programs could have minimal, but most people end up eating more when they are exercising, thus negating the weight loss. No commentary, however, on non-exercise activity thermogenesis and whether it is an effective technique for weight loss.
The good news is that monkeys in controlled conditions who are never allowed to gain weight beyond their adult weight do not develop diabetes, and thus, none of the other problems which are caused by diabetes. So, if we can solve this adherence-to-diet problem, then we win. But we have no idea how to do so.
So, the thought is that the secret for the moment is prevention. Never allow yourself to gain that weight, and you have a manageable problem. Too bad those of us who have already gained weight are shit out of luck, but at least we can strive in the meantime to keep the weight problem from getting worse.
The other interesting thing was some research on mortality rates as related to BMI. As it turns out, there's a U shape. Being underweight is, to a point, as bad as being overweight. at the bottom of the U is a very large plateau... larger than many thought. The U begins to curve up in terms of mortality around 32, but they do point out that at 25 we start to see diabetes, and below it, we don't.
phew. That was a lot of info. I hope you all feel, um, educated. Now you know how hopeless your weight loss efforts are! Yay! Um. Yeah.
Anyway, I'm heading back to the hotel. I have two hours of downtime before I have to be up and at 'em for the evening events, and do that whole quantum two-places-at-once thing. Weee! I will hydrate and lie down and maybe nap, and maybe take some headache medicine to make this gawdawful headache go away.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
weight loss
Date: 2006-02-17 11:43 pm (UTC)Re: weight loss
Date: 2006-02-17 11:51 pm (UTC)Now, I'm not clear on a number of points. First of all, were they implementing severe changes, or mild ones?
Currently, there is no scientifically supported way for adults to lose weight and keep it off that does not restrict their rights as citizens. Ie., the only way we know for sure would work for weight LOSS (or at least, it did on monkeys) is to put adults in a laboratory and only allow them a certain amount of food with NO access to further food.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 12:15 am (UTC)It makes sense, though I didn't know the situation was so extreme. You kinda wonder why doctors waste their breath telling people to eat well & exercise. I'm glad I've never bothered with dieting for weight loss; my weight has remained basically the same through many shifts in food preferences, so I figure my metabolism is the way it is.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 05:08 am (UTC)I'll comment with them when I have the info with me; it's in my hotel room right now.
It's important to note that while some of the research found that people simply have a weight they tend towards, much of the research was being affected by lack of adherence to the proposed diet. That is to say, if you can actually STICK to your diet for longer than 6 months, and then come up with a maintenance diet that you actually stick to permanently, weighing yourself daily and adjusting when you gain to lose again, then weight loss is theoretically possible.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 01:39 pm (UTC)surgery?
Date: 2006-02-18 12:19 am (UTC)Re: surgery?
Date: 2006-02-18 05:10 am (UTC)I know I was talking to someone about this and they were saying that a lot of people who go for the liposuction gain it back because they don't address the underlying problem of eating habits and metabolism. But I also got the impression that it can work for some people. Big grain of salt; I haven't read about this or looked into it much at all.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 01:01 am (UTC)I'm sorry you have a headache, hugs,cuddles, and kisses
Yes keep hydrated
hugs
no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 02:14 am (UTC)I will continue on the exercise kick in the hopes that I can at least be healthy.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 05:17 am (UTC)(1) Their sample sets included people in general, rather than dividing people into groups identified for their various metabolic problems.
(2) Exercise releases endorphins which are extremely important to people with mood disorders such as you and I
(3) Exercise burns up insulin if you do it AFTER eating, which helps with insulin resistance, which it is possible you have (based on the history of familial diabetes I seem to recall you mentioning, and the fact that your adipose tissue is collecting in your stomach)
(4) Exercise makes you more fit in non-weight related ways, resulting in greater stamina and strength, and therefore better sex.
It is important that you not discount the value of point number four. I cannot stress how essential good sex is to your personal regimen of hygiene, self-improvement, and overall health and well-being. So, keep up the good work, and soldier on! I know I intend to. After all, if I want to last longer when two hotties are going at it from both ends while I'm up on all fours, I'm going to need to do more upper body weights! ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-18 07:41 am (UTC)So what is the other side of the U? How underweight do you have to be for mortality rates to increase?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-19 08:00 am (UTC)It seems to me that the more useful data to have would be:
Of the people who have SUCCESSFULLY lost weight, what strategies did most of them use? Which ones did they find most helpful?
My personal experience with weight maintenance and weight loss is that my body seems to be programmed to gain 5lbs a year if I don't exert conscious effort to stop it. This programming was set when I was in middle school and gaining 5lbs a year was healthy and normal because I was also growing taller. Then I reached my adult height but was not able to reprogram my body to stop gaining weight. So I graduated from college to find myself 24lbs overweight. I did a program that caused me to successfully lose those 24 lbs. And then, yeah, about 5 years later I found myself 24lbs overweight again. But if I hadn't done that diet program I would have been 48lbs overweight instead so I DON'T think it was a waste of time at all. And now I'm doing it again and trying to be even more gradual about it so that I will hopefully be able to make it a permanent lifestyle change. So far I've been at it 8 months so apparently I've already beaten the odds a bit :) (and the first time I stuck with it a whole year).