« Conventional. | Main | Records. »

22 July 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Margaret in Minnesota

Okay, here's another question for you and forgive me if you've already answered it already. Do you find that if you've prepared a sweet snack for the children--say, a batch of oatmeal scotchies--and again, this is PURELY a hypothetical situation...

Do you find that you can't allow yourself to have even one? Not even a taste of the cookie dough? Because you KNOW yourself?

Just wondering...


Yeah, I have stuff like that, but cookies aren't the problem. I can have one cookie, and stop at one cookie.

Salty stuff, and starchy side dishes like potatoes or rice, are a bigger deal for me. (Like I said before, I think that's one reason why I did pretty well on low-carb diets.) I still severely limit these things. When I bake potatoes now, I never bake more than one per person. I try to make just enough rice so we'll run out while we're still sitting at the dinner table. The saltine crackers are locked away in the pantry where I won't remember I have them until it's time to make a meatloaf.

I have a friend with a cookie problem similar to your hypothetical one. She is having some success with baking small batches -- you know, ONE DOZEN -- so after each of her three kids have a couple of cookies and she sets some aside for her husband, there's two cookies left for her. Not, say, two dozen cookies.

Amy F

I have the cookie problem too. I make a standard batch (4-5 dozen), but only bake one tray worth. I only have one good cookie tray anyway. Then I split the remaining dough in half and freeze it rolled in logs. I still eat 1/2 the 16-20 cookies, but at least it's not half of 4-5 dozen.


I have to say I laughed out loud at your party idea - that's fantastic.

Oh, and I got reminded of someone a few posts back who would plan her lunches around leftovers from her child's plates. (I think it was a comment about sandwich crusts) She had 4 kids under 5 and she would eat after them and only make something for herself if her kids were exceptionally hungry that day. I found that quite thought provoking. She figured she would be tempted to eat it anyway, so she might as well plan on eating it.

Margaret in Minnesota

One more comment about getting below a BMI of 22. You and I are the same height and have similar weight goals. (I weigh 125 right now, more or less.)

When I did Weight Watchers after I'd had "Angela", I got down to 107. My husband didn't like it. First of all, I lost my chest (ahem!) but mostly I looked too skinny to him.

Of course, in MY mind I still had a ways to go.

Now I'm thinking that the 110-115 range is very reasonable.


The last time I got down even to a few pounds over where I am now, *I* didn't like the way I looked about the face, or at least, it would give me a start when I looked in the mirror. To me, I looked like I'd aged five or six years in the space of a few months -- I guess things were a little more slack, you know?

This time around I'm not having that reaction. Maybe I've grown into it a little bit and am more comfortable in my own skin.

Anyway, I'm shooting for health, not looks. Diabetes and kidney troubles and heart disease all run strongly in my family, and I'm aiming to get rid of the one persistent lifestyle risk factor I share with the family members who suffer/ed from those things.


I've found that when you know people online, it is easier if you give sizes, than weight. I'm 5'2", so closer to your range, and I'm sometimes amazed at how "much" tall women can weight and still look good.

For me, I usually break down to:

115-120 size 6
120-125 size 8
125-130 size 10

I haven't seen 6 since I had my 3rd child. After number 3, I was 10 for the first 6 months or so postpartum, and 8 after that.


I'm glad you're having such success with your lifestyle changes. Just don't be too hungry! Our regular babysitter (in her 30s with a 4-year old) was just diagnosed with anorexia and had to enter a 30-day in-hospital program. She really over-did the hungry part though because she told me she was eating only 400 calories per day while running about 3 miles a day. I told her I thought it was a bad idea, but I didn't know just how bad. I'm all for people choosing healthier lifestyles, but this has really scared me. I only mention it because I don't want it to happen to anyone else!


Um, there is zero chance of me eating only 400 calories per day.

Over an entire lifetime, the chances of a person ever developing anorexia appear to be somewhere between one-half and three percent. But the lifetime risk of developing, say, diabetes is 40 percent for females, 33 percent for males.

I think back to junior high school health class projects. There must have been half a dozen girls who did their poster on The Dangers Of Anorexia, and I distinctly remember having to watch at least one movie in health class about anorexia. I don't think anyone did a poster on the dangers of being overweight. The one was overemphasized, the other hardly mentioned. Why, do you suppose? Even among teens, 16 to 33 percent are obese; the largest number I could find for the incidence of anorexia was 1 percent (among girls only, it's far less common among males).


Glad to hear that you're not going to get anorexic! Maybe it's emphasized more because it represents a more acute threat to your health, like starvation, or in my friend's case, her heart was in danger of stopping because her body chemistry was so out of whack. Being overweight is a real health risk and lack of good nutrition for many Americans is a reality, but it won't kill you as quickly (normally). I'm not arguing that overweight/obesity isn't a huge issue. I'm just recently scared that my (seemingly) well-balanced baby-sitter went from healthy to death's door in the course of about 2 months (and that's all it took).

Amy F

I like the use of sizes too, although build can make quite a difference. I never understand why some people my height can weigh ten more pounds and be the same size. My wide hips are handy for child-bearing at least.

Anyway, I'm 5'7" and the size breakdown tends to be:
size 6: 120-130 lbs (haven't seen that for 8 years, back pre-marriage when I ran 15 miles/wk)
size 8: 130-140 lbs (early marriage, then between babies, and the first year postpartum after baby 2)
size 10: 140-150 lbs (for the 6 months before getting pregnant the first time and for the past year)

I don't think I could go below size 4 unless I shaved bone off my hips. I think I mostly was wearing 8's, even at 125 lbs.

My BMI is around 23 now. When I've felt healthy and in shape, it was closer to 21.


The largest size pants I have ever worn, not counting pregnancy, is a 14, so that's at 155 pounds or so. Before I had babies, I weighed the same but wore a 12. Guess I changed shape.

I am at 126 now and wearing an 8, but the waist is a little big.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Screen Shot 2015-07-19 at 6.07.09 PM
My Photo

I think I read something somewhere about this

  • Google

    bearing blog


Become a Fan