After a
month of 3,000 Calories a Day, a goal that I maintain by keeping a daily food
journal, my weight has gone from 231 to 224, a modest loss but a welcome one.
I’m already able to fit into a few pairs of my “slender” pants. The weight loss
is encouraging since my success rate at staying at or under the 3,000 calorie mark
has been 48%, 15 out of 31 days. But the good news is that, except
for the four days in Las Vegas when my calorie consumption was close to 4,000 a
day, the other days I over-shot the 3,000 calorie mark only by a couple of
hundred.
Another
encouraging sign is that I’m getting better at keeping my goal. In the
beginning I was making three crucial errors: eating too many foods at one meal,
eating while I was cooking, and counting the calories after the meal rather
than pre-planning the amount. As a result of these mistakes, the first twelve
days of my food journal showed that I utterly failed to stay at or under 3,000
calories. Usually I hit the 3,300 mark. Then on Day 13 I hit 3,000. After that,
I identified my three big mistakes and then I was successful 15 out of the last
19 days, close to 80% success rate. Another important note: I was very hard on
myself in terms of counting calories so that whenever I was in doubt I would
over-count the calories. What this means is that some of my “failed” days in
which I went slightly over 3,000 I may in fact have stayed under the mark.
Another
encouraging sign is that I find I can keep my calories between 2,700-3,000
without feeling punished or too hungry. However, I notice that any number below
2,600 and I feel a constant sense of hunger. I also notice that it doesn’t
matter if I workout or not. My appetite is the same.
The
worse thing about keeping a food journal is that I fear there’s something
narcissistic and self-centered about it. I’d rather be someone who just “lives
his life,” whatever that means, and doesn’t worry so much about what he eats.
But it appears I have to be mindful, diligently so, about my eating. Otherwise,
my weight will creep up to unacceptable levels.
This
matter of controlling what I eat, and in turn, controlling myself, makes me
wonder how healthy it is to be obsessively attuned to one’s appetites and I
find myself thinking about a book I read a few years ago about desire in
general and its connection to food. The book, titled Appetites, was written by
Caroline Knapp, who struggled many years with anorexia and eventually overcame
her mental disease with a wisdom and strength that helped her shed light on the
hungers that often seem to overtake us.
I think in the absence of a fatal disease or genetic problem you could be trying to control, it is inevitable that you will come off as narcissistic, or at least vain (esp for a man). I don't tweak or control my diet as much as you, and I DO have a life-threatening illness. I could be called foolish or reckless, but for 10 years now I'm still kicking in spite of my genes. It's a crap shoot. But if you feel better and your blood pressure inevitably drops a few points, why not?
Posted by: Ed S. | September 04, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Are you on a Pritikin diet of some variation to keep your arteries clear?
Posted by: jeffrey McMahon | September 04, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Do you mean Atkins or Pritikin? Atkins sure wouldn't be the way to go, long-term. There are too many factors involved in CAD. At least 30, according to cardiologists. Diet is almost insignificant, as most CAD deaths occur in people with normal cholesterol levels... My condition is mostly genetic. Only brute-force surgery on my plumbing, while a kludge, kept me above the sod this long.
Posted by: Ed S. | September 04, 2008 at 11:29 AM
So your diet is irrelevant? What about medication? I have a friend who has to take medication because his father died early of a heart attack. My friend, though slender, has high cholesterol.
Posted by: jeffrey McMahon | September 04, 2008 at 12:04 PM
It's complicated. Heart disease's action is only starting to be understood. Drugs, which do drastically lower cholesterol, have only be shown to be mildly efficacious in preventing future heart attacks, but statistically your life (morbity) is *not* prolonged if you have the bad genes.
The old model for heart disease--the "clogged pipe" model accounts for only 20% of heart attacks. Unstable plaques--which don't have to be large enough to block an artery--are now known to rupture and cause instant bloog-clots; these account for 80% of all deaths. What causes these plaques, and what makes them rupture, are still not understood. One main suspect is inflammation. (Smoking boosts inflammation. Smoking was my destroyer, though I quit 20 years ago.) Low-inflammation diets are probably more healthy for me than low-fat/cholesterol, which have had miserable results except in the most extreme Dean Ornish-variations, a less than 10% fat diet which few people can sustain longterm. Still, I'm better off than my old man...30 years ago they couldn't do anything for him and he died at 56 after long disability. (I also think it's too late to try to undo damage done in your mid-forties. Just my opinion.)
Posted by: Ed S. | September 04, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Okay, I'll have to look into "low-inflammation" diets. This is the first I've ever heard of it.
Posted by: jeffrey McMahon | September 04, 2008 at 01:03 PM
There are books on low-inflammation diets. Also, take a daily aspirin. Have your doc check for your "high Sensitivity C-reactive Protein" level (HsCRP).
My best recommendation to anyone who suspects they have arterial disease: Get a multi-slice EBCT, aka "Heart calcium scan"--it's non-invasive, costs about $300-400, may be covered. Harbor-UCLA does it. I saved my own life by knowing the test score, while my treadmill-stress tests told me and my cardiolgist my heart was in great shape. Good thing I didnt buy that.
Posted by: Ed S. | September 04, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Frankly, your information is so valuable yet so under-reported I would think you should have a blog dedicated to the methods you've used to save your life. Such a blog may save thousands of lives.
Posted by: herculodge | September 04, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Thanks. It seems we have to have something horrible happen before we pay attention.
I think there's a deeper issue involved....as Americans, we are very very uncomfortable even thinking about our own death, much less doing something proactive about forestalling it. "We all have to die of something" goes the thinking. How many people still smoke, even knowing what they know? "It won't get me" seems to be the thinking. Heart disease is the #1 killer of men and women in the US (it kills even more women than men now). Even armed with all the information available to us today, human nature and habits die hard. Literally.
Posted by: Ed S. | September 04, 2008 at 02:40 PM
I imagine the denial of death allows people to go on without losing their sanity. But I could be wrong.
Posted by: herculodge | September 04, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Right, if we become *too* conscious of our mortality it could cripple us psychologically, make us annoying hypocondriacs, and generally raise our anxiety levels to debilitating levels. Hey wait, I AM like that!
Posted by: Ed S. | September 04, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Anxiety and Hypochondria are in my middle name.
Posted by: jeffrey McMahon | September 04, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Kr, the video was funny but I had to delete the comment and the video link because the link to Smouch could not be stopped or escaped. I had to shut down my computer, unplug it, and reboot to get that video off my screen.
Jeff
Posted by: jeffrey McMahon | September 05, 2008 at 09:57 AM