John Walker's Electronic House

by on Sep.30, 2004, under The Rest

You see, the thing is, for some reason this past week and a half I’ve just not been in the writing rubbish on the internet mood.

The mood takes me again. I think I went a pretty long time that last burst, and a little break is good for me. It means I’ve stored up lots of thoughts for things I’d like to write about which I’ve duly forgotten to write down or note anywhere and hence entirely lost them from my mind.

I have begun eating sensibly.

This is quite exciting for me, as over the last couple of years I have expanded from people saying, “No, you’re not fat! You’re not thin, no, but you’re not fat or anything,” to, “You’re not… that fat.” Which is Polite Friend Speak for, “Blimey, I’d not noticed quite what a porker you’ve become.”

So Nick has been amazingly helpful, and helped me sort out what is sensible to eat, what is not, and what number of calories to aim to eat in a day. The key part to it all has been ensuring that I eat enough to feel full. Let it be said now, so that suddenly the entire world hears and realises: DIETS ARE STUPID AND DON’T WORK. Why would a profit making company design a diet that ensures you lose weight and keep it off? It would be bad business. They rub their fat hands with glee as we demand short-term solutions from them. Look at them laughing.

Nick explained the obvious idea that if you eat less calories than your body naturally burns in a day, then you automatically lose weight. Combine this with some exercise, and tummies get smaller. But importantly, you’re still eating enough each day to prevent your body from screaming at you, and if you eat the right stuff, you still get to feel full.

This is so great! I ate yummy things today, and felt full throughout, and still accidentily ate less than the number of calories I’m supposed to. Which means I need to adjust slightly, and have something yummier!

I’m going to get some scales soon, and I shall chronicle my weight loss for all you weirdos. That way I’ll feel more accountable, and less inclined to be rubbish about it.

So to make that first step into the fearful territory of such honesty, I reveal that the last time I weighed myself, I was… sixteen stone. Ick.

I would like to be 12 or 13. I think that’s realistic for someone broadly shouldered like myself.

15 Comments for this entry

  • chris

    In July 2002 I weighed around the same (~16 stones, although you can’t see all of them in that gorgeous photograph).

    I lost 4 stones over the course of about 5-6 months using a similar strategy of reducing my calorie intake sensibly and walking *everywhere*.

    One thing though, I didn’t lose a single pound in the first two weeks of dieting which was a bit disheartening, but after that I lost weight at the rate of ~1-2lbs per week average.

    After losing the weight, of course, I immediately found a free diet book that would almost certainly have proved useful had I known about it beforehand:

    Some of it is a bit mental (especially all the calculations – I wouldn’t honestly be bothered, frankly), but it’s still a fairly useful resource in terms of what you can expect and eating healthily, etc.

    Anyway, good luck, keep at it, and don’t allow yourself to become disheartened.

    Reducing your calorific intake, and breaking bad habits are the only sure-fire way to take off, and keep off, weight.

  • Tim R

    See, what I don’t get is that every time I come and stay, I eat more than you. Is your food deuterium enriched or something?

  • John

    I appear to have written that free diet book. You’d think I’d know better.

    Tim – your not having a car is your trick. Living in Winsley I had to drive *everywhere* as nowhere was in a realistic walking distance. Now I’m in Bath my car can lie dormant in the car park for a week while my legs do the brrmmmm brrrrmmmmm noises.

  • Richard Passmore

    Well if your on one then maybe I should try harder too. But I am heartened as you are shorter but we weigh the same. Still clueless about pictures and links but quite enjoy this blogging lark, and just blogged about one by one if your interested

  • John

    Shall I add you as a link on the left Mr Passmore?

  • Tim R

    I think you should go to Moles every night and dance like Kieron – not for the purposes of weightloss, just ‘cos there should be more dancing like Kieron’s, especially in Moles.

  • MHW

    “So Nick has been amazingly helpful, and helped me sort out what is sensible to eat, what is not, and what number of calories to aim to eat in a day.”

    I thought you knew better than this. Free advice: consider *some* kind of resistance training. This need not mean weights, calisthnetics, or anything you consider to be macho nonsense. There’s yoga and other girlie nonsense instead.

    The idea is to increase your basal metabolic rate, as lean body mass is calorifically costly.

    Nick will rubbish this idea. I will punch him with my superior upper body strenght. The world will be put to rights.

    There is a possibly useful URL provided.

  • Nick Mailer

    John, to be fair, please paste what I told you in ICQ last night about weight training.

  • John

    [02:10] nickm: What’s good is weight training, if you can be bothered.

    [02:12] nickm: The reason is that muscles cost your body lots more to maintain. It needs to keep them warm, to pump blood through them – whereas fat just sits there. As such, merely HAVING more muscles means you’re burning more calories, just sitting there. So building up muscles is a paradoxically lazy way to boost your metabolic rate.

  • The White Witch

    Looking for something to fill you up, without many calories?

    Try some Turkish Delight.

    Take two cubes, wait quarter of an hour and you’ll be stuffed.


  • MHW

    “So building up muscles is a paradoxically lazy way to boost your metabolic rate.” [Nicholas]

    That’s rather the point. Weight training, unless you’re one of a particular brand of nutters, doesn’t need to take up your whole life.

    And it makes walking spaniels a hell of a lot easier.

  • MHW

    And while I’m still here, bodyfat: not metabolically inert. Ergo John’s BMR should be quite high.

  • David

    Your link to Mr. Passmore’s broken. S’got an ” at the end.
    *lurks sinisterly*

  • John

    Cheers – fixed now.