Obsession

I'm not sure if it is a truly good thing, but I find that I am obsessed with my daily runs. Actually, the only way I ever accomplish anything is by becoming obsessed with it. With me, things are either an obsession or they are things to procrastinate about until they go away. There is no in-between with me. Likewise with dieting. I record every bite I take. I weigh myself 3 times a day. I am conscious every moment of losing weight.

So it is with running. I track my distance and time carefully, checking distances on map-my-run, timing myself with my stopwatch button on my wristwatch, recording the time down to the second in my PDA and calculating the calories burned on my calorie counting website (you may also see a pattern there that I am pretty much obsessed with digital technology as well). But even more, my lunch time run is what I look forward to all morning. I'm thinking about it while driving to work in the morning. I can't wait for noon to come so I can go over to the gym, change clothes and try to beat my previous best time. If something interferes with being able to run, I resent it.

Monday was a GREAT day! The weather was cool for the first time in weeks, which resulted in almost a new PR at lunch. It's absolutely amazing how much difference 15 degrees makes in running performance. The difference between 65 and 80 is just huge. At 80 F, I am pouring down sweat, forced to walk up the steep hills, barely able to keep running, and not worried so much about my time as just about running at all. At 65 F on Monday, I was running so well that on one steep hill where I often have to walk, I was just zoned out thinking about something else and got to the top, around the corner and part way down the other side before I even thought about the fact that I ran all the way up it. I was running for time the whole way, forcing the pace, lengthening my stride. On the last hill, I wasn't just trying to keep running, I was speeding up, trying to see how fast I could run it.

But yesterday was a big disappointment. It probably shouldn't have been, but it was. A couple that I have been good friends with for over 20 years came by the office for a visit. He worked for me for a dozen or so years, but then they retired and moved away and I don't see them very often. It was great to see them and catch up. But then, disaster struck: They invited me to go to lunch with them. Does that sound like a disaster? It was a nice restaurant. It was a great opportunity to catch up on things. It was a nice meal, nice restaurant, good company, old friends. BUT it displaced my run. In fact, it was the double-whammy: No exercise and too many calories (and too much sodium as well).

I found it depressing. The day was cooler than Monday and I had really been looking forward to a great run at lunch. I really didn't want to miss my run and if I could have found any gracious way to so no to the lunch I would have, but I just couldn't come up with a good excuse. It makes me wonder about my priorities, when the noontime run was seemingly more important to me than lunch with old friends. It wasn't really. I did go out with them.  I just missed that run I obsess over.

I responded uncharacterstically, by pigging out the rest of the day. Instead of the big lunch making me full and wanting to make up for it, I was STARVING all afternoon. I ate candy. I went home and ate more candy (damn Halloween). I ate THREE pieces of pizza. I ate muffins. And before bedtime, I was still scarfing down the candy. I dreaded adding up all the calories. According to my scale, I gained two pounds, though yesterday can't take all the blame - the weekend was pretty bad also, with two pig-out restaurant meals.

Is my running an obsession?  Is that bad?  Not sure.  Not sure I care.  I'm obsessed.

The doctor with no mercy

Well, I went back to the doctor last Thursday. I was hoping he would say I was thin enough now. Didn't happen. He said I was still overweight and needed to lose some more fat from around my waist. He said I should get down to a 34 waist, instead of the 36 I'm fitting now. I thought 36 was pretty darned good! I figured if I got down to 36, I would be about right. Nope. It didn't even seem to be a close decision on his part.

At least he was impressed with the amount of weight I've lost since June. He did a sort of double take when he looked at what the chart said then and what it says now, and then asked if that was real, which it is. Well, mostly. According to his chart, I've lost 40 lbs, but when I got weighed in June, I had my shoes on and lots of stuff in my pockets, so I had probably really lost more like 35 to 37 lbs, but either way, I think he was surprised (and now my weight really is down to 197, so I really have lost 40 lbs). He didn't waste a lot of time telling me how good I had done though. It was all about how much more I need to do.

Bummer. I was hoping I could start to loosen up a little on the calorie control. His view was that I should just stay at about 2000 calories a day and keep losing weight until it stabilizes, which means, my intake would stay at 2000 forever. That's a little depressing. My view was that if I keep running 4 or 5 miles a day, I could get down to say 175-180 and then start eating more. I guess that's a false view. Those chocolate milk shakes and boysenberry pies are going to have to be few and far between for the rest of my life to maintain the kind of thin-ness he's recommending. I'm not sure if I can actually do that. I guess its a matter of degree. Moderation. Oh, well, he seemed more concerned about sodium than sugar, so maybe some desserts won't be so bad if they are high sugar and low sodium. I don't know. Making this a new life style for the rest of my life is really not easy.

Actually, though, after some checking, the doctor's theory about just letting my weight stabilize really doesn't work. I am keeping to an arbitrarily low 2000 calories a day, which is a level that I picked that would cause me to lose weight fairly fast (2 lbs per week - recommended maximum). And with the amount of running I have been doing, according to various formulas, if I keep up that level of exercise and that low level of calorie intake, my weight probably would not stabilize until I got down to under 100 lbs, which is totally ridiculous. So, I'll go for about 180 or 175 as a target, with the 34 waist, and see how things look at that point.

Happiness is getting thin. How thin?

I have lost weight. Technically, according to those published weight charts and Body Mass Index stuff, supposedly I was just up in the "obese" category, but no one would believe that. So my doctor said I needed to "make some changes." The weight itself didn't scare me all that much, but the blood pressure was higher than it used to be, and my blood pressure had always been quite low. That scared me.

I decided to lose weight. I figured out a few simple rules:

1) No between meal snacks.
2) No desserts, except maybe on very special occasions.
3) Cut out the soft drinks.
4) Control the portions: Sensible helpings. No seconds.

I figured if I did those, I would lose weight. I was right. But I also discovered the most important rule for losing weight:

Be hungry.

That's all, just decide to be hungry. Don't try any fancy, schmancy diets that are supposed to avoid it by eating wierd foods. Just embrace hunger. I adopted a mantra:

I like being hungry.
Hunger is good for me.
Hunger means I am losing weight.
Hunger won't hurt me.
I embrace being hungry.
I want to be hungry.
If I'm not hungry, I'm probably not losing weight.
Just let the hunger be.
It's OK to be hungry.
I really want to lose weight.
I really, really want to be thin.
Getting thin is more important to me than the hunger.
If I don't get thin, I will die sooner.
It is worth being hungry to get thin.


It's amazing how effective that has been. I have been more or less continually hungry since the beginning of June. Every time I want to eat, I just remember the mantra. Every time I see desserts or snack foods or greasy, sugary food, I just repeat part of the mantra.

I haven't ever really starved myself. I have always eaten an adequate amount of food, with reasonably balanced nutrition. It is not a starvation diet. In fact, I avoid thinking of it as being on a diet at all. I am just eating sensibly.

As I got into it, I saw several studies that said the people most successful at losing weight and keeping it off write down what they eat. I decided I should do that. I looked into various calorie counting software that I could use on both my PC and my PDA, but found that good calorie counters are available for free on the Internet, and I can get to my food journal from any Internet connection. I signed up for one called "My-Calorie-Counter." It is not the only one, and I don't know if it is the "best" or not, it is just one I tried and decided it would work. It does. It takes a while to enter everything carefully in detail, and you can spend more or less time at it depending on how exact you want to make it, but it is pretty good.

It recommended a diet of about 2,000 calories a day, which it said should lose me about 2 lbs per week if I exercise regularly. I ramped up the exercise, too, but that's for another post.

So now, I have lost nearly 40 lbs. and I am down to 200 at 6'1" tall. Is that enough? My wife thinks so. Many people have said they think I should not get any thinner. But by those infernal charts and indices, I am now well below "obese," but still technically in the "overweight" category. It is not easy to look at my body and figure out where the overweight is. My face is gaunt. My arms are skin and bones. My stomach is almost flat (not quite, but then I'm almost 60 years old, so six-pack abs are probably not a realistic goal). I now fit into the 36 inch waist pants that I wore when I was younger, fit and thin. Should I keep losing weight?

The funny thing is, I have gotten into a weight loss groove, and there's nothing to stop me from just keeping on. I don't think I am anorectic. I have just gotten in the habit of not eating a lot and letting myself be hungry, and I exercise a lot (I run 3.7 to 5 miles per day, 5 to 7 days per week). As long as I keep that up, I will keep losingl. It isn't really that hard. Once I made my mind up to do it, I just do it. I have occasional splurges on something fattening, but then I make up for it and move on. I could just keep on losing weight as long as I want to. There is no particular reason to stop here. But then, where should I stop? Should I believe those charts, or should I believe how my body looks? I don't know. Kind of a different sort of problem than I have worried about before. I can't say I am really worried. I want to keep running regardless, and I see no reason to start pigging out. I can get along just fine on 2,000 calories and continual hunger. I'm used to it.

I am supposed to go back to the doctor in two weeks. I'll see what he says.

But getting thin is great:
I can run much better.
I never have heartburn.
I look good, and feel good about looking good.
My blood pressure is back down.
My clothes fit better.
I believe that I am healthier.

I want to stay this way.

Mountain Man

Saturday, I decided to try a more challenging running course. There is this trail up to the top of the hill/mountain in front of my house. The high school cross country team calls it "radar" because of the radio and tv transmitters up at the top. It is very steep. I have hiked it several times and it is a steep hike. But anyway, I figured if the high school kids run it just for training, I should be able to have at least some shot at getting to the top.

Well, not so much. I did get almost to the top. I went up (what I afterward figured out was) 2.5 miles and was within sight of the top, but time ran out. I allowed myself 40 minutes going up in order to have half that time to get back down within an hour, before my wife called 911. The climb was about 1,400 ft, starting at my house at about elev. 1,250 or so. The top is about elev, 2,900, so I was probably about 250 below the summit, and maybe another half mile. If I had more time, I would have gone all the way. Someday.

I also could not truly say that I "ran" the whole distance, as I had to walk up most of the steep parts, and more and more of them the farther up I went.

Still, I thought it was a huge accomplishment. My wife thought I was crazy to even try it. I got back and said to her that I am not in good shape, as I was not able to run the whole way. She really went off on me for saying that, as she said it was incredible just to do it at all, and that I was in great shape. I guess "shape" is all relative.

It wasn't the fastest five miles I have ever run, but it was the hardest. My calves were sore for several days. I don't know if the soreness was due to going up the hill or going back down.

I'm not sure if I really should have done that run, but I'm proud of myself for trying. It was a lot harder than I expected. I knew it was a lot of up hill, but I had not remembered just how steep it gets. I really don't know how the high school cross country team does it, or if they actually run it. It is so steep, with loose sandy areas on the road, that truly running the whole thing hardly seems possible for most mere mortals like me. My wife asked why I would do it, and the reason is that I think I need to keep challenging myself to go beyond my comfort zone and push myself. One way is by trying for more speed. One way is with trying longer distances. And one way is with steeper and higher mountains. And raising 203 pounds 1,400 feet must use up quite a few kilocalories. I'm going to have figure out the conversion.

OK, I figured out the conversion. Shucks. Raising 203 lbs 1,400 feet only burns 92 calories. Oh, well, it was still a good workout.