Tuesday, January 30, 2007
a couple of things
first of all. am i fat? i am 5'10" and weigh less than tyra banks (same height) currently does... but when she was modeling she was 126 pounds. i also weigh less than i did a year ago, or 6 months ago for the matter. but more than i did 5 years ago. granted, i was running marathons at that point...
anyway.
the national institutes of health lists the healthy weight range for people of my height as between 132 and 173 pounds (find your own range here). which seems like a big range. ok but so clearly 126 is too low to be a) healthy and b) sustainable. but isn't there some kind of research that says that underweight (or at least low weight) people live longer healthier lives? so should i aim for the low end of this range? should i really try to weigh 132 pounds? i think i might look freaky. on the other hand, i might look like a supermodel. but losing over 20 pounds (oops, close to giving away the actual figure!) seems unattainable. and yet tempting. hmmm.
i think i will first just focus on attaing my short term goal, which is still 9 pounds away. and after that, perhaps i will revisit the question of whether i should lose an additional... several.
second of all. the thing i realized today is that the craving for sweets before you have them is WAY less than the craving after you give in. passing fancy of, oh those cinammon rolls look good, quickly turns into, i have to eat them all. yes, all four of them. right now. sneakily, before anyone else comes into the break room. snarf snarf. and then, once i have fallen, the tin of sugar cookies is now un-resistable. so i'll go ahead and eat two of those as well.
aaahhh!! i should probably address this with my therapist and not you nameless, faceless masses, but why am i so disciplined and thorough and careful and intentional in every earea of my life except food? why am i unable to resist the cinammon rolls?? and why can't i just eat one, like a normal person?
anyway.
the national institutes of health lists the healthy weight range for people of my height as between 132 and 173 pounds (find your own range here). which seems like a big range. ok but so clearly 126 is too low to be a) healthy and b) sustainable. but isn't there some kind of research that says that underweight (or at least low weight) people live longer healthier lives? so should i aim for the low end of this range? should i really try to weigh 132 pounds? i think i might look freaky. on the other hand, i might look like a supermodel. but losing over 20 pounds (oops, close to giving away the actual figure!) seems unattainable. and yet tempting. hmmm.
i think i will first just focus on attaing my short term goal, which is still 9 pounds away. and after that, perhaps i will revisit the question of whether i should lose an additional... several.
second of all. the thing i realized today is that the craving for sweets before you have them is WAY less than the craving after you give in. passing fancy of, oh those cinammon rolls look good, quickly turns into, i have to eat them all. yes, all four of them. right now. sneakily, before anyone else comes into the break room. snarf snarf. and then, once i have fallen, the tin of sugar cookies is now un-resistable. so i'll go ahead and eat two of those as well.
aaahhh!! i should probably address this with my therapist and not you nameless, faceless masses, but why am i so disciplined and thorough and careful and intentional in every earea of my life except food? why am i unable to resist the cinammon rolls?? and why can't i just eat one, like a normal person?
# posted by saara @ 1:11 PM 
