JANUARY

JANUARY
SUCCESS
one complete month eating well
no chocolate chip cookies, no Oreos, no Hot Chocolate, no chocolate cake, no Hi Ho's, No M&M's (plain or peanut) No Potato Chips, no Bugles, no Hamburger, no Pizza, no Soft Pretzel, no gas-station hot dogs, no free cookies at the hotel, no flavored oatmeal, no Culver's, no Chick-Fil-A, no bacon, egg, cheese bagels at McDonald's, no White Castle, no Tacos at Taco Bell, no Whoppers, no cheeseburgers, no Klondike Bars, no milk shakes, no Brownies, no Hershey chocolate bar, no donuts, no doughnuts either.... In fact, no snacks since this decade began!

I will weigh myself Sunday to see just how much progress I have made.
January was a success!

.

.

.

NO SNACKS!

23 days in.... and I have 'survived' with no snacks (not even a relatively healthy snack like an apple)
Nothing... no snacks!
No wonder I am dropping some weight.
In a recent typical day prior to January 1st,  my snacking exceeded unbelievably high calories every single day. It could make you sick.  Actually it did.

.

.

SALMON POWER BOWL - NEW FAVORITE?

At a late Red Lobster lunch I carefully perused the menu and stumbled upon the Salmon Power Bowl.  A bit of a misnomer, as it was not served in a bowl, but a plate. That is quite a tiny quibble. The meal was delicious.  Not particularly low calorie, but highly satisfactory... And a high protein meal can't be too unhealthy. Besides, I am not really trying to eat the lowest calorie option at every meal - but I am (so far successfully) eradicating chocolate from my life.  Twenty days into the new year and I have been successful.  If I only keep the chocolate candy, chocolate cupcakes, chocolate ice-cream, chocolate milk, chocolate doughnuts, and chocolate donuts, chocolate cake, chocolate chip cookies, and the like far away - my weight will drop - as it has already in just the first twenty days of the year.

.




.

FAUX SHOPPING SPREE

On Thursday night I visited a convenience store and I used my myfitnesspal app to record the calorie content of much of the 'snacks' that I have been enjoying for the past year.... Even I never had all from this list in one day - but I surely had much more than than this list in a week.  Hmmm, I wonder why I gained so much weight in the past year.  Mystery Solved. I am disgusted with myself. Actually, I am not disgusted at all.... I just finished my 9th day of not eating anything even remotely from this list... It does not take too long to start feeling better as I do. Yeah, I know... shocking

I have not completely removed sugar from my diet. It is hard.  There is some sugar in many restaurant prepared foods. But I have decreased my sugar intake by a factor of alot.

.

.

.

SUGAR IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU

Sugar is not good for you. I am guessing that this is probably not a completely surprising fact. A recent article in US News and World Report listed 9 Reasons why sugar should be avoided (and weight management was not on this list)  I have summarized the 9 reasons:

1. Risk of Cancer lessened. (Studies have found correlation between too much sugar and cancer.)
2. Increased Happiness. (Sure you get the 'sugar buzz' but that is followed by the 'letdown.'
3. Increased Mental Abilities.  (Sugar can inhibit normal brain functions.)
4. Increased Heart Health.  (Thin folks that consume too much sugar are still at risk of heart disease.)
5. Better Teeth.  (Your Mom (and mine) were right....sugar can rot your teeth and lead to decay.)
6. Healthier Liver. (You don't need to be overweight to damage your liver from too much sugar.)
7. Decreased risk of Type 2 Diabetes. (Here too, one does not need be overweight to be at risk.)
8. Better Skin. (less acne, and less aging - what's not to like about that?)
9. Increased Life. (If you are avoiding sugar completely... do you really want to live longer?)
.
Here is my question for God.... If sugar is so bad for us, why did you have to make it so tasty, delicious and addictive? 

.

Your Food Diary For:

Saturday, January 23, 2016

BREAKFAST	Calories	Carbs	Fat	Protein	Sodium	Sugar
Omelette - 2 Egg, With Cheese, 1 Omelette	250	2	10	5	468	0
	250	2	10	5	468	0
L U N C H
Campbell's - Chunky Clam Chowder, 2 cup (240ml)	360	36	20	10	1,780	2
Whole Kernel Corn - Canned, 1.75 cup	245	39	4	4	840	14
Rice Krispie Treat, 2 bar	180	34	4	0	210	16
	785	109	28	14	2,830	32
D I N N E R
Campbell's Chunky - Manhattan Clam Chowder, 2 cup	240	36	6	10	1,600	6
Roundy's - 8 grain hearty wheat flatbread, 10 flatbread	300	55	5	5	750	0
EARTHBOUND FARM - ORGANIC BABY SPINACH, 85 g (approx 3 oz)	20	0	0	2	65	0
Libby's - Sweet Corn, 0.88 cup	105	16	3	4	350	12
365 - Hearts of Palm: Salad Cut, 1 cup	50	10	0	4	580	0
Louis Kemp - Crab Delights Leg Style, 3 legs (85g)	70	11	0	6	430	1
Roundy's - Asparagus Spears, 1.75 Cup	70	11	0	7	1,225	11
Deli - Horseradish Cheese, 4 slice	320	0	28	16	1,360	0
Rice Krispie treat - Snack, 1 bar	90	17	2	0	0	8
	1,265	155	44	54	6,360	38
Totals	2,300	266	81	72	9,658	70
Your Daily Goal	3,891	486	129	195	2,300	146
Remaining	1,591	220	47	123	-7,358	76
	Calories	Carbs	Fat	Protein	Sodium	Sugar
	*You've earned 1,961 extra calories from exercise today

.

       Your Exercise Diary for:

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Cardiovascular	Minutes	Calories Burned
STAR TRAC ELLIPTICAL	92	2,146
MFP iOS calorie adjustment	N/A	-185
Add Exercise Quick Tools
Daily Total / Goal	93 / 30	1,961 / 590
Weekly Total / Goal	794 / 210	11,812 / 4,130

.

.

total calories consumed 2300 calories

total calories burned (92 min elliptical) 2146 calories

total net 154 calories

.....................

fitbit day 141

10812 steps
. . . . . . . .

.

.

PLEASE BIG GOVERNMENT - STOP HELPING US

Two different articles that I found on the internet just yesterday provide further proof that BIG GOVERNMENT is a monster threatening the well-being of Americans everywhere.  The first article that I read earlier in the day was how federal policies were 'forcing' OREO COOKIES to abandon Chicago and head south to Mexico.   Does anyone else see the irony here?  We import uneducated, low-skilled workers FROM MEXICO and we export HIGH PAYING JOBS TO MEXICO.   Does this make any sense?  Is it any wonder that this signature issue from Mr. Donald Trump has him riding high in the polls for the Republican nomination for President?

After reading how Chicago, my home city, is now slated to lose 600 jobs - the 'good news' kept on coming. My wife sent me an article detailing how a Chicago Alderman is proposing a tax on sugary drinks in Chicago.  This tax would generate money for some kind of 'Chicago Wellness Fund.'   This is ridiculous.   BIG GOVERNMENT cannot legislate health.  BIG GOVERNMENT cannot legislate WEIGHT LOSS.  BIG GOVERNMENT does one thing extremely well - BIG GOVERNMENT REDUCES FREEDOM.

This is the effect of a 2 cent per ounce tax proposed in Philadelphia.
What am I complaining about - In Chicago, the proposal is 'only' for one cent per ounce!
And if the one cent tax became law, how long before it was increased to two cents? 

If someone wants to lose weight, I would heartily suggest that they cut back or completely delete sugary drinks from their diet.   No one will successfully lose weight because BIG GOVERNMENT increases the tax on a can of Coca Cola.   It will never happen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
  

 Thursday MENU

breakfast Brad's Raw Crunchy Kale, center cut bacon                                 330 calories
lunch       Sirloin Burger Vegetable Soup, cucumber salad, oyster crackers 396 calories
dinner      Huge Spinach Salad, mango, dark chocolate coconut chews      750 calories
SNACKS medjool dates, granola, wasabi peas, mango slices                      600 calories

total calories consumed 2194 calories

calories burned

home elliptical machine 92 minutes, level 20              2067 calories

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

Wednesday net calories 127 calories

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

this article is reproduced from illinoispolicyinstitute.org

CHICAGO EMPLOYERS SAY ‘FAT TAX’ WOULD PUNCH THEM IN THE GUT

by Austin Berg

The Illinois Restaurant Association and the Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce have taken aim at a proposed penny-an-ounce sales tax on soft drinks sold in Chicago, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. 

“Chicago restaurants and small businesses, like consumers, are once again starting to thrive after experiencing one of the worst economic downturns in our nation’s history,” Illinois Restaurant Association CEO Sam Toia was quoted as saying in a press release.

“The last thing we need is to implement discriminatory policies that will slow growth, drive business out of the city and force businesses to raise prices where it hurts the most: in Chicago families’ wallets.” 

The new soda tax, proposed by 12^th Ward Alderman George Cardenas, would be the third city-level tax imposed on the sale of soft drinks, and would hike the cost of a $4 12-pack of Coca-Cola to $5.44 – a $1.44, 36-percent increase. Chicago already levies a 9-percent tax on fountain drinks and a 3-percent soft-drink tax on cans and bottles. Revenue from the proposed tax wouldn’t go to the city’s general operating fund – it would flow to a newly established “Chicago Wellness Fund,” the primary purpose of which is to “support the prevention of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, as well as oral health improvement.” 

Cardenas’ tax would apply to syrups, powders, and canned and bottled soft drinks. He estimates it would generate $134 million a year. “The money spent fighting obesity is just ungodly,” Cardenas told the Sun-Times in July. “We could save billions of dollars if we bring down these numbers. 

That may be true, but one of the many problems with Cardenas’ proposed sugary-drink tax is that such a tax has never been proven to cause a decrease in obesity. Sugary-drink taxes have proved, however, to disproportionately affect the poor and less educated. 

Minority business owners can also expect to take a hit, according to Illinois Hispanic Chamber of Commerce CEO Omer Duque. 

“The regressive beverage tax being proposed by the Chicago City Council will hit many of these minority-owned businesses and their hard-working employees right where it hurts: their bottom lines,” said Duque in a press release. 

“My members already face enough headwinds while striving to build and maintain successful businesses and meet payroll for their employees. The last thing they need is the government piling on with another job-killing tax.” 

Tone-deaf tax increases like the soda tax are one of the reasons why Cook County is facing a serious taxpayer-exodus problem. If Chicago is to avoid bankruptcy, city leaders need to spend less time pushing tax schemes aimed at fighting obesity and more time thinking of ways to trim bloated city spending.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

and this is from dailysignal.com

How US Sugar Policies Just Helped America Lose 600 Jobs 

by Bryan Riley 

The manufacturer of Oreo cookies recently announced plans to move production of Oreos from Chicago to Mexico, resulting in a loss of 600 U.S. jobs.

This should be a wake-up call to defenders of the U.S. sugar program and other job-destroying trade barriers. 

The leading ingredient in Oreos is sugar, and U.S. trade barriers currently require Americans to pay twice the average world prices for sugar. 

Sugar-using industries now have a big incentive to relocate from the United States to countries where access to their primary ingredient is not restricted.

If the government wants people making Oreo cookies and similar products to keep their jobs, a logical starting point would be to eliminate the U.S. sugar program, including barriers to imported sugar. 

This obvious connection between the lost jobs and sugar quotas was missed by many observers. According to one online commenter: “This is why tariff[s] on products coming to U.S must be raised.” 

That’s backwards. When protectionist policies like the U.S. sugar program lead to offshoring, the response shouldn’t be to pass new laws to discourage such offshoring or to raise tariffs even higher. The response should be to eliminate government policies that encourage offshoring in the first place.

The loss of Oreo cookie jobs should reinforce a lesson on the job-destroying aspect of protectionist trade policies. 

According to a 2006 report from the government’s International Trade Administration: “Chicago, one of the largest U.S. cities for confectionery manufacturing, has lost nearly one-third of its SCP (supply chain planning) manufacturing jobs over the last 13 years. These losses are attributed, in part, to high U.S. sugar prices.” That lesson appears to be lost on unions that are supposed to represent the workers losing their jobs in Chicago. 

For example, The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union consistently has opposed free trade agreements with sugar-producing countries like Australia, Brazil, and Mexico—the kind of trade deals that just might protect their members’ jobs. 

So that’s how the cookie crumbles.

YOU CANNOT OUTRUN A BAD DIET

Today, I would like to share an editorial published online just four days ago from the BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE which purports to bust the myth that weight loss can be controlled by exercise. This is something that I have recently learned and previously shared on this blog.  In fact, I learned this in a way that destroyed this myth as far as I am concerned when during the week of January 24-January 30 when I 'treadmill walked' 80 (eighty) miles, I lost only 3.7 pounds that week while maintaining my 1000 calories/day diet.  Mathematically, I was sure that my weight loss that week would have been closer to ten pounds.  That experience cured me of the expectation that weight loss could be controlled by exercise.  The editorial clearly states what should be obvious, that exercise has other important benefits.  It is simply that weight loss cannot be counted as a benefit of exercise compared to the benefits of eating carefully.  I found most interesting that the editorial lays the blame on the ubiquitousness of this myth at the doorstep of the food industry.  One can easily see that if the food industry can blame the worldwide obesity epidemic on a failure to exercise, perhaps their unhealthy, processed foods full of sugar can escape blame.

The various words and/or passages where the editorial is bold are the things that I found most interesting. Marc

British Journal of Sport & Exercise Medicine rips a few holes in the myth that exercise can control weight loss.

Br J Sports Med doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094911

• Editorial

It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet

1. A Malhotra1, 
2. T Noakes2, 
3. S Phinney3

+Author Affiliations
¹Department of Cardiology, Frimley Park Hospital and Consultant Clinical Associate to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges²Department of Human Biology, University of Cape Town and Sports Science Institute of South Africa, Newlands, South Africa
³School of Medicine (Emeritus), University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA

• Accepted 8 April 2015

• Published Online First 22 April 2015

A recent report from the UK's Academy of Medical Royal Colleges described ‘the miracle cure’ of performing 30 min of moderate exercise, five times a week, as more powerful than many drugs administered for chronic disease prevention and management. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%. However, physical activity does not promote weight loss.In the past 30 years, as obesity has rocketed, there has been little change in physical activity levels in the Western population. This places the blame for our expanding waist lines directly on the type and amount of calories consumed. However, the obesity epidemic represents only the tip of a much larger iceberg of the adverse health consequences of poor diet. According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease. However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases.
Instead, members of the public are drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting, and many still wrongly believe that obesity is entirely due to lack of exercise. This false perception is rooted in the Food Industry's Public Relations machinery, which uses tactics chillingly similar to those of big tobacco. The tobacco industry successfully stalled government intervention for 50 years starting from when the first links between smoking and lung cancer were published. This sabotage was achieved using a ‘corporate playbook’ of denial, doubt, confusing the public and even buying the loyalty of bent scientists, at the cost of millions of lives.
Coca Cola, who spent $3.3 billion on advertising in 2013, pushes a message that ‘all calories count’; they associate their products with sport, suggesting it is ok to consume their drinks as long as you exercise. However science tells us this is misleading and wrong. It is where the calories come from that is crucial. Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger. Fat calories induce fullness or ‘satiation’.
A large econometric analysis of worldwide sugar availability, revealed that for every excess 150 calories of sugar (say, one can of cola), there was an 11-fold increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, in comparison to an identical 150 calories obtained from fat or protein. And this was independent of the person's weight and physical activity level; this study fulfils the Bradford Hill Criteria for causation. A recently published critical review in nutrition concluded that dietary carbohydrate restriction is the single most effective intervention for reducing all the features of the metabolic syndrome and should be the first approach in diabetes management, with benefits occurring even without weight loss.
And what about carbohydrate loading for exercise?
The twin rationales for carbohydrate loading are that the body has a limited capacity to store carbohydrates and these are essential for more intense exercise. However, recent studies suggest otherwise. The work of Volek and colleagues establishes that chronic adaptation to a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet induces very high rates of fat oxidation during exercise (up to 1.5 g/min)—sufficient for most exercisers in most forms of exercise—without the need for added carbohydrate. Thus fat, including ketone bodies, appears to be the ideal fuel for most exercise—it is abundant, does not need replacement or supplementation during exercise, and can fuel the forms of exercise in which most participate. If a high-carbohydrate diet was merely unnecessary for exercise it would be of little threat to public health, however, there are growing concerns that insulin-resistant athletes may be at risk of developing type 2 diabetes if they continue to eat very high-carbohydrate diets for decades since such diets worsen insulin resistance.
The ‘health halo’ legitimisation of nutritionally deficient products must end
The public health messaging around diet and exercise, and their relationship to the epidemics of type 2 diabetes and obesity, has been corrupted by vested interests. Celebrity endorsements of sugary drinks, and the association of junk food and sport, must end. The ‘health halo’ legitimisation of nutritionally deficient products is misleading and unscientific. This manipulative marketing sabotages effective government interventions such as the introduction of sugary drink taxes or the banning of junk food advertising. Such marketing increases commercial profit at the cost of population health. The Centres of Disease Control health impact pyramid is clear. Changing the food environment—so that individuals’ choices about what to eat default to healthy options—will have a far greater impact on population health than counselling or education. Healthy choice must become the easy choice. Health clubs and gyms therefore also need to set an example by removing the sale of sugary drinks and junk food from their premises.
It is time to wind back the harms caused by the junk food industry's Public Relations machinery. Let us bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity. You cannot outrun a bad diet.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

SATURDAY MENU

breakfast  cup oatmeal w/prune, two poached eggs, two strips turkey 'bacon'   355 calories

lunch        Spinach salad w/mushrooms, hearts of palms, 8 cherry tomatoes

                 PANERA BREAD Chicken Tortilla Soup (cup)

                 FRESH ASPARAGUS

                 4 Dill Pickles TRADER JOE'S AHI TUNA STEAK (4 oz)                    382 calories

dinner      Spinach salad w/mushrooms, hearts of palms 8 cherry tomatoes

                Seaweed Salad (2 oz)  Miso Soup (2 cups)   4 Dill baby pickles

                TRADER JOE'S all natural sweet apple chicken sausage                  314 calories

total calories consumed 1051 calories

CALORIES BURNED

elliptical 32 minutes 473 calories

SATURDAY NET CALORIES 578 CALORIES

based on the editorial that I re-published today, it becomes even clearer that it is perhaps ridiculous to continue listing DAILY NET CALORIES - yet I will likely continue anyway just out of tradition.

WHAT IS A CALORIE?

Many of us consume too many calories.
Lots of us try to burn off excess calories.
In order to survive and thrive we need the proper amount of calories.
Some foods are rich (or super rich) in calories.
Some foods are low (or void) of calories.
People paying attention to their weight, often count calories.
Weight gain is a result of consuming too many calories.
Weight loss is a result of a deficit of calories.

OK, here is a question that I am going to ask myself:  WHAT IS A CALORIE?
(It is at this point of my blog entry that I will 'save' what I have written and do a little research on the internet - because one thing I know for sure - I do not know what a calorie is)

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Hi, it's me...I'm back.  Here is what I have learned from GOOGLE definitions:

cal·o·rie

kal(ə)rē

noun

noun: calorie; plural noun: calories; noun: cal.

1. either of two units of heat energy.

   • the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C (now usually defined as 4.1868 joules).

     noun: small calorie; plural noun: small calories
   • the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C, equal to one thousand small calories and often used to measure the energy value of foods.

     
     

This definition is a bit technical.  But there is one useful part of the definition that we can try to understand.  A calorie is 'often used to measure the energy value of foods.'    This starts to make sense to me.  Food is fuel.  Calories are the measure of how much fuel a particular food has.   Still there are good fuels and bad fuels.

I was searching for a very simplistic explanation of what a calorie is and I found something useful on kidshealth.org:

You can find out how many calories are in a food by looking at the nutrition facts label. The label also will describe the components of the food — how many grams of carbohydrate, protein, and fat it contains. 

Here's how many calories are in 1 gram of each:

• carbohydrate — 4 calories

• protein — 4 calories

• fat — 9 calories

That means if you know how many grams of each one are in a food, you can calculate the total calories. You would multiply the number of grams by the number of calories in a gram of that food component.    I always tell my daughter to 'check her work' when she does a math problem - so here I will take my own advice.  I want to check if this information is actually correct - Up until this very moment I had no idea that the calories of any food were based on the calories in the three components: carbohydrates, protein & fat.  

So, I borrowed a Hershey's Chocolate Bar that my daughter has in the refrigerator.   It proudly proclaims that one bar contains 210 calories.   Back in the old days, I would have thought nothing of having two chocolate bars before dinner.  I have not had too many 400 calorie  meals in the past five weeks.  Sorry, I digressed.... now back on topic:

Hershey's Chocolate Bar 'Nutrition' Facts
SERVING SIZE   1 BAR
CALORIES 210
TOTAL FAT           13 GRAMS                            13x 9=117 calories
PROTEINS              3 GRAMS                                3x4=12  calories
TOTAL CARBS     26 GRAMS                              26x4=104 calories
117+12+104=233 CALORIES (perhaps the slight different result is from rounding errors - but it certainly gives us a good idea of what types of foods are high calorie)

We need calories (fuel) to exist.   We all know that we will 'burn' an elevated number of calories if we vigorously exercise.   We also 'burn' calories simply by sleeping.  We burn calories every moment of every day.  It takes energy for our body to function and our body is functioning 24/7.

We gain weight when we consume more calories than we need.   Our body is very good at storing calories for a time when we might need them later.   Many people take vitamins each day to supplement their diet.   The reason that we take them every day is that our body DOES NOT STORE THEM.  Whatever excess vitamins we consume on Monday are expelled by the body on a daily basis.  We don't have that 'problem' with calories.  Our body is an efficient calorie storing machine.   Our body will convert excess calories into fat.

And here is the most obvious analysis of the year:

EXCESS FAT MAKES US FATTER.

Conversely, a deficit of calories will encourage the body to use that storehouse of fat and convert to calories to fuel our bodies.  This is how we lose weight.

The current scientific consensus is that for every 3500 excess calories that the body turns to fat - the scale will reflect an additional pound.   The reverse is true - for every accumulated deficit of 3500 calories less than the body needs - our body will use fat to convert to calories and our scale will reflect the one pound loss.

The less technical definition of calories

THURSDAY MENU

BREAKFAST   two poached eggs, 2.5 oz SALMON                                   275 CALORIES

LUNCH             Jason's Deli Spicy Seafood Gumbo                                     301 CALORIES

DINNER            Turkey Burger, Spinach, Vinaigrette, Zucchini Pancake
                            cup of chicken broth soup                                                   328 CALORIES

                 TOTAL CALORIC CONSUMPTION        904 CALORIES

CALORIES BURNED

6AM  30 minutes ELLIPTICAL   380 CALORIES
6PM  30 minutes ELLIPTCAL     390 CALORIES
                                    TOTAL CALORIES BURNED 770 CALORIES


NET CALORIC CONSUMPTION   134 CALORIES

Kirkland Turkey Burger, Zucchini Pancake, Spinach w/Vinaigrette, Chicken Broth Cup   328 CALORIES

Another week has gone by.  Last week I was disappointed as I thought I would have lost more weight than I did in that particular week.  This week, I am trying to keep expectations low.  I did everything possible to have a good weigh-in tomorrow.   I worked out 1 hour per day (two sessions, 30 minutes each) and I kept my caloric intake on meals under 1000 calories each day.   Today, Friday, is Day 45 of my program.  When I woke up 45 days ago to visit the doctor, I was 309 lbs. Last Saturday, I was 272.7 lbs.   I am hopeful that my metabolism will have been cooperative this week and shed at least the three pounds to get me into the 260's.   I will know in 24 hours.    See you tomorrow!

1. •