toosigma

I started a diet back in March. I didn’t want to post it here cause I’ve had commitment problems in the past, but now that I’m pretty close to my goal and well in the groove, I feel a bit more comfortable sharing a few details.

Starting Point

I started on March 17th, at a weight of 245 pounds. I’ve weighed more at a few points in the past, but this was pretty close to those maxima (250). I’ve been on three yo-yo diets in recent years, with a low point of 205, but most of the time I hover around 218. On the BMI scale, that puts me solidly in the overweight category, and my high points are at the lower end of obesity.

Incentives

I decided to maximize my chances of success with as many methods as I could find:

• Money: Fortunately for me, my high point coincided with the weigh-in for a company sponsored weight loss initiative, offering to pay $10 per pound lost by February 2011. Given that my financial conscience is a LOT stronger than my dieting conscience, this has definitely made an impact.
• Peer Pressure: I recruited my best friend, Josh, as a workout partner. Even though we’ve missed a few days together, I think the partnership has been a strong positive factor in getting us both off the couch.
• Lots of Feedback: I weigh in every morning and chart the data by a number of different criteria. This has proved invaluable for keeping me on track, and now I actually get anxious when I can’t weigh in.
• Lots of Exercise: Exercise is usually relatively important in any diet, but doubly so for me because it keeps my mood up. I tend to eat as a mood stabilizer, and having a replacement for that has been critical.
• Progressive Rewards: I’m allowed one day a week where I can screw up - both to keep my sanity and to keep my metabolism up. I also get a major screw up once every ten pounds I lose. This helped a lot more in the beginning, since I could still eat the foods I was craving, but now I’m to the point where I usually (but not always) skip the rewards to get to my goal a little bit faster.

Hurdles

• Bipolar: The biggest contributor to my weight problems is my bipolar disorder. As I get stressed or depressed, my weight goes up. It’s no coincidence that every time I’ve been over 240 has been at the end of a particularly long bout of depression.
• Free Food: As stated above, my financial conscience is a lot stronger than my diet conscience. Anytime there is free food available, I’m almost certain to eat it. Mostly this is leftover catering at work, or when the boss brings in donuts, or my RPG game nights (when we share the dinner role). I’ve been getting better at eating less and occasionally abstaining entirely, but it’s still an issue.

The Routine

• 04:00 - Daily Calisthenics: I’ve been using the “Ladder” from the Hacker’s Diet, minus the running in place. The current rung gets listed as part of my statistics, and I haven’t missed a single day since I started.
• 04:15 - Daily Cardio: I run on a treadmill every morning for at least 15 minutes (up to 35 currently). I’ve missed a few days, but mostly because either A) I didn’t have a treadmill or other machine available, or B) I took a rest day to avoid injury.
• 05:15 - Breakfast: Oatmeal - 1/2c oatmeal, 1c water, 1/2tbsp honey, 1/4c applesauce. 230 calories, $0.20.
• 05:45 - Walk to Work: It’s a little over a mile, adding a little more cardio to the routine.
• 09:00 - Snack: A bag of trail mix (see previous post) - 240 calories, $0.34.
• 13:00 - Lunch: Varies - I cook 1-2 big meals on Sundays, separate them into single serving tupperware, and freeze them for later use. Roughly 500-750 calories. Lately, though, I’ve just been substituting a bag of trail mix.
• 15:30 - Snack: Another bag of trail mix or a yogurt (only if I’m hungry)
• 16:30 - Weightlifting: Tuesday/Thursday (and Saturday morning), I meet up with Josh for an hour-long full body workout.
• 17:30 - Dinner: Unless I’m starving, I try to skip dinner. Other than splurges, I haven’t had dinner in almost two months.

While it’s certainly not the most healthy diet, there are some days where I manage just oatmeal and a bag or two of trail mix - 500-750 calories and less than a dollar a day.

Results

I’ve lost an average of 2-4 pounds a week every week since I started - leaving me at 192 currently. My target weight is 175, which I should hit sometime in late July or early August (assuming I can keep up my pace.) Even if I don’t lose another pound, I’m still the same weight I was my freshman year of college.

Of course, the biggest challenge will be staying there, instead of letting the rollercoaster slide back up. I’m hopeful that the combination of Josh’s watchful eye, the long term financial incentive (I don’t get paid if I don’t keep it off until February), and continued vigilance at my feedback statistics will keep me at the target level indefinitely.

I’ve been making my own homemade trail mix for a few years now, mostly because I like it better than the store bought choices. I sat down this weekend to make up a new batch, and thought I should analyze the details a little bit closer.

Walmart sells a bag of trail mix similar to mine for $4.98, yielding a cost per serving of about $0.20. It’s mostly raisins, peanuts, and M&Ms, with a smattering of other nuts.

My ingredients:

• Peanut M&Ms - $6.98
• Pretzel M&Ms - $6.98
• Unsalted Dry Roasted Peanuts - $4.56
• California Raisins - $4.96
• Smoked Almonds - $8.96
• Total - 32.44

It takes me about 30 minutes to fully mix everything and bag each serving individually in snack baggies.

Aside: Putting the trail mix into individual bags is a HUGE benefit for me. If I leave the mix unseparated, I tend to eat significantly larger portion sizes, and go through it in a few days to a week. By splitting them into bags, I eat no more than 3 bags a day, making the mix last almost 3 months.

I ended up with 96 servings - yielding a cost of $0.34 per serving. If I include approximate labor costs, it jumps to almost $0.44 per serving - double that of the store bought. (Of course, the labor can easily be done while watching TV, and I’d also have to bag the store-bought, so I usually don’t count it)

Given that my mix isn’t any more healthy (and probably less so), there isn’t a compelling reason to keep making my own, other than the fact that I like it better. I’ll admit I was hoping I was making some substantial savings. I may have to look into more bulk-food options - I may be able to shave my costs a little.

In the ongoing war between ISPs and the big network content providers over net neutrality, a new weapon has been unveiled. Apparently, the ISPs (who don’t want net neutrality) have accused Google (their primary adversary in the war) of the same things they are guilty of, and that Google must accept “search neutrality” as a consequence.

This is stupid. Here’s why:

• Market Regulation by the government should only occur when there is a definite market failure.
• ISP services, like many other utilities (power, water, gas) is a perfect example of a natural monopoly. It is generally inefficient to run multiple networks when a single one is all that will be utilized.
• A natural monopoly is a type of monopoly, which is a type of market failure.
• Ergo - regulation is a viable option to correct the market failure. Q.E.D.

The same is not true in the case of search engines. There is absolutely nothing preventing me from utilizing any of the many search engines available on the web - Google, Bing, Yahoo, Dogpile, Altavista, etc. There is nothing preventing a new player from entering the market and upsetting the status quo - a feat Google itself accomplished not so long ago. Compare that to the de facto monopolies and duopolies throughout the country in the ISP market.

Admittedly, Google may one day step over the anti-trust line by bundling its various services too tightly (ala Microsoft and Windows + Internet Explorer) but that’s a totally different ball of wax.

The great Steve has spoken from his high mountain, and he is displeased. Apparently his Thoughts on Flash have created a bit of a stir.

Maybe it’s just me (or not), but: Pot? Kettle?

The main reason I haven’t broken down and bought an iPhone or iTouch is because I’m morally opposed to Apple’s walled garden of technophilia. If you really want to be “open” - open up your APIs and let people actually use their gadgets. I shouldn’t have to rely on the brilliant internet hackers to jail-break my device just so I can some software on it. Or I can content myself with just the software that the great overlords of the central planning office have deigned to bestow upon me - which means I get access to 5,000 stupid fart apps, but I can’t get something truly useful like Google Voice. (Because heaven forbid that the Almighty Steve not maintain his stranglehold on the market)

Maybe I’m just naive, but I’ve seen this particular series of events play out before. Apple is making a bold play to grab the entire market - and right now it looks like they’re succeeding. Of course, they have to succeed and be perfect in their success, or they might once again end up on the losing end as more “open” competitors offer what they cannot - freedom.

I just read this interview of Gary Becker at the Wall Street Journal, and felt compelled to quote:

Capitalism has produced the highest standard of living in history, and yet markets are hard to appreciate? Mr. Becker explains: “People tend to impute good motives to government. And if you assume that government officials are well meaning, then you also tend to assume that government officials always act on behalf of the greater good. People understand that entrepreneurs and investors by contrast just try to make money, not act on behalf of the greater good. And they have trouble seeing how this pursuit of profits can lift the general standard of living. The idea is too counterintuitive. So we’re always up against a kind of in-built suspicion of markets. There’s always a temptation to believe that markets succeed by looting the unfortunate.”

Every time I defend capitalism to some liberal, this is the #1 argument they give in opposition. Maybe I’m just weird, but I assume that government officials by their nature are just as corrupt and self-serving as your average citizen - if not more so. As such, government action tends to reflect that corruption. Capitalism, by its nature, is designed to give the best possible result even if all the actors involved are completely corrupt and self-serving - making it the superior choice for almost every situation.