Posts by emmersct

gi-jane gives such good advice!  i have a bmr of 1800 too, and i try to do what gi-jane says - i have a calorie target of 1450, but don't worry too much about it (i range from about 1250 to 1650).  i have the occasional day where i go completely off the wagon (2000-2500), but because my body isn't completely freaked out by not having enough calories on a regular basis, those high calorie days don't result in immediate weight gain (and the occasional high calorie day reassures my body that all is well, and it doesn't need to conserve).    i lost 35 pounds in about 5 months by using that 1450 target (i don't "exercise", but i'm a NYC-dweller, so i'm active).  in the past, i'd try to stick to a 1200 calorie a day diet, and not only did i not lose as much weight, it was incredibly unpleasant.  1400 is the way to go!

I'm in agreement - it's far more complicated than "calories in, calories out".  I feel sluggish and bloated (and my weight loss stalls) when I eat a low-carb diet, but am happy as a clam (and fully able to lose weight) on a 45-55% carb diet (the rest of my calories are split evenly between fat and protein).

There is no "perfect diet", no matter what some people say.  You've got to keep trying different things until you find the diet that works for YOU, personally.     

It seemed to me like most of the "corrections" were pretty tame - no one was calling her a moron or anything.  I think some gentle chiding for writing a post that is difficult to read is totally acceptable. 

The original poster said she is a college student - she should be capable, as a college student, of posting in a sensible way.  So what I'm left with is the assumption that she IS capable of writing coherently, but she's CHOOSING not to.  Which isn't terribly respectful to the people reading her post.

I think you should try really hard to hit that 1200 mark - not out of any sort of "you'll screw up your metabolism" thing (though that's probably true), but for your mental health. 

Think about it - you're so stressed you're not eating.  But it's incredibly stressful to your body to be under-fueled.  So it becomes downward spiral of stress - you're stressed, so you don't eat, which makes your body stressed, so you don't eat... 

Try to eat some foods that are good for your brain - salmon, avocados, berries, tomatoes, stuff like that.   

Good luck, I hope you feel better soon.

I love my job.  I'm a transactional attorney (i.e., a lawyer who drafts and interprets contracts, not one who ever goes to court).  Believe it or not, I decided on my career by taking several of those "which career is right for you?" tests at my university.  All three tests gave me a list of possible careers, and architect and attorney were numbers one or two for every test.  I talked to people in both fields, and decided to pursue law instead of architecture, because I knew that financial stability was very important to me, and many architects are drastically underpaid (nevermind that the actual practice of architecture is often far less creative than architects would like).  First, I went to work for an attorney, to make sure I liked the day-to-day realities of law.  Then, while working for the attorney, I studied my ass off for the LSAT and got into the very best school I could.  I also ran the numbers, and decided that even though law school was very expensive, the investment would pay off within a matter of years.  It has worked out very well.

You shouldn't necessarily become a lawyer, but I do recommend my process - some impartial tests to figure out what field best suits your interests and aptitudes, talking to people in the field to find out what it's really like on a day-to-day basis, putting in the effort to get into the best program possible, and running the numbers to make sure the investment of your time and money is a good one.        ;

Has anyone seen this article in the NY Times re how Sweden accomplished their bailout in a somewhat taxpayer-friendly way?  It sounds like a pretty good idea to me - I think the negative of the government becoming a major asset holder/player in the market is probably outweighed by the potential to recoup the bailout and send the money back to the government, rather than to the pockets of the bank executives and shareholders.

i can only speak for myself, but there was no one moment - just a gradually growing feeling.  and no, he never really hurt me, or i him. 

i don't know either of you, but a tumultuous dating relationship is generally not a good indicator of future marital success.  i know this is probably impossible advice to follow, but, honestly, you should probably break up and date other people for a year or two.  if you've been dating all through college you don't really know what it's like to date other people (high school really, really doesn't count).  also, the shape of your lives may change as you move out into the real world - you may become more similar, or more different.  if you spend some time apart, and still (after at LEAST one year, if not more) want to be together, then maybe you should have a nice, long engagement. 

i was the same as you - raised by a single parent, one serious boyfriend in college... but man, am i glad i didn't end up marrying him.  i waited, dated (a lot!  it was great!) and then found a wonderful, wonderful, stable man who's right for the grown-up me.  we've only been married for about a year and a half, but even pessimistic me doesn't see any clouds on the horizon.  it can be hard work (marriage always is - and it'll only get trickier as our lives get more complicated with kids and whatnot), but i'm incredibly happy.  :) 

i was looking forward to a discussion about the bailout.  had to wade through a whole lot of off-topic discussion about immigration to get there though...

yes, the bailout would simply be delaying the inevitable - our financial system is pretty messed up (how, exactly can we continue with a negative savings rate?).  but, right now, the bailout we're talking about is NOT giving money to people who bought houses they cannot afford - it's buying up securities that still have fundamental value, despite the demand drying up, from financial institutions in order to inject some liquidity into the market. 

joe and suzy homemaker are not the only people who need to refinance loans.  businesses are constantly refinancing loans - often not because they want to, but because the loan has matured (commercial loan terms tend to be much shorter than home loans).  if credit dries up (because the banks have gone out of business, or have no cash because they're suddenly holding assets (mortgage securities) that no one wants to buy), a lot of non-bank businesses are going to go bankrupt - and we're going to crash into a deep recession.  i think the plan behind the bailout is for the economy to slide into a shallow recession instead.  over-correction of the markets helps no one, particularly not the little guy (and the rich guys will STILL be rich).  also, the securities are not value-less - many of the loans will still pay till maturity, particularly if the economy doesn't crash.

that said, i don't know if the bailout is a good idea.  it's just good to really think about the complexities of the situation, rather than "rich people getting more money is BAAAD".    

one thing you may want to consider is that SFSU has a national reputation, hawaii pacific does not.  part of why you go to college is the experience (both social and academic), but part of it is having a name on your resume that will open doors.  given that you have a 3.9 gpa and are a california resident, is there any reason you're not considering some of the other california state schools in addition to SFSU, like berkeley or UCLA?  i'd hate to see you put in so much work (and CONGRATS on that kickass gpa, btw) only to go to a school that gives future employers the impression that you were a slacker (particularly if you have to go into more debt to do it). 

hah!  i've fallen prey to that before too.  i think my mental glitch was that once i lost the weight, i thought i had become a skinny person.  you know, one of those people who can eat whatever they want and not be fat.  and it's easy to think that at first, because you've been dieting for so long, and then suddenly you do something stupid, like eat three pieces of pizza, and you wake up the next day and... you're still skinny!  so, why not do it again?  and then again?  and then the pounds start creeping back on. 

what i've realized is that i AM NOT, never have been, never will be, one of those incredibly, fabulously lucky people who can eat whatever they want and not gain weight.  i will ALWAYS need to watch what i eat.  and, quite frankly, a lot of the people you know who are thin are thin because they watch what they eat.  you just need to make peace with the fact that you will NEVER get to eat whatever you want.  unless you become michael phelps and swim at olympic speeds all day long.  :)

that's wonderful!  and, also, really encouraging - my husband and i have been trying since the new year, so i guess it's going on nine months.  i'm starting to worry that something is wrong.  so it's nice to hear about someone else who didn't get pregnant within four or five months.  i wish you the best of luck!

i would disagree with your professor that "the law is reason free from passion" is necessarily an optimistic statement.  it's simply an unrealistic one - given the current-day definition of passion.  passion in many forms comes into the law - sometimes good, sometimes bad.  passion for reform.  "zealous" representation.  passionate devotion to an antiquated social system.  perhaps, instead of passion (which i understand as strength of resolve and motivation), the word should be emotion?  that's always the tricky thing with translations - it's very hard to get the nuance the author intended. 

as for the second quote - law and order do always and everywhere protect the established hierarchy - it's almost circular, because what is established IS the order of things, and vice versa.  however, law and order do sometimes and in some places protect the ability to change the established hierarchy - for example, in a democratic state, where the people can vote for a regime change.  it may be unlikely, but i would say that an unjust hierarchy would be more likely to topple (though, to be replaced by a different hierarchy - possibly more just, possibly not) in a democracy than in, say, a feudal state.   

alcohol.  i'm not an overly heavy drinker - i can go weeks at a time without drinking (particularly in winter), and when i do drink i don't get crazy drunk, but i get drunk enough that (a) my inhibitions are lowered and i EAT AND EAT AND EAT, and (b) i'm hung over the next day and really, really want greasy food to make me feel better.  so i'll be doing really well with my weight loss, and then go to a wedding or something, and go crazy with the food, and spend the entire next week fighting my way back down to the weight i was at before the debauchery.  it's a very bad pattern.  :(

This is what I would suggest:

1.  For one week, write down everything you eat, but don't "diet".  This will let you know what your "maintenance" level of calories is (it'll be more accurate than a calculator, because you know that your current level of calories allows you to maintain).  Use calorie count to figure out how many calories that is each day, and then add up the week's calories and take the average. 

2.  Then, come up with a meal plan that allows you to shave 500 calories off of your average daily calorie intake (but don't go below about 1800, because you're a reasonably tall teen).  Cutting out soda is a way to get rid of some of those calories, or reducing (but not eliminating) the amount of pure carb foods you consume (like pastas and breads). 

3.  If you want to increase your exercise, do so, and that will allow you to eat more (use the activity calculators to figure out how many calories you're burning).  I'm not a big exerciser, so I'll leave it to someone else to suggest a good exercise plan for a beginner. 

That should probably give you a start.  :)

my mom is in her fifties and lost about 60 pounds (from the 180's to the 120's), and she had saggy skin for about a year, but then it toned up (so it's not only the young kids who'll recover well).  so i think there's hope.  but, in the end, skin elasticity is a matter of age and genetics - some people have very elastic skin, some do not.