Great pic! Good for you!

Friday Check in =1 points

Weight:236 # =0points

Water Intake =11 points

Exercise:= 205 minutes!= 6.8 points

Extra Credit = 1 point,hit my goal of 4K steps per day 3 times this week!

Total =19.8 points

Gardening has been very good for my activity level!Now I need to eat better and stop gaining weight.

Zogo--10K steps in one day--HOORAY!

YEAH for the no findings audit!

Welcome back, Patoo! I've read that going by how your clothes fit is as helpful as going by the number on a scale. Sounds like it makes a lot of sense to me!

Friday Check in =1 points

Weight: 240 # =0points

Water Intake =10 points

Exercise:= 15 minutes!= 0.5 points

Extra Credit = 1 point,avoided soda all week

Total =12.5points

Well, getting the 4K steps per day thing going pretty well, over 3.5K steps on the days I don't hit 4K, much better than I have been doing.On the eating front, I'm having a hard time finding unsweetened iced tea, my go to for avoiding soda when I don't want plain water, and have been drinking Gatorade and the like, with the accompanying calories and surprising amount of sodium.Got to work on that now.My weight is fluctuating between 236 and 240# just from salt and water intake variations.Sigh.

Good for you, Badger, for remembering the kleenex!

Hey NM, Looks like you maintained from last week even though you were up today. Give yourself one point for that!

Badger, stress IS exhausting. Glad you found a little relief in a good cry. ((hugs))

Friday ~ 3

Water ~ 7

Exercise ~10

Wt (166.9) ~ 2

Extra Credit ~ 1 Hit 10K steps 2 days in a row.

Total ~ 23

hey ladies, missed Friday & Sat but for good cause, see below.  Thx for the hugs, backatcha!

Late check-in = 1 point

Weight down = 2 point

Exercise = 5 hours = 10 points 

Daily H2O = 7 points

Extra credit = 1 point - been off the board all week as chose to walk after work instead of logging in.  Once I'm here, I usually spend at least an hour, sitting.

Total = 21 points

NM, I have a fitbit. I think it counts some movement that isn't actually a step sometimes. But as long as it is consistent, I can compare. We are going to pick up DD from college. A 12+ hour drive each way. I'm sure my steps will be lacking this week.

Badger, you are doing well with the computer time. It can be such a time magnet.

Friday ~ 3

Water ~ 7

Wt (168.4) ~ 0 Ugh.

Exercise ~ 4

Ex Cred ~ 1 Yesterday ~ 11,384 steps

Total ~ 15

Soapbox warning! NM is getting up on her soapbox again, feel free to skip this post!

Unproven Dietary Guidelines, or Is fat and cholesterol really the enemy?

For decades we've been told to decrease our intake of fat and cholesterol, do lower total cholesterol levels, then to lower "bad" cholesterol levels, then to take statin drugs to get cholesterol levels to "healthy" levels while putting up with muscle aches and pains and liver damage in order to avoid dying of a hear attack. "the research proves" is a common phrase. It's also a common lie. The research doe NOT prove any of this!

"Reuters Health Information

U.S. May Lower Cholesterol's Level of Threat to Health: Report"

(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/839564?src=wnl...)

What? How can this be? Is the US, in all it's infinite wisdom now condemning all it's citizen's to death from cholesterol clogged arteries and heart attacks? Um, no. The US is admitting "they" got it wrong from the beginning!

"For decades, the government has warned against diets high in cholesterol. But now many nutritionists believe that cholesterol intake may not significantly impact cholesterol blood levels or increase the risk of heart disease in healthy adults, according to the Washington Post." (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/839564?src=wnl...)

What? Cholesterol is NOT a deadly enemy? Again, HOW CAN THIS BE???? Doesn't the research prove that cholesterol intake is killing us all? Well, actually, the research has NEVER "proved" or even strongly linked cholesterol and heart disease.

Evidence From Randomised Controlled Trials Did Not Support the Introduction of Dietary Fat Guidelines in 1977 and 1983

(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/839903_1)

"Results 2467 males participated in six dietary trials: five secondary prevention studies and one including healthy participants. There were 370 deaths from all-cause mortality in the intervention and control groups. The risk ratio (RR) from meta-analysis was 0.996 (95% CI 0.865 to 1.147). There were 207 and 216 deaths from CHD in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The RR was 0.989 (95% CI 0.784 to 1.247). There were no differences in all-cause mortality and non-significant differences in CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary interventions. The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality. Government dietary fat recommendations were untested in any trial prior to being introduced.

Conclusions Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from RCTs."

Translation, courtesy of Yours Truly: There were 6 studies that the dietary guidelines were based on. All were conducted with men, none with women. 5 of the 6 studies were "secondary prevention" studies done with men who had already had a heart attack, and were looking at preventing a second heart attack. One study included healthy men who had not had a heart attack. The "interventional" group is the group of men who changed their diet to decrease dietary fat and cholesterol, the "control" group did not change their diet.

"There were no differences in all-cause mortality and non-significant differences in CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary interventions." Translated, this says that the overall number of men dying of any cause during the study was the same in each group and the difference in the number of men dying of heart disease in each group was so close that, statistically, the rate must be considered the same. In this instance, with 2467 participants evenly assigned to the interventional and control groups means that each group had approximately 1233 men. 207 deaths from heart disease in interventional group is a death rate of about 16.8%. 216 deaths from heart disease in the control group is a death rate of about 17.5%. The 1.3% difference is not big enough to reliably be considered a difference mathematically.

The proper conclusion is "There were no differences in all-cause mortality and non-significant differences in CHD (coronary heart disease) mortality (death), resulting from the dietary interventions." A correct secondary conclusion is "The reductions in mean serum cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the intervention groups; this did not result in significant differences in CHD (coronary heart disease) or all-cause mortality (death)."

So how did we get to the place where millions of Americans are taking cholesterol lowering drugs with significant side effects on a daily basis?

Zogo--welcome to the soapbox! Fun, isn't it?

hi, so sorry ladies I've been bad about posting, just swamped with work. Training on new computer system in addition to my usual heavy workload.  Plus vacation starts at the end of next week so my to-do list is long.  On the upside, I will get to see patoo! ♥ to all

Badger, have a great vaca and share pics when you are with Patoo!!

NM, those are some crazy LOOONG work hours! Take care of yourself.

Friday ~ 3

Water ~ 6

Wt (168.6) ~ 0

Exercise ~ 9

Ex Credit ~ 1 I did Jillian Michaels workout videos this week with my DD that is home from college.

Total ~ 19

hi ladies, check out the Let's Post our Daily Exercise thread for pix!  Will be back to regular posting next week.

((NM)) sorry you're feeling lousy on top of that mountain of work.  I'm dreading my inbox after a week away. 

edit to add there are vacay pix on the mods get-together news thread, here's a link

https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/90/topic/783453?page=3#idx_80