Good for you, Tom. It's good to be a *loser*.

#76.

quote:

Originally posted by apple:
tomk, fatman (i'm gonna do some photoshopping)

I know--it sucks! (And that's only the second time I have ever used that word online.)

It does suck. Hit me about 10 years ago. Until then, I ate whatever I wanted and was always the 90 pound weakling. Then all of a sudden before I know it I weigh 20 pounds more, stop eating desserts and chips and all kinds of stuff and still.....

Pique, I love your antlers. Where can I get some?

jf

jodi gave them to me, jack. i think they'd look cool on you, too. why don't you ask her for some?

I'm not losing anything these days. No matter how fast I run, it's right behind me. Of course, I'm running to the kitchen for more fudge.

I'll give you some Jack - it may take a couple of days. Steve it doing video editing on the main computer (actually, a new program on the main computer is doing a lousy job of transferring videos to DVDs, and the husband is doing a lot of $%&*#! ) So, I'll get my drawing tablet back in a couple of days, and then I'll make some more holiday avatars. Much better for the waistline than making holiday cookies...

jodi

Can't wait! Do you need a bigger pic?

jf

Yes, that would be helpful.

Jodi

Ok. I'm STUCK. Still at 91#. Not a bad place to be stuck, compared to where I was, but still. I'm guessing getting stuck in normal, problem is, I'm HUNGRY as well. (reading too many recipe threads) and it's only 10:41 am.

Jodi (impatience is my middle name)

Wow! I just (with much trepidation) tried on two pairs of size 10 jeans I had grabbed at TJMAXX - along with the, ahem, imported candied ginger, Spanish chocolate, Italian Panettone, amaretto truffles, Scottish shortbread (30% butter), chocolate torte covered with marrons glaces and marzipan shaped like interesting non-almond objects. These are all gifts, you understand. OK, I MAY serve the almond related foodstuff here and taste it, and the candied ginger is for cooking and nausea. *

I really haven't had ANY.

Anyhow, said jeans were too BIG. Yes. This proves, I'm afraid the existence of "size inflation" as well as personal DE-flation, but it still made for a pleasant few moments of zipping and snapping. I'm sure it helped quite a lot that they were a bit low slung. Really need to get back to crunches and the rest. Much more.

To HAVE a waist-line and all - I used to do hundreds of them a day.

So says the excellent physiotherapist I started with yesterday too. (For any back-pained persons, take advantage of it, if you are lucky enough to have a specialist PT locally who is certified in the "MacKenzie technique").
***

*BTW, I had gone in for their excellent Earl Grey tea (which they were out of). HAHAHA. Same last week when I walked out with an unspeakable amount of things I didn't know I deseprately needed.

(But that pet brush that cleans itself of hair, looks like a real winner, and I'm sure family members and freinds will love the shower radios I got. Among other things. It's amazing how other cultures - many international friends - make a fuss this time of year. Hmm, sense another thread coming "downstairs")

Yes, size inflation is huge. I mean, I'm sure the pants I wear now are labeled at least one, if not two sizes smaller than the same sized pants were 20 years ago. But also, (at least for me) wearing lower cut pants makes it easier to fit into a smaller size. I have always been built like a guy. I have no waist. So when pants cut for a curvy figure fit me in the waist, they are often baggy in the hind end.

Oh, and MacKenzie Technique - i think I have a back book by that guy. My PT recommended it - but I seem to have missplaced it. Really great exercises to keep your back healthy. The biggest thing I learned from that book is that there are two kinds of back problems - those that stem from not keeping enough arch in your lower back (my problem) and those that stem from having TOO much of an arch (a sway back) in your lower back. And the exercises for the two are completely different. Ok, I'm rambling now. Wish I could find that stupid book.

Jodi

quote:

Originally posted by jodi:
Yes, size inflation is huge. I mean, I'm sure the pants I wear now are labeled at least one, if not two sizes smaller than the same sized pants were 20 years ago...

I have never understood this business of women's clothing sizing. With men's clothes, the size is the actual measurement in inches, like 32w36i jeans are 32 waist, 36 inseam. Suit sizes and shirt sizes are the same, with numbers reflecting actual measurements of chest size, neck size, and arm length. The only thing I've ever seen among women's things that are similarly logically sized are brassieres. I'd bet that's because some accuracy there is critical to comfort. But all this business of "6" or "9" or "10" seems pretty obscure. (Is that obsurity the real point?)

Well, it used to be that a 30 waist in mens jeans was equivalent to about a 10, and a 32 was a 12, and a 34 was a 14. The "Junior" (young female adult), sizes are odd sized numbers, while womens sizes are even numbers. So a 7 and an 8 are (or at least, they used to be) roughly the same size (I think they are maybe cut slightly differently) as is 9/10, and 11/12. I theorize that what they've done with the mens clothes is to call something a 32W 34L, but then added "relaxed fit" which means it's bigger. And I know that because I'm fitting back into 32 34's (I wear men's jeans a lot) which is pretty close to what I used to wear, when I wore an old size 12. (which is like a new sized 10). Have I confused you now?

Jodi (oh, and by the way, Costco makes the BEST mens jeans. Kirlkand brand, they fit great (on my no waisted body) they have a nice bluejeans color, they come in 34 inseams, so they are long enough, they are well made, and the best part is, they are $12.99. You can't beat that. The last time I was there, I saw that they added a black jean to the table along with the blue ones. Cool.

jodi:

quote:

I'm sure the pants I wear now are labeled at least one, if not two sizes smaller than the same sized pants were 20 years ago

Make that "at least TWO", all right. and altered dimensions as well.

Speaking as someone who used to wear a 5, OLD 5.

I will be happy if I can get back to a new 6, a WAISTED 6. The Jr. sizes are overall, longer waisted, higher busted and higher everything-ed. Think colt. Thank God they don't have a third ranking, "matronly" where everything sags and converges.

NOT the same as merely XL.

Never had a perky, big tukkis, myself Jodi. Could be that the pelvic tilt was minimal (which has caused me so much grief with the passage of time).

One "friend" (who tended to be on the jealous side) used to call me "the @ssless wonder", in said boarding school. Very salty tongues the "young ladies" there had. I was pretty tame linguistically before I arrived.

When she later visited me in Berlin, I had experienced a cultural misinformation disaster. My elderly German-English dictionary AND my two room-mates, swore up and down that a German "Pfund" and a pound were identical. "Ein Pfund" is exactly half a kilo.

Miracle! Despite all those creamy pastries, cheese and sausages, I was maintaining my weight! Clothes were shrinking, but all the scales read the same so I was OK.

No, no, no. They were wrong. A kilo is 2.2 lbs. "Overnight" I gained 10% extra weight. Horrible shock. At this moment, Nancy stopped in, backpack in tow.

Obviously enjoying herself, she "consoled" me with: "Think of it not as losing a waistline, Mandy, but as gaining hips." She did not stay long.

(Moral of the story is the obvious. DO NOT rely on numbers, but other feedback about your avoir du poids. Especially with women's clothing manufacturers "super-sizing it".)

Amanda the @ssless Wonder.

*snort* You crack me up.



Jodi