misslynx: (Default)
Going back to the gym after not being there regularly for some while (didn't go while sick, went briefly once better, then didn't go during the holidays due to being busy plus reduced holiday hours): good.

Warming up with 5-10 minutes on cardio machine before hitting the weights: also good.

Trying new cardio machine never tried before (crossramp, I think it was called - basically a slanted version of an elliptical trainer, so it's like cross-country skiing uphill, more or less): potentially good.

Discovering that while using said machine felt fine at the time, a mere 6.5 minutes on it was enough to make my calf muscles seize up and get crampy and painful within minutes of getting off said machine: NOT good.

Getting to find out which of the weight machines, unbeknownst to me before now, put some degree of stress on the calf muscles in addition to whatever muscle group they're aimed at: educational, I suppose, but would have preferred to find out by some means other than ow-ow-ow-fuck-ow.

Discovering, however, that despite having been away, I could still do the same level of weight on most of the machines as before I got sick: VERY good. I only had to reduce the weight on, I think, two of them, and only by 5 pounds.

New exercise clothes, including, FINALLY, a proper sports bra: doubleplusverygood.

Stupid calf muscles still being seriously sore the next day, to the point where going up and down stairs requires determination: really not so good. (Triceps, all shoulder muscles, and pectorals also sore, but only when I move certain ways. Calves are sore even at rest. What the hell is up with that? 6.5 minutes!)

May or may not go to gym again tomorrow, depending how recovered I'm feeling. I have a pretty full day tomorrow anyway. But whenever I do go back, I am feeling a strange urge to get back on the evil calf-killing machine again and see if repeated exposure will allow me to eventually beat it into submission. Possibly, I am insane. But I am fortified with new exercise clothes, which make me feel like I can do anything. Only my calves disagree.

How the hell did it get to be 4am? I could have sworn it was only 2:00 a minute ago. Bed. NOW.
misslynx: (Default)
So... It's now been somewhere around five years since I started trying to eat better, be more physically active, etc. There have been various incremental changes along the way, such as getting a bike last summer, but one thing I've been sort of meaning to do for pretty much that entire time (and some while before, really), and yet not gotten around to doing, was joining a gym/fitness club of some sort.

Guess what I finally did? Yes, at long last!

As I type this, I am feeling the sort of ache in my shoulders that says "you just exercised muscles that haven't seen in any action in a very long time." Not sure why it's just my shoulders killing me -- I went through the whole round of weight machines, but maybe that's the part that was most out of shape. Walking and biking have probably kept my legs somewhat stronger, and carrying a small child around at intervals two days a week has probably helped my back a bit, but no real arm/shoulder exercise to speak of until now.

So, I am very happy about this. And the one I joined -- GoodLife at St. Clair and Yonge, which at least four other people I know are or have been members of -- seems pretty cool. Everyone I've encountered there thus far, staff and members alike, seems really friendly, down to earth and helpful. Plus, another GoodLife branch got a stellar review in Xtra a little while ago, so that caught my interest as well.

Ironically, though this is the club I'd been wanting to join for some time, it is not the one I thought I was going to join when I set out on Saturday.

A Tale of Two Fitness Clubs )

Free Trial, with Bonus Ulterior Motive (on my part)

Oh, also -- one of the various new-member perks is that you can name up to five friends who they'll give a week-long trial membership to. I would need to do that soonish, though, so if you're interested, please comment here and let me know. I think it's just at the one branch, though, so you'd probably need to be somewhere convenient to Yonge & St. Clair for it to be useful. Given it's right by a subway entrance, though (literally -- you don't even need to go outside from the subway to get there, just across a hallway), it's probably a pretty convenient location for anyone who takes the TTC.

And in the interests of full conflict-of-interest declaration, I should probably mention that I will get a free gym bag if I can find three people who would like said free trial (regardless of whether or not they actually end up joining). So I am not making this offer purely out of altruism. I do actually kind of need a gym bag, or would like one, anyway. :-)

So... If anyone wants a free one-week trial membership, let me know.
misslynx: (Huge tracts of land)
I've been meaning to do a proper catching-up udpate for a while, but this is not it. This is just a small post on the experience I had taking the advice [livejournal.com profile] danaeris gave me in the comments on this post, and checking out Change on Queen St. Or Change of Scandinavia, which is apparently their full and proper name. Essentially, they are the Ikea of bras -- as in, a European chain aimed at providing quality at affordable prices.

Mostly, it was a good experience, although on the whole not quite as good as I'd hoped.

The good part )

The not so good part )

So, all in all, not quite the bra paradise I was hoping for, but not without merit either. I'll probably check out other stores as well, but I likely will go back to Change at some point and maybe try on that higher-end bra.

For now, though, here I sit in my new 34H bra, enjoying the fact that I finally have something decently supportive again, even while also feeling resentful that there weren't more options for me that worked, and trying to resign myself to not only an even more freakish-sounding bra size than before, but also the fact that weight loss or no, I will probably never be in the market for department-store bras again, ever.
misslynx: (Huge tracts of land)
The latest chapter in the ongoing saga of the Incredible Shrinking Woman. Also, further evidence that the fashion/clothing industry is insane:

Amongst the latest batch of stuff of mine that I picked up from chez [livejournal.com profile] kettunainen and [livejournal.com profile] optimystik was a tape measure. This morning, catching sight of it, it occurred to me that it had been a while since I last took my measurements. Also, that I have been finding my formerly best-fitting bra to be a little bit loose these days, and thus entertaining suspicions that I may have gone down a band size and/or cup size. Going down a cup size would actually be excellent news, in that it would make me a DD and thus back into the realm of being able to buy bras in normal stores.

So, I started measuring. First discovery was that yes, I am indeed smaller in all horizontal dimensions than last time I did this. The last measurements I can remember taking, a couple of years ago, were something like 44-34-47. That was after having lost some weight already.. Today's results: 42-32-42. I do believe this is the first time in my life that my bust and hip measurements have ever been the same. Also, it is no longer surprising to me that none of my pants fit any more, if I've lost two inches off my waist and five off my hips.

Next, the underbust measurement that is compared to the bust measurement to calculate bra size -- bearing in mind that just doing it on a chart is not always reliable, and that serious bra-fu is required if you want a really good fit. Anyway: 34".

So, I hit google and begin looking up bra size charts. The first one attempts to tell me that I am a 38D. This seems suspicious to me, so I experiment a bit and discover that D is the largest size it has - you could (theoretically) have a 20" difference between your bust and underbust measurements and it would still tell you you were a D. D is actually supposed to reflect a 4" difference. I have an 8" difference. Fail.

So I try another, from a site that I have heard before carries a wide range of sizes. That one lists an 8" difference as "FF". Never seen a double F before -- I was a 38F last I checked (having been sized by a bra-fu master at a store that sadly no longer exists). But cup sizes vary wildly between different countries: an F in European sizes (which rather sensible go through the alphabet in the normal fashion instead of randomly doubling letters) is an E in UK sizes, where they have double D and then go on to E, and a DDD in US sizes, although in my experience US DDD bras never actually fit me -- they seem to be designed on the assumption that anyone with large breasts is also large all over, probably due to the, er, peculiarities of the average American physique these days.

So I look over the rest of the chart, trying to make sense of this - to find that the version this site is using goes up to DDDD, which I have also seen, and then straight to FF without actually hitting E or F on the way. Who on earth thinks up these things? But it was when I compared their version of US sizing to the European sizing with which I am more familiar that the true WTF-ness of the situation began to sink in: DD = E, DDD = F, DDDD = G, FF = H!

H? H?! How is it even remotely possible that, having lost two inches from my bust since being sized as a 38 F, I am now two freaking cup sizes larger?! Although, according to this site's idea of band size, two band sizes smaller?

I check another site that deals with the full range of sizes for comparison, after an interval of trying a few more that either stop at DD or list any size larger than a certain cutoff as "etc." But it does indeed seem that an 8" difference between underbust and bust classes one as an H, though other sites say that a 34" underbust measurement is actually a band size of 38.

I measure again, a couple of times, trying to make sure that I haven't made some grievous error, and the first time get 42 again for the bust while the second time I get 41 (the underbust measurement stays the same both times). I guess it depends a bit on how you hold the tape measure. But even 41 would still put me as a G.

So I am apparently supposed to believe that while my bust measurement has gotten smaller, my cup size has gotten larger while my band size has stayed the same.

I think that instead I will choose to believe that bra sizing charts are fucking useless, and that I need to take [livejournal.com profile] foxesdaughter's recommendation of visiting her bra-fu master on the Danforth. Whenever I next have some disposable income, anyway...

P.S. Courtesy of [livejournal.com profile] poisoninjest, I have found the perfect userpic for posts such as this...
misslynx: (Default)
The first, for the vegan or lactose-intolerant or otherwise non-dairy-eating people who might be reading this:

What the hell do you put in tea? )

. . .

Question the second, specifically for female residents of Toronto,
particularly those whose breasts have been assigned their own postal code: )
misslynx: (With Kiska (on couch))
A few years back, when I discovered I'd lost 15 pounds without trying, during the year following our acquisition of our dog Kiska, I decided that if just moving from an almost-entirely-sedentary lifestyle to one involving regular dog-walking could do that, perhaps more could be accomplished by actually trying to eat better and exercise more. And those of you who know me in person know that indeed, it could and was. Those of you who don't might have noticed the little item in my userinfo under "goals accomplished" that has an ever-increasing list of crossed-out numbers for amount of weight lost.

At some point, I arbitrarily set my "target weight" at 175, even though I knew that numbers aren't always meaningful. I liked the idea of having something to aim for, and I vaguely remembered that particular weight having felt reasonably good when I last was there (sometime in my late 20s, I think).

Today, the scale showed me the following number: 174.8.

*takes a bow*

The funny thing is, while I'm pleased that I finally hit my somewhat random target, in a sense it doesn't really mean anything. I'm not going to stop doing anything I'm doing now, because I'm not doing anything that was ever meant to be temporary. I'm not "dieting" and never have been. I'm not doing anything at the moment that requires a lot of work or seems like a major ordeal.

Now before those of you who are trying to lose weight and having trouble with it decide you hate me on the basis of the above, I don't mean that there was no effort put into the 40 pounds I've lost at any point - there definitely was. But it wasn't in following some kind of strict diet or exercise program - it was in working, slowly over time, at changing my lifestyle and establishing better eating and physical activity patterns. And the reason it doesn't seem like work now is because I've spent the past three years internalizing those changes and trying to make them just part of how I live and not something that requires conscious effort on an ongoing basis.

In a nutshell what I've been doing is training myself to eat differently and be more active. But for those who want some specifics... Here they are )

Anyway... Like I said, not intending to stop doing any of this now that I've passed the magic 175, because really I'm not trying so much to weigh a particular number as to just have a healthier life. And thus far, it seems to be working.

One final note -- I'll probably post more about this at some point in the future, but I can't finish a post about healthy eating without adding that I've just finished a book (courtesy of [livejournal.com profile] northbard and [livejournal.com profile] tormenta, though I really must get my own copy so I can lend it to others) that has completely blown me away on the food/nutrition/health front: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health by T. Colin Campbell. Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to read this book. I'd already been trying to eat healthier for a few years now, and made considerable progress, but reading this has caused me to rethink some of my ideas of what healthy eating is, so further changes appear to be in progress...
misslynx: (Oh R'lyeh?)
Today, I:
  1. Survived a one-shot Call of Cthulhu game with no ill effects except temporary insanity, scars from a shotgun blast to the face, and a deep desire never to see the inside of a cave again under any circumstances (which would probably be less problematic were my character not a professional caving guide). Ironically, I think it was the insanity that saved me, since it made me panic, scream and run like mad for the nearest exit, which all things concerned was probably the most sensible thing I could have done under the circumstances.

  2. Met a dog that had been rescued from Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. His new owner had only had him for two weeks, because he was one of the dogs that the rescue organization had had the hardest time placing. Had he not been adopted within a few days of when he was, he would have been put down. He had reacted to the trauma he'd been through by becoming really skittish and fearful of people, so when people came to adopt dogs, he'd shy away from them, and they'd adopt the friendlier dogs instead.

    But this guy adopted him, and after only two weeks in his forever home, he was much improved. He was able to socialize with Kiska while being only mildly jumpy, though he did initially cringe back and growl a little when I offered him my hand to sniff, so I could see why some potential owners might have reacted negatively to him. But when I stayed still, and his owner and I both spoke to him soothingly, he eventually slunk forward and sniffed my hand and tentatively wagged his tail a little. He seemed like a nice dog, just one who'd been through some very bad times. But it's amazing what a loving home will help a dog recover from.

  3. Discovered that a combination of cooldown time, chocolate and willpower will eventually allow me to answer even an e-mail that pushes all sorts of different emotional buttons and hotspots in a reasonably calm and civilized manner.

  4. Also discovered that, despite not having weighed myself in a long time and fearing the worst, and despite having been inundated with many and various forms of really good chocolate over the course of birthday week, I not only have not regained any weight, but having finally hit 180 (well, 180.2), and thus feel justified in finally crossing out the "30" on my profile and writing "35" (as in, pounds lost, under the Goals Accomplished section).

    5 pounds more to my target weight. Unless I for some reason decide I feel a compelling desire to actually land within the "normal" range of the BMI, which would require another 7 pounds or so coming off. But really, I recall 175 as feeling pretty good, and that will probably do just fine.
More substantial update coming... someday. Right now, the only reason I am awake is that I should theoretically be working, as I did not get a lot of work done this weekend between various things. But I am tired and cannot brain, so I think I will go to bed.
misslynx: (Default)
Found this via a link to another article from [livejournal.com profile] thewronghands:
A big study suggests the harm of excess weight is overhyped. Downside of obesity: higher risk of death from heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and some kinds of cancer. Downside of overweight: higher death risk from diabetes and kidney disease, but no higher risk from cancer or heart disease. Upside of overweight (compared with "normal" weight): much lower death risk from Alzheimer's, emphysema, lung cancer, Parkinson's, pneumonia, and tuberculosis. Net result: 100,000 lives saved per year by being overweight instead of "normal."

Theory: Extra weight includes "reserves" that help you resist or recover from disease.

Supportive reactions: 1) Fat isn't bad for you. 2) "Overweight" is normal, and "normal" is underweight.

Critiques: 1) The study only measured deaths, so it missed the fact that fat causes disease, impairment, and lower "quality of life," even if it doesn't kill. 2) The reason fat kills fewer people is that we're medicating them. 3) Overweight may not harm you directly, but it leads to obesity, which does harm you. 4) Other studies say fat is harmful. 5) If we tell people fat is harmless, they'll eat crap and stop exercising, which is bad for them regardless of weight.

(Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2177821/fr/rss/ - but note that it's an RSS feed and this piece is already near the bottom, so it'll probably scroll off the page soon)
So being in the "overweight" area of the BMI, as opposed to either "normal" or "obese", seems like the healthiest place to be, at least in terms of mortality levels from the diseases study. It does not increase your risk of cancer or heart disease, and does decrease your risk of a whole lot of other stuff, compared to people who are lighter or heavier. Very interesting...

One thing I found interesting/annoying about some of the critiques in the articles they linked to is that a lot of them did not differentiate between different levels of excess weight -- they seemed to assume that if you said that being 10-20 pounds overweight might be OK that was no different than saying that being 100 pounds overweight was OK, when that was not what the study found at all. The mortality levels were quite different between the overweight and obese categories. But it seems like a lot of people are so caught up in weight hysteria that if you suggest that any level of weight beyond the vaunted BMI Normal might actually be OK, they scream "heresy!" first, and look at the actual facts later, if at all.

That said, though, I see the same sort of distortion from a lot of the "fat acceptance" groups, who seize on things like this to "prove" that no one ever needs to lose any weight and that any level of fat is OK. So neither side is exactly innocent in this.

Sometimes it seems like there's very little middle ground out there between the tyranny of the BMI and the position that all excess weight of any kind means you're OMG OBESE AND GOING TO DIE HORRIBLY!!1! and the equally nonsensical position that there are absolutely no health concerns at all with any level of weight and that it's all a big capitalist/patriarchal plot.

From what I can tell, the facts don't really support either extreme. Yes, there are health risks associated with being very overweight. No, that does not mean that being mildly overweight is a death sentence. I think it is possible to say that the range of possibly healthy body types may be a little wider than is commonly thought, and for that matter the entire range may need to be shifted a little upward from what is commonly thought, without saying that there are no limits and that being 200 pounds overweight isn't a problem.

I also find it interesting how people automatically make the leap from stats like this to health prescriptions -- as the Slate summary put it, "If we tell people fat is harmless, they'll eat crap and stop exercising, which is bad for them regardless of weight." I think that saying whether or not being of a particular weight level is good or bad for you is something separate from saying whether or not eating healthfully or exercising are good for you (obviously they are) -- not unrelated, but not identical either. There are overweight people who eat decently and are physically active, and there are skinny people who eat crap and don't exercise -- I've certainly known both. It would be interesting to see a more detailed study that ranked the various health risks by weight level, and then by things like diet and physical activity -- I'm betting the latter factors would be more strongly correlated with health than the former.

Personally, while I hate the idea of presenting only one narrow range of body types as acceptable, and enjoy finding articles like this that challenge conventional wisdom on the topic, I am also worried about the appallingly awful diet of most North Americans (Americans especially, but Canadians to a lesser extent also) and the lack of exercise. I think it's possible to enjoy both things like that BMI-critique slideshow I posted a few entries back, and movies like Supersize Me, and to find both thought-provoking.

I remember seeing an article by a doctor a while back proposing to redefine a "healthy weight" as the weight any given individual gravitates toward if they're eating sensibly and exercising regularly, which is not necessarily going to be the same for everyone. Maybe what we need to do is start thinking a little less in terms of an "obesity epidemic" and more in terms of an unhealthy lifestyle epidemic -- I think that would be getting more to the root causes of the problem.
misslynx: (With Kiska (on couch))
Illustrated BMI categories photo gallery.

It's a whole collection of photos of people, mostly women, labelled with their BMI and the category it falls into - underweight, normal, overweight, obese, morbidly obese. (If you view it as a slideshow, be sure to turn on titles and descriptions in the Options.)

And what is most interesting about it is -- well, two things. First, the category doesn't always match up with the person's actual body type. I suppose because of differences in muscle, bone structure, etc., you'll often see two people who look very similar fall into different categories, and sometimes even someone who looks smaller is classed as "overweight" while someone who looks larger than them is classed as "normal". It really makes the categories look a little arbitrary in some instances.

Also, this may be purely my subjective impression, but that vast majority of the people labelled as "overweight" look perfectly healthy and normal to me. Hell, a few of the people classed as "obese" look only mildly plump. And disproportionately there seem to be a fair number of athletic people in the "overweight" category, perhaps because muscle weighs more than fat.

All in all, it's a good indication of why the BMI can only really be a vague approximation of whether or not you're at a healthy weight, because there are a lot more variables involved in what's a healthy weight for any given person than just your height.

And makes me feel a bit better about my own being 27, slightly below the midpoint of the "overweight" range. This part might sound a little shallow, but most of the women I actually found attractive in those images were in that range -- the "normal" ones had no curves! Doesn't seem to me like a woman should have to look like a 12-year-old boy to be healthy.

38 WHAT?!

May. 4th, 2005 06:41 pm
misslynx: (Default)
Now that business (or at least the getting paid part of it) is picking up slightly, I have been able to cautiously indulge in a wee bit of beyond-rent-and-bills spending. Nothing big or frivolous, but at least I've been able to think about finally picking up a few things I've really needed for a long time.

I have come to terms with the fact that occasionally, purchasing clothing and/or shoes is actually a necessity, not a luxury. I am generally very averse to clothes shopping for a whole variety of reasons, from lack of money and the feeling, like I said, that it's a luxury, to the fact that finding things that fit decently is a huge headache. But there is only so long that you can put that sort of thing off, particularly when you have to meet with clients on occasion and are running out of inconspicuous ways to patch your few pairs of pants that sort of fit, plus the fact that you have lost 15-20 pounds since you last bought any clothes meaning that "sort of fit" is as close as it gets.

I had pretty much narrowed down the three biggest necessities as being:
  1. At least one pair of comfortable, sturdy shoes that, unlike virtually every pair I've owned for the last decade, will actually be good for my back pain, arthritis, etc., rather than aggravating it (I am slowly facing up to the fact that arthritis and platform shoes really don't mix well), and preferably will not be cheap crap, and actually last more than a year. This became particularly urgent when the only two pairs of comfortable, non-crippling footwear I owned began to literally fall apart -- like big cracks and rips in them.

  2. At least one pair of pants that do not have any rips or clumsily sewn patches on them, and are neither two sizes too large nor several inches too short. The latter is particularly challenging, since nearly all women's pants are too short for me, and unlike with men's pants, you rarely have the option of choosing among different inseam lengths.

  3. At least one bra that actually fits and is not horribly stretched out, and on which the underwires are not imminently threatening to come loose and puncture a lung.
Target #1 was acquired a few days ago: a pair of black Dansko clogs. Extremely comfy, once I got past the weirdness of actually having arch supports built into my shoes. I have worn crappy-but-stylish footwear for so long I was completely unfamiliar with the idea of shoes being actually supportive and it took some getting used to. I alternate between considering the new acquisitions cute and dorky-looking, but I'm rapidly becoming very attached to them just for the comfort value, plus the fact that they are the only pair of shoes I can recall ever purchasing in my adult life that have given me no blisters whatsoever during the first few days of wear.

Target #2 was sought for today but completely failed to materialize. I am not entirely convinced it exists. I did discover that Levis come in three different lengths, but the longest length does not seem to be available in the larger sizes (and even though I've lost weight, I am still not a small person exactly). Apparently one can be short and plump or tall and thin but Gods forbid you be tall and wear a size 16. That sort of thing is simply not allowed.

Target #3 was acquired, but at risk of nearly giving myself a heart attack.

Adventures in Braland )
misslynx: (Default)
Haven't posted a whole lot of late, at least not anything all that substantial. But there have actually been three separate posts that have been kicking around in my head for some while now, so I'm setting down at least the intent to write about them here, as a way of reminding myself to maybe write the actual posts one of these days.
  1. Seals. I wrote back in December about visiting the Niagara Falls Aquarium and seeing some harbour seals there and being very taken with them. Since then seals have been on my mind a lot, and last weekend I did a ritual with my coven involving an otherworld journey to meet with certain animal spirits, so as to learn more about them, and unsurprisingly seals were what I picked. I wrote up the results in my brand new paper journal I got for keeping tracking of rituals and meditations and such, but I'd like to write about them here too. Particularly since thinking about that experience has led me into various ponderings about animal spirits, identity, and related issues...

  2. Some thoughts on body image, aging, and ability/disability issues, prompted by the fact that I may soon be needing to buy an item that would have the effect of flagging me visibly as being, to some degree, disabled, and my mixed feelings about that. I've been holding off on writing this one for months, partly because I know there are a number of people on my friends list dealing with way more serious problems than I am, so it feels self-indulgent to write about them. But at the same time... It's my journal, and I suppose I can always hide it behind a cut warning people not to proceed if they don't to hear me bitching about my arthritis and whether to get a cane (the walking kind, not the six-of-the-best kind - already got a couple of those).

  3. The convention I spoke at last month, which I mentioned at the time and said I'd write more about later, but never got around to. Ties in a little with some of the issues in #1 so I might combine those. No, it was not a convention of seals, although that would be interesting to see. I wonder if the chairs would have to be specially designed, or if they would just use rocks?
So, consider this a pledge to eventually write something a little more in-depth about all three of those things.

In other news, clients are starting to actually pay from time to time, the cold I had earlier in the month seems to be putting in a return appearance, and we are now actively engaged in house-hunting with the friends we've been for some while discussing sharing a house with. Saw one place recently that we really loved, but the others felt wasn't really big enough for the five of us that would be living there, and they're probably right. Poo. I liked that house so much. Oh well. Still looking for other options, or possibilities for arranging things differently. We'll see.

Oh, and I may actually have my taxes done on time this year, for the first time in - oh, 7 or 8 years. Will wonders never cease? Mind you, I'm having 2003's done at the same time, but at least I'm on time for 2004!

YES!

Mar. 22nd, 2005 03:50 am
misslynx: (Default)
Tonight, at a friend's house, I finally gave in to temptation, after noticing several visits back that he had a scale tucked under a table. I had battled it out with myself every time I was there since then, but finally gave in tonight, hauled the scale out, and weighed myself. For the first time in months.

I was wondering whether I was still hovering around what I was last time I weighed myself, just a touch over 200, or had backslid and gained back some of the 15 pounds I'd lost. People keep commenting on me looking thinner, but I know I haven't been eating all that well or exercising much, so I take that sort of thing with a grain of salt.

But there it was... 195. I not only haven't gained any back, I really have lost more. And given that this was late in the evening and fully clothed, my actual weight might even be closer to 190. That means that since we got Kiska, I have lost at least 20, and maybe closer to 25 pounds!
misslynx: (red)
OK, I feel a bit awkward posting these, because the past couple of times friends of mine have had birthdays I've been flat broke and unable to get them anything. But what the hell, people asked...
  • Amazon.com wish list
  • CD-NOW wish list - I like their system a lot better than Amazon's because you can sort your list by artist and title and it's got a nice easy-to-remember URL.
  • Hot Topic wish list - nonexistent, because their damn stupid system ATE my list! I had something like 30 items on it and poof, they all vanished. Maybe I'll reconstruct it, but I don't know if I trust their system enough any more to bother.

    Oh well. Everyone that knows me probably has some idea of the kind of thing I like to wear so all you need to know is that I'm about a dress size 16 or 18 or 20 depending on the cut (I know that's vague, but sizes really vary), shoe size 9.5, bra size - wait a minute, this is getting kind of personal...

Come on, we want to know. Really. We won't tell anyone. )

Profile

misslynx: (Default)
misslynx

April 2011

S M T W T F S
     12
34 56 78 9
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 04:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios