Weblog

Thursday, 09 February 2012

Friday, 03 February 2012

  • Diet foods to crush your cravings

    So I've basically been on a diet (weight watchers) on and off for the last 5 years.   When I stick to it it works, and it's actually not that hard to stick to, I just get lazy sometimes and spend a few months eating pizza as if it's it's own food group at the bottom of the pyramid, which is why I'm still working on it =p   But after all, a diet needs to be a permanent change in lifestyle to work, so ideally I should technically always be on a diet.  If I let myself lose the weight I wanted and then go right back to eating whatever and not worrying about it I will do gain it all back.   Diabetes runs in my family, so basically if I start now I'm saving myself a lot of trouble in the long run

    Anyway, after 5 years of doing WW I have become an ace at finding foods that fill me up, kill my cravings, and still taste great (lets be honest, most diet food tastes like shit).   So here are my favorite foods that I can still eat on a diet, organized by craving.

    Note: I do the older weight watchers points system, because I don't like how the new one doesn't count calories.   So if you're on points plus, you'll have to recalculate these numbers.   If you just want to know the calories I'll list them when I remember them, but otherwise 1 point is about 40-100 calories, 2 is usually 100-200, etc.   However, high fat foods at the same number of calories are more points, and high fiber foods at the same calories are less points, so those are just estimates.

     

    Sweet stuff

         - Sweet Tarts

                    Most candy is pretty much off limits on a diet.  Sweet tarts however, are not that bad, particularly because they're naturally designed for portion control.   I buy those big movie boxes and separate them into 1 point (70 calorie) bags of 15 sweet tarts, and yes I will sit down to watch TV and actually only eat one of those bags (that's the key lol).

          - Sugar free Jolly Ranchers

                    I totally can't taste the difference, and they're less than 10 calories each, so you can have 2 and still be at 0 points.

         - Gum

                    Chew it long enough and it might as well be 0 calories, it keeps your mouth occupied, if chewing is part of the experience for you like it is for me, and it's tasty

          - Diet soda/flavored bubbly water

                      If you're craving something to drink other than water this always hits the spot for me, and it's 0 calories so 0 points a glass.   The carbonation will fill you up, and the sweetness kills juice cravings.   "Omg, aren't you worried that those artificial sweeteners cause cancer?!!?!?!"   No.   Like I said, diabetes runs in my family, cancer does not, so if this helps me diet then it helps me prevent diabetes which I will almost certainly get otherwise (my doctor says it's when, not if, based on my family history), where as cancer is highly unlikely and slightly raising my risk for that is worth it.   Everyone dies of something, pick your poison.

           - Apple sauce/ fruit cups/ all fruit really

                     Here's a real shock: you should eat fruit on a diet.   There are tons of 1 point fruits and they're yummy and filling because they're full of fiber.

           - Granola bars/ Fiber one bars

                     Many of these contain chocolate and yet are only about 100-200 calories.   Add in all that fiber and you have a filling 2 point snack.

           - Weight Watchers Chocolates

                     These individually wrapped chocolates are 1 point each (50-100 calories) and taste as good as any name brand.

            - Weight Watchers Chocolate Cake

                      Holy shit, these are to die for.   These 3 point little tubs that you heat up in the microwave can be found in the freezer section next to all the other weight watchers food (which is mostly disgusting imo).   They're a decent portion size too.

             - Skinny cow ice cream sandwhiches

                      Tasty, 2 points, what else can I say?

     

    Fast Food

    Sometimes you can't help it, you're out and about and you need to eat something quick and available... and sometimes you can't help it because it's just so damned good.

             - Domino's pizza

                      One slice of a large cheese pizza is only 4 points.   Granted they're smaller than typical pizza, but they're still a reasonable portion to hold you over.   you can refrigerate the rest and eat a slice a day for lunch.

             - Taco Bell

                       One crunchy taco (no sour cream) is only 4 points.

             - McDonald's

                       Basically the only thing on the menu you can have on a diet, a small fry (the size that comes in that little paper sack instead of the cardboard ones) is only 4 points, and in my opinion it's a very reasonable sized snack

             - Panera Bread

                       A bowl of chicken noodle soup is 2 points, and the baguette that comes with it is 3.   Substitute that baguette for an apple and you have the whole meal down to 3 points.

     

    CARBOHYDRATES!!!!!!!!!!

    Carbs are my favorite part of being alive.   If I had to lose them completely to diet it just wouldn't be doable.

              - Thomas' Light English Muffins

                       At only 100 calories and an entire poop's worth of fiber, these are only 1 point, and they are this | | close to being as good as the regular kind.   Of course you have to put something on it, but 2 teaspoons of butter is 2 points, 2 teaspoons of peanut butter is only 1 point, and 4 teaspoons of jelly is 1 point, so you can spread something yummy on and still keep it at a low point snack.

             - Thomas' Whole Wheat Bagels

                      One bagel is 4 points (compared to the average bagel which is 6)   Combine it with...

             - Philadelphia 1/3 Fat Cream Cheese

                      4 teaspoons is 1 point.   If you need more than that 7 teaspoons is 2 points.   I find that 4 is plenty if, instead of spreading it on the bagel, I put it on the plate and rip bagel pieces to dip/scoop the cream cheese.   Idk why but it seems to make it go a lot farther.   maybe because you concentrate a big glob of it into one area and get the taste, instead of spreading it thin and even over the surface.   Regardless, this plus the above bagel can be a 5 or 6 point meal

             - Cheerios

                       One and a half cups is 2 points, where as most cereal is 2 points for just 3/4 of a cup, so it's way more filling.   combine it with 3/4 cup of skim milk, which is only 1 point, or a whole cup for 2 points, and you have a 3-4 point breakfast that is very filling.   Cheerios are actually my favorite food, no joke.   If I was on death row they would definitely be part of my last meal.   I eat a bowl for breakfast and one before bed almost every day.   Thank god they fit in my diet or I would die.

             - Rice Krispie Treats

                       Only 90 calories a square, these are 2 points a piece.   Bonus: if you get dizzy, woozy, or pass out a lot, like I do, I find that these make me feel better almost instantly.   It's probably the sugar that's sticking them together.

             - Pretzel rods

                        Three rods is about 2 points.   Yumm.

             - Chips

                         Believe it or not, you CAN have potato chips on a diet.   One ounce of lays potato chips (all flavors that I have checked) is 4 points.   I weigh out one ounce into a bowl, put the bag away, and then go sit down and eat, so I'm not tempted to take more.

              - Cheese Sticks

                         I have no idea how this is possible, but these cheese-stuffed bread sticks my grocery store sells in the freezer section are only 4 points a stick.   It's not super filling, but it really feels like an indulgence despite being only 180 calories.

             - Hashbrowns

                         Yummy, salty, freezer-section hash browns straight from the toaster are only 3 points.

              - Grits

                         About a quarter cup of mix and 3/4 cup of water (depends on the brand) is only 2 points and is unbelievably filling.   You can add a teaspoon of butter for a point, but I find just salt is enough to make it good.

              - Cream of Wheat

                         See Grits.   They're basically identical lol

               - Saltines

                         4-6 are 1 point, and one teaspoon of butter can easily be spread over them reasonably to make a 2 point snack, or you can toss them in soup!

               - Fiber One Pancakes

                        1 cup of mix makes 6 pancakes at 1 point a piece, so you can have a tiny snack for 1 point and freeze the rest, or eat a heaping plate of 3 for only 3 points.   1/8th cup of syrup is 1 point, and I find that is plenty.   Same goes for 1 teaspoon of butter.   At first I was really skeptical of a pancake mix where you only add water instead of milk and eggs, but it turns out to be pretty good still (not as good as regular pancakes though).

     

    Stuff I didn't know how to categorize

                - Light butter

                        Land-o-Lakes makes a lower fat, lower calories butter that is somehow still butter (first ingredient is "butter").   Don't ask, just accept it.   2 teaspoons are only 1 point, compared to regular butter which is 1 point per teaspoon.   Because it's actually butter and not nasty margarine/butter-substitute nonsense, at least to my palate it is completely indistinguishable from actual butter.

                 - Salad w/ fat free Italian dressing

                         Duh, right?   No, not right, some salads are hella high in calories.   Any other vegetables you add to it are fine, but adding cheese and bacon bits and ranch can make your salad just as bad as a burger.   Because I'm super picky I have just lettuce (0 points) and Seven Seas' fat free Italian dressing, which I think tastes amazing and is only 15 calories for 2 Tablespoons (not teaspoons).   That can make a giant 1 point salad.   I usually make a smaller bowl with only 2 teaspoons of this dressing for a 0 point totally free salad.

                  - Cheese Omelette

                         How the hell can this be diet food?   Easy, instead of two eggs, use one egg and one egg white.   You won't know the difference, but you just cut out 2/3's of the calories of that second egg.   Also, only 1 slice of cheese.   Combined this comes to a 4 point meal, it's full of protein, and it's filling.

                  - Lipton Chicken Noodle Soup

                         I mix up the packet (originally the noodles and bouillon are separate), measure out 2 tablespoons of the mix, and put the rest in a ziploc for later (all the mix in the packet makes way more than you need).   Combined with 1 cup of water, this makes a filling 1 point soup.   If you double this recipe I find I am stuffed by the end, and it's still only 2 points.   Note: if you get the "extra noodles" version it's 2 points for 2 tablespoons.   Sometimes I add saltines (see above) for one or two more points.

     

     

    So these are the things I eat that make dieting not suck so bad.   Over the last 7 months (I restarted in July) I've lost about 15 pounds =)   I'm now 9 shy of my goal weight of 145, which my doctor said I should not go below (I'm 5'7"), so I feel pretty happy with the results.   It would go faster but, between holidays, being stuck in airports with nothing to eat, and my boyfriend taking me out to dinner, I've been cheating way more often than I normally would.

    Plus I'd rather it go slow and I enjoy myself, than torture myself but lose the weight faster.  Me and food have a serious love affair.   I call my belly fat my bliss pouch, because it holds the evidence of all the joy I've experience in Italian restaurants haha

     

    What do you eat to make diets stop sucking so much?

Thursday, 02 February 2012

  • Parental Rights, Gender, and Abortion

    On a post about abortion, someone suggested that if women are pro-choice, but still demand child-support, they are sexist because they're basically saying women should get the power to duck out of the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy but men should not.   I wrote a giant response, and realized it might as well be as post, so here it is:

     

    on some level, I see your point.   She gets the power to choose here, he has none, and that definitely sucks and is an unequal distribution of power.   However, unequal distribution of power does not automatically mean things are sexist.

    On some things, men and women are identical.   Giving woman more power over the kitchen is sexist because it assumes women are better cooks without evidence.   Giving men more power over household financial decisions is sexist because it assumes men are better accountants without evidence.   When both genders, on average, are no different in skill for a task, it is sexist to dictate that only one gender get to do it.
    However, men are taller, and therefore make significantly better basketball players on average, and there is therefore nothing sexist about creating the WNBA.   Women are unable to compete with men in sports, on average, so the only way they'll get to play is with a women's-only league.   similarly, because they're shorter and therefore can't dunk as often, there's nothing sexist about the fact that the WNBA is significantly less popular.

    Similarly, the genders are not equal in their reproductive abilities.   If both got pregnant and both got the exact same physical and emotional results from an unwanted pregnancy, it would make no sense to give one gender the ultimate power to decide.   Instead, we are in a situation where women inevitably get way more than 50% of the physical burden of bearing a child, and they get way more than 50% of the burden of raising the child (men almost never fight for full custody in court).   therefore, it is not sexist to give them way more than 50% of the power in this situation.

    Okay, so a 75/25 split of power might be truly approaching equality.   If that were possible I'd love to do it, but it isn't.   When an unwanted pregnancy happens a baby must either be aborted or not.   There is no in-between compromise for when the two parties disagree.   What we are stuck with is a situation in which one of the two people must be given 100% of the power to decide, and therefore the other party has no say.   Because it's one or the other, and the woman has significantly more responsibility in raising the baby, I say giving her that power is slightly unfair to the man, but it's way less unfair than giving him the power would be to her.

    If we got rid of child support for pro-choice women who elect to have babies, yes it gives him more freedom but it subtracts from her freedom to choose because without child support she may not be able to care for the baby.   Perhaps she should give it up for adoption in that case that she opposes abortion (though she's legally for it) and can't afford it; well now she's going through the physical and monetary cost of pregnancy with no benefit to herself and he got off consequence-free.   In child support situations every freedom we grant one gender subtracts from the freedom of the other, so someone gets screwed no matter what.   Because child support payments are often small and easy to avoid paying, and they pale in comparison to the temporal, emotional, and monetary cost of raising a child, I don't think they are unreasonable requests.
    Without child support, sex is 100% consequence free for men, but pro-choice women still have consequences from it (even if they choose to abort that's a serious medical procedure and emotional pressure from others and the community not to do it).   So again we end up with a situation where women are getting 100% of the consequences, and the men get none, or it gets spread out a little bit at least by child support.   Because in this situation we can spread the consequences, unlike with abortion where only one person can decide, it makes sense to do so.

    Additionally, when one approaches things from a utilitarian perspective, rights are an important part of our legal framework (utilitarianism is hard to make into law) but they are not moral imperatives.   For a utilitarian it is totally okay to give one group more freedom than another as long as it makes the world a better place on average.

    So basically:
    -Because the genders are in fact different when it comes to reproductive abilities and responsibilities, giving them different amounts of power over the situation is not necessarily sexist.   Sexism instead arises when genders are treated differently in situations where they are in fact equal.
    -Because the physics of abortion do not allow compromise between people who disagree, one group must inevitably have 100% of the power, so that should be the group which faces the most consequences from the outcome.   Yes, that will mean the other group has some consequences and no power, which sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it
    -Because our court system, and perhaps general gender differences in nurturing behaviors, dictate that women almost always are tasked with raising the child, the situation is already unfair to women so asking men to also have a consequences is not necessarily more unfair
    -Because letting men off the hook for unwanted pregnancies leaves them 100% consequence free (they don't even have to know the kid exists) but letting women off the hook through abortion does not eliminate all consequences for her, again we are in a situation where the genders are naturally unequal, so giving one more power is not necessarily unfair.   Even with child support what men are being asked to do is not equal to what the women are being asked to do.   If one group being required to do more is sexist then letting men not pay child support is also sexist.

    If we lived in a perfect world where both genders were equal in all things and compromise were possible then I would love to award men half the power and half the consequences of pregnancy, but the world we live in has already determined that women get almost all the consequences of pregnancy and almost all of the responsibility of raising a child, so giving them more power is not sexist, it's trying to balance a naturally occurring unfairness to one sex.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

  • A plea that Ron Paul supporters actually know what he stands for

    http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

    I am of the opinion that many people are under-informed about Ron Paul.   They know he opposed the Iraq war, supports lower taxes, and supports drug legalization, so he sounds like the candidate people are looking for and they hop on the band wagon.

    On the site I linked too, you can read about bills he has proposed that you might not like, with links to the actual full text of the bill on the congressional website if you have any concern that the author of the site was biased or blowing things out of proportion.   If you don't feel like reading through it all yourself...

    Some highlights of bills he created:

    -declare that human life begins at conception
    -ban destruction of the American flag
    -prohibit Iranians living in the US from receiving scholarships
    -reestablish US sovereignty of the Panama Canal
    -prevents the supreme court from striking down any state law about abortion
    -requires that parents be informed when "an unmarried minor" receives STD treatment, contraception, or abortion services before services are given.
    (does this sound like a libertarian, small government candidate to you?)

    -repeal OSHA
    -limit jurisdiction of federal courts in such a way that would prevent gay marriage, abortion, and religious freedoms from being decided at a federal level, and retracts all previous federal-level decisions on these issues (aka, repeals roe v. wade and various prayer in school cases, among others)

    -reaffirm the necessity of the electoral college, even after the 2000 elections (you know, the number one thing Americans report they would change about the constitution)

    -repeal anti trust laws
    -repeal the national voter registration act of 1993
    -repeal taxes almost completely from big businesses, but make the average American pay taxes in monthly installments rather than have money come out of your pay check automatically
    -make each state have its own currency
    -allow private schools with racial discrimination policies to continue to be tax exempt

     

    Probably Paul's worst bill, the "Family Protection Act" looks like it was written by Rick Santorum after waking up from his wet dream of what America should be:

     http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

    This bill protects families all right, if those families happen to be white conservative Christians.   If however your family is black and you want to send your kid to a local private school, you might be s.o.l.

     

    If after all that you still want to vote for Ron Paul then we disagree politically but that's your own business

    but don't vote for him thinking "legalized pot?!?! awesome!" and then act shocked when you get arrested for burning an American flag or having an abortion

     

Monday, 09 January 2012

  • Love and judgment of atheists in Christianity

    The point of this post is hopefully to garner some understanding between groups, or at the very least let some Christians know how they're making me feel, but I think it applies to most atheists rather than just me.

    Note: Of course, there are Christians who do not think that an otherwise perfectly good nonbeliever will go to hell; if you're one of them, I'm not talking about you.

     

    Atheists often hear "You're going to hell," but it's not always shouted by an angry mob.   Sometimes something that vile sounding comes from a quiet, calm voice of a friend or family member, and then we're just confused.

     

    The argument from the Christian person is often times that they're not judging our character or saying we're a bad person, they're just reporting what the bible says about non-believers   They just love us so much and they don't want us to go to hell so they're trying to help.

    First of all, let me remind you that telling me I'm going to go to a hell I don't believe exists is far from frightening.   Do you honestly think that's a good conversion tool?   but that's not the point of this post.

    Instead of what this makes me think about converting (it doesn't), let's talk about what it makes me think of your opinion of me.

     

    So you say it's not you judging me it's god, and that you're not saying I'm a bad person.   Here's the thing, what you're saying is that I could live a good life, full of charity and selflessness, but if I don't believe none of that matters; that God thinks lack of belief in him is a crime punishable by an eternity of torture in hell which cannot be balanced against any amount of good we do in this life.   Depending on your sect, you might believe that some sins can be forgiven if a person repents, even really bad ones like murder, but if I die a nonbeliever there's nothing I can do to make up for how bad that is.

    What you're saying is a benevolent, all knowing being is going to punish me for an eternity for this lack of belief.

     

    Well if this being is all good and all knowing then he must be right in punishing me that way, so I must deserve to go to hell right?   Why would a benevolent god give someone an undeservedly harsh punishment?

     

    How can I deserve an eternity of the worst punishment you can't imagine, AND still be a good person in your eyes?

     

    So on the one hand I get it, if you're right that there is a god and a heaven and nonbelievers can't go, then yes it is a loving favor to try to convert me (though like I said, threats of a place I think is imaginary are far from a good way to do that).

     

    But on the other hand, can't you see from my perspective how hurtful your words are?   What you're saying is that what I'm doing (or rather, not doing) is one of the absolute worst things a human can do and that nothing but conversion will make up for it.

    You can say all you want that you're not judging me, but what you're pretty clearly saying is that if you were an all knowing god you absolutely would judge me as unworthy just for not believing.

     

    So I hope this gets across more or less why, to an atheist, the words "you're going to hell" will never sound loving or compassionate.   Instead it sounds like an insult, like a slight on our character, because it inevitably is.  

     

    We must be evil to deserve an eternity in hell, if god really is good.   So in your opinion, I am evil, I am horrible, I am bad bad bad.

     

    You cannot tell me I'm going to hell and at the same time claim not to be insulting my character or thinking I'm a bad person, if you agree with your god.

     

    So lets just cut it out.   I'm not saying you have to stop believing I'm going to hell, but you can at least stop saying it to me.   It's not going to make me convert but it is going to make me think you have some seriously negative opinions of me, no matter how loving you're claiming to be

jenessa1889

  • Visit jenessa1889's Xanga Site
    • Name: jenessa1889
    • Gender: Female
    • Member Since: 2/9/2009
    • True

Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

About Me

  • I've just finished my bachelors in psychology this spring and I started a ph D. program in neuroscience in August. I try to treat everyone with respect and to be open minded to all ideas. I like to think and debate about things, particularly in philosophy and politics. I ask questions a lot. I love to learn. I love anything artistic. I'm very touchy-feely with the people I'm close too. I'm very liberal, but I understand why some conservative ideals exist, even if I don't agree with them. I'm very against drugs (that includes alcohol), but if that were a requirement for all my friends I wouldn’t have any haha. I love life and I find myself moved to tears on a regular basis by simple little things. Sometimes I randomly think of something funny and I have to try really hard not to burst out laughing so I don’t look crazy. I like using big words.

Subscriptions

[no subscriptions]

Pulse

Chatboard (15)

  • naganigi
    icinde gezdiriyim :Dsikiş izle - götten sikiş - lezbiyen videoları - liseli pornosu - amatör porno
  • riydh1961
    Where: iraq When: 2010 hello............. my love ........do you meet me in iraq (imported from memories)
  • jenessa1889
    @yumyberriez - p.s. thanks! =) glad you enjoy it
  • jenessa1889
    @yumyberriez - if it's on private doesn't that means people you add as friends can see it?
  • yumyberriez
    i love your blog. totally rad and simple. when i was reading the description you had about yourself i thought i was reading about myself btw. i'm a psych major and have a degree in cogsci too! also love art, minored in it, and absolutely love the human mind. we're like twinners. my blog is private b
  • FallingSafely
    Well... finally someone who is intelligent and not afraid to admit it... good posts.
  • Jushcare
    Hello.....How are you....It my pleasure to write to you....I never knew you are so beautiful until i go through your profile.....I really love someone like you to make friendship with and someone who is trust warding that i can count on.....And i am so sure you are the choosing one who God has said
  • gene546
    @zaplacey - Very simple, start right now blogging any topic of your choice.
    • Posted 2/16/2010 7:53 PM
    • by gene546
  • gene546
    Thank you Jenessa, I’m Roman Catholic, almost become a priest. I got married and father six children, including twins and a girl. As you may see I don’t believe in free sex. I married my wife seriously; 34 years of being together. Divorce, that word, is not in our dictionary. Because my wife has wha
    • Posted 2/16/2010 7:51 PM
    • by gene546
  • jenessa1889
    @Thoughtsto1self - lol thanks =)