Paul Epstein's Diet Challenge: Week 1

Beginning weight 11/3/13: 209
Height 5'8" Age: 61
Goal weight: 165
Total loss goal: 44 lbs.
Beginning waist size: 43 in.
Current waist size: 42 in.
Weight end of week 1:  202
Gain/Loss this week: -7 lbs.
Total Gain/Loss: -7 lbs.


I started this odyssey Sunday morning, November 3rd. It wasn't the ideal time to start a new (pick your euphemism) diet, weight loss regimen, healthy eating plan, lifestyle adjustment. A relative had died, there was family in town, there would be restaurant dinners Sunday and Monday and a lot of finger foods. But such is life. I had not finished reading the book (I'm choosing not to reveal the book/diet name until I decide if it's working for me), so I had only a hazy idea of what the diet entailed. At the restaurants, I didn't worry about how the food was prepared, but knowing it was going to be higher fat than what I fix at home. I just did my best to eat in moderation and avoid the obvious culprits. By Tuesday morning, the scale said I had lost 1/2 pound. But Tuesday and Wednesday I got serious.

Tuesday was a little tough. The diet plan I am following calls for certain restrictions at times (oh, you thought I'd found a diet that allows me to eat whatever I want whenever I want?), and I had cravings. But celery and salsa, a few walnuts, an apple, or a little yogurt got me through the hard moments. By Thursday morning I'd seen dramatic progress: 5 pounds lost. But I also woke early and really hungry. I ended up having two breakfasts, both smaller than I might have had in the past, and all of it "allowable" food. Really, they were probably smaller than snacks I was eating last week on a regular basis. You know, the food that doesn't count. It was getting easier. I was taking care on portion sizes, which in the language of the book seem incredibly small, until I realized a "serving" was really just sort of a measurement tool--you were allowed enough servings during the day of most food groups that you could easily have 2 or 3 "servings" of, say, chicken at a meal without having to forgo protein the rest of the day.

On Friday I had a realization about hunger. I haven't always been obese. In fact, though I've known for several years that the charts say I am, I still have trouble acknowledging that I fit that word. I see myself as overweight, chunky. I have a stocky build, lots of muscle, which I've read, is heavier. When I look at the BMI charts, I think, "That might not apply to me." Okay, maybe it's healthy to have good self-esteem. Anyway, though I haven't always been obese, I've been overweight  much of my life, and obese by definition the last twenty years or so. My realization about hunger is that we obese folks define any mildly unfilled feeling in our belly as hunger. As soon as we feel "hungry" we begin to think about what we're going to eat next to fill it again. If a meal is too distant (like more than fifteen or twenty minutes), we want a bite of something…now. Then a bite turns into a snack, and maybe we turn on the tv and mindlessly put whatever it is we got out to snack on in our mouths.

So I continued to do that the first few days of the diet, only the snack was measured and healthy, and twenty minutes later, and sometimes even while snacking, the feeling which I'd interpreted as "hunger" was still present. I realized it wasn't hunger. Sort of a dull ache, only the word ache means pain, and as I thought about it, and felt it, I realized it wasn't pain, it wasn't an ache, it was….emptiness. The feeling of an empty stomach is something I hadn't allowed myself to feel in years, because if I did get in a situation where I had no access to food, my mind would start creating fantasies about what and when I'd next eat and start yearning for food; it manufactured the idea of hunger. How many times have I had that feeling, and said to myself, "I'm hungry." Literally! A voice in my head saying, I'm hungry. Well, I'm turning it off. I'm going to learn to live with an empty stomach. Maybe at first only for a half-hour or forty-five minutes, but maybe, like building up a muscle, I can learn to expand it. We'll see. If I can't, so be it. I'll just have to stick to the smaller, healthier snacks. That's really not so bad.

And so, my friends, it's Sunday morning and I feel successful. But I also feel determined not to allow one week of dramatic weight loss to lull me into complacency. I've been here many times before. The first pounds are easy (and in the long run, keeping it off is really all that matters). So, it's off to fix a (small) bowl of oatmeal with maybe a half apple and sweetened with 0 calorie magic powder (the natural kind). I will report again next week!

Paul Epstein's Diet Challenge

Friends and Family,
          This is going to sound like a commercial; for that I apologize in advance, but I'm not following a script and stand to gain nothing except (I hope) better health for myself and my friends. No secret, I've been overweight for years. I am not a serial dieter, but have tried a few over the years, and like most people, I've lost some weight on diets (up to 25 lbs. over a period of months of dieting) only to gain it back. In the last 20 years (ages 40-60) I've been between 192 and 212 pounds. I'm currently 209. According to the "Ideal Weight Calculator" at www.calculator.net my ideal weight is between 150-165 for my age depending on which of five best known formulas you agree with. Taking the top number, I would have to lose 44 pounds to reach it. Today, I am beginning a diet plan that I heard a doctor/researcher talk about on the radio. I bought the book and have only read the introduction, but I've decided to follow it and make it public (the public part has nothing to do with the doctor or book's recommendations, just something I've decided).
              According to the book, in clinical studies, the average amount of weight lost using this plan was 14 pounds in three months. Therefore, if I follow the diet, I should be able to lose 44 pounds in about 9 months (by August 2014). Now, here's the point of this post. From what I've read, this diet, which in terms of what you eat takes from other well-known popular diets, but what makes it different is that more people can stick to it, shed the pounds, and keep them off over time. So, while I'm not telling you what the diet is, friends, I want to issue a challenge. IF this diet works for me (I will post my weight weekly), I challenge you to make a commitment (if you feel you would be healthier by losing some weight) to try it out if it works for me. You can make that commitment by replying here publicly (or later to one of my diet updates) or in a private message or e-mail to me. If you make the commitment, and if I am successful, I will buy you the book (at least for the first 100 people who accept my challenge). I'll decide by February 1, 2014 if the diet is something I can support, and if I'll therefore purchase the books by then if I do.
              So, do you accept Paul Epstein's diet challenge? I'm going to post this to my blog as well…whether you take the challenge or not, need to lose weight or not, please wish me luck with a comment and cheer me on, because, after all, surely all of may friends and family would like me to be healthier and (presumably) live a longer and happier life.

note: I ended up with purchasing 8 books for friends and mailed them out before I made my announcement on 11/24/13. The book is titled, The 2-Day Diet: Diet Two Days a Week, Eat Normally for Five by Dr. Michelle Harvie and Professor Tony Howell

Open Letter to Congresswoman Capito

Dear Mrs. Capito,

         I received your response to my letter urging you to break ranks with your party and vote to end the government shutdown without delay. I find your response to be disingenuous, and my response is threaded into yours in italics.

Dear Mr. Epstein:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding government operations and a continuing resolution; it was good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to learn your views on this issue. 

I wonder how many of your constituents have asked you to work with Democrats to move the country forward instead of voting with Tea Party Republicans to hold back the economy. I have written several times, but you have not seemed to listen. 

As you know, due to the failure to pass a continuing resolution before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013, many operations of the federal government were forced to close. Before the shutdown took place, I voted three times to avoid a government shut down by passing a continuing resolution.   Both before and throughout the shutdown, I have encouraged my colleagues to negotiate in a bipartisan way to address the fiscal issues facing our nation while keeping the government open.

Who is responsible for the failure of Congress to pass a continuing resolution or negotiate a workable budget before September 30? You and your Republican colleagues, Mrs. Capito. You voted three times to pass continuing resolutions that could not pass the Senate and would not be signed the president. You voted not to fund the government unless Democrats agreed to defund the Affordable Care Act and keep millions of Americans from enjoying the benefits of affordable health insurance. Your votes cost the American people billions of dollars, slowed the economy, damaged our credibility around the world, and hurt families. You never spoke out against the shutdown or against those Republicans who almost drove us into default on our debt.

I believe there is a consensus among the American people that the shutdown has gone on too long and I am happy to inform you that I voted in favor of bipartisan legislation to reopen the government. Congress is supposed to be about fixing problems and negotiating to a better end, not hurting the well-being of the constituents we represent because of party differences.

Mrs. Capito, one day of government shutdown would have been too long. The consensus of the American people was clear before the shutdown began: it was a bad idea and would damage the economy; yet you voted multiple times to place unacceptable conditions on reopening government.. Have you finally learned that Congress is supposed to fix problems and negotiate? Then speak out against your colleagues who refuse to! You voted to reopen the government only when you realized the favorability ratings of your party had reached an all time low of 22%.  Do you think we should be proud of you for voting to keep the country functioning for a couple months after having shut it down for three weeks?

The bipartisan agreement funds federal government programs through January 15, 2014 and lifts the debt ceiling through February 7, 2014.  This legislation also includes back pay to furloughed federal workers, and requires income verification for those seeking health-insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

Why did you and your colleagues vote to pay federal employees for not working during the shutdown? Perhaps you realized that they are working hard for the American people despite the fact that you treated them with such disrespect by refusing to do your job and pass a budget in a timely fashion. Though for years you have been voting for extreme Republican budgets that defund many important government programs, during the shutdown you voted for bills to fund them, though not to fully fund the government and stop the shutdown.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to resolve ongoing fiscal issues and work to minimize the remaining effects of the shutdown on West Virginians. Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you again soon and invite you to visit my website for further information and to sign up for my e-mail newsletter. It is an honor to serve you.

        

         Forgive me if I don’t believe you at this point. If you want to represent the interests of your constituents, you should renounce your Republican colleagues and join the Democratic Party, or at least announce your independence. You and your Republican colleagues have sabotaged the American economy through intransigence and refusal to compromise costing millions of jobs and, it has been estimated, nearly a trillion dollars in revenues that might have been generated had you not voted time and again for policies that slowed growth. If you see me, it will not be visiting your website, it will be carrying a sign outside your office and shouting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Shelley Capito must go!”

Republican Malpractice

When things go really badly at the hands of a professional, but a law hasn’t been broken, you can sue; doctors and lawyers can be fired or sued for malpractice, teachers and nurses for incompetence. But what do you do when your representatives in Congress are not only ineffective, but doing harm to you, your neighbors, and your country? I’m talking about Shelley Moore Capito, David McKinley, and most of the Republicans in the House.

First they refused to negotiate a budget Senate Democrats, so in order to keep the government operating they have to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR). But by attaching unacceptable, unprecedented conditions to the CR they have partially shut down the United States government, costing the country billions of dollars, putting people out of work, denying approved benefits to children and families, closing parks, and so on.

This isn’t the first time Capito and her Republican colleagues have done outright damage to our economy through their strategy to fight the agenda of the President and the Democrats rather than negotiate agreements. In 2011 they filibustered the American Jobs Act, refusing to allow spending on critical infrastructure projects which would have put millions of Americans back to work, instead sending us into what many called a double dip recession. They brought us so close to defaulting on our debts by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling in 2012 that the United States lost its triple A credit rating causing interest rates to rise. The deal which finally got Republicans to agree to pay the nation’s bills for another year, known as the Sequester, is basically an across the board cut of government spending considered so repulsive to both parties that they were sure a budget agreement could be reached before it went into effect. But were Republicans willing to compromise on taxes and revenues to achieve a budget deal? No. So they are responsible for forcing the Sequester, which has slowed the pace of the recovery since January.

Essentially, since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, aka, the Stimulus, Republicans have pursued an unrelenting strategy of austerity in the face of a recession rivaled only by the Great Depression in its breadth and depth. The Congressional Budget Office (the most widely accepted non-partisan authority) estimates the Stimulus saved over two million jobs, boosting the economy by 3.5%. Lest you forgive Republican austerity by suggesting that it sounds like a good idea to tighten your belt in hard times, you should know that the most widely accepted economic theory, known as Keynesian, advises governments to do the opposite to create growth. As noted Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University said recently (and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman of Princeton echoes), “There is no instance of a large economy getting to growth through austerity. Austerity leads the economy to perform more poorly. It leads to more unemployment, lower wages, more inequality.” After recovery, when unemployment is down and people and businesses have more money to spend is the time to use additional tax revenue to pay down debt.

So how can we hold Shelley Moore Capito, David McKinley and other Republicans in the House and Senate accountable for the damage they have done and continue to do to the economy, by which I mean us, the American People? The economy is an abstract concept, but it’s not just about business, industry, banks and Wall Street; it’s about our money—money flowing to us from jobs in the private sector and in government, money collected in taxes and coming back to us through government spending on the military, the elderly, the infirm, the poor, and through all the important programs of the federal government: the Center for Disease Control, the FDA, the FBI, the NSA, National Parks, WIC, Head Start, and yes, the Affordable Care Act, which is finally going to take effect fully in January.  Millions and millions of Americans who couldn’t get health insurance either because they couldn’t afford it, because their jobs didn’t provide it, because they had some illness or were in an age group or category of people who might be prone to an illness, so they were denied coverage, or because they’d reached some cap of benefits in their insurance, will finally be eligible to receive Medicaid or subsidies to make their health insurance affordable.

This is what West Virginia Republican Representatives Shelly Moore Capito, David McKinley, and their Republican colleagues have shut down our government to prevent, and why we must finally hold them accountable for the damage they have done to us and the economy. Be outraged. Be angry, but be persuasive. Get out and talk to your friends and neighbors, and do what you can to undo the lies they hear on Fox News and talk radio. Let’s fire Capito and McKinley and elect a better, more responsible, pro-growth, anti-austerity government in 2014!

published in the Charleston (WV) Gazette Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Lessons Learned? 9/11 and Syria

On September 11^th this year, as in previous years, a flurry of discussion took place about the lessons we should learn. “Never Forget,” some proclaim, carrying a general message some mean as “Always remember those who died and keep them in your hearts,” and some mean as “Never forget that America was attacked by extremist Muslims, and we must be ever vigilant.”  Some people say the primary lesson should be one of seeking to make the world a more peaceful, loving place, a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse.

However, I believe there are lessons to be learned by reflecting on the tragedy of 9-11 in addition to those that compel us to educate ourselves and others about our mutual humanity; beyond the fear of terrorist attack and the monumental efforts our nation has made to try to prevent attacks ranging from airport security to making war on terrorists. Most of us could understand attacking Afghanistan and supporting the Afghanis who overthrew the Taliban. The Taliban was a fundamentalist Muslim government that offered shelter and support to Al Qaeda, who had attacked us on our own soil: an act of war.

But with Iraq we learned, or relearned--many of us learned this during the Vietnam years--of the danger of our government taking us to war on a lie and keeping us at war to save face.

George W. Bush attacked Iraq claiming we were threatened from nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and intentionally and falsely connecting Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. There’s a lesson there about holding our government accountable and being skeptical even when we feel the stirrings of patriotic fervor engendered by an attack on Americans wherever they are in the world. Congress gave Bush authorization to attack based on the misinformation provided them.

Once again, on the anniversary of 9/11 we were in the midst of contemplating military action in a Middle Eastern country, Syria.  Once again, the focus was on weapons of mass destruction. Would this be a repeat of George Bush’s rush to war in Iraq? Today’s Congress and the American people are understandably hesitant to support action against Syria based on incomplete and unconfirmed intelligence reports. I am so appreciative that our Commander in Chief in his remarks on September 10 framed his policy objectives and the reasons it is so important to punish the use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad’s regime. In the absence of a U.N. mandate to enforce the chemical weapons ban because Russia has blocked action against Syria, America can provide leadership in degrading or destroying Assad’s ability to use them again. Near the end of his remarks, he mentioned the possibility that use of force could be avoided if the plan proffered by the Russians results in taking those weapons of mass destruction out of Assad's hands and destroying them.

George W. Bush started with a goal of regime change in Iraq, and in the midst of his march to war, nothing, not UN weapons inspectors saying they could not find evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, not the debunking of false or misleading intelligence on "yellow cake uranium" and "aluminum tubes", was going to stop him. Obama, on the other hand, is using all available tools, from the threat of military force to diplomacy. Who would ever have thought a few weeks ago that Russia would offer to sign on to taking control of and destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal or that Assad would even admit to having them?

I hear pundits and read news articles that suggest that Obama has shown weakness by first deciding to ask Congress to endorse the use of force and then agreeing to pursue a peaceful solution after he had drawn a “red line” and made threats. Since when is it weakness for a president to include Congress in decisions about war and peace? And since when is it weakness to seek diplomatic solutions before using force? If this is weakness, then I think we’re better off with a weak President willing to pursue all options than a so-called strong President like George W. Bush who feeds Congress false information to get its endorsement, then sticks with his plan, rejects offers of peaceful solutions, and takes us into war regardless of the facts.

We are watching a Nobel Peace Prize winning world leader at work. Peace is not necessarily attained by spouting beautiful words about peace; it sometimes arrives as an end result of war, but at what cost? Peace can, however, be attained by forcing brutes to behave themselves with a credible threat of force. That is a lesson we can also learn from 9-11 and its aftermath.

Paul Epstein, a retired teacher, is a musician and writer living in Charleston