Soylent is made out of Diabetes... DIABETES

A commenter asked what I think of Soylent, the food substitute beverage, funded through kickstarter, that is supposed to provide all the nutrition you need in three drinks a day.

I think it's an abomination before god and man.

Food is meant to be enjoyed, savored, appreciated... it isn't just caloric intake for the purpose of maintaining body temperature.

However, in all seriousness, looking at the actual nutritional information, Soylent rather closely adheres to the Food Pyramid, with appx 50% of the calories from carbs, 30% from fat, and 20% from protein.

This is the Archer Daniels Midland diet, in its purest form.

And I mean that literally... You are literally replacing your entire diet of meats, fruits, vegetables, and grains, with the products of Archer Daniels Midland (they are by far the largest supplier in the country of the primary ingredients)... processed byproducts of corn and rapeseed.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0421/5993/t/12/assets/files_Complete-Soylent-Nutrition-Facts-1p2.pdf

The #1 ingredient, and the largest source of calories (almost 50%), is maltodextrin, which is literally corn sugar... or rather it's a polysaccharide derived from cornstarch.

Its common use in food is as a thickening agent, to absorb oils, and as a dusting powder; either infused with a flavor (like salt and vinegar potato chips), or to prevent clumping and sticking.

It's also used to provide bulk calories in protein shakes, weightlifting supplements, carboloading supplements for runners and cyclists etc...

It has the same glycemic index as pure glucose, and it has a similar effect on insulin triggering. Diabetics are specifically warned against consuming maltodextrin in more than very small amounts, for that reason.

The lipid component is almost entirely Canola oil, which is one of the highest Omega 6 oils there is, which dramatically increase inflammatory response and arterial hardening, and may contribute to prostate cancer.

Basically, the guy formulating this stuff believed all the junk science garbage about low fat, and low saturated fat, and polyunsaturated seed oils, and high carbs being the best diet; and formulated Soylent to match that.

The original formula was somewhat better (using olive oil, and having a better carb/protein/fat balance), but it has been reformulated to be cheaper, and vegan.

He also formulated it for three meals to have 100% of the minimum RDA of those nutrients defined by the USDA to have a minimum RDA... and NOTHING else.

That's idiotic.

It's also very engineerlike... which is what the developer of Soylent is... a software engineer.

He has stated that he never wants to think about or worry about or have to cook food again, and that science should let us do this cheaper, and be healthier, than eating actual food.

He couldn't be more wrong in every way.

Never mind the aesthetic issues... and the dehumanization and mechanization of one of lifes greatest joys...

Soylent is essentially the worst diet you could possibly have, and still pretend to be "healthy". It seems almost deliberately calculated to cause diabetes and heart disease.

I honestly think that if someone who was prediabetic went on soylent for six months, they would end up insulin dependent.

Do you want to know the secret to starving without being hungry?

Pickles.

Actually, pickles and cucumbers . They're mostly water, and what isn't water is mostly vegetable fiber.

They're crisp, light, refreshing, and they wake up the palette.

Now, I love pickles anyway, but 4 days in to a diet that has me eating less than a third of my required daily calories (and having lost about 1.5lbs over and above the water weight thing), they are a godsend.

See, pickled cucumbers (so long as they're the no sugar added type) only have about 5 calories an ounce (raw cucumbers are more like 4 calories an ounce).

Others recommend celery, and certainly it has it's points (4 calories per ounce, lots of fiber); but I just don't like the stuff.

No... I'm on the pickles, protein, and tea diet.

Rather, I'm not on any particular diet at all, excepting "restricted calorie" and "high protein"; it just works out that way.

I'm not atkinsing, or deliberately going for a low carb diet. I just need so much protein, that to get it within the calorie limits I'm under, I need to make the vast majority of my calories protein.

Pure proteins run something like 91 calories per ounce (3.2 calories per gram, 28.34 grams per ounce), vs carbs at l14 calories per (4 calories per gram), and pure fats at 255 calories per ounce.

Of course, since nothing in this world is laboratory pure, actual calorie counts run a little different.

Lean meat (trimmed to 0 visible surface fat) runs from about 30 calories to about 60 calories per ounce raw weight. By lean meat, I mean the lean component of the separable lean and fat, deboned, with all fat trimmed off. All animal protein has some intramusucular fat that can't easily be separated out.

Ground meat can have a large proportion of fat mixed in with it; as much as 30% in some commercial grinds, as little as 10% in others. Most hamburger is mixed 80/20 (resulting in about 72 calories per ounce), most sausage is mixed 70/30 (resulting in about 85 calories per ounce).

Shrimp and lobster are at the bottom of lean meat calories, with around 30 calories per ounce. Tuna and other similar fish are just above that at about 31-33 calories per ounce. Chicken and turkey breast just above that at 35 or so. Pork tenderloin is just above that at 39 or so. Choice Beef tenderloin is above that at 45 or so (beef sirloin strip is right around 49. Prime beef is about 10% more calories).

All the fattier cuts of common proteins, like shoulders, thighs etc... are up over 45 calories per ounce, because they have more intramuscular fat; but most are under 55. About the highest calorie lean meat, would be a full fat pork butt, at about 58 calories per raw ounce trimmed to 0 separable fat.

I can't think of any lean meat that's over 60 calories per ounce raw, except wagyu beef, which has so much intramuscular fat (Wagyu run about 20-25% fat, which is about twice as much as prime beef) it runs between 80 and 90 calories per ounce depending on cut.

Eating the separable fat of course makes a huge difference. If you eat prime a ribeye with the full fat on it, you're eating about 100 calories per ounce.

Also of course, the way you cook things makes a difference. Grilling and pan searing fully trimmed lean meat, with a very small amount of fat either in the pan or brushed on the meat, and any surface fat patted or drained after cooking; and you often end up losing a fair bit of their fat without getting dry (if done properly anyway), such that the cooked piece of meat can actually end up with less calories than the raw.

Hamburger, and wagyu beef are both prime examples of this (no pun intended). When cooked over a high heat grill to medium rare or medium (respectively... never cook wagyu past medium rare), they both lose a lot of their fat; perhaps as much as 10% of the total weight of the cut (another 10% of the weight might be lost in evaporated moisture).

A 4oz 80/20 hamburger would have about .8oz of fat (200 calories per), and 3.2oz of pure lean, raw (about 40 calories per), making for something like 290 calories. If you grill that burger to medium, you're probably going to lose .4 ounces of fat, and the patty is going to end up at 210 calories (and around .4 ounces of water for a cooked weight of 3.2 ounces, or about 65 calories per ounce, about 7 calories per ounce less than raw).

On the other hand, if you cook meat with the fat on it, but trim it off afterward, or if you cook the meat in fatty liquids (stewed or braised with fat left in for example);  the meat will have some of that fat permeating it, and may actually be more caloric than raw.

Various long braised meats used in mexican cooking for example, where the lean meat might only have 45 calories per ounce; but once braised for a few hours in a fatty broth, the end product might be 55 calories an ounce.

Either way, you're not going to find any cooked meat (even the fattiest wagyu, hamburger, sausage, or meat stewed in fatty liquid) that runs more than about 90 calories per ounce, no matter how it's prepared; and the vast majority of lean meat is going to end up at under 60 calories per ounce cooked (again, presuming you eat only lean, and intramuscular or melted fat, and not the separable fat).

Carbs are MUCH higher calorie per ounce in the real world. By contrast to beef, white flour runs about 105 calories per ounce. Pasta and rice also both run about 105 calories per ounce (uncooked). Typical white bread, because there's a fair bit of water in it, has about 80 calories per ounce (100-120 calories in a typical slice). Granulated sugar runs about 110 calories per ounce.

Yes, 1 ounce of flour, has almost as many calories as 1 ounce of sugar. Every piece of bread you eat might as well be a tablespoon of sugar.

To put it another way, two pieces of dry white toast, have almost as many calories as a 6oz filet mignon.

And of course, dietary fats are by far the most calorie dense; with butter running right around 200 calories per ounce (give or take a couple calories depending on the exact butter), and most oils around 240-250 calories per ounce.

Using the same comparison, two and a half tablespoons of butter (about 1/3 a "stick") has about the same calories as that 6oz filet; and a full stick of butter, about the same as a 16 ounce ribeye.

So obviously, in terms of bulk, you get a lot more "full" for your calorie with proteins, as compared to straight up grains, or fats.

Of course, you get even more full per calorie with green vegetables (which are mostly water and fiber and run almost universally between 4 and 15 calories per ounce), potatoes (mostly water and starch, about 20 calories per ounce raw, mashies with whole milk and butter about 32 calories per ounce. Even steak fries deep fried in peanut oil are only 40 calories an ounce), and leguminous beans cooked in water (most run 80-125 calories raw, but usually about 1/4 to 1/3 that cooked. they absorb a LOT of water).

So as I said, while I'm not deliberately Atkinsing, I end up with a very high protein, low carb diet; just by optimizing for protein and fullness.

So far, my meals have consisted of a fair sized hunk of lean protein (4-6 ounces per meal), a few bites of carbs (mostly roast potatoes), maybe a little broth, maybe some beans, some cucumbers or pickles, some fruit etc... Also I've had a couple of eggs, and a little bit of cheese.

I haven't had any bread, rice, or pasta this week at all; and I've made up for some of the bulk with pickles and cucmbers, apples, and oranges (which do have a fair bit of sugar, but also a lot of fiber, water, and raw bulk).

Also I've only had a little bit (well... in comparison to my usual intake) of coffee or tea, with a little milk, and splenda; some diet soda, some drink mixes with splenda, and some water.

When I'm feeling a little empty, I'll have a cup of broth (typically around 1.2 to 2 calories per ounce), or a couple of pickles, or some tea or coffee; and then I'm fine for a couple hours.

And really, I haven't been all that hungry.

When I'll get REALLY hungry, is after about a week and a half, when my body earnestly kicks into famine mode. It'll be sending me "starving to death" signals pretty constantly for about six weeks, until it readjusts to the lower intake level.

Those weeks are going to suck.

Medically supervised starvation

Alright, so, in my update on the cancer situation, I mentioned the docs want me to go on an emergency, medically supervised starvation diet; so that I can lose 60-100lbs in 6-9 months; to reduce the risk of operating on the cancer that is impinging on my airway.

That's an awful lot of weight, in not a lot of time; and I've got a massively screwed up endocrine system and metabolism.

I gained over 400lbs total, losing over 240lbs interspersed, for a net gain of 160lbs in four or so years, while on a level of intake and exercise that in a normal person with a properly functioning system should have seen me losing weight the entire time.

This is not a problem that can just be solved with "normal diet and exercise"

So, they are suggesting some fairly extreme measures; and I thought I'd break that out from the main post to talk about just exactly what that means.

The first thing is, because my medical issues are already preventing weight loss with normal diet and exercise; they've declared the lapband is medically necessary, and are working through the BS with the insurance company now...

Unfortunately will take a couple months, and the insurance company is going to make me jump through some hoops; so Ill have to start on the extreme restriction, without surgical help, while I'm waiting.

The problem is that my current basal metabolic rate is so suppressed by the endocrine problems, that I literally need to go into medically supervised starvation for this to work; reducing my total caloric intake to somewhere around 800 to 1000 calories per day.

If you remember how Christian Bale starved himself for "the machinist"; he was eating 500 to 800 calories per day, and he weighed 1/3 what I do, and is 2" shorter than me.

A normal person, just sitting around doing nothing, will burn between 9 and 11 kcal (what we normally think of as calories) per pound, per day. This is why the recommend daily diet for the 184lb "statistical man" is 2000 calories.

Even someone in a coma will burn about 4kcal per pound per day. That's just the energy expenditure needed to maintain body temp, and to keep the blood flowing, and the organs operating.

My hormonal regulation is so screwed up, right now I'm burning between 5 and 6 kcal per pound per day (closer to 5 than 6... something like 5.2 or 5.3 average).... About half "normal", and just slightly higher than someone who's in a coma.

My current homeostatic intake level (the amount I can eat without gaining or losing weight) is about 2000-2400 calories a day (and yes, it really is that variable. My bodys self regulation is entirely broken. For someone my weight with a "normal" metabolism it should be about twice that, and should only vary about 200 calories with normal activity).

With this calorie restriction, I'll only be taking in about 2 calories per pound per day; or about 1/3 of my homeostatic intake level, at 800-1000 calories per day (and 1/4 to 1/5 a "normal" intake level).

That's the medical definition of starvation.

At my current basal metabolic rate, without any exercise, I should lose an absolute minimum about 2lbs every five days, possibly as much as 3lbs every seven, or even 5lbs every ten; resulting in 4-5 months to lose 60lbs, and 7-9 months or so to lose 100lbs.

The docs and I agree, that with my body type and bone and muscle structure, my weigh loss goal should be 280lbs at 15% or under bodyfat, with no loss (and hopefully some gain) of muscle mass.

The hope is that as the weight comes off, and with proper medication, my basal metabolic rate can be returned to something approaching "normal"; and that my weight loss will actually accelerate over time.

Given that on this 800-1000 calorie intake level, a "normal" metabolic rate that would put me at an 1800-2300 calorie deficit per day at my 280lb goal weight (never mind todays weight); that is entirely possible.

Also with medication and weight loss, I should be able to exercise more again... though not much given the extreme calorie restriction. I need to heavily bias the diet to protein (basically take in just enough fat and carbs to survive, and all the rest protein) and do both aerobic and anerobic excercise (bike and weight machine circuit) just to guard against muscle mass loss.

The total process to get from today to 280, at todays metabolic rate, and an 800-1000 calorie per day diet (assume a 1000-1600 calorie per day deficit) should take between 14 and 21 months.

If my metabolic rate were to improve to "normal", and assuming light exercise burning an additional 200 calories every other day (that's really not much at all), and rating only from my goal weight (I should burn much more than that every day until I reach my goal, so that's a worst case minimum) it would take somewhere between 9-11 months.

So... anywhere from 9 months, to 21 months... Or if we take the worst case healthy estimate, and the worst case unhealthy estimate and say average them out, say somewhere around 16 months.

Of course none of that takes into account how much water I'll be losing as the edema subsides, and the excess dependent fluid retention stops; and as my overall fat tissue reduces, losing even more water.

It would surprise me if at least 20% of the total excess weight wasn't excess water, even with the lasix. That's 36lbs that I don't have to lose calories for, or between 60 and 120 days less time.

All that, is why my docs are pretty sure I can lose at least 60lbs in 5 months, and at least 100lbs in 9; and somewhere between a year and a half and two years to reach my total goal.

Dietarily, what that all means, is that I'll be alternating between a liquid protein supplement diet, and three or four very small meals a day (possibly with 2 small snacks, depending on exactly what I've eaten that day in terms of total calories vs. total protein); consisting mostly of grilled or pan seared lean chicken breast, beef tenderloin, pork tenderloin, tuna, and shrimp.

That may sound good, but it's going to get pretty damned monotonous. I know, I've done it before.

Because of my high muscle mass in comparison to most (especially to most on extreme calorie restriction), I need to concentrate heavily on lean protein to avoid muscle catabolisis (muscle mass loss through dietary protein deficiency), and on high iron meat sources in particular to avoid anemia (also I'm going to have to take iron, b vitamin, and calcium supplements).

Not much in the way of side dishes... Maybe a couple ounces of cucumber, or a couple ounces of roast potato... Maybe one piece of bread, or 1/2 cup of cooked rice or 1/2 cup of cooked pasta in a day. Maybe a slice of cheese a day. Maybe an egg or a couple of egg whites.

...And by small meals, I mean 4-6 ounces protein and two ounces of starch/fruit/veg each; and nothing to drink with them (you drink 20-30 minutes before, and 20-30 minutes after, but not during).

Basically, what all those 100lb nutritionist aerobics freaks have insisted for years we should all eat, but no-one does other than them.

Oh and forget about having an entire beer, or for that matter more than a few ounces of fluid every half hour to hour.

If you're a small woman, this diet may sound familiar to you; as it's probably what you eat normally.

I'm not a small woman. I just have to eat like one.

Oh look! Now DiGiorno comes with breadsticks...

Somehow while doing the most basic task of picking up Chris's prescriptions from the Super Walmart, I developed a case of the diet Fuckits.

5 years of calorie restriction. 5 years of diet drinks, Splenda in my iced tea, limiting our carb intake, and avoiding the junk food aisles because if it's not in the house, we won't eat it. 5 years of cooking from scratch, limiting our fat intake, and only occasionally having dessert.

5 years of going to doctors, and being looked at as if I was the enabler. 5 years of the "self control and calorie restriction" speech from doctors. 5 years of disapproval and unwillingness to listen.

Now we know why. Now we know why his blood pressure and blood sugar are normal. Now we know why his heart is healthy. Now we know why he gained over 200 lbs over 5 years. Thyroid cancer can do that. The edema caused by the cancer can do that. We shouldn't have been asking why he was gaining weight, we should have been asking whether it was fat or water he was gaining.

Now we know a huge amount of it is water, and now we know why.

Chris developed his case of diet Fuckits Wednesday night following the scheduling of the biopsy. He requested steak, potatoes, crusty bread, and apple pie.

My Fuckits arrived today, in the middle of Wal-Mart, when I wanted a bag of Cheetos. Maybe some Doritos. Oh, and what's in the freezer section these days...

Chris will most likely be having surgery within the next 4 weeks, and then all of these problems might go away. In that time I may gain another 10 lbs just in emotional eating. I don't think I care right now. I think, for a short time at least, the junk food aisle can be my friend again.

Also, it's time for new toys for the doggies, and I think the reactions Jayne and Zoe have to new toys are worth about $1K of therapy...

Mel

The Monks Fast

When most people think of a fast, they think of something like a hunger strike, but historically this is incorrect. The traditional Christian fast doesn't involve complete deprivation of food; otherwise people would not have been able to fast for 40 days over Lent for example.

Rather, a traditional fast involves eating nothing but bread, broth (usually barley broth, perhaps with some pork), water, and beer (which was considered something like liquid bread) during the day (as in the daylight hours); and after dark, a plain, simple meal of porridge, or rice, or something similar, and if available some protein or fat.

This fast regimen deprived one of the luxury of richer food; but provided enough nutritive value and energy, to allow for a full days work.

The purpose of this during lent of course was to show devotion, and to refocus ones self on the spiritual rather than the physical; but the fast wasn't simply for Lent. There are monks who had fasts lasting for decades. Again though, the purpose was to improve focus.

Well, I've noted a distinct lack of focus in my life for the past few months; both literally and figuratively. I have had trouble focusing my attention on either work, or recreation; particularly my writing, but also my hobbies an other projects.

I'm the type of guy who generally starts something, then works all the way through it 'til I'm finished; but I haven't managed to finish a single one of my hobby projects in months; excepting building the new computers for myself, Mel, and the kids.

Particularly bad, I haven't been shooting since January; which is the longest I've gone without shooting since I moved back from Ireland nearly five years ago. Shooting is one of the ways I have always refocused myself. It is almost a kind of meditation for me.

Compounded with this is that my diet and exercise have slipped horribly in that time. I haven't maintained my diet at all; and my exercise level has been just as bad. As a consequence, I've managed to erase all the losses I had made over the previous year. I'm not back up to where I was at my heaviest; but I'm not happy with where I am.

Oh and I've only been to church... maybe three times in the past few months?

My energy levels are erratic; and seem to cycle randomly across time, food consumption, sleep, and activity levels (otherwise I'd be worried about diabetes, which runs in my family). My insomnia has been near the worst it's been in years.

I haven't picked up either of my guitars at all since Christmas; which has always been another for of meditation for me... In fact the only music I've been making, or much listening to, has been in "Rock Band"; which is fun and relaxing, but not really what I need in this context.

Worst of all mentally, excepting a surge over the last few weeks (brought on by worsening insomnia), I've barely been able to finish a book in months. Actually, since January, I've only managed to finish 12 books, and six of them have been in the last three weeks. My "to read" pile has grown to 16 linear feet of thickness (books stacked cover to cover) and is growing instead of shrinking.

That may not seem abnormal to you, but you've got to understand for me, that's like going blind. This is from a man whose primary means of stress relief is reading; and who has typically throughout his life read a full 300-400 page book, or the equivalent thereof, near every day.

So, I think it's clear, I need to refocus myself a bit.

Today, I've instituted my own version of the monks fast.

From today forward, until I reach my overriding goals (both physically, and otherwise); six days a week I am going to fast.

My diet will consist of two cups of chicken or beef broth, and a chunk of bread (2oz) with a pat of butter as a mid day meal; a cup of fruit juice in the morning, and a (16oz) mug of coffee or tea with milk and splenda in the morning and afternoon; and 10oz or less of a lean meat, and 8oz or less of a simple starch, bread, or legume to go with it for dinner.

I will also allow myself a reasonable amount of fresh fruit, and some cucumber, pickled or otherwise (there is very little nutritive value to cucumber -an entire large cucumber may have less than 50 calories - but I like the flavor and texture of it); for vitamins, and for variety.

Oh, and if I feel like it, a glass of Weihenstephaner, Franziskaner, or Agustiner Brau per night. After all, one must respect the tradition of liquid bread.

I will allow myself one day per week of "normal" intake; choosing whatever I might want, within reason; as one does on feast days during an extended fast. This will give me something to look forward to, act as a safety valve, and make sure I get the chance to eat out with my wife at least once a week.

I'll also allow myself a special exemption for my birthday (which is in three weeks), July 4th, Memorial Day, Labor Day, my daughters birthdays, Halloween, my wifes birthday, Thanksgiving, Christmas, new years, and Easter; which again would replicate the original practice of eating richly on feast days (which we generally no longer celebrate) during an extended fast.

I'm so specific about the requirements, because I've calculated that to be the minimum intake I can maintain, and still remain in good health; at somewhere between an absolute minimum of 1200 and 1600 calories a day depending (perhaps 1800 at most, with heavy exercise).

In addition, I am resuming my exercise regimen, consisting of at least 90 minutes of vigorous exercise per day except Sunday; including 20 minutes of stretching and warmup (light calisthenics mostly), and the remaining time split up as approximately 1/2 aerobic cardio-vascular training (calisthenics and exercise bike) , 1/4 power lifting, and 1/4 circuit training; most likely on alternating days.

In conjunction with that, I intend to resume attending church weekly, and to spend at least one hour every day reading offline, not related to my job.

What I'm hoping for is that my physical and mental energy levels and focus will balance out, and allow me to really get things done again. I may have to make some adjustments, but I think this is the right course, and my will is set on it.

Back on the diet

Ok, as of today Mel and I are off our holiday hiatus, and back on the diet.

From late November when we went off it for thanksgiving (the week before for a party actually), and today... This one is not good... I gained 35lbs.

AARGH.

Of course I was eating anything I wanted, at any quantity I wanted, so I expected 20 or maybe 25lbs... but 35.

Oy.

Mel has put on about 15 as well.

Oh well. Thems the breaks.

Oh, and the puppy's put on nearly as much weight as I have. When we brought him home he was about 25lbs; as of this morning, he was 57.

Weight Loss Regress Report

Well, I can't very well call it a progress report now can I...

When we last caught up with our intrepid hero, he had managed to lose 60lbs between September 11th, and December 11th of 2006.

No mean feat let me tell you.

Well, combine knee injury, a month of near idleness due to sinus and upper respiratory infection, and the holiday diet hiatus, and I've managed to put 20lbs back on in the last month.

Now, I was planning on this. That's why we called a diet hiatus. Too many folks try to rigidly stick to their diets through the holidays and fail miserably which makes them give up in frustration. Not us; we just said "screw it, we're going to enjoy our holidays", and so we declared a hiatus for thanksgiving weekend, and another one from December 15th through January first.

I mean seriously folks; did you think I would go through Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years without enjoying the 26lb Turkey, 22lb ham, 6lb prime rib roast, cream sauce, gravy, creme brulee, and the dozens of cakes and cookies (actually, hundreds of cookies in fact) that went along with it?

As of today though, it's back on the diet; and as soon as the final dregs of my sinus clear up, back to the workout schedule (do NOT try to work out with a sinus infection; it will do nasty things to you).

Am I upset by the 20lb re-gain? Hell no. It's normal and expected. Heck, it jsut shows I had a good time. Besides 20lbs may sound like a lot to you, but for a guy like me, 20lbs is like a woman putting on 5lbs over the holidays. No big deal.

Amazingly enough, Mel has managed to not gain any weight at all this month, and has in fact continued (though just barely), to lose weight. Her total is now floating between 17-19 lbs. with another 45-50 to go.

And yes, the food was worth it.. sooo so worth it.

Woo Hoo 368

So, on Monday, I'll have been on this diet for three months exactly; and this morning I weighed in at 368lbs.

Presuming I make it to 365 by Monday, that will be 60lbs lost in three months.

That's pretty damned impressive if I do say so myself; especially since my excercise program has been inconsistent. I swear there's a conspiracy against me; I get a good routine going for a few weeks, then I manage to buger my knees up but good, and the second my knees feel better, I get hit with the creeping crud (holding on through its 8th day at the moment).

Mel has gone down to 210 (from 225); and seems to have stalled out a bit; but she's still slowly losing.