Put the pedometer on yesterday morning and yes--no--it isn't easy to get to 10,000 steps. I got to 9300 and that was with adding a (walking) trip to the clubhouse, AND a mile-long walk after dinner. I'm glad WW leader, Cris, mentioned you shouldn't have it on in the car, because little bumps and jolts can count as a step. It's good to be aware, though, that although I think I'm very active, I'm really only moderately so.
Now proceed with caution, because here come some philosophical musings: I'm afraid many people kid themselves about 1.) how much they eat (or, more accurately, how many calories they consume--and how many they need); and 2.) how active they are--and how active they need to be. I read an article or blog or something a few years ago to the effect that "Weight Watchers doesn't work." Intrigued and annoyed, I read it. The burden of the piece was something like "If WW worked, why are so many people overweight before and after?" Of course, the whole premise is stupid--it isn't WW's fault if people backslide--but it may have a kernel of truth in it.
The mountains of writing, videos, CD's, exercise advice and equipment are, looking at the history of the human race, a very recent phenomena. Until, say, 60 or so years ago (a mere blink in time), the concern about nutrition for most people was how to get enough, not how to get little enough. I was admonished to clean my plate because "the children in Europe are starving." (How finishing my dinner would translate to helping feed the children in Europe was never explained.)
I have a number of wonderful Life, Ladies Home Journal, and other magazines from the thirties and forties and oh, you'll find an occasional small mention in an article of "dieting" and "exercise" in those aimed at women, but rarely. It's clear that overweight, let alone obesity, were not primary concerns of Americans then.
Now, of course, it's hard to find a general magazine without a reference to weight.
Why, then? Why, every time the government pontificates on the subject and releases its figures, they announce that there's an upswing in weight? The combination of reasons is what we all know: Food in general is cheaper and more available than ever before; processed food is often the choice of many because of time constraints; processed food is loaded with additives prominently featuring sugar and fat; privately-owned cars, adequate public transportation, and machines that do the heavy work have effectively eliminated the need for sustained labor; and television, the poison delivery system, exists ONLY TO SELL. It systematically violates our children by 1.) turning their brains to mush and 2.) giving them the idea they must have this, that, or the other thing or they'll die a horrible death and nobody will like them anymore; and 3.) indoctrinating them with the sacred ideal: that cereal, sweets, and fast food crap is the way happy, healthy, slim families eat.
Geez, this is getting too long. You may have surmised, gentle reader, that yesterday was kind of boring. Didn't do much except household chores and food shopping. Will continue my diatribe tomorrow!
(Is that a promise or a threat? Well, you decide...)
Note: Just called Betty. Her company is gone and I'm going to pick her up for lunch today, as well as bring her some of my out-grown clothes. Boy, does THAT feel good.)