After the Thanksgiving feast: now what?

Okay, we have eaten.

Odds are, we have overeaten.

So, what now?

If history is any judge, most of us will now segue into a syndrome known as “Holiday eating fugue.”

Holiday-eating-fugue syndrome, aka HEF, is characterized by the willful suspension of any recognition of the basic dietary law of the universe, which is: calories in taken must be balanced against calories expended.

When this law is not observed, weight gain ensues.

Some relevant facts:

Most people consume more than 3,000 calories on Thanksgiving Day.

The average 150-pound person burns approximately 325 calories in 90 minutes of shopping—a popular activity the day after Thanksgiving, which is what retailers refer to as Black Friday. This means that the average person would have to shop for dang-near the whole day on Black Friday, just to make up for the damage inflicted on Gobbler Thursday.

Historically, attendance at Weight Watchers meetings falls off at Thanksgiving, and doesn’t pick up again until after New Year’s Day. Whereupon, the membership drive becomes a Joining Jubilee.

The average American gains a pound between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day. (Actually, that’s good news. Most people assume that the average American gains more like eight pounds between the holidays.)

Gym memberships, which languish during the holidays, go into RRP mode (Rabid Renewal Period) post-January 1.

What to do?

Here are some things you can try to ward off the HEF blues:

· Put the one-day feast-fest into perspective. No matter how much you ate on Thanksgiving, it’s not going to impact your long-term weight journey—if you get right back on the healthy eating and exercise horse.

· Get physical. One of the major causes of weight gain during the holidays is lack of activity. Time is spent doing holiday errands, which makes us more tired, less motivated, and not wanting to stick to our routine.

· Don’t “diet.” Don’t launch an overly restrictive program during this period. Stick to your tried-and-true eating plan.

· Be choosy about your treats. Those siren sweets hang out on every rock during the holiday months. Go ahead, enjoy. But be selective! And don’t think the right approach is to replace your high fat, high calorie faves with lowfat substitutes. A teaspoon of real butter on a roll is more satisfying than a ton of fake buttercrap.

Whine of the week: The Biggest Loser loses Kae

Why, oh why did Kae get voted off The Biggest Loser?

Okay, I guess I know why: she didn’t lose quite as much as the others in a single week’s measurement, and the other contestants were afraid of her. But I think the algorithm of The Biggest Loser’s “win number” should factor in the weekly loss in the greater context of overall fat reduction and health improvement. Otherwise, it underscores a very unhealthy emphasis on daily progress on the scales, rather than the weight loss journey.

In fact, while we’re fantasy-tweaking the show, let’s make the weekly “win” based on an overall health index that includes weight loss, fat loss, and the other major barometers of health improvement. That would vault The Biggest Loser into the next (and needed) level—a true reflection of the contestant’s overall health improvement. You could “reveal” a health index score each week, just as dramatically as the number on the scale.

Because after all, weight is just a number.

And what audiences really want is to see the true winners win. And that’s what Kae is, a winner.
From the feedback I’m reading, I think that The Biggest Loser is going to have to kick it up a notch in this manner to maintain its popularity with viewers.

And yeah, I know: "It's only reality TV, Kathryn. Why are you wasting your time watching it?"

Sorry, but it's my guilty pleasure. As someone who graduated from a couple of diet boot-camp programs (you'll see fictionalized shades of those experiences in DYING TO BE THIN, and next year's A KILLER WORKOUT), I can't help rooting for the competitors, like a die-hard Red Sox fan during the World Series!

You can see The Biggest Loser's web site here at:

http://www.nbc.com/The_Biggest_Loser/episodes/

Cozying up to Killer Hobbies

I recently took it upon myself (along with co-blogger, Linda O. Johnston) to do a bit of research into hobby-oriented mystery series. We came up with some interesting information--in fact, we've prepared an entire discussion/presentation on the subject of hobby-oriented mysteries that we are taking "on the road" in the Southern Califonia area. If you would like us to appear at your book club, library, bookstore or discussion group, please contact one of us through our web sites. (We can also teleconference in to groups that meet in other locations).

But here's a little preview of some of what we talk about:

What’s a “hobbyist’s” cozy mystery?

· By a conservative estimate, about 60-65% of Berkley/NAL Prime Crime imprints are based on hobbies.

· Most cozies are geared toward a female audience.

· The story stars an amateur sleuth, usually a well-educated female.

· Her life experiences have given her special skills that she uses in the course of solving a crime.

· Her hobby can be very diverse (scrap booker, oenophile, B&B owner, art collector, quilting).

· The location of the story is usually a small town or confined environment. This makes it believable that all the residents know each other.

· She usually has friends, relationships, or family that can get her “uncozy” police procedural information (autopsy results, investigation updates).

· Most cozies are series.

· Most of the characters in the story are fairly likable, often quirky.

· Cozies are “kinder, gentler” stories—no overt violence or overt sex (okay, well, except for my series, the Fat City Mysteries. There you get a lot of sex and violence!).

· The story is fast-paced, with lots of red herrings.

· Often, two people die before the book ends, both offstage. The first murder often takes place before the story opens. The connection between the two people is what helps the sleuth solve the crime. She is able to make that connection in a way the police fail to.

(One more disclaimer about DYING TO BE THIN—it shows the murder victims splat on the page. I think I have a few uncozy "bones" as a writer!)

What are the current trends in cozy mysteries?

The current trend is to make cozies “educational” and include bonus information, such as patterns, diet tips, or recipes.

For example, DYING TO BE THIN has diet tips at the beginning of each chapter, like the following one:

There’s an old saying: Scratch a depression, and you’ll find an anger. Well, scratch an overweight woman, and you may find an angry one underneath. Many of us eat to repress angry feelings—over a rotten childhood, over a chintzy news budget that doesn’t cover wardrobe expenses…you name it, we’ve got plenty to be angry about. Learn to express anger in a healthy, assertive way. Which doesn’t include diving into a pint of Chunky Monkey.

—From The Little Book of Fat-busters by Mimi Morgan

What about you? Are there things about hobby-oriented cozy mysteries that particularly attract you? Are there things you wish were different about the stories? We'd really love to hear your feedback. Best, Kathryn

How long did did happily-ever-after last for Cinderella?

This week, I’ve been thinking about Cinderella.

I’ve been thinking about her a lot, wondering how long she stayed "happy" after she landed the Prince and the castle? Was it eternal bliss, or did she eventually go back to worrying about more mundane matters, like pesky royal in-laws, or her pecking order at court? In a real-life example, Princess Diana certainly showed us that sometimes there's nada happily ever after.

By way of background, I should say that, of late, things have been going pretty darned well for me. Maybe not fairy-tale well, but definitely “pinch me—is it real?” kind-of-well.

Here’s a partial list of my current blessings:

My family is healthy and happy (this one has to come first on anyone’s list).
I have several great friends.
I have a new mystery series coming out.
I was recently gifted with a second house, a killer sports car, and some enviable bling.

Life, as they say, is good.

So you’d think that I’d be wandering around the house all the time with a big, goofy grin plastered across my face.

Instead, I find myself scrabbling for things to worry about. Like, how do I guarantee that my second book will surpass the first? Is my college-age daughter locking her doors at night? When is the Big One going to strike California (and what’s the deductible on my earthquake insurance?).

When nothing else works, I’ll watch CNN and fret about global warming, wondering if I should have eschewed my nice little Z4 for an earth-friendlier Prius.

I once read about a study that found that people have a default level of happiness—or unhappiness, whichever applies. This study posited that, long term, a change in an individual’s life circumstances is irrelevant to his or her “happiness” level. Oh, their moods will have ups and downs, depending on unknown and unpredictable factors such as a sudden trauma, or winning the Lotto. But according to this study, almost no matter what happens, most people eventually return to their original state of happiness. I recall the researcher saying that even someone hit by a devastating injury, such as Chris Reeve, probably eventually regained a semblance of his original level of happiness.

That must be why my mind is foraging for things to feel down about: life has removed some of its former obstacles, and somewhere in my brain, a gray cell is itching to even up the score. But from now on, whenever it does that, I’m just going to shout it down. Down, avenging brain cell! Down!

One reassuring thing: Cinderella seemed happy as a person, even before she met the Prince (at least, she was in the Disney version of the story). So odds are that this particular couple did live happily, ever after.

Anyway, that’s the fairy tale.

What about you? Do you have a “level set” of happiness (or unhappiness) that you eventually return to, no matter what brickbats or bouquets life throws your way?

Guilty pleasure of the week: The Biggest Loser

As a former fattie (okay, granted—I still have a ways to go—but at least I’m no longer morbidly obese), I experience a vicarious thrill whenever I watch Bravo TV’s The Biggest Loser.

As I watch a three-hundred person lug to the top of a seven-story tower, huffing every step of the way, a part of me cringes inside, thinking, “How can they put themselves out there like that?” But a part of me cheers them on, and gets caught up in the suspense as they step onto that scale at the end of the week to find out which team lost the most weight.

Confession time

Last year, when the producers of The Biggest Loser tempted the show’s dieters with a malevolent tower of cupcakes, I wanted to throw my diet tools in their general direction, to exact some payback.

So…?

So here’s the question: why am I so drawn to this show? I think it’s because it amplifies the everyday drama of my bathroom scale—Am I up? Am I down? Am I winning the battle? Losing?—writ large. Writ very large.

Fat people, it turns out, are the stuff of prime-time drama. And if you don’t believe me, I’ll sign off with a quote from no less an authority than The Bard himself:

Let me have men about me that are fat,

Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o’ nights: Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.

On the other hand, I suspect that Cassius was a much more dramatic character than the “men…that are fat.”

Food for thought.

And now let's go—live!—to a Zombie Gerbil from Outer Space

So I'm looking over my upcoming book tour schedule for DYING TO BE THIN, which launches on October second. The tour includes several highlights that I’m especially thrilled about, including some media appearances (for updates, see my web site.)

Among other places, I’ll be appearing on a morning television show.

That interview will be the first time I’ve set foot inside a TV studio in more than twenty years. And for me, it may prove to be a bittersweet moment.

First, a bit of background:

Twenty-plus years ago, I graduated from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. During my stint at the J School, I concentrated in broadcasting. My dream was to become a television reporter, and perhaps eventually an anchor.
But my academic advisor soon informed me, in no uncertain terms, that to have a career on camera, I’d have to lose weight.

I’d have to lose a lot of weight. At two-hundred-plus pounds, I needed to lose approximately one-half of myself.

This was a tall order, especially in the days before laparoscopic surgery and stomach rings.

To remediate my excess adipose situation, after graduation I packed up my TR6 and sallied south to Durham, North Carolina, the self-proclaimed “Diet Capital of the World.” There, I enrolled in a residential diet clinic (read: fat farm). Nine hungry months later, I left Durham, tipping the scales at 114 pounds. (At five foot five, I figured even TV news would be satisfied with that three-digit number.) Armed with a new designer wardrobe, I soon landed a reporting internship, and later a full-time job, at a station in South Carolina.

But I quickly discovered that the reality of TV news reporting was far different than I’d imagined. The job involved crazy hours (no problem for me), and tons of stress (some problem for me). To my dismay, I also discovered that I suffered from a bit of camera shyness.

Doing live shots was especially challenging. When you do a live shot, you stand there in front of the camera, holding a microphone, addressing hundreds of thousands of people—without a script. To make things worse, you also have a disembodied voice (the studio producer) yakking at you through an earpiece.

Accomplished professionals in TV-News land, like Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric, make live television look easy.

Trust me, it’s not.

There’s a scene in DYING TO BE THIN that addresses the peculiar challenges of live shots:

In this scene, my protagonist, Kate Gallagher, has just finished her first live shot. It’s gone well, and she’s been congratulated by the cameraman:

“Thanks, Reggie,” I said, removing my earpiece. I was riding a huge surge of relief, a high, really, that my maiden live shot had gone so smoothly. I’ve seen first-time live shots go horribly wrong—the reporters get spacey, or they forget what they’re supposed to say entirely and freeze up in front of the camera the way a hairy-footed gerbil gets hypnotized by a cobra.”

True confession time—that was my first live shot I was describing in the book. I was about as polished as a zombie gerbil from outer space.

I eventually recovered from that rough start, and improved. But along the way, I learned that television news wasn’t the right career for me. Nowadays, I’m much happier being ensconced behind the word processor, spinning out stories that turn out just the way I want them to.

To paraphrase Dirty Harry, “A woman’s got to know her limitations.”

But I’m thrilled to get the chance to go back on television as a guest. A studio guest doesn’t have all the pressure of dealing with where the cameras are, or how many seconds are left before the break, or a producer who’s talking through her earpiece.

Guests can just relax, smile, and be themselves.

Ahh…sounds like the perfect assignment for me.