Waldo's Log

[Disil]

You're gonna end up with triplets.

 

Congrats to you two!

[Waldo]

I doubt it on the triplets, only 2 embryos were implanted, which means one would have had to split and both implant (2 identical, 1 fraternal), or one implant and split 3 ways (3 identical), which is incredibly rare.  Twins don't really run in either of our families.

 

God damn.  Finally.  Last kiddo seemed to take forever and was a lot of work.  This time around took longer, with much more intense effort (not to mention, IVF's are not cheap. At all). 

 

Time to party like its 1999!

 

(which incidentally was my 3rd year of college, we rented a house, and was the year I turned 21, needless to say I partied like it was 1999 in 1999, our millennium party was epic)

 

(without booze, since the wife and kiddo obv can't have any.  I'm gonna pick up some cupcakes on the way home from work.  Wife already told me she's gonna try hers with salsa, lol).

[TeaKwonDo]

Major congrats!

 

Though now it seems you're obliged to name them Luke and Leia.

 

And thanks for the article on dynamic tension. Very useful for TKD, especially on the days when we don't do a lot of conditioning and focus more on forms/self-defense.

[Sloth the Enduring]

Congratulations!

[Waldo]

Thanks everyone.

 

Yesterday was a bit of a fail on the diet front.  Still had a deficit, though a minimal one.  Obviously I'm totally ok with this, yesterday was a pretty big day.

 

Cut day 4: 2485 net cals, deficit of 215 cals.  3618 total cals of deficit thus far.

 

Last night's leg workout was a bit abbreviated as I was distracted, I did 1 fewer peak set than I normally would.  

 

I'm going to have to modify dinners on the fly; though it was starting before the positive, the wife's food tastes are dramatically shifting and half the stuff we have right now sounds repulsive to her.  Last kiddo it was soft pretzels, she craved them something fierce from very early, before the +, this time its salsa.  Greasy or even lean versions of greasy foods (burgers/pork chops) appear to be getting the axe.

[Hermione Gainser]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!  YAS!  

 

Oh boy, twins.  How long until you'd know if it's one or two? 

[Waldo]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!  YAS!  

 

Oh boy, twins.  How long until you'd know if it's one or two? 

 

Should have a pretty good idea by tomorrow afternoon.  Won't know for sure though for about 3 weeks.

 

We'll find out earlier than in just about any standard pregnancy; the chance of twins is dramatically higher when you do an IVF vs. a standard pregnancy (~25% vs. 2.5%), there is a lot more early monitoring, and its one of the key things they look for.

[Yuen]

Hey Waldo, congratulations to you and the wife!!

 

It's good to see you actively posting here again

[Waldo]

Well back to the grind this week.

 

Diet sort of went a bit topsy turvey since Thur, though I haven't been over maintenance at all, got close however.  Between baby news, preggo mamma, and a murderors row of kids birthday parties (including our son's), its been challenging to say the least.  This is one reason my target completion time was 3 weeks, despite starting at a pace that would have the cut over in 1.5 weeks.

 

Friday (day 5) - 2046 net cals, 654 cals deficit

Saturday (day 6) - 1832 net cals, 868 cals deficit

Sunday (day 7) - 2661 net cals, 39 cals deficit

 

Total deficit after 1 week: 5179 cals

Percent of goal: 5179/14000 = 37.0%

 

Scale hasn't moved much since late last week.  I haven't checked out the tape recently, but I'd expect it to be 32.0" here soon, if it isn't already.

 

Not sure what I'll do tonight.  Its been rainy, so I'll have to evaluate the conditions before I go sprinting.  If I can't I'll default to my usual loaded pistol leg workout.

 

On the baby front, Saturday's test went good.  Numbers were exactly where they expected them.  No unusual rate of increase was seen so the risk of there being twins isn't that great (still could be, its just not obvious).

 

Found out today that the pool opens a little earlier than I expected.  I need to be pool ready by mid-May instead of by the end of May.

[MasterOfCows]

Yay!  Congrats!

[PaulG]

Congrats! Did you hear if it's one or two?

[Waldo]

Congrats! Did you hear if it's one or two?

Thanks!

No lock either way that its one or two. The first sign (very high beta levels on her first test) were somewhat of an indication for twins. Her second test though showed a very normal rate of increase in beta levels, which is more of an indicator for a single. The rate is a much stronger indicator than the absolute level, though neither are particularly strong indicators.

Its one of those things that is sort of like an early pregnancy test. A positive pregnancy test means that you're pregnant, its damn near foolproof. However a negative pregnancy test does not mean that you are not pregnant, it just may mean that your pregnancy is not yet detectable (takes about 5-10 days after conception to become detectable).

If her levels were rising unusually fast, than chances are she'd be pregnant with twins. However a lack of fast rising beta (HCG) levels doesn't mean that she's not pregnant with twins, it means she lacks a strong indicator for it at this time. But a high first test seemed to suggest that her levels were rising unusually fast. A second test found though that they weren't.

Long story short, there is still an elevated chance of twins, it is a side effect of implanting multiple embryos, but there is no strong indicator that there are two growing in there right now. We'll find out for sure at the end of next week, when we go in for her first ultrasound to have a look at the little one(s).

Its still very early. Fertility patients in general, but especially after IUI and IVF cycles, are on an accelerated timeline vs. the general public. Most people that are not specifically trying to have a little one probably wouldn't know they are pregnant yet (4 weeks 5 days in pregnancy timeline naming conventions), though they might have a pretty good idea based on symptoms (however early symptoms are much stronger when you are looking for them and can be completely generated by the mind). Even people trying might not yet know, but at this point her period would be a little late, most would have used a pee stick test by this point. However the next test is where the difference is dramatic, her first ultrasound is a full 2 weeks earlier than normal for a non-fertility patient.

[Waldo]

Back on track with diet day 8. Net intake was 1746 cals, for a daily deficit of 954 cals. Total deficit thus far is 6133 cals, which is 43.8% of my overall goal.

A tape around the waist clocked in at 32.0", which is right on track, down 0.5" from the starting point. Usually the tape will be a hair ahead the calculated value because of a transient 1/16"-1/8" or so that comes and goes with your energy state. The calculated value I should be at is 32.062".

Scale has been my friend these last two days, its reading about 2 lb lighter than I was where I started, so I'm right on track there.

Comparing to historical data I'm about 2 lb heavier than I was last time I was at this waist measurement, so chances are I actually gained a small amount of muscle since last summer.

[PaulG]

Back on track with diet day 8. Net intake was 1746 cals, for a daily deficit of 954 cals. Total deficit thus far is 6133 cals, which is 43.8% of my overall goal.

A tape around the waist clocked in at 32.0", which is right on track, down 0.5" from the starting point. Usually the tape will be a hair ahead the calculated value because of a transient 1/16"-1/8" or so that comes and goes with your energy state. The calculated value I should be at is 31.062".

Scale has been my friend these last two days, its reading about 2 lb lighter than I was where I started, so I'm right on track there.

Comparing to historical data I'm about 2 lb heavier than I was last time I was at this waist measurement, so chances are I actually gained a small amount of muscle since last summer.

Nice. I've been crunching numbers based on a total of 3/16" gain in the waist, trying to figure out where my TDEE is... until read this I totally forgot that a good chunk of it probably isn't even fat.

Do you think you're likely to have gained muscle without specifically working for it? I've been noticing I'm consistently 2-3lbs heavier than I used to be at my current measurement also, wondering if I could possibly have gotten so lucky.

[Waldo]

Do you think you're likely to have gained muscle without specifically working for it? I've been noticing I'm consistently 2-3lbs heavier than I used to be at my current measurement also, wondering if I could possibly have gotten so lucky.

Its definitely a real possibility. The small calorie surplus was usually there, so its really just a question of if the amount of training was sufficient. And it seems like it was, which sort of resets my thinking on just how much training is required to grow bigger, even if you are well into diminishing returns.

The thing is that I haven't gotten noticeably stronger at anything. Maybe assisted one arm chins. I've backslid a bit on a couple of things. Maybe I'm at the point where relative strength gain is perfectly balanced with weight gain.

[Waldo]

Diet day 9 is in the books. Net intake 1645 cals. Daily deficit of 1055 cals.

Overall progress: 7188 cals deficit, 7188/14000 = 51.3% of the way to my goal.

Scale even ticked down further. One thing to consider with the scale, I could very much be having sympathetic symptoms with my wife's pregnancy. The scale did jump a weirdly large amount a few days after the embryo transfer (also coinciding with some traveling for work where I did eat quite a bit) and it really has seemed to be persistent. I chalked it up to traveling, but it could be a sympathetic hormone response. However it does seem that I've been unusually and unexpectedly light the last few days, my body could be normalizing a hormone response.

[Waldo]

Ok, time for some Waldo philosophizing for a moment.

Our kiddo just turned 4; I got a Wii U and a relative got him Mariokart. Now he's a battle hardened Mariokart veteran already, having played the Wii version quite a bit (along with a few other similar games like Cars). He picked it up as easily as you'd expect a Mariokart veteran. He is only 4 so he's not particularly good yet, but he's at least a competitive racer and understands the use of the various "weapons".

His birthday party was the other day, and its pretty apparent that none of his friends are allowed to play console games (none have older siblings either; they literally have no idea of what a console game is). Our kiddo OTOH played Mario 3 as a 2 yr old, and the Wii for several months.

I find it so odd that the other parents just haven't introduced any video games beyond tablets/smartphones/websites. I mean, just like computers, I consider myself to be part of the first wave of truly literate; for everyone older than me video games or computers at home/school were this new thing that occurred at some point in their life. For me this extends back to the limits of my memory, I haven't known the world any different. Everyone older (in introduction years, yes my family and school were early adopters) at least has some inherent uneasyness or cluelessness. I've always chalked up much of the video game skepticism and even vile to the skepticism of non-lifetime gamers. But here are our kids friends parents, most of whom are younger than us, restricting all access to console games.

I always get a kick out of things written by so called experts on parenting when it comes to video games; especially comical when you consider that their kids are all young, all their advice is distilled from other parents of young kids and skeptics. Everyone my age and younger knows the various scale of gamer most of the kids you grew up with, and what sort of adult they became. To conclude that gameplay correlates to negative life outcomes is a comical notion, even way beyond what anyone would consider excessive.

I think that games played a huge role in developing my engineering mind. Sure there was more to it than that, and I'm sure my natural aptitude in that area led me to self select games that correspond to that aptitude. But no doubt about it games helped. I mean first and foremost, Civilization. I was a dominant Civ player (still am to a degree, but my time is very limited and I haven't played in quite a while). Civ is in the end, an optimization problem, with creative direction; you have to define the problem to be optimized. And it can take a very long time to solve the problem. This is pretty much what engineering is. When not civ though, strategy and optimizing games like that have always been my favorites, at least since I could handle that sort of game (a 4 yr old, yeah no).

When I think about Mariokart and my kiddo though, it strikes me just how far ahead he is compared to his friends at particular tasks. Being able to process the rapid visual twists and turns and respond precisely (kiddo can drive the Wii Rainbow Road and maybe fall off a time or two). Using the "weapons" effectively while racing, which is sort of a form of parallel thought. I'm confident that these skills are going to translate into reading quite handily; both scanning and processing letters rapidly and carrying a parallel stream of understanding separate from the action of letter scanning an evaluating. Some sorts of play; creative problem solving and parallel thought, video games are totally unmatched by all other toys.

Whoever says that video game time should be seriously limited in young kids is giving WAY too much credit to other toys. I can't see how kiddo driving around his hot wheels or pushing around sand with his bulldozer is in any way more valuable. Sure you can get total free form creativity, but that tends to be limited in everybody and not an all the time thing. Video games harness creativity for a purpose and in many ways can prompt even more creativity use than would otherwise be possible.

When it comes to obesity, the problem is the same in both kids and adults. Food intake is far more important than activity. As long as there is some activity, the importance of more is rather marginal.

[Disil]

For what it's worth, I grew up on computer games, sat in my Dad's lap while he was playing Might & Magic 3 back in 91 and played a ton of games myself ever since. When I was 4, I already read Donald Duck pocket books and when I was 5, I was commonly told to read random newspaper articles for friends of my parents to help them brag how their son could read without ever having attended school.

 

Through games and similar mediums like card games (Magic), as well as music, I also aquired a basic grasp of the English language before ever being taught a thing about it (as it was my 2nd forgein language). There's a lot more to gaming than that of course. Problem-solving, improved hand-eye coordination, learning to work as a team with other players comes to mind and some games even teach about decisions and consequences.

 

Overall, I think gaming provides a lot more advantages than disadvantages. I do see an issue when gaming, or TV for that matter, is used as a tool by lazy parents to occupy their children. My mom always made sure I went outside enough, played in the dirt, climbed trees and went to soccer practice and I can't deny that gaming in the later years of my teens had become somewhat of a coping tool where I could immerse and distract myself in/with when I didn't want to deal with "real stuff", but a lot of that is situational and also due to the fact that I was mostly raised by a full-time working single-mom, among other factors.

[RisenPhoenix]

Man, that's a weird thought that people wouldn't let their kids play console games.

 

Growing up we always had a console (or two) in my house.  Hell, when I was born (damn I'm about to show I'm a youngin') the NES was out of the gates for maybe a year.  My parents told me stories about how rather than go to bed after I woke them up they would stay up playing Mario and Zelda.  Too this day I remember my dad beating the original Zelda when I was a bit older and watching him start the Second Quest.  It nlew my mind.  And when I was young my family bonded by playing Duck Hunt and the Olympic sports NES game (complete with twister-like game pad), and take turns playing Mario. 

 

But yea, there is definitely a disturbing number of people out there who think games only involve guns and killing hookers, and have nothing to do with stories or art (Looking at you, Journey and Child of Light). 

[Waldo]

When the NES came out, it was beyond the greatest thing ever for a kid. The jump from Atari/Intellivision to the NES was huge. I saw my first at a Cub Scout meeting, and absolutely had to have one. Pretty soon everyone had one. We rented a few games every Friday night for years when I was a kid.

[Waldo]

And diet day 10 is done. Net intake of 1551 cals, daily deficit of 1149 cals.

Overall progress: 8337 cals deficit total, 8337/14000 = 59.6% of the way to my goal.

A tape measure around the waist this morning was at 31 7/8"; I'm right at the cusp of one of the major visual change points (happens at about 31 3/4" for me), where I appear notably leaner. I'm 3/8" away from my overall goal this cut.

We'll have some visitors starting tomorrow night, as long as I can stick to roughly maintenence while they are here, I should hit my goal in my target time frame without issue.

[tenaciousglee]

Jumping back to yesterday's video game philosophizing session: Have you perceived any improvement in your son's ability to focus on a task?  Maybe in comparison to non-gaming peers?  Obviously, the attention span of a 4 year old is not very long anyway, but I'd be interested to know if you've seen a difference.  My kids are 3 and 6 and we've had a Wii for a couple of years, but it mostly collects dust.  The kiddos like playing games on my phone, but haven't really had much exposure to a console.

[Waldo]

Been a bit since I updated. Had some visitors staying with us, which isn't a positive for the diet.

Day 11: Net Intake - 1726, Deficit - 974

Day 12: Net Intake - 2587, Deficit - 113

Day 13: Net Intake - 2988, Deficit - (288)

Day 14: Net Intake - 2013, Deficit - 687

Day 15: Net Intake - 2989, Deficit - (289)

Day 16: Net Intake - 3238, Deficit - (538)

Overall diet progress: 8996 cals deficit total, 8996/14000 = 64.3% of the way to my goal.

Scale has been my friend as of late.

I'll get close, but I'm not sure I'm going to hit my overall goal this week, I might have to extend things for a day or two.

I'm going to join this next challenge, I'm just thinking out my strategy a bit. I'm reconsidering the cut-bulk-cut strategy and might try to get a bit leaner than that strategy would allow.

[RisenPhoenix]

Visitors aren't good for the diet, but I'm sure you had fun.

 

Curious to see what you do for a challenge, probably will stalk you and pester you with a bunch of questions as I attempt my cut to a maybe bulk in the near future.  Just as a warning.

[Waldo]

So, I'm switching all talk over to my challenge thread:

http://rebellion.nerdfitness.com/index.php?/topic/63077-waldo-prepares-for-pool-season/