CMMI Diet Month 1 Update

I'll start out with observations I noted each week since starting this ridiculous journey.  I wrote these as I went along.  I only edited it for formatting, grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.  You may see an evolution of thoughts and lessons.  I'll end with the performance outcome from the first month.

WEEK 1

- Don't try to get calories perfect.  Expect calories to be approximate.  Aim for perfect, be content with +/- 20%.

- It is very hard to get an accurate accounting of calories, let alone an accounting of all them.  If you try to be "perfect" about it, it would be very easy to get discouraged and to allow the discouragement to become self-defeating.  Keep in mind, it's all data, and we're looking for trends, correlation and causalities.  If it could be perfect, this exercise would not have become (or would ever be) necessary.

- Be careful with food labels.  The total calories FREQUENTLY doesn't add up from the sum of the parts.  Typically, the total on the label is LESS than if you calculate

Calories = Fat[g]*9[cal/g] + Carb[g]*4[cal/g] + Protein[g}*4[cal/g] based on the individual parts.

- Weigh as often as you can (thanks @erwilleke).  At one point this week I was down more than 4lbs, but at the prescribed weighing, I was only down 1lb.  I know that at the prescribed weigh-in time, I was still carrying a number of days of b/m.  Had it not been for the earlier mid-week weigh-ins, I might've been discouraged even knowing that I was heavier than I would have been had I expelled my waste.  I must get to "regularity" -- need to drink more of things that aren't dehydrating me.

 

- Make friends with various nutrition/energy bar supplements.  Chosen wisely, they're great for energy, fiber, and a sweet-tooth or dessert.  Also, properly selected, they're great to keep the metabolism going between main meals as well as to stave off being too hungry at meals.  (You don't want to ever be 'starving' at a meal.  bad idea.  In case you were wondering, I've learned you want to be eating at least 200-300 calories every 2-3 hours.  If you find yourself 'starving', you're better off eating something "bad" (like a small candy-bar or other snack) for 100-200 calories to prevent being ravenous at a meal.)

WEEK 2

- Try even less to get the calories perfect.  Seriously, it's not going to happen, and it turns out, it's not the point really.

- Good solid healthy meals don't have to have a lot of calories, but you're probably going to have to make them yourself. 
Ex: eggs/omelettes for breakfast, without lots (or any) cheese, low-fat wraps, load-up with vegetables.

- Keep salad around A LOT and make your own dressing.

- You can probably walk on a treadmill every day and not hurt yourself.  In fact, you'll probably benefit from doing so as your body gets used to it and doesn't stiffen back up.  Recent studies are even showing that, for example, 3 intense 10 minute work-outs spread out along a day are probably as good (or better) for you as one 30-minute work out.  I haven't tried that approach yet.  Not sure I'll get to it.

- Drink a lot.  Especially things that don't have much caffeine.  Keep water around.  Don't let yourself get too thirsty or you'll drink whatever's within reach and that can also end up being garbage for you.  Otherwise, you'll (a) think you're hungry, and (b) get 'stopped up' -- if you know what I mean.

- This week included/ended with Thanksgiving weekend and the start of week 3 included a trip to the Raven's game (i.e., Tailgating)

- Weight drop from week 1 returned (mostly) and working it off wasn't working.  Very bummed but surprisingly determined nonetheless.  Re-thinking my strategy.

- I perceive that my b/m aren't regular and that I may be quartering excess unevacuated waste -- leading to weight gain/plain this week.

WEEK 3

- Despite a tailgate and several unaccounted meals all weekend since Thanksgiving, Monday AM weigh-in was more than Sunday but still under the starting weight.

- Dropping target caloric intake to 2000 calories starting Monday had an immediate effect.  Started losing 1+#/day immediately.
- Keeping to 2000 cal/day seems easier than 2400 for some reason.  Suspect the increased calories further increases appetite.  Thinking there's a metabolic tipping point for me somewhere between 2000 and 2400 calories.

- Finding a number of high-ROC (return on calories) meals.  Most of which include Amylou's chicken sausages, Morningstar Farms breakfast patties or "Egg Beaters".  Filling, satisfying and YUMM!

- Have generally not been counting slow carbs from vegis in my caloric calculations, or skim milk in my coffee.  Do count dressing, fatty additives and cream if used.

- When calorie counting is impractical, I'm using the "3 hand plate" rule, aka, the "Fat Loss Plate".  I'm also keen to avoid obvious starches when not able to account for calories.

- I honestly don't feel deprived despite several days of significantly low caloric consumption.

WEEK 4

- 2000 cal/day FTW!  Weight moving nicely in the right direction.

- Tracking calories has made it easy to associate meals, dishes, and portion sizes to their respective caloric impact.  Just goes to show you how measures have a benefit beyond what the data tells you, but that you can make associations with measures to other (performance) parameters to help guide decision-making even in the absence of precise data.

- Worry *EVEN LESS* about calories being perfectly counted.  Shooting for 80% weekly.  With the observations on caloric impact of various dishes, meals, and portion sizes, it's actually becoming easier to worry less about the science and more about observation.

- Caloric impact observations together with tracking the calories have also made it FAR easier to take note of how much food is necessary before being full -- this makes it easier to stop eating when no longer hungry, to allow tempting foods to just sit there, to be satisfied with less than what might otherwise seem like a reasonable portion, and to be more attentive to when I'm truly hungry, and what I'm hungry for.  Ex: If I know that a meal made from veggie breakfast patties, sliced veggies and hearty bread is filling, satisfying for H hours and consumes C calories, not only have I learned what a satisfying meal looks like, but also what it does/doesn't have to include in order to be satisfying as well as the calories involved.

- I've gone through the spreadsheet and started (where possible) to calculate daily % of Fat, Carbs, and Protein.  NOT EASY to keep to a 40/30/30 balance.

The benefit (and importance) of being regular
(I'm talking about process stability what were you thinking about?):

Without it you have no idea WHAT you're capable of.  It would have been nearly impossible for me to get any idea whatsoever of my caloric profile without the several weeks of mostly uniform and nearly ideal conditions I'm experiencing in which to collect measures that I can use when things aren't uniform, ideal, or stable. 
This point can't be over-emphasized. 

Had I been on travel these last 5 weeks, this entire venture would have likely been a frustrating exercise.  Without the ability to measure most of my meals, with the ability to pay close attention to my appetite, or to exercise regularly, or have any idea/control over what's in what I eat, I'd NEVER be able to get to a point where I can be comfortable not measuring, not worrying, not bouncing from extreme to extreme -- unknowingly.

With just a few weeks of data I am confident I can enjoy treats and snacks without dumping all my work down the toilet.  Does this mean I can wantonly, indiscriminately eat junk all the time?  No.  There's never a time when anyone can do that and not pay for it some how.  But it does mean that I can go to a wine tasting and enjoy wines and cheese and snacks and desserts and not worry about it.  Why not?  Because by the time I attended the wine tasting, I had weeks of data to train me in how much I need to eat to be satisfied, how much I can eat before over-eating, and how many calories are in certain foods as a function of food type and visual size.  And, that doesn't even account for the fact that prior to attending the event, I knew how many calories I'd eaten and how many more calories I could still consume and still be in my target range for best results.  In other words, I could operate without the constant data gathering and now use the data I gathered to quantitatively manage my efforts.

Your processes must be clearly understood.  You must be able to operate them while accounting for the variables that affect them.  Merely measuring results (weight, for example) without the underlying processes is what you're doing when you measure the performance side only and don't know the variables going into that performance.

The performance of my bottom (line)

Here's what I said I'd do when I started a month ago, alongside what I actually did...

Planned:  I plan to eat no more than 2400 calories/day, up to 6 "meals" or snacks per day.
Actual:  I started out at 2400 and dropped to 2000 after 2 weeks.  After changing to 2000 calories max, I wasn't as good at eating 6 meals/day because I didn't want to exceed the upper limit.  Interestingly, I wasn't as hungry on fewer calories.  But 6 meals/day is something I want to do, so I'll be working on it going forward.

Planned:  I plan to exercise a minimum of 5 days/week.
Actual: During this reporting period I worked out at least 6 days/week.

Planned:  I plan to weigh myself once/week.
Actual:  As noted earlier, I'm weighing-in more often.

Planned: I plan to measure my clothes size measurements once/month.
Actual: Did that.  Summary below.

So, how'd I do?

In the first sixth of my effort, I've lost about 25% of my goal weight.  I don't expect this pace to continue much longer, but it's nice anyway.

I've lost a surprising 0.5" in neck size, and 1"+ in chest, waist, and hips each.  Also a surprise was losing over an inch in my thigh.  I'm not sure whether that might be a function of where I measured, so I took more specific note of where I measured to make sure I'll measure there again next month.

Overall, I'm very pleased.

See you next month.

As seen elsewhere...

A recent thread over on the extremeprogramming Yahoo! group delved into whether or not CMMI sucks. One sub-thread was orbiting on the topic of Generic Practices.

As some folks know, the Generic Practices are what lead to the "institutionalization" of process improvement. In discussing this concept, the following lengthy (in text) but concise (relative to studying CMMI) explanation was given as a way to understand "institutionalization" by understanding the "Capability Levels" in CMMI.

The full post is here. The relevant text follows with small edits indicated by []s:

=-=-=-=-=-=
"Institutionalization", besides being a ridiculously long word, refers to the depth to which you have knowledge of your process. Institutionalization also often implies the extent to which your processes are ingrained into your organization, but really, when you look at what institutionalization involves it's more about how well you know your processes, not how widespread any given process may be throughout your organization.

At the lowest level at which anyone gets any 'credit', "institutionalization" is hardly the term appropriate for the state of the process. This is "level 1" where the process gets done, but by no means is it something you'd say any forethought, planning, or commitment was put forth into getting the process done.

The next level (level 2) is where we start to see some concerted effort towards treating the process as though it's something we cared about.

We see that the process is something someone in charge wants to be done (a.k.a. "policy"), we see that we know what tasks are involved in executing the process (a.k.a. "plan"), we see that resources have been allocated towards doing these tasks and that the tasks have been assigned as someone's responsibility.

If training for the project's execution of the process is needed, that's done at this level as well. We'd also expect that we'd see the outputs of the process as something we cared about so we'd control the outputs so that we could appropriately version, find, and update those outputs over time.

Given how much we've already invested in this process, it makes sense then to involve those folks who hold a stake in the outcome and to monitor the process' progress and activities, making changes to the plans, scheduling, or resources as needed to keep the process rolling.

We'd also want to keep tabs on whether the process is meeting the objectives of why we wanted the process done in the first place. And, finally, we'd review all of these process-oriented activities with people who can make decisions about the cost/ benefit/ value/ funding/ resources associated with the process fairly regularly over the life of the project.

These activities comprise what CMMI calls a "managed" process. An organization needs to know what process it's going to follow and what makes up that process if it's going to manage it. Thus comes the notion that the process is "institutionalized" as a "managed" process. We know enough about the process to manage it.

Beyond this level are 3, 4, and 5. Sometimes it's easier to understand "why" level 3 by looking at levels 4 & 5 first. At level 5 you know enough about your process that you can optimize it by eliminating the "noise" in the process.

A noisy engine can often be quieted by simply tuning it. Adjusting fuel, air, timing. But there's nothing outside the engine that's causing it to be noisy, it's just the engine itself. A noisy engine usually means inefficiency. The noise is just a symptom of that inefficiency. The same is true for processes. But in processes, true noise elimination is something that can realistically only be done mathematically. So, at level 5, the noise is found and reduced using models and statistics. Noise usually isn't spread all over the process, it's usually limited to some particular subset of the process. Usually, it's just some sub-process of the process on which statistics are applied.

Before you can get to this point, however, you must first be able to eliminate (or at least control) external factors that unnecessarily influence your process. This isn't "noise" because noise comes from the process, just like in an engine. And, just like in an engine, this is more like a rattle or a knocking sound, or even blunt-force damage. Something is either very broken or badly impacted by something related to, but not in control of, the engine. [In other words, the engine/process in not fully in control.] But, unless we know what the engine is expected to look like and operate we don't really know where to look to eliminate the issue. We need (with engines) the engine's shop manual which includes its diagrams and models. With processes, it's the same.
[]
We need to be able to model them before we can determine what's supposed to be there and what's not. [I.e., we need to know what an "in control" process looks like and what it's capable of doing.] The engine shop manual has performance specifications, and so do the processes at level 4. Capability Level 4 produces the models and performance expectations for each process as well as for the project itself. Without these we can't get to level 5 because, while there's certainly noise in the system at level 4, there are also too many other special causes of variation [let alone whether or not the process is in control] that must be eliminated before we can start to optimize in level 5.

Together, levels 4 & 5 are very much parallel to what many people know today as "Six Sigma".

So, now there's level 3. What's in there? If levels 4 & 5 are about getting to the point where we know so much about our processes that we can use statistics to eliminate process variation and noise, then capability level 3 must be where we eliminate chronic waste. How do we discern the chronic waste from the "necessary" activities? Well, we must first define the process so that we can then improve it.

There's no point in trying to improve a process that's not defined, and, there's no point in trying to define a process that's not even managed, and no point in trying to manage a process that no one does, wants, or needs.

This is what the generic practices of CMMI do. They create an infrastructure to better understand the process toward the ability to optimize it. Starting with doing the process, then managing it, then defining and improving it, then getting into statistics to model and predict performance which ultimately opens the door to optimization.

Believe it or not, organizations at (true) levels 4 & 5 are highly agile. They can pretty much roll with anything that's thrown at them. True level 4 & 5 organizations are NOT straight-jacketed by their processes, they're actually freed by them. If anyone is in (or has been in) a so-called "level" 4 or 5 organization and felt stifled, I'd wager the organization was not really "in it" for the improvements.