Saturday, April 9, 2011

The Special-est of K's

(Note: I have not been financially compensated by anyone in any way at any time for writing this blog.  If anyone wants to change that, I'm open.)

I have always been skeptical of Special K.  Model-thin women lamenting that they can't lose the five pounds they gained over the winter and then claiming success based on a bowl of breakfast cereal has never resonated with me.

The "Special K Diet," in which one eats a bowl of cereal for breakfast and lunch, then has a "sensible dinner," likewise resulted in eye- rolls.  This is not Special K's fault; I had a friend who decided to combine the Special K diet with Atkins, which led to spectacular failure.  Who would have thought a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet would be inconsistent with a no-carb, high-fat diet?  Everyone else in the world, that's who.

When Special K began branching into diet foods, my eyes rolled again.  Bars, drinks, shakes...  Really?  Who won't put out those things these days?  I can't wait for the Froot Loop diet.

But now I am eating my words (which, thankfully, are zero-calorie).  I have met my Special K match.  And by "match" I mean "the thing I want by my side for the rest of my life."

Special K Cracker Chips.

(That picture is, I believe, of the British version, because in Britain chips are "crisps" and fries are "chips" and language is "confusing.")

I miss chips.  The crunch, the salt, the crunch, the salt...  There's not much to chips, when you get down to it, but I love 'em.  Potato chips are right out for me now.  Baked chips taste like giant flakes of Special K.  Pretzels are okay, but sometimes you really want a chip, you know?

Special K Cracker Chips (I like the sour cream & onion flavor) are 110 calories for 27 CHIPS.  Let me repeat that.  110 calories for 27 CHIPS.  Yes, there are 22 grams of carbs in a serving, but 3 grams of dietary fiber and only 1 gram of sugar.  2 grams of protein.  2.5 grams of fat, only .5 grams of which is saturated.  No cholesterol.  Very little in vitamins, but that's okay.  I'll eat them gladly when I need my chip fix, and feel no shame.

Well, very little.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

The Truth about Spanx

For those who are not up on what the Kardashian sisters are currently doing or what Joan Rivers thinks about Amy Adams' Golden Globes dress, Spanx is a brand of shapewear.

Shapewear, for those who are not conversant in the language of women's fashion, is underwear that pulls in and shapes the body.  What we used to call a "girdle."  By "we" I mean "other people."  I have never worn a girdle.

I live in shapewear.  I do not set foot outside the house unless I am bound from shoulder to knee in a snug chrysalis of lycra.  Losing all of this weight has been a fantastic experience in many ways, but there are drawbacks.  Shapewear allows me to look reasonably okay in clothes and smooths out all of the little lumps and bumps that would occur otherwise.

My first shapewear was the Lane Bryant brand.  Size 26/28, to be precise.  Then I went to 22/24.  Then I skipped right over 18/20 and got into the 14/16's.  While they no longer fit me, I still keep the bigger ones around.  They don't do much, but they're better than nothing at all.

Now I have to find shapewear for non-overweight ladies, which is where Spanx comes in.  Spanx is the preferred brand of shapewear in Hollywood.  Queen Latifah wears Spanx, as does Kelly Osborne and the aforementioned Kardashians.

Hollywood had to get something right eventually.  Spanx are amazing.  They are light and breathable but hold EVERYTHING in.  And they fit the size the chart says they're going to fit.  I honestly forgot I had it on one day.  Really.

Spanx are expensive.  I go for the two-piece, the cami and high-waisted bike short-type thing, and the combination is more than $110.  Additionally, it more or less has to be ordered online, which is problematic when it comes to fit.  That being said, it is totally worth it.

Red carpet, here I come.