Dawn Brocco's Life & Design Blog

I am diligent about climbing onto the scale several times a day. They say that's the first part of keeping on top of one's weight, is to actually get past the cringing and Da Nile and step on the scale!

I've been wondering if that isn't why those diabetes readers aren't telling you, loudly!, what your # is, just in case you read the #'s but are in Da Nile over them?! They figure if you gotta hear it as well, you'll pay attention more? Or is is just for those that maybe can't see the #'s on the thing? Am I cynical or just reading human nature?

With all these commercials (and emails!) trying to feed you stuff you don't need, all the time, cynicism is inevitable, if you're working with at least half an independently-thinking brain. That's why I only watch PBS and BBC America news, as we can't trust the news channels we grew up with anymore.

Well, we have an electronic scale and it's the darndest thing - I'll weigh in at 142 (yeah, that 108 pre-chemo cancer weight is LONG gone - the baby belly is back! Partly from the weight-gaining steroid that is Dex - another reason to hate the Dex), then have a glass of water and a glass of hi-protein Ensure (need both OH so much during chemo), take a leak, then weigh in at 144. So, what's up with that? 2 lbs for 2 glasses of liquid?

So then the math kicks in. 1 gallon = 8 lbs = 16 cups, so 2 cups is 1/8 of 8 lbs = 1 lb.

1 lb! NOT 2 lbs. Harrumph.

They don't want chemo patients dieting, but I have no, NO intention if even weighing what I weighed pre-cancer, as I was inching up to an uncomfortable (for me) weight.

145 is too pudgy for me, at 5'4". And at my menopausal age, the weight, once on, doesn't leave so easily. The pants are too tight as it is now, and I can't afford to/don't want to have to get new clothes to fit a fatter body, most of which is going to my middle - the WORST possible place for it - as that's asking for a heart-attack. I know better.

Nope. No way. 135 lbs felt just right, in my size 8 pants, as I sailed on past it! So, I'm tackling it through calorie reduction, but not nutrition reduction - more protein, less bad fat (I'm a sucker for ice cream and cake), more water. Can't really exercise yet. Bod's busy healing. They don't want you exerting yourself and taking energy away from healing.

Was up way too early again. The Ambien only keeps me sleeping during the night - good, but not great, as it doesn't extend far enough into the morning hours.

So, I lied there, writing 2 blog posts in my head, as I'm apt to do on these early risings, not wishing to get out bed at that ungodly hour.

I will work on trying to remember them and write them down today, as they weren't half bad.

Just before bed, I managed to squeeze in a few minutes knitting, swatching that new Faroe yarn, Sirri. It's full of lanolin, which I like, but I know will be washed out of the yarn soon enough.

Not to fear, when I ordered those few (real) aran wt. BFL hanks from the UK, I was sure to order some wool fat as well - haven't seen lanolin this cheap, well, EVER. Like, what was it, 25 cents for an ounce of the stuff? Here, you end up having to buy Lansinoh, which is lanolin for breast-feeding mothers, at just under 10 bucks a tube of a few ounces. Ouch!

By weight, the 3-ply Sirri is 51 yds/oz, which *usually* means a worsted to heavy worsted wt. yarn - that's the prob with the BFL, at the same 50 or 51 yds.oz - it knits more to a worsted than a heavy worsted. Some yarns, like Bartlettyarns, are 52.5 yds/oz and definitely knit to a heavy worsted. So, one must always take into consideration how much stretch/compression the yarn is capable of. Bart. - not too much, BFL - much more.

So, anyway, I began with US 3's (3.25 mm) ndls and the fabric was still a bit too stretchy for the soles of a sock, even though it's a sturdy wool. So I just switched to US 2.5's (3 mm) and we'll see. Was getting 6.25 sts/1" with the 3's. I think 6.5 sts/1" will be better. But that's the gauge I get for socks when using a wool like Peer Gynt, which is a DK much more than worsted wt.yarn, and works great at 5.5 sts/1" for a sweater.

With real DK wt yarns, like Brown Sheep's Nature Spun Worsted (ignore the moniker, Worsted), at 70 yds/oz, I get 7 sts/1" for socks, usually with US 2's.

So, the Sirri is between a DK and worsted in wt. Sirri 3-ply, that is.And that's before washing the yarn. it may bloom alot, but I doubt it.

One of the hanks the store sent me was their 2-ply - which is a bit thicker, at 43.3 yds/oz. I haven't swatched it yet, but it should knit to a worsted wt. I was hoping to use the 3 colors in a colorwork pattern, so we'll see if the slightly thicker color will work with the other 2, or if I'll have to leave it off and do just a 2-color design.

I'm not gonna send back the errant hank - I'll see if I can get a pair of socks from it, as well, and have 2 patterns available for the 2 yarns.

The exporter/manufacturer also does a lighter wt yarn at 500 m per 3.5 ozs. That's 157 yds/oz - Whoa! But a 1-ply, which may or may not be ideal for socks. I've used Briggs & Little's Durasport, once for a pair of socks. It's a 1-ply, as well. I much prefer multi-plies for socks, don't care how much nylon is in the 1-ply. Others do well wit the 1-ply - all personal preference depending on personal wear. I'm hard on socks. I could be a tester for wool socks.

If I stock this yarn (and I don't see why not, unless they have a high initial order minimum - I'm not made of money these days, well, any days!), I'll start with the 2 thicker wts, first.

Labels: Briggs and Little, Durasport, Sirri yarn