Tuesday, March 18, 2014

I'll have .135 of an ice cream sundae, please

We celebrated St. Patrick's Day by looking at our fitness report from the Y and were immediately sorry that we had done so. But not as sorry as we were that we'd consumed hot fudge sundaes the night before.

The sundaes had seemed like a good idea at the time, further proving -- as if we needed any more proof -- that any idea that originates in the stomach will turn out to be a bad idea.

The fitness report summarizes our cardio activity and weight-lifting achievements in plain, easy-to-understand units of measurement: elephants and ice cream sundaes. The amount of weight lifted is reported in fractions of elephants*, along with an explanatory statement such as "You have lifted the equivalent of half an elephant hair from its small right toe. Possibly a quarter of such a hair."

Cardio activity is reported in terms of how many ice cream sundaes you have earned based on your energy output. Possibly there are individuals who output enough energy to earn ice cream sundaes by the dozens. If there are, I intensely dislike these individuals.

Oblivious to the information coming in our reports -- indeed, conveniently forgetting for a time that we even had Y memberships -- the Hero and I thoroughly enjoyed heaping scoops of ice cream smothered in hot fudge over the weekend. And then we opened our emailed reports.

"Oh, no," I moaned. "We already had our sundaes. I only earned .135 to begin with. Now we have negative hot fudge sundaes!"

We took a walk, but our effort was more suited to lifting frisbees than elephants, and did nothing to get us back in the positive field of ice cream sundaes.

As we trudged home, we resolved to get back on track with our workouts. Just as soon as we finish off that ice cream and hot fudge.

______________
*At least OUR reports are given in fractional elephants. Probably there are other people, slightly more dedicated to their weight-lifting efforts, who have their lifted weight reported in multiples of elephants rather than fractions.

No comments: