Can't lose weight? Try spending more.

I have to admit I gave in about a month ago. I could never understand paying someone upwards of $60 an hour to tell you which piece of equipment in the gym to use next. Call me cheap, but I thought looking at the equipment's decals, watching others, and subscribing to "Men's Health" were good enough.

I was wrong.

The problem? Poor technique, stagnation/plateauing, and motivation.

It's a little too early to tell if my recent sessions with Chris @ Club One will have paid off, but the fact that I'm drenched with sweat after each session and sore as hell the next day tells me something is working. Most of the time before, I could leave the gym without even showering.

The other important thing is motivation. Are you going to skip out on a session when that means flushing $65 down the toilet? Ummm....no. I can't convince myself that I need to skip going to the gym if I'm going to lose that kind of money. Call it using my own frugality to my benefit.

With a few exceptions, I've personally noticed that the more I spend on food, the less I have to eat of it to feel satisfied. And no, this is not my wallet barking at me to be happy with what I've got!

I've had really great meals at high-end restaurants, and I've eaten relatively small portions and been full, satisfied and felt little urge to eat more. At other times, I've stuffed myself with crappy food like refrigerated sandwiches and the like, and have been starving later. Maybe it's the carbs in those dry sandwiches? Don't know. But I do know that I can have one great small-medium entree at a great restaurant, or have a mediocre sandwich, big bag of chips and half a carton of Ben & Jerry's, to have the same level of satisfaction.

I know that if I spent half my salary on food and never paid a bit of attention to the price of food, I'd be a thin man. But yet I can't make that leap. (Well, is anyone ready to spend that kind of money on food? Apparently Violent Acres).

I will say this: people I know that spend on food without a second's thought are almost always thin. The French are relatively thin, and they've been relatively wealthy compared to most of the world for centuries. Americans (myself included) are largely descended from poor immigrant stock. Is that the root of the problem?