Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Knitting for Babies

Is so fun! 

Tiny knit items are so sweet.

But when put on babies the cuteness factor takes an exponential leap.

Of course we think this little model is absolutely adorable with or without a hat. 

As a matter of fact, we do believe he is The Cutest Baby Ever.

Top Knot Baby Hat

Worsted weight yarn (½ skein for most sizes)
#6 or #7 double point needles, or needle to obtain gauge of 5.5 stitches/inch
Row marker
Wool needle

  1. Cast on 77 stitches
  2. Knit for 4 (newborn)  to 5 (for bigger sizes) inches, begin decreases as follows
  3. K9, K2tog (7 times), then
  4. K8, K2tog (7 times), then
  5. K7, K2tog (7 times) and so on until 7 stitches remain.
  6. Knit these 7 stitches around until needed length for tying top knot is reached.
  7. Cut yarn leaving tail of several inches, use tail to pull remaining stitches together, weave in end of yarn.
  8. Tie knot.

For larger or smaller hats increase or decrease the number of cast-on stitches in multiples of 7 (63, 70, 77, 84, etc.) Then when you get to the first decrease row add or subtract 1 stitch to the first number on line 3 for each 7 stitches.

63 stitches cast on starts decrease with K7, K2tog (This is a tiny newborn size.)
70 stitches cast on starts decrease with K8, K2tog
77 stitches cast on starts decrease with K9, K2tog
84 stitches cast on starts decrease with K10, K2tog

Friday, November 6, 2015


Due to a series of alternating fortunate and unfortunate events, it was discovered that NDL has been operating for the last two decades under a serious misconception.

It was a shock to learn that the height we thought we were had changed by minus two inches since 1995. We have always felt that our problem was being too short for our weight and had come to grips with that. Yes, when the inseam that matches the waist size of your off-the-rack pants is dragging a few inches on the ground you can pretend that cuffing is in style whether it is or not, and there is always the chunky sole to help out, but finding out that the extra pant length was due the loss of two inches of spine was a bit of a shock. 

Just after the realization that that is why we can barely see over the steering wheel anymore without pulling up to our full dwarfish height, or reach the top kitchen shelf without standing on tiptoes and using a wooden spoon to fish down the object we need came the Most Horrible Thought of All - different height equals different BMI category! Egads! We had just managed to settle into the "normal" range. This terrible setback meant we would now need to deal with the same amount of bulk on an shorter skeleton.

After months of being in denial we finally looked to see just how bad it was. Bad! But then our rationalization defense kicked in and we posed the question - 
"Do we need to use our new height for these calculations even if it is not at all our fault that we shrunk?".

We are nothing if not expert at finding the answer we want to hear. So, after sifting through many internet answers that didn't suit us we found the link we were looking for and a new hero.

To paraphrase our hero, Dr. Hirsch - It's not our fault we got shorter. The fat mass hasn't changed (although there may be a bit more of a spare tire effect on a shorter torso) and fat  makes estrogen which helps prevent bone loss so maybe we won't get quite as short as we would if we were dangerously thin. He did refer to us as "the poor soul" so we know he feels our pain. He even said we should try to keep our fat. Whoo hoo!

Sadly, we also found in our internet search that Dr. Jules Hirsch died this summer. You can read about his life here. His colleagues said that he had a deep sympathy for patients who struggled with the lifelong effort of maintaining a healthy weight. Thank you Dr. Hirsch.

Gotta go re-hem some slacks and eat a celery stick now.

Image from The Graphics Fairy.