I wish I could say I made it through the entire weightloss process with no gains,
but I can't. There were several blips throughout the year, gains, maintains,
whooshes ... all in all the end result did turn out the same. I do understand
what you're saying though. That first gain was very traumatic. After that they
kind of came in stride and now they don't bug me in the least ... unless they
occur for more than one week.

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:06:05 -0800, Fred wrote:

Amen, sister. It does mess with me, for sure.

And I am one of the individuals who lost each and every weigh in until
I reached Lifetime. So that first gain was a real downer. Each one
since has been less apocolyptic but that, too, is scary since you also
don't want to turn a blind eye to gains.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Maybe that's where we have a tougher time settling into just being happy
maintaining? That reward thing! Somehow just staying the same, floating up and
down a bit, just isn't the same as that steady weekly decline ... even when we
know we should be (and are) thrilled with it. Mentally, it really does mess with
you.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:57:36 -0800, Fred wrote:

I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why
trying to get lower without a SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a
half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you have pointed
out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just
maintaining. Hover. Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle,
wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself in a new light -
it is still terrific but so UNconcrete.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:03 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still
be a thrill. Congrats! I love reading your stats, especially as I'm
getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain thoughts about
my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your
experience.

Prairie Roots
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@ 4ax.com...
Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use
minimal for
the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail that sex
thing and
get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more
natural
fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is
THAT much
of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear
I was
supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide
shoulders, monkey
arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in
length
and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I
know a
few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.
G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to
charts it
puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my
wrist bone
really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -
probably
not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who
happens
to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*
fall? Or
is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have
some
other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,
always have,
probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I think I need
to
build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty
well. G
And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even
smaller
sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and
those 6's
tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my
daily
trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it
out. I
may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to
play
with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any woman I know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many of the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to see what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am burning 2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
just
the
number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
checked
the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
quiz.
I'm
not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
currently is TOM
(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there was
something
else
there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
129-158.
So why
should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
worrying about
the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
low
to mid
130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
will
be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
is
probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am going to
quit
trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
fifties,
y Ya as they say here