Your sleep schedule (or lack of) sounds much like mine. I'm up between 6:30 and 7
in the morning, hit bed between 3 and 4 - long stretch in between. Sometimes I
knock out on the couch in the evening, sometimes I don't. I still figure my *day*
from the time I get up until the time I go to bed. When I get up the new day, and
new journal, begin ... period. If I ended the day when I ran out of points, I
would have some days that only had 12 hours or less in them ... and also would
have some days that never ended. LOL! Again, it's all in finding what works for
US.

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

This is exactly why I love WW. The flex does work better for me but I have
had an ongoing problem with the concept of a "day" due to the way we work
and the stuff going on if I picked a specific 24 hours I would just be
screwed, I can go for a long time awake then sleep for my big sleep time
four hours and go again for another twenty so I decided that since I eat at
least every two hours when I can and I eat just a few points at a time, my
new day would start when I reached the end of the day's points, plus three
hours. Three hours is one more than I like to go without eating and about
the amount of time I sleep on average. Since I have done this I have had no
trouble at all sticking to points. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
Ahhhhhhh, the journal was a tough one. I used the online journal and set
my target
point at the highest number in my point range ... then totally ignored the
flexpoint number. In the notes section I set up a list for activity
points, for
banked or overage food points, and one more for a daily log of where I was
for the
week ... over or under points. It worked fantastically! I had to
manually figure
out the numbers, but it wasn't difficult at all. And it really does work
much
better for ME than the flexpoint thing.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:38:38 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

What did you settle on for a journal then? Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ...
go
figure!
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale.
I
also did
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the
old
ww plan
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It
makes no
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water
weight.
It does
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can
maintain.
sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still
playing
with
numbers.

Joyce

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie
wrote:

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that
the way life goes.

Connie

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
om...

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
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4ax .com...

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