I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal
... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was
difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so
quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies -
making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with
than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen
when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual
hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more,
then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means
is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever
comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's
a
website
that explains both:
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going
to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going
to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person
in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else
about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with
err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee
to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to
be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate
frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very
Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not
Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build
after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set
up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies
have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height
related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would
think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until
well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at
least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you
that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around
140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so
that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know
that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after
being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at
a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight
is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:


http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew
the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is
164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have
made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great
step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older
folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No
difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones.
My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5