I was hanging about at 160is early in the week, then began to inexplicably
drop despite eating a lot, then had a couple of days when I ate at the low
end just from feeling YUCK, and I am all back down this morning. Go figure.
My total calories this past week averaged around 2000 a day.

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it totally
reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to 1400 ...
even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible). LOL!
And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2 pounds
today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang on
forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week, but I
have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of the
last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go figure. I
am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices
available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used to.
Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think I
ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value. G It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the average for
my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average for the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured it was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the past few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but it is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I
*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without logging,
then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by it now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been logging
with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has
opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe
because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know, do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point which
I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also had felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot the
past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130 today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled 26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only knows
if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be correct
if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it more
time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though,
learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really does
have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW
journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason
seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
My email went through, and I did receive the standard automated
*you'll
hear from
us within 24 hours* reply. I probably sent it to the wrong place
though -
went
for the support option. Tech support is probably shaking their
heads
and
whooping
it up right about now.

I'm with you, will remain anal and diligent. I was happily
surprised
to
see my
weight creeping down again this week .. all the way right back to
130
this
morning. Journaling, weighing, whatever ... it all seems to work
correctly if I
do the work. When I get lazy, I have problems.

Joyce

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:21:40 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I am getting an error message from my e mail to them, I probably
sent
it
to
the wrong addy or something. I don't give a hoot if I am anal
about
this, I
am NOT going back up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Did you get any kind of answer from them? I emailed them this
evening
(just a few
minutes ago), had some other questions regarding the exercise
log
...
such
as how
the heck do I know what incline on the treadmill is equivalent
to
a
light,
moderate or steep hill grade. I'm sure they're gonna shake
their
heads
and figure
I'm over complicating things ... but I wanna know, and want to
have
a
better idea
of what I am doing! I tried using the polar monitor while on
the
treadmill, so
far it hasn't worked at all. At the end of 40 minutes it
tells
me
I've
burned a
whopping total of 9 or 15 calories. I'm reasonably sure it
has
something
to do
with the possibility of interference from the treadmill
monitors,
but
no
way I can
turn them off. I might try again this week, am thinking about
hanging
the
watch
around my neck (on a string) instead of on my wrist - might
get
it a
bit
further
from the treadmill's electronic devices. If it still doesn't
work,
then I
guess
I'm back to punting.

I'm also a stickler on the food entires, had added most of my
own
to
even
the ww
website - as I found many of theirs to not be accurate. Like
you, I
either put
the calories, or weight into the description to make it easy
for
me
to
know which
item I actually want to log. We might be overly anal on much
of
this,
but
I
figure I've worked too dang hard to get here - I want to make
sure I
get
everything right to give me a better chance of staying here.

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:17:57 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I e mailed em already. I use my polar monitor also when I
have
a
doubt
about what they are getting, and then I Add an exercise, and
in
the
description I put "walk/jog, 250 calories" so I know what I
am
dealing
with
then I add enough details in the actual entry to be sure I
have
the
time,
etc. the same. I do a lot of that for food additions too. I
found
that
there are slight differences for instance in the counts on
soy
cheeses,
so I
put the calories into the Name of the food. Ex Yves cheese
30,
or
Yves
cheese 35. Then it is easy for me to get it right. Like you
say..
Anal.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhhh, so this is a real problem then? I looked in the
help
section,
then
got
sidetracked ... never got as far as the FAQ's. Thanks for
checking
for
me!

What is really odd, is that when I enter the exercise as
treadmill,
it
does
compute the calories burned to within just a few of what
the
treadmill
says I have
burned - so I just made the assumption that it was correct.
AND
wierder
... in
the dietpower program I can enter walking on an incline
(hill)
for
3.5MPH
but it
doesn't give me that option for 4MPH ... which probably
would
compute
to
the same
caloric expenditure as what I am logging as treadmill
walking.
And
I
can't get a
good reading on the polar monitor to verify anything. The
damn
thing
seems to get
interference from the monitors on the treadmill, which
can't
be
turned
off. sigh
Oh well, I guess even if things are logged wrong, it still
will
balance
out
eventually because the weight and food are correct
(although I
did
have
to
somewhat guess at tonites dinner buffet).

I went back and changed all those exercise logs, will have
to
now
have
to
decide
how I want to log things ... as a flat 4MPH walk, or as a
mild
hill
at
3.5
(even
though I walk that constant incline at 4MPH). Like I said,
it
should
balance out.
Maybe I should email them and ask that when they fix it to
also
factor
in
the
incline for treadmills? Or hill walking at a faster pace?
G
I
bet
anal people
like me drive then nuts!

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:37:50 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I went into the help screens and read the FAQ and lo and
behold
they
have
a
note that it is Wrong, and to log it as regular walking
until
they
get
it
fixed....

"Lesanne" wrote in message
...
ooo ooo ooo gotta go look at diet power and see....
I think there is a mistake in the program there.
Gonna send em mail about it from here.... that is too
strange

"Joyce" wrote in message
news Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an
explanation.
And
if
there
is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about
and
noticed
what
I
think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have
a
clue.
But
since
this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height
along
with
the
info
I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must
be
some
kind
of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I
work
out
on
the
treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program
tells
me).
This
program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874
calories/minute
if
walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed
factored
brisk
walk
at
4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of
0.03174/minute.
Can
anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric
expenditure
between
the
two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it
is
a
constant,
automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce