If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote: On 8/24/2004 1:04 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: In article , jmk wrote: On 8/19/2004 7:22 AM, Ignoramus29728 wrote: I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to lose weight than it is for men. Again, Ig, out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to include things like "according to her" in this reply? Why did he avoid the first question I asked? I feel that you are trying to engage me in a meaningless discussion. So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? To me it seemed rather a loaded sentence. How quickly did you lose your weight? I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45 lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many more months. What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than 3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan? After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you then? And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would, presumably, also be fine? Is that right? And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so much as how quickly were you lost weight. -- jmk in NC |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote: On 8/24/2004 1:04 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: In article , jmk wrote: On 8/19/2004 7:22 AM, Ignoramus29728 wrote: I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to lose weight than it is for men. Again, Ig, out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to include things like "according to her" in this reply? Why did he avoid the first question I asked? I feel that you are trying to engage me in a meaningless discussion. So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? To me it seemed rather a loaded sentence. How quickly did you lose your weight? I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45 lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many more months. What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than 3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan? After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you then? And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would, presumably, also be fine? Is that right? And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so much as how quickly were you lost weight. -- jmk in NC |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/24/2004 1:47 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote: On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: How quickly did you lose your weight? I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45 lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many more months. What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than 3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan? After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you then? Aside from the first month, I was losing at the rate of 2.3 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would, presumably, also be fine? Is that right? There is more to dieting than the rate of weight loss. 3.8 pounds per week appears to be excessive for ongoing weight loss. 3.15 pounds per week also seems to be somewhat excessive. And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so much as how quickly were you lost weight. You asked a question: ``Could that be classified as a "crash diet?"''. i Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. -- jmk in NC |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/24/2004 1:47 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote: On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: How quickly did you lose your weight? I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45 lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many more months. What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than 3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan? After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you then? Aside from the first month, I was losing at the rate of 2.3 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would, presumably, also be fine? Is that right? There is more to dieting than the rate of weight loss. 3.8 pounds per week appears to be excessive for ongoing weight loss. 3.15 pounds per week also seems to be somewhat excessive. And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so much as how quickly were you lost weight. You asked a question: ``Could that be classified as a "crash diet?"''. i Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. -- jmk in NC |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. Am I required to answer every question of yours? i Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all. -- jmk in NC |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. Am I required to answer every question of yours? i Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all. -- jmk in NC |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"jmk" wrote in message ... On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. Am I required to answer every question of yours? i Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all. -- jmk in NC I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the carpet for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it. When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries to slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior. Martha |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"jmk" wrote in message ... On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. Am I required to answer every question of yours? i Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all. -- jmk in NC I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the carpet for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it. When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries to slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior. Martha |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"MH" wrote in message ... "jmk" wrote in message ... On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. Am I required to answer every question of yours? i Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all. -- jmk in NC I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the carpet for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it. When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries to slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior. Martha Pretty much how I saw it, except you forgot to mention that this is his usual M.O. of dropping these snarky little comments (ie attention seeking lies) in hopes that it will lead to him being called names so he can whine about how much of a victim he is and how irrational the rest of us are being. He *never* responds when people point out his obviously nasty behavior, only when there is a chance he can spin it to make it look like an innocent mistake. If he wants to call my weight loss into question, by all means he should have the stones to do it directly - to me...but again, that would then reinforce the kind of person he really is. I just don't get what he thinks he's accomplishing by putting down my weight loss when he gets the chance. Am I supposed to go back to being 300 lbs and do it "the right way" because I followed an extreme diet? Umm, no, don't think so. Jenn |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"MH" wrote in message ... "jmk" wrote in message ... On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote: Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. Am I required to answer every question of yours? i Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all. -- jmk in NC I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the carpet for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it. When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries to slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior. Martha Pretty much how I saw it, except you forgot to mention that this is his usual M.O. of dropping these snarky little comments (ie attention seeking lies) in hopes that it will lead to him being called names so he can whine about how much of a victim he is and how irrational the rest of us are being. He *never* responds when people point out his obviously nasty behavior, only when there is a chance he can spin it to make it look like an innocent mistake. If he wants to call my weight loss into question, by all means he should have the stones to do it directly - to me...but again, that would then reinforce the kind of person he really is. I just don't get what he thinks he's accomplishing by putting down my weight loss when he gets the chance. Am I supposed to go back to being 300 lbs and do it "the right way" because I followed an extreme diet? Umm, no, don't think so. Jenn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | General Discussion | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:19 AM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:19 AM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | Weightwatchers | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:19 AM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | General Discussion | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 05:23 PM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | Weightwatchers | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 05:23 PM |