Facing the truth

I thought I was doing a good job, going from 174 to 158 pounds
currently. I thought my size 36 pants were even feeling a little
loose. Well, then my wife purchased some new size 36 underwear (my
old ones were falling apart). Ooops! Too tight. Size 38 underwear
are my size. That's only two inches from the definition of obesity
for men (40 inches) - and a full six inches from my college waistsize.
I have to admit I am discouraged. Apparently my old size 36
underwear gradually stretched out over time so they weren't tight.
This weight loss business is very hard for me.

Brad Sheppard wrote:

I thought I was doing a good job, going from 174 to 158 pounds
currently. I thought my size 36 pants were even feeling a little
loose. Well, then my wife purchased some new size 36 underwear (my
old ones were falling apart). Ooops! Too tight. Size 38 underwear
are my size. That's only two inches from the definition of obesity
for men (40 inches) - and a full six inches from my college waistsize.
I have to admit I am discouraged. Apparently my old size 36
underwear gradually stretched out over time so they weren't tight.
This weight loss business is very hard for me.

They're supposed to be tight. Why do you think they're called "whitey
tighties"?

Like Igor, I'll admit to continuing to wear a larger size than my actual
hip size would require.

Dally

Brad...Brad...Brad,

Underwear actually run larger than actual waist sizes. I've bought like
three different brands and none of them fit the same. Don't get discouraged
because of underwear. Just find some that are comfortable for you and wear
them. I'm surprised your wearing 36" pants at 158 pounds. I'm 38" right
now but remember wearing 34" and 36" at a weight of around 189 or so. I
wonder if you have wider hips than me? I can't believe anyone has wider
hips than me...lol.

By the way you've done awesome going from 174 to 158. How tall are you
and how old are you?

Again great job,

Paul
300/197/175

"Brad Sheppard" wrote in message
om...
I thought I was doing a good job, going from 174 to 158 pounds
currently. I thought my size 36 pants were even feeling a little
loose. Well, then my wife purchased some new size 36 underwear (my
old ones were falling apart). Ooops! Too tight. Size 38 underwear
are my size. That's only two inches from the definition of obesity
for men (40 inches) - and a full six inches from my college waistsize.
I have to admit I am discouraged. Apparently my old size 36
underwear gradually stretched out over time so they weren't tight.
This weight loss business is very hard for me.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.644 / Virus Database: 412 - Release Date: 3/26/04

(Brad Sheppard) wrote in message . com...
I thought I was doing a good job, going from 174 to 158 pounds
currently. I thought my size 36 pants were even feeling a little
loose. Well, then my wife purchased some new size 36 underwear (my
old ones were falling apart). Ooops! Too tight. Size 38 underwear
are my size.

I'm in the same boat. I'm 25% of the way down to my target weight of
~185 yet sure as heck haven't bridged the 2 inches on the waistline (i
peaked at 40, and 32 is bone skinny for me).

I guess it could be true that the first to go on is the last to come
off or something.

This weight loss business is very hard for me.

Well, assuming you're 5' 4" (= ~30BMI at 174), you've still got a 27.1
BMI, which ~could~ correspond to a 37.1" beltline (IOW each 1 point
drop in BMI from 30 is a 1" drop in beltline from 40").

Getting back to college days for me will require a BMI of 22.7, which
is, in fact 10 less than the 32" beltline I had then.

Paul wrote to Brad:

I wonder if you have wider hips than me? I can't believe
anyone has wider hips than me...lol.

How really divine to hear the guys comparing hip sizes?

--
Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03

"SnugBear" wrote in message
.4...
Paul wrote to Brad:

I wonder if you have wider hips than me? I can't believe
anyone has wider hips than me...lol.

How really divine to hear the guys comparing hip sizes?

--
Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03

It would be if their hip sizes weren't about the same as my waist size! My
hip size is still over 40"! Most of the weight is on my waist and hips
though.

Tonia
221/190/130

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:18:53 -0600, "That T Woman"
wrote:

It would be if their hip sizes weren't about the same as my waist size! My
hip size is still over 40"! Most of the weight is on my waist and hips
though.

40" isn't all that big. Women are supposed to have big hips :-).
When I was in college my measurements were 40-25-40 -- and this seemed
very popular with the guys :-). Now -- at 157 lbs, but menopausal and
with different fat distribution patterns, I'm like 45-29-38. (I'm
really not all that busty, but I'm both large boned and muscular.)

Chris

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:08:27 GMT, Chris Braun
wrote:

40" isn't all that big. Women are supposed to have big hips :-).
When I was in college my measurements were 40-25-40 -- and this seemed
very popular with the guys :-). Now -- at 157 lbs, but menopausal and
with different fat distribution patterns, I'm like 45-29-38. (I'm
really not all that busty, but I'm both large boned and muscular.)

Um... just noticed this typo! My bust measurement is really 42, not
45. Still big, but not outrageous :-).

Chris

"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:08:27 GMT, Chris Braun
wrote:

40" isn't all that big. Women are supposed to have big hips :-).
When I was in college my measurements were 40-25-40 -- and this seemed
very popular with the guys :-). Now -- at 157 lbs, but menopausal and
with different fat distribution patterns, I'm like 45-29-38. (I'm
really not all that busty, but I'm both large boned and muscular.)

Um... just noticed this typo! My bust measurement is really 42, not
45. Still big, but not outrageous :-).

Chris

I'm 5'4" and small boned so my 190 pounds that makes me over 40 inches in
the hips also makes me look like a wide load. When I get down to 130 I
hope to be about 34-26-38. But I'll probably be 32 in the bust. I do
measurements on the last day of the month and last month I lost a cumulative
8.75" from arms, bust, waist, hips, thighs and calves. I don't think I'll
be doing that good this month because I've only lost a single pound all
month. I'll report the cumulative total loss (if any) on Wednesday.

Tonia
221/190/130

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:55:33 -0600, "That T Woman"
wrote:

I'm 5'4" and small boned so my 190 pounds that makes me over 40 inches in
the hips also makes me look like a wide load. When I get down to 130 I
hope to be about 34-26-38. But I'll probably be 32 in the bust.

By contrast: Just this morning I did some measurements because I was
trying to figure out if I was wearing the right bra size. The
measurement just below my bust -- around the rib cage -- is 34", and
I haven't a bit of fat in that area. So clearly I've got a way bigger
frame than you.

I do
measurements on the last day of the month and last month I lost a cumulative
8.75" from arms, bust, waist, hips, thighs and calves.

I'm sort of sorry I haven't been tracking measurements all this time.
I just measure occasionally when I'm trying to determine my size when
I'm ordering something by mail. It would be fun to know how much I've
lost. Lots, I know -- probably 10" in the waist alone (with the
leftover flabby skin to attest to it :-( ).

I don't think I'll
be doing that good this month because I've only lost a single pound all
month. I'll report the cumulative total loss (if any) on Wednesday.

Maybe you'll be surprised :-). Sometimes measurements change when
weight doesn't.

BTW, I bought a pair of size 8 pants today that fit perfectly. A
fluke, I know, but still gratifying :-).

Chris
262/155/ (145-150)