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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
WHAT!??! How can this bee?? Wait, where is fit in that range? I am just
barely in athletic, a half inch more on my waist and I would be outta there. "Fred" wrote in message ... (sigh) - I only came out as "fit!" (sniff) On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: http://www.getwiththeprogram.com I hope ;0 "Connie" wrote in message ... Lesanne: What is the Bob Greene site? Connie Lesanne wrote: Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats it", that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157 this morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle mass, and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done. Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has done a fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And the way I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below where I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting at the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still clearly see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and sex (there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me (lets not get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care to totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as close to 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but whatever. She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there. Lesanne 365/160/157 "Fred" wrote in message ... A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say). Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size or bone density or????? What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination? And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?" 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 -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup
"Joyce" wrote in message ... I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my browser took me to the site you listed. LOL! Joyce On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: http://www.getwiththeprogram.com I hope ;0 "Connie" wrote in message ... Lesanne: What is the Bob Greene site? Connie Lesanne wrote: Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats it", that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157 this morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle mass, and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done. Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has done a fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And the way I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below where I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting at the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still clearly see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and sex (there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me (lets not get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care to totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as close to 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but whatever. She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there. Lesanne 365/160/157 "Fred" wrote in message ... A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say). Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size or bone density or????? What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination? And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?" 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 -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
Went to that site and even when I get to goal it says I'm overweight.
Tha Nerve!! Apparently he hasn't heard that WW says it's okay for me to weigh 155... Later that morning ... Oh no WW says that I should weigh 148 since I'm less than 45... oh bummer!! Well I'm not changing my goal... so there!! Connie Confused but sufficiently Happy Connie wrote: Thanks Fred and Lesanne!! Connie Fred wrote: It is getwiththeprogram.ORG On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: http://www.getwiththeprogram.com I hope ;0 "Connie" wrote in message ... Lesanne: What is the Bob Greene site? Connie Lesanne wrote: Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats it", that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157 this morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle mass, and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done. Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has done a fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And the way I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below where I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting at the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still clearly see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and sex (there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me (lets not get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care to totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as close to 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but whatever. She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there. Lesanne 365/160/157 "Fred" wrote in message ... A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say). Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size or bone density or????? What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination? And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?" 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 -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5 -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
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 .. . 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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
I may not be *athletic*, but me is one smart woman. G
Joyce On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:25:47 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup "Joyce" wrote in message .. . I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my browser took me to the site you listed. LOL! Joyce On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: http://www.getwiththeprogram.com I hope ;0 "Connie" wrote in message ... Lesanne: What is the Bob Greene site? Connie Lesanne wrote: Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats it", that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157 this morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle mass, and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done. Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has done a fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And the way I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below where I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting at the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still clearly see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and sex (there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me (lets not get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care to totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as close to 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but whatever. She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there. Lesanne 365/160/157 "Fred" wrote in message ... A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say). Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size or bone density or????? What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination? And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?" 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 -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
I had noticed that
"Joyce" wrote in message ... I may not be *athletic*, but me is one smart woman. G Joyce On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:25:47 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup "Joyce" wrote in message .. . I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my browser took me to the site you listed. LOL! Joyce On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: http://www.getwiththeprogram.com I hope ;0 "Connie" wrote in message ... Lesanne: What is the Bob Greene site? Connie Lesanne wrote: Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats it", that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157 this morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle mass, and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done. Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has done a fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And the way I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below where I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting at the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still clearly see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and sex (there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me (lets not get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care to totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as close to 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but whatever. She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there. Lesanne 365/160/157 "Fred" wrote in message ... A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say). Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size or bone density or????? What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination? And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?" 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 -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
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 ... 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 .. . 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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
snort. 5.6% bodyfat. Right.
"Joyce" wrote in message ... 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 .. . 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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
Who needs a husband to argue with? All by myself, the discussion can
get pretty heated. On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:04 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one of the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of things in the same discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body... "Fred" wrote in message .. . You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G) On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get that one figured out, let us know. In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL Prairie Roots On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make some difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay there. Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no contest. I really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify the mood swings instead of my size "Lynne" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just wreck self-esteem. You've come a very long way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19 is AMAZING!!! You're my hero! Lynne 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 Prairie Roots 232/163.6/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
yeah me too.
and me too mee too yeah si an how.... "Prairie Roots" wrote in message ... Who needs a husband to argue with? All by myself, the discussion can get pretty heated. On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:04 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one of the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of things in the same discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body... "Fred" wrote in message .. . You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G) On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get that one figured out, let us know. In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL Prairie Roots On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make some difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay there. Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no contest. I really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify the mood swings instead of my size "Lynne" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just wreck self-esteem. You've come a very long way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19 is AMAZING!!! You're my hero! Lynne 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 Prairie Roots 232/163.6/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAFL wk 3/THTP wk 7 - Laura (LJ) | Laura | Weightwatchers | 47 | February 3rd, 2004 07:34 AM |
Post your results here! RafL wk 2 & THTP wk 5 | Amberle3 | Weightwatchers | 35 | January 19th, 2004 02:19 PM |
RAFL & THTP Laura(LJ) | Laura | Weightwatchers | 9 | January 19th, 2004 06:10 AM |
RAFL Week 1 I LOST! | Billie Severy | Weightwatchers | 8 | January 19th, 2004 06:08 AM |
Time to 'fess up - RAFL | Nathalie W | Weightwatchers | 17 | January 15th, 2004 08:17 PM |