RAFL Oh whatever

excellent, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a
pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only
weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to
not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a
pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in
december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy
camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare
tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had
something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the
fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the
athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting
tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the
music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there
Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to
make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around
when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped
back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since
I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to
stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...
maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those
women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline.
But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have
a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road?
I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM
... if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal
with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

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
om...
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

You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to
still lose but also NOT lose while maybe losing is okay but not a good
idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc and who knows
what (G)

Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G)
Actually, a Hells Canyon trip may be in the offing in a month or so.
Then again, may save the vacation for other things.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax. com...
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

No you are not. You ARE MAINTAINING. Where were you a year ago?
Where now? And where in between? You lost a bit below but have been
pretty steady, no?

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:33:34 -0600, Joyce wrote:

That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ... go figure!
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I also did
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the old ww plan
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It makes no
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water weight. It does
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can maintain.
sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing with
numbers.

Joyce

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie wrote:

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that
the way life goes.

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:


I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:


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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax. com...

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
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4a x.com...

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

Stop trying to confuse me g

"Fred" wrote in message
...
You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to
still lose but also NOT lose while maybe losing is okay but not a good
idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc and who knows
what (G)

Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G)
Actually, a Hells Canyon trip may be in the offing in a month or so.
Then again, may save the vacation for other things.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a
pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only
weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to
not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of
a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in
december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy
camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare
tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had
something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into
the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the
athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting
tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face
the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there
Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to
make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around
when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped
back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low
since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to
stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with
me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...
maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those
women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline.
But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna
have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road?
I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM
... if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal
with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax. com...
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

Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still
be a thrill. Congrats! I love reading your stats, especially as I'm
getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain thoughts about
my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your
experience.

Prairie Roots
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax. com...
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

What did you settle on for a journal then? Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ... go
figure!
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I
also did
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the old
ww plan
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It
makes no
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water weight.
It does
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can
maintain.
sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing
with
numbers.

Joyce

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie
wrote:

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that
the way life goes.

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare
tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had
something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into
the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the
athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting
tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face
the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there
Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to
make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around
when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped
back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low
since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to
stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with
me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred
wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:


I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...
maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those
women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline.
But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have
a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road?
I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM
... if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal
with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:


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
om...

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
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4ax .com...

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

Excellent results, Joyce, you fit almost athletic person you!!

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:


Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:


Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:


I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:


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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax. com...

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
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4a x.com...

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






--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why
trying to get lower without a SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a
half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you have pointed
out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just
maintaining. Hover. Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle,
wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself in a new light -
it is still terrific but so UNconcrete.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:03 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still
be a thrill. Congrats! I love reading your stats, especially as I'm
getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain thoughts about
my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your
experience.

Prairie Roots
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax .com...
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

HA! I was thinking the same thoughts on Friday when I hit the scales. Not trying
to lose, but still happy to see the numbers down ... then eat more and make up for
it after weighin ... only to cut back down the following days/week to make sure
everything is back where it is supposed to be. Is it us playing games with our
minds, or our minds playing games with us, or is there any difference between the
two? G I THINK I have finally realized that I am where I should be. It APPEARS
to be not overly difficult to maintain. Yes, I have to pay attention - but it is
doable. I think I'm thwarting this week. G

I've never been into camping, sad to say. My idea of camping is a hotel room
somewhere, with a nice bed and warm, running water. On the rare occassion that I
get a vacation, I'm taking one ... not working harder than I already do at home!
G Hub never got into it either, tells the kids he had his fill of camping in
Viet Nam.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:53:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to
still lose but also NOT lose while maybe losing is okay but not a good
idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc and who knows
what (G)

Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G)
Actually, a Hells Canyon trip may be in the offing in a month or so.
Then again, may save the vacation for other things.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax .com...
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

I know we've talked the numbers thing before, and I know that there really isn't a
firm number out there for maintaining. It changes constantly due to many factors.
Yet I still want that firm number! I would feel better with it! Guess that's
what I meant by *playing*. I seem to change that target number week by week,
results don't appear to change at all. Guess that is a good thing?

A year ago, on the button, I was 151.5 - just above my goal (which I reached the
following week). Geeeesh, next week will be my 1 year at ww goal anniversary!
I've lost 20 pounds since then, but yes - overall I have been very steady. I just
realized I need to do some major update work on my weightloss chart - hasn't been
updated since the end of may last year! But I do know that it fell by the wayside
because I was staying on the right path ... seesawing here and there, but overall
.... steady.

You're right, as always. I am maintaining ... very happily.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:55:30 -0800, Fred wrote:

No you are not. You ARE MAINTAINING. Where were you a year ago?
Where now? And where in between? You lost a bit below but have been
pretty steady, no?

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:33:34 -0600, Joyce wrote:

That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ... go figure!
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I also did
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the old ww plan
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It makes no
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water weight. It does
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can maintain.
sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing with
numbers.

Joyce

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie wrote:

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that
the way life goes.

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:


I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:


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
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax .com...

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
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4 ax.com...

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